Sunday, February 15, 2009

A rose by another name would smell like crap

A well chosen name is half the battle in getting public support for something. I'd be curious to know if the "stimulus bill" that congress recently passed would have received a single vote if it was more commonly known as the "deficit spending bill". The latter name is a more accurate description of it.

Regardless of what the bill does in the short term, the money will have to be funded eventually. This will mean lower government services in the future. HA! Fat chance of that. This will mean higher tax rates in the future, unless our incomes will be much higher in the future than they are now, such that tax rates at current levels can pay our debts (fat chance of that, too). It could also mean a future collapse of the dollar if money is created to pay our debts, and with the resulting inflation the public begins to realize that the promise of the US Government is basically worthless.

This whole thing is a big freaking economic experiment, forged in the fires of politics. Scary times.


jim adams said...

I agree,"scary times", and it is my belief that we should do the opposite of what is being asked of us. We should reduced our spending, rid ourselves of credit cards, and increase our savings, even if it is to stuff our money under our beds instead in in banks.

I say this because of the greed and arrogance we have heard of in the finance markets and the incompentce we hear about with our government.

We should vote with our wallets and pocketbooks, voting for restructing in the finance markets and a show of compentence in our government, instead of agreeing to continue paying for their mistakes.

Taxpayers money given by our government to banks, while they in turn pay a bonus even when those receiving the money are responsible for losses, makes us, the taxpays the biggest fools.

We are paying now with job losses, the inability to borrow, and loss of respect by the rest of the world. The conservative predictions are 10% unemployment by the end of the year and an additional 25% loss in the value of our homes and we know there are large tax increases ahead. These are numbers that banks used in their financial models more than a year ago. They knew "Scary times" were coming, and that is why credit is tight, interest rates on credit cards went up and they are calling in loans. They play by the numbers, which they should, but they are playing with out money.

It is now that we should change our life styles, before we lose our futures to the greed and incompentence of others.

Vote by spending in a prudent manner, while you have the money to vote with.

p.s.can't wait to read the respones to this.

jim adams said...

sorry, need to make a correction, 5th paragraph, next to last line, out, should be OUR.

Doji Star said...

Actually, I disagree with the last part of this blog post: it's not an experiment. Deficit spending has already been tried many times; we KNOW it doesn't work!

As FDR's beleaguered Treasury Secretary Henry Morenthau, Jr. said in 1939, "We are spending more money than we have ever spent before and it does not work. I want to see this country prosperous. I want to see people get a job. We have never made good on our promises. I say after eight years of this administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started and an enormous debt to boot."

J.D. said...

"we KNOW it doesn't work"

well, that would be true, except that it isn't

unemployment was 24.9% in 1933 and was 9.9% in 1941* (we entered the war Dec 7, 1941) * Bureau of Labor Statistics
half-way down the page

new deal cut unemployment by 10% by 1937, so they cut spending - notice the 5% increase in unemployment from '37 to '38 - so back to spending and unemployment goes down almost 10% again before the war.

it works to reverse the spiral - drastic layoffs: drastic reduction in demand : drastic layoffs :: stimulus : increased demand : increase jobs (pay off stimulus)

"Every taxpayer pays lower income taxes." George W's farewell address - how'd that work out?