Not being sure I’d read the story in the WSJ right, I went to the WashPost and found that yes, Nancy Pelosi apparently wants to send us another stupid economic stimulus check. (And if you read this some other way, I’d love to hear it.)
Madame Speaker, do us a favor: You want to spend money, whip us up a National Health Plan. Maybe then we can afford to spend the cash we have stimulating the economy.
If that’s what we need, and I’m unconvinced of it. First, I haven’t read that the current crisis has anything to do with short-term consumer spending. Maybe I’ve missed it. And if you’ll pardon the gross oversimplification, it seems to me that Wall Street needs a sedative more than it needs stimulus…
Related Posts
Where are we going to get the money for all this stuff. A couple hundred billion here, a couple hundred billion there. Soon this will add up to real money. That’s a paraphrase but the name of the Senator who said this years ago escapes me.
The first thing we can do to save money is get the hell out of Iraq. That will save about 12 billion a month. We could follow that up with a 50% cut in military spending on worthless junk. Then we can stop all these bailouts of the super rich. Next we can eliminate the big tax breaks for the oil companies. And then maybe we could afford the stimulus checks. That’s the order I would go in.
You should try reading the articles you linked.
I don’t believe it says anything about anyone receiving another stimulus check.
From what i gather
“Pelosi renewed her vow to try to pass a stimulus measure that would combine billions of dollars for jobs-producing infrastructure projects, more food stamps, additional Medicaid aid to states, home heating subsidies and a further extension of unemployment insurance. ”
I did read them, and they did NOT say more checks were forthcoming, in fact they were distressingly short on explanation, which is why I asked y’all to help me make sense of them.
What got me was the the stories quoted her as saying she wanted "another bipartisan economic recovery effort" (when the first one, if you recall, included said checks) and referred to "a second stimulus bill to follow on the tax rebates enacted in February" (when, once again, the first one included the checks).
I have excellent reading comprehension. And because of that, I’m distressed by how much these stories SUGGEST an effort like the previous one, but insufficiently explain whether it would include the ONE thing that most people remember the first effort for. Bad newswriting.
Basically, I’m writing a bit ahead of the explanatory curve here. The NYT didn’t even mention this development this morning, near as I could tell.
Bottom line, that’s why I worded the post the way I did — putting question marks in the headline, and saying "apparently" in the first sentence. I’m hoping for clarification, and thank you for trying to provide it. But I did read the pieces.
And I stand happy to be corrected by further information, because more such checks would be a BAD idea.
And bud, you’re thinking of Everett Dirksen.
Congratulations, Brad, your’s is the only news outlet to report on the Pelosi’s “economic stimulus check”.
I used Google News to search for:
pelosi “economic stimulus check”
And there you are…alone.
I checked American Heritage Dictionary:
ap·par·ent
1.Readily seen; visible.
2.Readily understood; clear or obvious.
And you are still…alone.
Bud,
How dare you say that we cut military spending on “worthless junk.” I wonder where you think this money is spent. Do you have any idea how many advancements in technology and healthcare have come from the military? I bet you have a government satellite linked GPS in your car. Non-perishable foods in aluminum cans were a product of WWII. I supposed you think wireless phones are another form of worthless junk. Understand that the U.S. cannot just “get the hell out of Iraq”. The current infrastructure in Iraq cannot support itself and the nation will once again fall under dangerous militant Al-Quaeda rule. All the lives lost and all the money that has been spent would be worth nothing if we immediately pulled out of Iraq.
Look more into the military before you make any more judgements about it.
Obama is threatening us with a plethora of tax increases, while at the same time calling for tax refunds to stimulate the economy.
Are these Democrats so stupid that they cannot see that taxes kill the economy and tax cuts stimulate the economy?
Stop with the piecemeal stimulus tax refunds and just reduce all the taxes.
“taxes kill the economy and tax cuts stimulate the economy”
Because that money that goes to pay for the military and people building interstates and fireman and teachers and useless stuff like that is being flushed down the toilet, and the people making those salaries certainly don’t buy houses in the US or groceries or anything else that recirculates the money!
How could anyone be so silly to think that there is some optimal level of taxation that balances services the majority (it is a democracy still, right?) want with keeping the economy going well?
Lenin is confused again. First the Russian Revolution, now this.
As I said, no news outlet (including The State) is saying “checks.” I told you where I got that impression. I’d love, as I said from the outset, to find out it’s the wrong impression. Still awaiting the hard info to that effect.
Gotta get back to work now… it’s Friday.
Another way for you to look at it: Consider this post a "pre-emptive shhhh!" to any politicians thinking about saying the actual words, "economic stimulus check…"
If you think the turmoil and peril we’ve seen on Wall Street and in the banking industry in the last week have been scary…trust me: You win’ seen nuttin yet.
The profligate spending on both sides of the aisle in the last ten years,, coupled with the ridiculously extravagant promises/obligations we’ve made to social security recipients among others make the financial future of this country dark indeed. In short, there is simply no way this country can meet the obligations we’ve already made.
The very, very last thing we need to do at this point is engineer another huge, inefficient government bureaucracy by promising everyone national healthcare.
We cannot pay for what we’ve already promised. We certainly cannot buy everyone crappy healthcare.
Just sayin. David
David,
I have to agree with you on this one – while I’m not anti-government, I’m certainly for honest and balanced budgets.
“we’ve made to social security recipients among others”
But reading my little booklet from social security, it makes it sound like after the (supposed) trust fund runs out that I’ll still be getting some sizable percent of the amount I’m supposed to(70%?). I think the solution to social security is obvious then… you just announce now that it won’t pay out more than it takes in and that everything will be pro-rated down percentage wise. I mean, seriously, is there anyone currently in there 40s or younger who actually expects social security to be there at all when they retire? (Not that would keep the brave politicians who tried it from getting voted out of office…)
The big entitlement to worry about then is medicaid… which is wrapped up in whatever solution we get for healthcare.
Spending by government stifles the economy because:
1. Government does not create wealth; it consumes it.
2. Every dollar spent by government is a dollar taken out of the private sector.
3. Private sector decisions are better informed, and people spending their own money have better motives, so they are more efficient.
4. A dollar spent in the private sector has a higher multiplier effect than one spent by government. It turns over and trickles down more times, creating more total economic activity.
5. At least 30% of government spending is wasted on fraud, according to audits at all levels.
For example, in 2007, 31% of all Medicare spending went to fraudulent claims.
A random audit shows that 62% of those receiving free school lunches are not eligible.
Just look at the current scandal of $500 BILLION of fraud in the government programs for mortgages to unqualified blacks, Hispanics and illegal aliens.
There really is no “trust fund” for Social Security. All the payroll taxes go into the general fund to pay current recipients. What is left over is borrowed by Congress to finance deficit spending, with no provisions to repay it.
Social Security is not an “entitlement program”, because the Supreme Court has ruled that no one is entitled to receive anything. It is a welfare program, like Medicare, Medicaid, and Food Stamps.