Thoughts on a Second Stimulus Package?

[m3racer]

Since when was unemployment taxes taken from your paycheck???
Unemployment taxes are paid by employers. (Not employees - though you can certainly argue it is an indirect tax that affects wages. I'm with you there).

Some states may also fund employment differently.

That was my understanding as well.

[Inkstain82]

I think many would disagree with you on that.....I certainly do.

I don't see why. It is a portion of the cost of employing the employee, and it is paid for insurance for the employee. How is that not an indirect portion of the employee's compensation for working?

[maat55]

That was my understanding as well.

Unemployment, taxes, workers comp all get in the way of more hiring and higher wages. If these are increased, it causes layoffs and less benefits. The more government gets it nose into, the less is spread amongst the producers.

I'v never understood why companies provide workers comp and health insurance. It's kinda like double taxation.

[kork13]

(BTW, I'm new here, so someone lemme know if this is getting too political).

Politics are a part of money and economics. As long as everyone keeps their cool and it doesn't get overly aggressive, we're all just discussing our thoughts and opinions.

Sort of. For one thing, I wouldn't put farmers on that list. Most of them would be out of business without government handouts and protection.

I know there are at least a couple people here who run farms, so they would know better than I... however, as I understand it, many farmers are actually paid by the government to NOT produce anything on their farms. Farmers are very much a part of those people that produce for society. They produce the very basis of society--the food that we survive upon.

I guess that all works if the goal of our society is to produce as much as possible at all times. That's not our goal, though, so other factors have to be considered, such as our desire to have everyone live at a minimum standard (though we often disagree on what that minimum should be).

I may not understand the part I highlighted there... As I referred to previously (or tried to), producing enhances economic stability and as you mention, provides for a better standard of living. Maybe I just don't understand systemic forces here, but what would be the advantage of suppressing production? So that when things go bad you can pull out all the stops and 'fix' things that way? If not that, I don't understand your position...

The danger with that is that you now have an entire economy dependent on a continued government presence.

Yes, but not really... Background on Guam's history, it has been supported almost entirely by 2 things since it became a US territory in the 1940's--tourism (because it's basically a tropical paradise) and the US military presence. It subsists on federal and foreign money, unable to produce much in the way of actual products of industry (beyond fishing operations). Because it is so strategically located, that military presence is not going to go away anytime soon...

[Inkstain82]

I know there are at least a couple people here who run farms, so they would know better than I... however, as I understand it, many farmers are actually paid by the government to NOT produce anything on their farms. Farmers are very much a part of those people that produce for society. They produce the very basis of society--the food that we survive upon.

It could be produced a lot more efficiently by massive factory farm setups. But for traditional reasons, we try to keep smaller family farms in business through government protections.

I may not understand the part I highlighted there... As I referred to previously (or tried to), producing enhances economic stability and as you mention, provides for a better standard of living. Maybe I just don't understand systemic forces here, but what would be the advantage of suppressing production? So that when things go bad you can pull out all the stops and 'fix' things that way? If not that, I don't understand your position...

Producing as much as possible *usually* means a better standard of living for all of us. But not always. Imagine how much we could produce as a society if we abolished the minimum wage and reintroduced the feudal system. The never-ending supply of cheap labor would be epic. As a society, we'd produce more than we ever have. But everyone but a few's standard of living would go down.

You would never intentionally suppress production, but not every governmental action has to be promoting maximum production.

Yes, but not really... If you know anything about Guam's history, it has been supported almost entirely by 2 things since it became a US territory in the 1940's--tourism (because it's basically a tropical paradise) and the US military presence. It subsists on federal and foreign money, unable to produce much in the way of actual products of industry (beyond fishing operations). Because it is so strategically located, that military presence is not going to go away anytime soon...

Intriguing. So Guam is more or less at the mercy of the U.S. federal government's spending levels and the ability of the wealthy to have disposable income. Those are two complicated things to balance

[disneysteve]

It could be produced a lot more efficiently by massive factory farm setups. But for traditional reasons, we try to keep smaller family farms in business through government protections.

This is way out of my area of familiarity, but I seem to recall a report not long ago about how so much of government farm aid actually goes to huge farming conglomerates and not little family farms. I'm trying to remember exactly what the report was about, but it escapes me at the moment. If I think of it, I'll post it.

[Inkstain82]

This is way out of my area of familiarity, but I seem to recall a report not long ago about how so much of government farm aid actually goes to huge farming conglomerates and not little family farms. I'm trying to remember exactly what the report was about, but it escapes me at the moment. If I think of it, I'll post it.

Without seeing it, my guess would be that it was produced by the Organization of Family Farmers (fictitious, but you get my drift ) These days, you can find reports and studies showing just about anything.

[disneysteve]

Without seeing it, my guess would be that it was produced by the Organization of Family Farmers (fictitious, but you get my drift ) These days, you can find reports and studies showing just about anything.

It was actually a segment on one of the network news shows, like 20/20 or Dateline.

[kork13]

I'll be honest, it may be to the point that I just don't understand macro-scale economy, production, etc. to adequately respond, so I prolly just won't even try.

Intriguing. So Guam is more or less at the mercy of the U.S. federal government's spending levels and the ability of the wealthy to have disposable income. Those are two complicated things to balance

haha yea, you might look at it that way. I mean, there is more than that of course, but probably 75% or more of the island's economy is based on those two... However, most of the tourism is not from the US, but rather from Japan, China, Korea, the Phillippines, and the rest of the pacific rim. That's why I say it's mostly federal and foreign money.

[KGeary]

As proud as I am that Barack Obama has become the president elect, I'm against his first plan to "help" the economy, I was against the bail-out, but the gov't had to do something. Yester afternoon, Obama had a press conference, and he wants a 2nd stimulus package "sooner rather than later", maybe in the end of the year or in the first two months in 09. Did I miss something, what happened to the first stimulus that was only a few months ago? If the first stimulus didn't have a wide range effect on the economy, how would a 2nd one be any different?


What do you think?

The government didn't have to do anything, that's where you're wrong. The government never has to do anything; the market solves it's own problems when people allow it to.

Keep in mind that the bank meltdown would never have happened if the government hadn't gotten involved in the first place.

The same thing happened during the Great Depression. FDR created the new deal and it prolonged the depression. Anytime the government messes with the market, bad things happen; that's a historical fact.

The second stimulus won't have any effect except to further bankrupt our government and stress our taxpayers. We can't afford this. Throwing money at problems doesn't solve them. The bailout was a sham that's done nothing and will continue to do nothing. When the market finally gets worked out it won't be because anyone in Washington wrote a check.

[KGeary]

All forms of insurance present the possibility of collecting more than you put in. If they didn't, insurance would be a horrible deal that no one would have incentive to take.

I understand and respect your opinion, but I disagree on how prevalent and relevant abuse is.

The problem is that the government gives benefits to people who never paid in. We're creating a welfare state step by step and it's not funny anymore.

The government was not designed to be a safety net. It was not designed to provide insurance, benefits, or anything else. It was design to protect us from foreign and domestic enemies, build transit systems, and limited other functions. If you check your copy of the constitution, it's all right there for everyone to plainly see.

We keep coming up with program after program and our hole keeps getting deeper. Nobody seems to have realized that it's because we're headed in the wrong direction. The closer we get to Socialism; the more we involve the government in our lives, the more screwed up we're going to be.

You don't have to be a rocket scientist to know this, you just have to open your eyes.

[Inkstain82]

The problem is that the government gives benefits to people who never paid in.

Not in unemployment benefits, which is what we were talking about.

We're creating a welfare state step by step and it's not funny anymore.

We aren't remotely close to a welfare state. We're further along the continuum than some would like, but we're not a welfare state.

The government was not designed to be a safety net. It was not designed to provide insurance, benefits, or anything else. It was design to protect us from foreign and domestic enemies, build transit systems, and limited other functions. If you check your copy of the constitution, it's all right there for everyone to plainly see.

The Constitution was a document written by 18th century minds to create a government suitable to fulfilling the needs of an 18th century nation of about 3 million people on the Eastern seaboard.

For tradition's sake we keep it around, but if taken literally, it has no chance of adequately addressing the governing needs of a 21st century nation of about 300 million people spanning the continent and running an economy that would have been unrecognizable to the colonials.

In short: The Constitution and the principles it was founded on are outdated. Don't believe me? Ask Thomas Jefferson. He wanted a Constitutional Convention every 20 years because he believed governments should belong to those living under it and address their needs, not the ideas and needs of generations past.

We keep coming up with program after program and our hole keeps getting deeper.

Our holes are not getting deeper. The holes are much, much shallower. Compare the Depression to the little blip we are seeing now. No comparison. Things are getting better.

Nobody seems to have realized that it's because we're headed in the wrong direction.

Lots of people think so. They are called conservatives, and they have an economic philosophy that I believe has some merit but smooths over the parts where reality doesn't match up with its expectations (as do we all ).

The closer we get to Socialism; the more we involve the government in our lives, the more screwed up we're going to be.

You don't have to be a rocket scientist to know this, you just have to open your eyes.

Please don't assume that because people see things differently than you that our eyes are closed. Rational people can see the same data and come to different conclusions.

Government is about managing the interactions between people. As the number of people grows linearly, the number of potential interactions grows exponentially. And our growth isn't even limited to linear! It's natural and inevitable that government would grow with us.

[maat55]

Here is Obama's own words:

First would be a "rescue plan for the middle class" that includes the stimulus and would invest in immediate efforts to create jobs, extend unemployment benefits and provide relief to families.

I hope he is not planning to raise the national debt in an attempt to create jobs.

Extending unemployment sounds like something that will cost us money we don't have, not to mention enable some to enjoy the free ride longer.

What is provide relief to families mean?

Government is going to rescue the middle class!! What about the poor? At what point in history did it become governments job to rescue us?

I thought it was goverments job to defend our borders, act as referee in the economy(Not the quaterback)govern our infrastructure and stay out of our way. Just my 2 cents.

[tripods68]

I'm never fan of socialism footprints in many federal government programs. But there are certain programs, like public schools, national defense, border patrols, postal services I agree with. But giving away welfare checks without holding their feet on fires, promote deeper entitlements. Also when it comes to business entitlements, Employers do carries certain business costs imposed by liberal society in order employees receive entitlements like Unemployment and Worker's Comp. There are abuses taking place in those programs, no doubt, but extended Unemployment checks beyond its original intention breed more corruption, fraud, and less accountability that affects 10% unemployed workforce. I would rather see government tackle the "real problem" which is the economy.

[KGeary]

Not in unemployment benefits, which is what we were talking about.



We aren't remotely close to a welfare state. We're further along the continuum than some would like, but we're not a welfare state.



The Constitution was a document written by 18th century minds to create a government suitable to fulfilling the needs of an 18th century nation of about 3 million people on the Eastern seaboard.

For tradition's sake we keep it around, but if taken literally, it has no chance of adequately addressing the governing needs of a 21st century nation of about 300 million people spanning the continent and running an economy that would have been unrecognizable to the colonials.

In short: The Constitution and the principles it was founded on are outdated. Don't believe me? Ask Thomas Jefferson. He wanted a Constitutional Convention every 20 years because he believed governments should belong to those living under it and address their needs, not the ideas and needs of generations past.



Our holes are not getting deeper. The holes are much, much shallower. Compare the Depression to the little blip we are seeing now. No comparison. Things are getting better.



Lots of people think so. They are called conservatives, and they have an economic philosophy that I believe has some merit but smooths over the parts where reality doesn't match up with its expectations (as do we all ).



Please don't assume that because people see things differently than you that our eyes are closed. Rational people can see the same data and come to different conclusions.

Government is about managing the interactions between people. As the number of people grows linearly, the number of potential interactions grows exponentially. And our growth isn't even limited to linear! It's natural and inevitable that government would grow with us.

I believe you to be wrong on this issue. You treat the constitution as if it was written specifically for the 18th century. It wasn't.

The constitution is based on concepts, not time-specific data or decisions. If you read the constitution from start to finish, it does not sound dated or unusable. Instead, it sounds like a document we should still be following.

The amendment capabilities make it a customizable and updatable document. There is not much written in the Constitution that is no less relevant today than it was in the 18th century.

I believe the problem lies in the fact that you love the federal government and the constitution does not. If you didn't love the federal government, or think it necessary to provide for us, you would not see the constitution as outdated. The constitution, and those who wrote it, don't agree with you. Therefore, you pretend like it's an unimportant document in today's times.

That's like saying the 10 commandments hold no weight because they were written thousands of years ago for people that existed thousands of years ago.

That's your reality, but it's not the truth.