DOW over 9k and rising, unemployment starting to drop, Freddie stabilizing...

[Merovingian]

Improve track and land for little league parking - StimulusWatch.org

Do you have more info about this? i live in the island and i've never heard of this, either its an error or they are paving the streets with gold because 150m is alot for such a small project.

edit:

ive been reading the local newspaper and news and i cant find more info about it.

[Kuya]

Obama puts an almost 1 trillion dollar stimulus through the house and what did it even do? He gives it to big companies that do what with it? AIG giving out millions of dollars of bonuses, and who knows what other companies are doing with it. It's effect on the economy is dubious. more than 70% of GDP comes from consumer spending and I don't know about you guys, but I didn't see even a penny of extra money that I could spend more anywhere.

At least with Bush's stimulus, consumer spending rose by near 4%. This stimulus was a joke, all it did was raise this U.S. National Debt Clock so I'm not too thrilled about any of this.

Edit: And i'm not saying that Bush's stimulus plan was any good, it was also shit. But at least some of it was used for the purpose that it should be used for.

Someone probably already answered this, but i'll do it anyway.

The stimulus bill and the bailout bill are two completely different things meant for two separate things. You could criticize them for being innefectual or half assed or what have you, but do not conflate them. The stimulus money was not given to any banks.

Next, according to economic theory and empirical evidence (i certainly hope you've at least taken an introductory course to economics), people tend to simply pay their debts rather than go out and spend when they are given money directly. Handing out cash to people is a rather laughable method of stimulating economic growth.

[Skjie]

Next, according to economic theory and empirical evidence (i certainly hope you've at least taken an introductory course to economics), people tend to simply pay their debts rather than go out and spend when they are given money directly. Handing out cash to people is a rather laughable method of stimulating economic growth.

Within the past generation this has changed rather dramatically, as far as I am aware. Our generations are far less likely to save or pay down debts. Of course, having said that, I cannot find any hard evidence to back me up at the moment.

[_chuchu]

What makes me sad about the success of cash for clunkers is how some people still think they are getting a much better deal than they would without it.

[Serif]

I don't know too much about this besides what I hear from other people.

I heard that they completely destroy the clunker to they only destroy the engine/drive train.

Either of these correct?

[aru]

They empty the oil and replace it with some chemical mixture and then run the engine until it stops. Then they tow it away to get recycled.

[sephir]

Within the past generation this has changed rather dramatically, as far as I am aware. Our generations are far less likely to save or pay down debts. Of course, having said that, I cannot find any hard evidence to back me up at the moment.

Actually it depends on the times/consumer confidence. In times such as these, if the government had handed out cheques to everyone the most likely respose would be to pay out a debt. But if the cheques were given out early enough before the recession news (and high gas prices of 2008) they would be more likely to spend it. One of the major problems of simply handing out cheques to people is that it can be difficult to predict exactly how an individual will spend the money.

As far as Cash for Clunkers goes, so far its been an excellent program. The major complaints (mostly GOP based) have been that why should they simply target the auto industry - why not subsidize other industries to get people to replace old technology such as Fridges. What they fail to take into account is the shear volume of jobs tied to the auto industry and the wages that accompany them - along with fewer dollars leaving the US as a result of importation of oil. I read an article about a year ago (which means I could be a little foggy on exact numbers) that explained exactly how many jobs were tied to the average vehicle, it was something like 8,000-12,000 people PER MODEL.

Also Germany has had problems with their cash for clunkers program as a result of fraud. Essentially the cars were supposed to have some parts removed for use on other cars (things like windshields and tires) and the Engine would be destroyed and the car sold for scrap. Well since so many took part in the program the price of scrap metal collapsed and now scrap metal dealers dont know what to do with it. As a result some people are illegally trying to smuggle the clunkers to places like Africa and Asia while they are still whole in an attempt to make money.

[Skjie]

Actually it depends on the times/consumer confidence. In times such as these, if the government had handed out cheques to everyone the most likely respose would be to pay out a debt. But if the cheques were given out early enough before the recession news (and high gas prices of 2008) they would be more likely to spend it. One of the major problems of simply handing out cheques to people is that it can be difficult to predict exactly how an individual will spend the money.

Sure, shit is situational, but our generation is much more ok with higher debt levels then our parents, and it is likely cheques would go to discretionary purchases more then to pay down debt.

[Plow]

Sephir really hit the nail on the head there. It's not such a "generational belief" thing as that, when the situation is this bad people's first priority becomes to get weight off their shoulders.

There's also the whole factor of the sub-prime lending getting to the point where the borrowers are almost prey, but that's a specific temporary factor, whereas the general concepts of paying down debt when budget is tight and allowing for more when it's not is a systematic thing that will nearly always be evidenced in its various results along the curve.

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

They empty the oil and replace it with some chemical mixture and then run the engine until it stops. Then they tow it away to get recycled.

So the government reduces the supply of cars that would be cheap for people that can't afford new cars off the market? Brilliant. Intentions > economic reality.

[Beckwin]

believe it or not, there are cheap old cars that aren't v8 gas hogs, and those cars will save poorer people more money in the long run on fuel costs. It's better to buy that 96 civic for 1200 than the 94 Firebird/Ford Explorer for 900, or whatever.

[Beckwin]

but really I love it when conservatives all the sudden decide to start giving a fuck about the poor when they can try to make some ridiculous tangent about a government program.

[eunhye]

but really I love it when conservatives all the sudden decide to start giving a fuck about the poor when they can try to make some ridiculous tangent about a government program.

why so angry at people like me who like to save money?

[Beckwin]

you'd save money by trading in a clunker for something with decent mpg.

[ertyu]

Someone probably already answered this, but i'll do it anyway.

The stimulus bill and the bailout bill are two completely different things meant for two separate things. You could criticize them for being innefectual or half assed or what have you, but do not conflate them. The stimulus money was not given to any banks.

Next, according to economic theory and empirical evidence (i certainly hope you've at least taken an introductory course to economics), people tend to simply pay their debts rather than go out and spend when they are given money directly. Handing out cash to people is a rather laughable method of stimulating economic growth.

I'm assuming you had not read most of the thread when you said "Someone already answered this", but the point I was trying to make in posts before that was with this bailout money, Obama ended up giving like... 180 or whatever billion to the state governments so that they could do these projects that they are doing to try and create local jobs. A lot of people are arguing that instead of giving the money to state governments, he should have used it in some form to give it to people. Whether it be a check in the mail, or a tax cut to all citizens, or whatever, so that the consumer would go out and spend more money, which in turn would have raised GDP. I know that last year's stimulus was not given to banks or used in pretty much anyway that this years bailout money is being used.

My choice of words was probably bad in some points but yeah, I know they are two separate things that were meant for 2 completely different purposes.

[ertyu]

Do you have more info about this? i live in the island and i've never heard of this, either its an error or they are paving the streets with gold because 150m is alot for such a small project.

edit:

ive been reading the local newspaper and news and i cant find more info about it.

I realize people want to try and prove me wrong with trying to say that the bailout money is only being used for useful projects, but it's really not. Whether this is a typo or not, even if its 15 million dollars, there are still BILLIONS AND BILLIONS of dollars that are going towards these "pork" projects. Everyone needs to stop nitpicking on the actual amounts of the projects, are you all really so blind and think that all of these projects are worthwhile? That we should really just say "ok, I trust the government to spend money wisely"? You all really can't be so trusting of government, can you? This extends beyond Obama's jurisdiction, this is YOUR local and state governments that get to choose how to spend this money. You trust them 100% their discretion?

[eunhye]

just read somewhere about congress trying to fund $500M (yes million) for new jets for their rides. pimp queen pelosi's plane.

[Acturus]

What is the Cash for Clunkers process doing to the used car markets, dealerships, auctions, etc.?

I've heard bits here and there about the negative impact, but nothing specific.

[Norellicus]

(credible) links or gtfo. (Though it wouldn't surprise me in the least.) (Edit: This was in response to eunhye, Acturus ninja'd my spot)

Also, giving money directly to the people and saying "have fun" doesn't work, we've already proven this with the first go-round. A tax cut won't work either, you may as well just dump the money back into the national debt if you do that. The only way to reliably boost spending is to do exactly what cash for clunkers did and say "We have money we want to give you, but you have to buy something with it."

And you can't do that with just a simple check made payable to John Smith.

[ertyu]

(credible) links or gtfo. (Though it wouldn't surprise me in the least.) (Edit: This was in response to eunhye, Acturus ninja'd my spot)

Also, giving money directly to the people and saying "have fun" doesn't work, we've already proven this with the first go-round. A tax cut won't work either, you may as well just dump the money back into the national debt if you do that. The only way to reliably boost spending is to do exactly what cash for clunkers did and say "We have money we want to give you, but you have to buy something with it."

And you can't do that with just a simple check made payable to John Smith.

?

Consumer spending rose near 5 percent after last year's stimulus, and that was only 600 bucks.