Comments on: Truly numbing amounts of money

By: Lord

Lord — Wed, 04 Feb 2009 00:33:40 +0000

That was his 2001 stimulus, not his 2003 stimulus, or his 2007 stimulus.

By: Lord

Lord — Wed, 04 Feb 2009 00:19:04 +0000

Bush’s extended over ten years and is still growing in real terms. Now that is ineffective.

By: rocketc

rocketc — Tue, 03 Feb 2009 20:32:20 +0000

umm . . . not sure where you are getting your info, Lord, but the Bush stimulus was closer to $150 b.

By: Lord

Lord — Mon, 02 Feb 2009 21:52:15 +0000

For comparison, Bush’s stimulus package was $2T and the results weren’t particularly efficacious. They could double it and write everyone a check though.

By: rocketc

rocketc — Mon, 02 Feb 2009 15:51:25 +0000

Good post, I’ve been hitting this hard for a month or so on facebook and lately on my blog. This bill is not about stimulus, but rather it is about increasing government control.

Interesting phenomenon, though, every liberal with whom I interact is starting to preface their comments with “I’m not a big fan of this stimulus, but . . .”

I think this thing is going to go down, but it will probably be replaced by something worse.

By: Ryan with Bad Credit

Ryan with Bad Credit — Mon, 02 Feb 2009 11:19:26 +0000

The $3,000 for every man woman and child is a much more reflective number for the common people to understand. Now that isn’t much of the problem, the problem is how the government is going about to obtain this money, namely to issue US treasury bonds which are bought up by foreign countries. Can you imagine if the foreign countries decide not to buy them anymore?

By: Funny about Money

Funny about Money — Sun, 01 Feb 2009 12:00:19 +0000

Here’s the plan: We cash out the funds into dollar bills and lay them end-to-end, building a road from here to Alpha Centauri. Then we have all the bankers and political fools who got us into this mess walk there and build a colony. By the time they get there, the bridge will have blown away in the solar winds, and we’ll be rid of them permanently.

Seriously: If we’re going to give that much money away (to people who award themselves gigantic bonuses and private jets), wouldn’t it have worked better to simply give $1 million to every household in the nation? A string could have been put on it: You have to pay off your debt (including mortgage) with it. Then whatever was left would be yours to spend. Everyone’s problems would have been solved: bad debt would go away; almost ALL debt would go away; people who behaved responsibly would get in on the handout as well as those who behaved like idiots and crooks; and most people would be left with plenty of money to diddle away on new Stuff.

By: ChristianPF

ChristianPF — Fri, 30 Jan 2009 16:09:17 +0000

MBH,
good post – I completely agree. I think the biggest problem with washington is that very few care about the LONG-TERM consequences of their actions. Most just seem to be doing what they think will make people feel good in the short term. It is just like parenting, if parents don’t ever tell their kids no, trying to be their friends they are doing LONG-TERM damage. But if they accept the temporary pain of their kids being unhappy, they will benefit their kids in the longterm…