Question for Michelle Obama

[Anonymous]

While on the stump in Pontiac, Michigan last July, Michelle Obama scoffed at the $600 rebate given to taxpayers last year as a short term fix.

“You’re getting $600. What can you do with that? Not to be ungrateful or anything. But maybe it pays down a bill, but it doesn’t pay down every bill every month.

“Barack’s approach is that the short-term quick fix kinda stuff sounds good. And it may even feel good that first month when you get that check. And then you go out and you buy a pair of earrings.”

My question to the first lady is what does she suggest we do with our $13 per week ($8 come next January) to stimulate the economy?

[Anonymous]

Buy earrings at Claire's!

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:My question to the first lady is what does she suggest we do with our $13 per week ($8 come next January) to stimulate the economy?

She probably doesn't suggest that you do anything. Tax cuts were primarily put in to garner Republican support (and little good it did). Tax cuts are an inefficient stimulus method. Direct government spending is better. Hence, the majority of the bill is spending. The Republicans would have liked the entire bill to be tax cuts. If that were the case, you would be justified in complaining about your meager $13 per week. However, thanks to the spending, some people without jobs will get jobs and some people with jobs will keep them.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:[Tax cuts are an inefficient stimulus method. Direct government spending is better. Hence, the majority of the bill is spending.

This is a matter of opinion, not fact. Keynes vs Milton Friedman.

Keynes' instincts ran to big government and Friedman's tastes were for small government. Sound like a familiar ideological difference?

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:[Tax cuts are an inefficient stimulus method. Direct government spending is better. Hence, the majority of the bill is spending.

This is a matter of opinion, not fact. Keynes vs Milton Friedman.

I'm not sure you can argue that this specific point is opinion. Think of it this way:

1) government gives a tax credit/cut. Recipient: a) spends it; b) saves it; c) sends it to relative in far, far, far away land. Only the first option results in stimulus to US economy;

2) government spends it. 100% efficiency.

Keynes was a little more sophisticated in that the type of government expenditure was also important. So, Keynes would never have supported Reagan's deficit spending in order to purchase bombs and missiles.

[Anonymous]

Government - 100% efficiency! Wow!

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:Government - 100% efficiency! Wow!

When it comes to spending. Few conservatives would argue.

[Anonymous]

spending does not necessarily equal economic stimulus in terms of the ecomony esp. when the spending is not in direct areas to stabilize the economy. Wall Street has already given the thumbs down to this package and while a lot of people ignorantly this-uldjlsfjsdl Wall Street. Unless you want to give up on your 401K packages, 529 packages etc.--stocks need to stabilize and this ain't doing it.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:spending does not necessarily equal economic stimulus in terms of the ecomony esp. when the spending is not in direct areas to stabilize the economy. Wall Street has already given the thumbs down to this package and while a lot of people ignorantly this-uldjlsfjsdl Wall Street. Unless you want to give up on your 401K packages, 529 packages etc.--stocks need to stabilize and this ain't doing it.

Dow gained 240 points in the last hour, closing down only 6.77 for the day. S&P and Nasdeq both closed up. I guess Wall Street views the stimulus more positively than you do.

It's going to be hilarious over the next few years watching conservatives constantly predicting doom and gloom while getting repeatedly foiled by things getting better.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:spending does not necessarily equal economic stimulus in terms of the ecomony esp. when the spending is not in direct areas to stabilize the economy. Wall Street has already given the thumbs down to this package and while a lot of people ignorantly this-uldjlsfjsdl Wall Street. Unless you want to give up on your 401K packages, 529 packages etc.--stocks need to stabilize and this ain't doing it.

Dow gained 240 points in the last hour, closing down only 6.77 for the day. S&P and Nasdeq both closed up. I guess Wall Street views the stimulus more positively than you do.

It's going to be hilarious over the next few years watching conservatives constantly predicting doom and gloom while getting repeatedly foiled by things getting better.

Stocks erased losses Thursday, following reports that the Obama administration is putting together a plan to subsidize mortgages for troubled homeowners. The stimulus plan was factored into the market last week. The market looks forward not backward.

[Anonymous]

The market was down most of the day and traded up on the "short covering" of surprise news of a 50 billion of "welfare" prgram being spread around for all the losers who took out mortages that they could not possibly pay thus screwing all who who were conservative with their money. This "welfare" program was not part of the stimulas package-and have no idea where the money is coming from. By the way, any person who knows finance would not guage success of any kind of program on one hour of trading esp. when the market has been consistently down--10% since January and this is not even touching before January i.e. news of Obamanomics or shoud I say Pelosinomics taking over i.e. the market has already discounted the stimulus program even before it was hammered out. I would guage the overall market numbers in the past quarter because the stock market does reflect what the feeling on the economy.

I would also pose the question-where in the world has Obama's socialism and we are moving toward socialism ever worked?????? We are moving closer and closer to government intervention in a variety of scary areas and soon personal wealth will be attacked when there is no more governemnt checks to write. For what it is worth-I hated when Bush started the TARP nonsense. This is not doom and gloom this is reality. Now if you are someone who wants to just sit back and live a governement coddled life where you are not working toward achieving financial goals, then you would probably like this, but for the people who are working hard to build something and do not want the government to control their destiny-this is waaaaaaaaaay in the wrong direction.

[Anonymous]

Working hard.
Don't want the government to control my destiny.
Don't agree with you, 17:29.

[jsteele]

You said "socialism". That's a scary word and I'll have to hide in the closet for a while.

You are the one who brought up the stock market. I only pointed out that it was recovering. The market tanked on Tuesday when Geithner failed to agree to buy toxic debt at blue chip prices. It was the fact that the government wasn't prepared to shovel money into the pockets of Wall Street traders that caused "free marketers" to run for the hills. It's only socialism when poor people are involved, I guess. If the rich people don't get their government bailout checks, it's bad policy.

Obama is in Peoria, IL right now (my birth place) where Caterpillar says it can begin rehiring laid-off workers once the stimulus plan is signed. Why will they be able to do it? Because their vehicles will be used to build projects funded through the plan. Nobody there is living a "government coddled life". They are building machines, which will build roads, which will contribute to growth, which will get us out of this mess. None of those guys will expect the taxpayer to underwrite their annual bonuses -- that's pretty much limited to the "capitalists" screaming about scary socialist that want to cap their salaries at a half mil a year.

[Anonymous]

The conservative, nay sayer ABC news just reported tonight that the Catterpillar CEO does not agree with Obama's asserting that he will begin rehiring employees due to the magical stimulus tour.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=6866995&page=1

At a Caterpillar Inc. plant in Peoria, Ill., today, President Obama said that his proposed economic stimulus would allow the company's CEO to rehire recently laid-off employees. But the head of the company said he will have to fire more workers before he can rehire anyone who has been let go.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:At a Caterpillar Inc. plant in Peoria, Ill., today, President Obama said that his proposed economic stimulus would allow the company's CEO to rehire recently laid-off employees. But the head of the company said he will have to fire more workers before he can rehire anyone who has been let go.

Opps.

To be fair, this guy seems to have changed his story a bit. Here's what he said in November:

“There are a lot plans in place that I think a fiscal stimulus could get traction early,” said James Owens, CEO of Caterpillar. “That kind of focus could have an immediate and lasting impact because generally these projects are three or four years in duration.”

http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2008/11/18/stimulating-the-economy-through-infrastructure/

Now he's saying there won't be any impact until 2010.

I wonder how much longer Owens will be a member of Obama's Economic Recovery Advisory Board?