The Stimulus Plan
There's something so "bread-and-circus" like about this whole proposal. I never would have imagined that our budget had room to dole out plain hard cash to the American people. I haven't read much about where this money is supposed to come from, but my guess is that's it's going to be more borrowing, and I always thought that was part of the problem?
$300 isn't enough to solve any real household economic problems, and a lot of people who qualify for it (like me) aren't going to turn homeless without it. I think that money could do more good going through some kind of a filter system, like targeting the housing crisis people - rather than this general "middle-class or aspiring middle-class" population. As for the poor (again, like me), I speak from personal experience when I say that we'd be much happier getting a job than pulling in some goverment relief.
And that was the shocker of all shockers: I completely went "WTF??!!" when I found myself agreeing with the conservative Republicans about this. I guess I am fiscal conservative-ish. The Democrats are pushing for more unemployment benefits, and when I read that I immediately thought: FRANCE. Hehe. No, but seriously, I've been hearing in recent months that the unemployment rate is getting problematic; instead of accepting it and putting a band-aid over the consequences - as admirable of a goal as that is - shouldn't we be looking for a more systematic solution?
I don't know, maybe that's what this whole stimulus scheme is supposed to accomplish. Increased confidence in one's assets equals increased spending, equals improved economy. But that's what seems so bread-and-circus about it: it's a plan that relies on people's psychological moods instead of a real solution to a deeper social problem. Maybe things now are way different from the way they were in Rome. But then again, maybe not.
$300 isn't enough to solve any real household economic problems, and a lot of people who qualify for it (like me) aren't going to turn homeless without it. I think that money could do more good going through some kind of a filter system, like targeting the housing crisis people - rather than this general "middle-class or aspiring middle-class" population. As for the poor (again, like me), I speak from personal experience when I say that we'd be much happier getting a job than pulling in some goverment relief.
And that was the shocker of all shockers: I completely went "WTF??!!" when I found myself agreeing with the conservative Republicans about this. I guess I am fiscal conservative-ish. The Democrats are pushing for more unemployment benefits, and when I read that I immediately thought: FRANCE. Hehe. No, but seriously, I've been hearing in recent months that the unemployment rate is getting problematic; instead of accepting it and putting a band-aid over the consequences - as admirable of a goal as that is - shouldn't we be looking for a more systematic solution?
I don't know, maybe that's what this whole stimulus scheme is supposed to accomplish. Increased confidence in one's assets equals increased spending, equals improved economy. But that's what seems so bread-and-circus about it: it's a plan that relies on people's psychological moods instead of a real solution to a deeper social problem. Maybe things now are way different from the way they were in Rome. But then again, maybe not.
posted by Rex at 2:52 PM
1 Comments:
I think the basic idea is not that, by dumping some free cash on us that would otherwise have belonged to the government, we will be inspired to go out and spend it, and thereby stimulate the economy. I think that it's generally acknowledged that these sorts of short-term tax rebates can, indeed, stimulate the economy (as opposed to, say, Bush's permanent tax cuts from '01). But to be honest, I don't really know that much about this stuff: this is just my basic understanding of it.
Post a Comment
<< Home