Todd#43 Posted February 17, 2009 Report Share Posted February 17, 2009 The cat's out of the bag. We're ALL getting some money with Obama's spendulus plan.http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/02/16/lawmakers-worry-obama-tax-cut/$13.00 a week! Are you kidding me? That's almost $1.86 every day!It's such a windfall, I don't know what I'm going to do with it. Anyone have any ideas???? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Casper Posted February 17, 2009 Report Share Posted February 17, 2009 Hell, that won't pay for gas. Or smokes. Or Red Bull. That pretty much does nothing for me. Sweet. Maybe I'll wipe my ass with it then send it back to the White House? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
troyec001 Posted February 17, 2009 Report Share Posted February 17, 2009 You're going to get a couple extra tanks of gas a month. Still helps. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yotaman88210 Posted February 17, 2009 Report Share Posted February 17, 2009 Hell yea! Im buying a desmosidici!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Disclaimer Posted February 17, 2009 Report Share Posted February 17, 2009 (edited) Hell, that won't pay for gas. Or smokes. Or Red Bull. That pretty much does nothing for me. Sweet. Maybe I'll wipe my ass with it then send it back to the White House?WTF are you talking about? My ZR2 gets 11mpg, and that'll get me back and forth to work TWICE for a gallon @ $1.86. I'm totally making out on this deal. Just wait until I start RIDING into work again when the weather breaks.Gov't pwned.And I find it funny in the article that they decide to quote Lindsey Graham:"The average person will get $8 per week in their paycheck and they will pass on to their grandkids $1.1 trillion in debt," said Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham, S.C.Of course he compares the two numbers out of context just to make it look like it's an amazing discrepancy.If the US population is 370M when we all have grandkids, 1.1T/370M = $2973/person and then divide that by 52 weeks/yr = $57 per week that it costs in FUTURE DOLLARS. Anyone that's taken a finance class knows that the value of FUTURE MONEY is not equivalent to the PRESENT VALUE OF MONEY.Assuming we all have grandkids in 30 years (around age 55 for me), $8 invested over 30 years to yield $57 = 6.76% interest charged.Worst you could do in the stock market (index fund) over any given 30 year period is around 9%, so... by my calculations... give me the $8 now, I'll invest it make $106.14 over the 30 years, give my grandkids the $57 to pay off the debt and hell, I might even be a nice enough guy to share the excess windfall money of $49 with them, after applicable taxes of course. Edited February 17, 2009 by JRMMiii Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yotaman88210 Posted February 17, 2009 Report Share Posted February 17, 2009 the 1:12 scale Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cmoosego Posted February 17, 2009 Report Share Posted February 17, 2009 don't count your money before it's in the bank... the city and state get their cut first.... probably gonna raise local taxes so you will actually have to pay in more.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Todd#43 Posted February 17, 2009 Author Report Share Posted February 17, 2009 Hell, that won't pay for gas. Or smokes. Or Red Bull. That pretty much does nothing for me. Sweet. Maybe I'll wipe my ass with it then send it back to the White House?Good idea.Any chance of setting up a group mailer? Maybe we can save on postage that way?You're going to get a couple extra tanks of gas a month. Still helps.Couple of extra tanks in what vehicle? With gas right around $2.00/gallon again, $42.00 bucks MIGHT give me a tank full. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
troyec001 Posted February 17, 2009 Report Share Posted February 17, 2009 I can fill up my tank on about $30 when it's on empty. I can go a little over 400 miles on a tank, so I figure it's something.Personally, I do think that the economy has had some good come out of it. More and more people are looking at their financial details and getting more involved with taxes and their paycheck and retirement. While bad it may change the way people handle money and that may get passed on to your children.Or we're all screwed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cmoosego Posted February 17, 2009 Report Share Posted February 17, 2009 I can fill up my tank on about $30 when it's on empty. I can go a little over 400 miles on a tank, so I figure it's something.Personally, I do think that the economy has had some good come out of it. More and more people are looking at their financial details and getting more involved with taxes and their paycheck and retirement. While bad it may change the way people handle money and that may get passed on to your children.Or we're all screwed.we are all screwed anyway.... even if we get anywhere with this bill the states still can take it back in taxes... and if you look at strickland's education plans we will have to pay more taxes to raise the money he wants to spend.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Todd#43 Posted February 17, 2009 Author Report Share Posted February 17, 2009 I can fill up my tank on about $30 when it's on empty. I can go a little over 400 miles on a tank, so I figure it's something.Personally, I do think that the economy has had some good come out of it. More and more people are looking at their financial details and getting more involved with taxes and their paycheck and retirement. While bad it may change the way people handle money and that may get passed on to your children.Or we're all screwed.I can fill up my tank for $30 when gas is well under $2.00 gallon. I'm pretty sure that $42.00 per month back in my pocket isn't going to stimulate the economy.By the way, the only thing that's getting passed on to our children is another $1,000,000,000,000.00 in debt. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Disclaimer Posted February 17, 2009 Report Share Posted February 17, 2009 Covered that.... $8/wk now is better than the Trillion it'll cost later.Secondly, why is everyone so worried about what's being "passed on" to our children debt-wise? YOUR children aren't not footing that entire bill themselves, and how can all the parents (if they are parents) ensure that THEIR children are going to be productive members of society and not drains on it?Lastly, with the savings rate that went NEGATIVE, the average parent isn't going to pass on anything to their children anyway. Hell, when my grandmother passed last week, all she had to her name was her car and a savings account that didn't have enough money to cover funeral expenses - so the cost of the funeral had to be split between the siblings. And that's a typical example of how things are, from what I've been told, and the data I've seen.With the way society consumes things without the wealth to pay for them... the future generations aren't going to have anything anyway - the only difference is whether their parents leave them with debt on an individual level, or if it's contained at the government level. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
troyec001 Posted February 17, 2009 Report Share Posted February 17, 2009 For once I like JRMMiii's point. Yes, it may go to our children, but to be fair we've currently only shown we aren't responsible. Having kids so you don't have to work...not a productive member of society. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Todd#43 Posted February 17, 2009 Author Report Share Posted February 17, 2009 For once I like JRMMiii's point. Yes, it may go to our children, but to be fair we've currently only shown we aren't responsible. Having kids so you don't have to work...not a productive member of society.So, you guys are cool with the government going deeper into debt to make up for us going in over our heads too?Didn't your mama tell you two wrongs don't make a right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
troyec001 Posted February 17, 2009 Report Share Posted February 17, 2009 No, but to be fair I don't think the government uses our taxes wisely anyway, so why should we expect them to start now? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Todd#43 Posted February 17, 2009 Author Report Share Posted February 17, 2009 No, but to be fair I don't think the government uses our taxes wisely anyway, so why should we expect them to start now?What about the "change" all you bleeding hear liberals voted for?NOTHING has changed. NOTHING will change until the system is changed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NinjaNick Posted February 17, 2009 Report Share Posted February 17, 2009 Didn't your mama tell you two wrongs don't make a right?Wyclef told me.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YLkWBOS0Fns Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Disclaimer Posted February 17, 2009 Report Share Posted February 17, 2009 I was never OK with government debt. If I get penalized for living beyond my means, then the government shouldn't be allowed to either, but the bus is already in the ditch so you gotta do what you can to pull it out.Conversely, there's money to be made when you can finance someone - so if China wants to make money, financing the US Debt is a pretty secure way to do it. Strategically, I think it's a bad move to be 'owned' by another country, but the nice thing about governments is they outlast lifespans of mere mortals, so payment terms can be almost indefinitely extended. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Todd#43 Posted February 17, 2009 Author Report Share Posted February 17, 2009 I was never OK with government debt. If I get penalized for living beyond my means, then the government shouldn't be allowed to either, but the bus is already in the ditch so you gotta do what you can to pull it out.So based on the fact that you think "the bus is already in the ditch" increasing debt is a good way to pull it out of the ditch?If you were in debt beyond your means, would it be a good idea to take a pay cut and buy a new car? I mean, would that make your bills easier to pay? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shittygsxr Posted February 17, 2009 Report Share Posted February 17, 2009 I think you guys are missing the point about spending vs investing. Investments have a positive returnSpending is just wasting moneyWith that said the gov't needs to stop spending money and start investing it in something that will generate a positive return Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Disclaimer Posted February 17, 2009 Report Share Posted February 17, 2009 You understand the bus analogy, but yours is a simplification that proves your point on a microscopic level. Problem is, we're talking about the economy at the macroscopic level. Depending on the relative size of what you're studying, things change and the tools you use at one level don't work at the other and vice-versa, like how we have quantum/particle physics AND physics.In this instance, we're trying to compromise the political philosophies with economic philosophies. Some economists don't think the 800B is ENOUGH spending, but the amount those economists say we'll need to spend is well beyond anything anyone would politically agree upon. So, if anything, this spending bill won't work because of the compromises we had to make with the politicians who the majority of are pretty ignorant on economic policy.Everyone has the same problem and wants to fix it, but the people in the workflow process to fix this aren't experts on the topics and have their own ideas and agendas to make this work, which be that as it may, make it not necessarily the best way of doing things. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Todd#43 Posted February 17, 2009 Author Report Share Posted February 17, 2009 You understand the bus analogy, but yours is a simplification that proves your point on a microscopic level. Problem is, we're talking about the economy at the macroscopic level. Depending on the relative size of what you're studying, things change and the tools you use at one level don't work at the other and vice-versa, like how we have quantum/particle physics AND physics.In this instance, we're trying to compromise the political philosophies with economic philosophies. Some economists don't think the 800B is ENOUGH spending, but the amount those economists say we'll need to spend is well beyond anything anyone would politically agree upon. So, if anything, this spending bill won't work because of the compromises we had to make with the politicians who the majority of are pretty ignorant on economic policy.Everyone has the same problem and wants to fix it, but the people in the workflow process to fix this aren't experts on the topics and have their own ideas and agendas to make this work, which be that as it may, make it not necessarily the best way of doing things.Macro-economics or micro-economics, it doesnt really matter. Spending more than you have, and increasing the national debt beyond GDP isn't going to spur the economy. Funding the people at the bottom (increasing their health care, giving them more $$ in food stamps, etc.) isn't going to cause business owners to hire more people. Government "make work" jobs haven't shown to improve the economy either.The Spending Bill was doomed to fail before the compromises. Too much money being spent by the government with very little given back to small business and other areas that actually HIRE people to do REAL jobs. Most politicians aren't economists, its true but they have access to some of the most brilliant minds in the field. Unfortunately, due to the political process, the powers that be are beholden to their constituents and will enact economic policies that are most likely to get them re-elected, instead of fixing the problem.I'll go back to my original question - what are you going to do with $8.00 per week more than you have now, and is throwing more money at the bus in the ditch the RIGHT way to solve the problem? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Disclaimer Posted February 17, 2009 Report Share Posted February 17, 2009 Micro-econ and Macro-econ are two different beasts. It DOES matter.FDR spending got us out of the first depression:The "FDR Failed" Mythhttp://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2009020603/fdr-failed-myth But specifically for my $8/wk, it won't change my spending habits because I'm already on a budget - I'm more of a fiscally conservative person anyway. Throwing money at the "bus" appears to be the right way to do things. When you win a Nobel prize in economics, that tends to say you know WTF you're talking about.Krugman: Stimulus needs to be twice as bighttp://portland.bizjournals.com/portland/stories/2009/01/26/daily68.htmlStimulus arithmetic (wonkish but important)http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/01/06/stimulus-arithmetic-wonkish-but-important/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Disclaimer Posted February 17, 2009 Report Share Posted February 17, 2009 Ohh, and there's always all that money we spent in the sandbox that we'll never get back.I'd rather US citizens were the benefactor of those monies rather than Iraqi's and multinational corporations. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harb67 Posted February 17, 2009 Report Share Posted February 17, 2009 Shit, I just clicked a Faux News link. I feel dirty now...I need to go shower Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.