What are you gonna do with yours?

[kawi kid]

i still say we are screwed and im diggin a hole and living in it for about 4 years

[Todd#43]

Micro-econ and Macro-econ are two different beasts. It DOES matter.

FDR spending got us out of the first depression:

The "FDR Failed" Myth

http://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 big

http://portland.bizjournals.com/portland/stories/2009/01/26/daily68.html

Stimulus arithmetic (wonkish but important)

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/01/06/stimulus-arithmetic-wonkish-but-important/

I know macro economics and micro economics are different, but the analogy is there. Putting money in at the bottom will not improve the economy as whole. It won't work because it can't.

As far as Krugman's opinions go he's an op-ed writer for the NYT. 'Nuff said.

You said you think it will work, but what you're getting won't make any difference to you. How can you have it both ways? If it works, it works for you - right?

[max power]

I'm spending mine on cocaine and hookers.

[kawi kid]

I'm spending mine on cocaine and hookers.

neither will be of very good quality with that kind of cashola

[max power]

Cheap coke and cheap hookers, thats what drives the economy.

[f4isvt]

I might move to a sally sturthers country were a 1.86 a day is damn good money

[jermattak]

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?

now i remember how much red bul you and carrie drink, you probably went through ten cans that day!

....and this will pay for my shmokes, i cut back

[Disclaimer]

As far as Krugman's opinions go he's an op-ed writer for the NYT. 'Nuff said.

So the Nobel prize doesn't give him any clout? C'mon.

You said you think it will work, but what you're getting won't make any difference to you. How can you have it both ways? If it works, it works for you - right?

It won't make any difference to me, I'm not in financial trouble (yet). I don't live beyond my means - I'm just lucky to still have means. This isn't having it 'both ways'... you just can't please ALL the people ALL the time. When you have to come up with ONE course of action to work toward a solution, you do your best to get a ONE-SIZE-FITS-ALL approach, but there are always exceptions.

I'll still take my $8/week, no matter how little it is, it adds up... that's over $400/yr, it'll pay for insurance on my bikes. You look at it from a week to week spending standpoint. I plan my budget on a yearly basis - so $8/week - who cares, right? But, looking at it as $416/yr - that'll at least buy insurance, or a new laptop, or a couple of rear tires.

[Todd#43]

So the Nobel prize doesn't give him any clout? C'mon.

Nope, not at all. His current position speaks volumes to me, and is basically all I need to know.

It won't make any difference to me, I'm not in financial trouble (yet). I don't live beyond my means - I'm just lucky to still have means. This isn't having it 'both ways'... you just can't please ALL the people ALL the time. When you have to come up with ONE course of action to work toward a solution, you do your best to get a ONE-SIZE-FITS-ALL approach, but there are always exceptions.

I'll still take my $8/week, no matter how little it is, it adds up... that's over $400/yr, it'll pay for insurance on my bikes. You look at it from a week to week spending standpoint. I plan my budget on a yearly basis - so $8/week - who cares, right? But, looking at it as $416/yr - that'll at least buy insurance, or a new laptop, or a couple of rear tires.

Ok then, is it logical to assume that $400/year will make a difference to anyone - even someone at the bottom of the scale? Maybe in a lump sum it would, but at $13.00 per week (if they're working) will you even notice it? I think not. I know my last tax credit put $1,500.00 in my pocket. This one won't even come close.

[Disclaimer]

I would contend that money at the bottom of the social scale makes the MOST difference, because they're the ones likely to go out and spend it.

@ $13/wk that's $676/yr... so while it's not your $1500 credit, it's 40+% of it. If you're rich enough to piss on $600/yr (since it won't make a difference) then wtf are you bitching about exactly? There's LOTS of people out there that would love an extra $400-$600 year, and can stretch that money out pretty good.

Until I'm making 7-figures, I'm not going to piss on even $100 extra dollars a year I can be saving.

[12oclocker]

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????

Actually I have a wife and 2 kids, so for me it comes out to about 50 cents a day per person in my house. which does nothing for me, and I will gladly pay someone that money to punch every senator and the president directly in the face as hard as they can.

That money is joke money, it was only but int he bill so he could call it "a stimulous package" when actually it was a "goverment blow money spending bill".

That money will not compensate for my increase in property tax, the insaine money in gas I have paid while they extorting us for gas money, and the other taxes they will be raising on me this year.

[Todd#43]

I would contend that money at the bottom of the social scale makes the MOST difference, because they're the ones likely to go out and spend it.

@ $13/wk that's $676/yr... so while it's not your $1500 credit, it's 40+% of it. If you're rich enough to piss on $600/yr (since it won't make a difference) then wtf are you bitching about exactly? There's LOTS of people out there that would love an extra $400-$600 year, and can stretch that money out pretty good.

Until I'm making 7-figures, I'm not going to piss on even $100 extra dollars a year I can be saving.

Hold up on your math there, big guy. Re-read the article. The $13.00/wk only goes from "sometime in June" to January. At which point it drops to $8.00 per week. So, 26 weeks at $13.00/week plus 26 weeks at $8.00/week = $338.00 + $208 = $546.00, or about 36% of what I got last year. In real numbers that's almost $1,000.00 LESS I have to put into the economy.

The people at the bottom of the economy getting the $8.00 or $13.00 a week aren't going to be putting into the economy very quickly, because it equates to less than one hour of pay (give or take) to them as well. Add that to the fact that $8.00 doesn't really buy you shit. Of course, maybe all the people at the bottom of the scale are like the lady in front of me at the grocery store last night. She paid for her 8 loaves of bread, 6 gallons of milk, 4 dozen eggs and two packages of cheese with WIC coupons while gabbing on her cell phone. The nice cashier even gave her the "fuel perks" to boot. I shook my head in disbelief at that until I saw her get into her Lexus and drive out of the parking lot.

I must have missed that class in macro economics.

[12oclocker]

Hold up on your math there, big guy. Re-read the article. The $13.00/wk only goes from "sometime in June" to January. At which point it drops to $8.00 per week. So, 26 weeks at $13.00/week plus 26 weeks at $8.00/week = $338.00 + $208 = $546.00, or about 36% of what I got last year. In real numbers that's almost $1,000.00 LESS I have to put into the economy.

The people at the bottom of the economy getting the $8.00 or $13.00 a week aren't going to be putting into the economy very quickly, because it equates to less than one hour of pay (give or take) to them as well. Add that to the fact that $8.00 doesn't really buy you shit. Of course, maybe all the people at the bottom of the scale are like the lady in front of me at the grocery store last night. She paid for her 8 loaves of bread, 6 gallons of milk, 4 dozen eggs and two packages of cheese with WIC coupons while gabbing on her cell phone. The nice cashier even gave her the "fuel perks" to boot. I shook my head in disbelief at that until I saw her get into her Lexus and drive out of the parking lot.

I must have missed that class in macro economics.

once seen a guy begging for money by the side of the road, then later that evening he walked around to the back of a gas station nearbuy and got in his really nice caddilac!

[Disclaimer]

Ha, you play that game too? Spot the most expensive vehicle @ Walmart - usually it's a Hummer, but you saw a Lexus - new one, or something that someone using WIC should be driving around? Bottom line, there's always bad apples, flaws, and injustices in the system. C'est la vie. But having a system is better than having a class of people starve to death and the social complications that are corrallary to that.

Look, we can't change peoples spending habits, but I do know I can stretch money pretty far. I grew up in a frugal household though. I also know $8/wk will buy me all the pizza I can eat at CiCi's + gas to get there.

Regarding your figures, yes, I forgot it was only 1/2 year - I stand corrected at your 36% number... fine. But I still question why you think the lower rung of the social ladder will look at the money like looking a gift horse in the mouth. You make it seem like such a diminutive amount "less than one hour of pay", but to the person making $8/hr it's a much higher percentage than someone pulling $50k-$60k/yr in. So, it's still has MUCH more of an impact on the lower socioeconomic class.

Maybe I'm still missing something - you lost your $1500 credit from last year? Why didn't it get renewed - who's responsible, what was the credit for? If you don't want to get into it, fine... but I don't know how you lost that and figure that this $8/wk - $13/wk plan is what's "replacing" it?

[Todd#43]

Look, we can't change peoples spending habits, but I do know I can stretch money pretty far. I grew up in a frugal household though. I also know $8/wk will buy me all the pizza I can eat at CiCi's + gas to get there.

Regarding your figures, yes, I forgot it was only 1/2 year - I stand corrected at your 36% number... fine. But I still question why you think the lower rung of the social ladder will look at the money like looking a gift horse in the mouth. You make it seem like such a diminutive amount "less than one hour of pay", but to the person making $8/hr it's a much higher percentage than someone pulling $50k-$60k/yr in. So, it's still has MUCH more of an impact on the lower socioeconomic class.

Maybe I'm still missing something - you lost your $1500 credit from last year? Why didn't it get renewed - who's responsible, what was the credit for? If you don't want to get into it, fine... but I don't know how you lost that and figure that this $8/wk - $13/wk plan is what's "replacing" it?

Its a higher percentage of income, but you still can't buy shit with $8.00. I dont care if you're make $37,000,000.00 a year. Ok, so you can go to CiCi's and eat what they call pizza till your guts explode. Better save some of that $8.00 to buy toilet paper and pepto.

Yeah, that "one time stimulus" check that we got last year was just that ONE TIME. It's gone....buh-bye. The $13.00/$8.00 "plan" is what's replacing it.

Quoting the article:"Instead of giving one paycheck at once, which George Bush did, and it really didn't stimulate the economy, the economists said 'stretch it out and people are more likely to put it into economy and get our economy going'," said Democratic Sen. Charles Schumer, N.Y.

The rebates under President Bush were higher-- $600 per person and $1,200 per family, plus $300 dollars per child.

In the end, I'd rather have the $1,500.00 all at once.

[Disclaimer]

6 of one, half dozen of the other? So... In the end it's all the same.

You might make better purchasing decisions with $1500 now, but stretching it out achieves one of two positive economic effects. #1) It either encourages immediate and continuous consumption of low priced goods or #2) encourages growth in long-term savings - hopefully giving people better budgeting/savings habits so the savings rate increases so they don't rely on CREDIT for everything.

Like you quoted, the one time "big stimulus" check didn't stimulate the economy because people either consumed ONE large item, or they used it to pay down debt in one large chunk - it didn't establish anything continuous, nor was it habit forming because people view it as an anomaly rather than a recurring event.

[Todd#43]

6 of one, half dozen of the other? So... In the end it's all the same.

You might make better purchasing decisions with $1500 now, but stretching it out achieves one of two positive economic effects. #1) It either encourages immediate and continuous consumption of low priced goods or #2) encourages growth in long-term savings - hopefully giving people better budgeting/savings habits so the savings rate increases so they don't rely on CREDIT for everything.

Like you quoted, the one time "big stimulus" check didn't stimulate the economy because people either consumed ONE large item, or they used it to pay down debt in one large chunk - it didn't establish anything continuous, nor was it habit forming because people view it as an anomaly rather than a recurring event.

How is it the same? Last time I checked $1,500 is wayyyyy more than $500.

How, exactly, does an extra $8.00 per week encourage you to save? I'm not saying that people wont be able to buy more stuff but christ, what can you get for $8.00?? Four gallons of gas, almost two packs of smokes, maybe a couple of cups of joe at starbucks??? I mean if you're relying on credit for $8.00 a week, this isn't going to help you.

FWIW, the credit last time went to everyone that pays taxes too. What they spent it on is their business. What difference does it make if they paid down debt with it? If they did, it freed up a certain amount of money that they would have used to pay down the debt on a monthly basis.

The fact remains that Obama is spending more than Bush overall with his version of stimulating the economy, but it's putting less money into the hands of the people.

I call bullshit.

[Disclaimer]

We had a surplus when the last Democrat was in office... 'nuff said.

$1500 IS more than $500... three times more as a matter of fact. But if you're going to shit on $8 wk. I'll turn around and ask you if $1000/yr is going to make or break you? It's only $1000 yr. You claim I can't have it both ways, but you're trying to make $8 look small so why can't I say the $1000 difference is small? Quitcherbitchin'. Or is that not a valid rebuttal?

And you just listed ALL the things, no matter how minor that $8 wk. can buy - which fits with the continuous small value consumption I mentioned - stimulating consumer spending (effect #1), but those that piss on the $8 wk will just have a $400+ dollar credit in their bank account at the end of the year that they'll may or may not recognize. Either way, it promotes those scenarios I previously pointed out.

[kawi kid]

Actually I have a wife and 2 kids, so for me it comes out to about 50 cents a day per person in my house. which does nothing for me, and I will gladly pay someone that money to punch every senator and the president directly in the face as hard as they can.

quoted cuz i like the idea

[cmoosego]

Actually I have a wife and 2 kids, so for me it comes out to about 50 cents a day per person in my house. which does nothing for me, and I will gladly pay someone that money to punch every senator and the president directly in the face as hard as they can.

That money is joke money, it was only but int he bill so he could call it "a stimulous package" when actually it was a "goverment blow money spending bill".

That money will not compensate for my increase in property tax, the insaine money in gas I have paid while they extorting us for gas money, and the other taxes they will be raising on me this year.

No doubt.... I couldn't agree more...this is NOT going to help any of us....

[robhawk]

We had a surplus when the last Democrat was in office... 'nuff said.

So all that money was magically acquired by Clinton? That surplus was from years of economic buildup from multiple presidents... not just Clinton. Sorry to bust your Democrat leg humpin bubble!

[Disclaimer]

So all that money was magically acquired by Clinton? That surplus was from years of economic buildup from multiple presidents... not just Clinton. Sorry to bust your Democrat leg humpin bubble!

O Rly!? Thanks for playing.