PDA

View Full Version : Super Dooper Stimulus Package



47straight
1/28/2009, 01:35 AM
Is it really too much to ask that our estimated $900B stimulus package be directly solely at the real engines of our economy and infrastructure?

I'm trying to be on board. I don't really think we can merely spend our way out of this, but I'm hoping that as long as the money is actually well spent it can't hurt.

In Obama's inaugural address, he called not for big government or small government, but effective government. To me, effective government requires that every dollar spent (ok, I'll compromise, every $10k spent) in this stimulus bill actually fit into a coherent plan to *stimulate.* Not just spend.

My gut says that it's just one big giant ball of pork. Or pork by-product. The largest can of spam ever dreamed by man. The Tower of Babel of pork. It smells ripe for corruption. It's too much money handed out without enough oversight.

Obamamaniacs and economic junkies: please tell me why I'm wrong, why every dollar shouldn't specifically go to powering industry, educating people <for work>, increasing efficiency, valuable engineering and scientific research. I want only things that have positive ROI, and not just ROI because there's $900B more floating out there.

Also feel free to show me the actual list because I (like most americans) am fairly ignorant, and don't really trust the press reports on what is and isn't there.


Maybe Tom Coburn will filibuster and haze his fellow senators line item by line item. That would be pretty sweet.

OUHOMER
1/28/2009, 05:40 AM
I hope Dr Tom will tell us. Hes the only one I trust when it some to this.

Okla-homey
1/28/2009, 06:46 AM
IMHO, if they really wanted to stoke our economic furnace, Congress should restore the federal income tax deduction for interest paid on new car loans and consumer credit accounts for the foreseeable future.

But that wouldn't involve sending stacks of cash to every single congressional district in the United States. So they won't do it.:mad:

Vaevictis
1/28/2009, 07:16 AM
IMHO, if they really wanted to stoke our economic furnace, Congress should restore the federal income tax deduction for interest paid on new car loans and consumer credit accounts for the foreseeable future.

(1) Gotta unlock credit markets first.
(2) Wait, so we want consumers and companies to get into even MORE debt?
(2) A rather large portion of that money is going to go overseas as consumers purchase imported goods.

I'll pass on that plan.

Vaevictis
1/28/2009, 07:42 AM
Obamamaniacs and economic junkies: please tell me why I'm wrong, why every dollar shouldn't specifically go to powering industry, educating people <for work>, increasing efficiency, valuable engineering and scientific research. I want only things that have positive ROI, and not just ROI because there's $900B more floating out there.

I agree with you that this is how it should be done.

However, given our political system, there will (unfortunately) be some back-scratching going on.

Ideally, I would rather see projects that directly assist industry; improving transportation, improving efficiency in terms of energy production and use, finding ways to make it more efficient to build in the USA instead of outsourcing.

In terms of monkey'ing around with tax code, if that's something you want to do, there are better ways to encourage that -- shuffle depreciation schedules so that domestic projects get favorable depreciation, jack up tax rates in the short term to force companies to use their built in tax-shelter properties, etc.

Education is a red-herring, IMO. We've got plenty of well-educated people out of work, what we need is jobs that need that education to put them into, and a way to get those people TO those jobs. I don't know what to do about the first part, but relocation assistance can help with the second.

What I do know is that we don't need more PhD's. If you go do the ROI calculations, you'll find that most fields don't yield a net return on investment for a PhD. About the only one I know of is -- strangely enough -- finance. The only people who get a net return are people who immigrate here, and that's because their alternatives are poor.

batonrougesooner
1/28/2009, 08:49 AM
This whole stimulus package is completely insane. Spending nearly a trillion dollars of money we don't have towards such poorly defined goals. It's just good money after bad as they say. This thing is such a bad idea it is surreal.

85Sooner
1/28/2009, 10:06 AM
200,000,000.00 (two hundred million) To rebuild the mall (lay grass) to fix the trash and destruction caused by all those who attended the Inauguration. OUT

650 million for TV converters. jeeesh stimulus program costs $3003.00 Per person.

Want economic stimulus? Get rid of the tax structure and institute the FAIR tax.

OklahomaTuba
1/28/2009, 10:17 AM
$335,000,000 for STD prevention???

Thanks Barack!!!!!

OklahomaTuba
1/28/2009, 10:24 AM
The stimulus is an even bigger crap sandwich than you thought...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123310466514522309.html


"Never let a serious crisis go to waste. What I mean by that is it's an opportunity to do things you couldn't do before." - White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel

OklahomaTuba
1/28/2009, 10:33 AM
$646,214 Per Government Job...

House Democrats propose to spend $550 billion of their two-year, $825 billion "stimulus bill" (the rest of it being tax cuts). Most of the spending is unlikely to be timely or temporary. Strangely, most of it is targeted toward sectors of the economy where unemployment is the lowest.

The December unemployment rate was only 2.3% for government workers and 3.8% in education and health. Unemployment rates in manufacturing and construction, by contrast, were 8.3% and 15.2% respectively. Yet 39% of the $550 billion in the bill would go to state and local governments. Another 17.3% would go to health and education -- sectors where relatively secure government jobs are also prevalent.

If the intent of the plan is to alleviate unemployment, why spend over half of the money on sectors where unemployment is lowest?http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123310498020322323.html

Vaevictis
1/28/2009, 11:26 AM
Want economic stimulus? Get rid of the tax structure and institute the FAIR tax.

And while we're at it, let's gut a chicken and use its entrails to divine the future.

TUSooner
1/28/2009, 11:31 AM
I can't help it, but everytime I see "stimulus package" I think about something you can buy from a machine in a truck stop bathroom. I guess both involve somebody getting....

OklahomaTuba
1/28/2009, 12:08 PM
I can't help it, but everytime I see "stimulus package" I think about something you can buy from a machine in a truck stop bathroom. I guess both involve somebody getting....

Obviously, you aren't alone in that, since millions of $$$ made it into the "stimulus" for condoms and abortions.

TUSooner
1/28/2009, 02:20 PM
Obviously, you aren't alone in that, since millions of $$$ made it into the "stimulus" for condoms and abortions.

Only YOU could come up with THAT response to a post like mine. ;)

Frozen Sooner
1/28/2009, 02:30 PM
IMHO, if they really wanted to stoke our economic furnace, Congress should restore the federal income tax deduction for interest paid on new car loans and consumer credit accounts for the foreseeable future.

But that wouldn't involve sending stacks of cash to every single congressional district in the United States. So they won't do it.:mad:

I'm down with that. I'd be down with extending that to all consumer debt to take away some of the incentive to treat your house like an ATM.

soonerbrat
1/28/2009, 02:47 PM
i think this is what bothers me most. I don't want my medical records electronic and online nationwide.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/18/us/politics/18health.html?ref=health

Chuck Bao
1/28/2009, 03:22 PM
You are right, right, right, 47straight, 47 times.

I would like to see a stimulus package composed only of construction of transit and mass transit projects that would 1) provide long term revenue and return, 2) improve the efficiency in the shipment of products and enhance US competitiveness in the world market, 3) lower the US reliance on imported oil and 4) increase the home values in newly linked suburban areas.

Unemployment in the construction sector is currently what?

Bt900bn could go a very long way, if you consider a debt/equity ratio of 3-4 times on pretty reliable long term earnings stream. Besides that, it could be privatized later and the Federal Government could fully recoup the money.

OklahomaTuba
1/28/2009, 05:09 PM
Of course, a mass transit project takes many, many years. So it probably won't do anything to stimulate the economy for many, many years.

Best thing to do is do something that actually works, and that mean cut taxes and insuring the so called "toxic assets" that are about to take down our largest banks.

Maybe give everyone a "coupon" to help buy an American made car, something other than buying votes for 2010 elections would be nice as well.

85Sooner
1/28/2009, 06:57 PM
Here is a better layout. Over 2 billion to improve low income houseing. Guess they need to get this ready for alot of us.

$44 million for repairs at the Agriculture Department headquarters in Washington.

$200 million to rehabilitate the National Mall. (READ: CLEAN UP MESS FROM INAUGURATION)

$360 million for new child care centers at military bases.

$1.8 billion to repair National Park Service facilities.

$276 million to update technology at the State Department.

$500 million for the Transportation Security Administration to install bomb detectors at airports. ( don't they already have these?)

$600 million for General Services Administration to replace older vehicles with alternative fuel vehicles.

$2.5 billion to upgrade low-income housing.

$400 million for NASA scientists to conduct climate change research.

$426 million to construct facilities at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

$800 million to clean up Superfund sites. (Don't know what a superfund site is) probably where they keep the money that they are shoveling to CEOS.

$150 million for the Coast Guard to repair or remove bridges deemed a hazard to navigation. ( Wouldn't that be the corp of engineers?)

$6.7 billion to renovate and improve energy efficiency at federal buildings.

$400 million to replace the Social Security Administration's 30-year-old National Computer Center.

1890MilesToNorman
1/28/2009, 07:05 PM
Look at this here pretty carrot in my left hand, don't mind the sledge hammer in my right.

Harry Beanbag
1/28/2009, 09:31 PM
Some of those dollar figures seem grossly exaggerated or embellished. Our fine government is a giant piece of ****.

OklahomaTuba
1/28/2009, 10:21 PM
Proud of my pubs for the first time in a while. NOT ONE of them voted for this **** sandwich in the house.

I would love to hear what Coburn is thinking right now about this.

jage
1/28/2009, 10:29 PM
While I like a few of the ideas, the only one that I REALLY like is the modernization of everyone's medical records. The amount of money spent on it, would be well spent in the long run. Think about how many errors in diagnosis could be saved by allowing doctors to easily examine all of the person's previous medical records in one location.

Everything else seems like the amount of money is wayyyyy over what it should cost, or even needs to cost.

Okla-homey
1/29/2009, 06:13 AM
While I like a few of the ideas, the only one that I REALLY like is the modernization of everyone's medical records. The amount of money spent on it, would be well spent in the long run. Think about how many errors in diagnosis could be saved by allowing doctors to easily examine all of the person's previous medical records in one location.




I agree, it could be a wonderful thing. But, think about it. Several hundred thousand brand new gubmint workers, many of whom may never have had a full-time job, scanning and creating literally billions of .pdf's of everyone's medical records, then storing same on the Mother of All Servers. And what happens when its security is breached or the gubmint decides to sell or rent access to that server?

SicEmBaylor
1/29/2009, 06:40 AM
The best solution to this problem is for the government to do absolutely nothing and allow unsound businesses to fail. Plenty of good businesses will likely get caught in the crossfire, but that's the way capitalism goes. I'm not sure why anyone thinks the government has a legitimate role in directing the economy.

We've taken a giant step toward socialism, and it wasn't even a Demoratic President that took the first step.

Vaevictis
1/29/2009, 07:59 AM
I'm not sure why anyone thinks the government has a legitimate role in directing the economy.

Because it does have a legitimate role.

Pure laissez-faire stuff is just as bad any command economy. With a command economy, you have constantly increasing inefficiency (albeit at a slow rate). With laissez-faire economies, you have wild self-feeding oscillations between boom and bust. Both of these are bad, because they will both eventually destabilize political systems.

What you really want is a primarily market driven economy with the government serving the role as a damper on the system so you don't have those wild upswings and downswings.

Additionally, there are certain goods and services which just don't work in a market economy (c.f. tragedy of the commons; certain health care services for which demand is unresponsive to price) that you need a non-market player to manage. Usually government fills this role, but if you can find a better player to do so, I'm all ears.

soonerbrat
1/29/2009, 09:12 AM
While I like a few of the ideas, the only one that I REALLY like is the modernization of everyone's medical records. The amount of money spent on it, would be well spent in the long run. Think about how many errors in diagnosis could be saved by allowing doctors to easily examine all of the person's previous medical records in one location.

Everything else seems like the amount of money is wayyyyy over what it should cost, or even needs to cost.

so, when I have a car accident, they get all my gynecology records too. just what I want. Everyone knowing everything. My ex husband will have acess to that stuff. it is NONE OF HIS BUSINESS.

I think it will prevent people from being completely truthful with their physicians, which is a bad thing.

OklahomaTuba
1/29/2009, 09:34 AM
I like Rush's plan...

Fifty-three percent of American voters voted for Barack Obama; 46% voted for John McCain, and 1% voted for wackos. Give that 1% to President Obama. Let's say the vote was 54% to 46%. As a way to bring the country together and at the same time determine the most effective way to deal with recessions, under the Obama-Limbaugh Stimulus Plan of 2009: 54% of the $900 billion -- $486 billion -- will be spent on infrastructure and pork as defined by Mr. Obama and the Democrats; 46% -- $414 billion -- will be directed toward tax cuts, as determined by me.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123318906638926749.html

Chuck Bao
1/29/2009, 09:55 AM
Of course, a mass transit project takes many, many years. So it probably won't do anything to stimulate the economy for many, many years.

Best thing to do is do something that actually works, and that mean cut taxes and insuring the so called "toxic assets" that are about to take down our largest banks.

Maybe give everyone a "coupon" to help buy an American made car, something other than buying votes for 2010 elections would be nice as well.

I guess it depends if you want a long-term solution or a short-term fix.

At the end of the day, the problem remains that American consumers spend too much and save too little. I would only be in favor of tax cuts for businesses to make them more competitive internationally.

OklahomaTuba
1/29/2009, 09:59 AM
Tax cuts help with re-investment, which creates jobs and innovation.

That is what will make us more competitive globally.

Giving Billions to ACORN, paying for abortions in other countries and teaching 3rd graders how to use condoms? Not so much.

Vaevictis
1/29/2009, 10:18 AM
Tax cuts don't help with reinvestment when what people want to do is hold cash.

(Unless you structure them in a way that the only way you get the tax cut is if you reinvest, that is.)

Vaevictis
1/29/2009, 10:28 AM
Even then, it's iffy right now because many people would rather hold on to 70% of their cash than invest 100% of it.

Chuck Bao
1/29/2009, 10:32 AM
Tax cuts help with re-investment, which creates jobs and innovation.

That is what will make us more competitive globally.

Giving Billions to ACORN, paying for abortions in other countries and teaching 3rd graders how to use condoms? Not so much.

I agree with these points concerning an economic stimulus plan.

But, I am not sure that government support for US voter registration and quite successful family planning organizations abroad should be excluded from an overall fiscal budget.

There are people in the world like Mechai Viravaidya that have improved the lives of millions of people and since he and others wouldn't agree to a gag order on abortion would not qualify for direct US financial support.

I still think the man has saved more than a million lives with his condom campaign in the 90s during the worst of the AIDS crisis. I've told him so before.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mechai_Viravaidya

Vaevictis
1/29/2009, 10:33 AM
Not to mention that tax cuts don't do a damn thing to stimulate companies that aren't posting earnings.

OklahomaTuba
1/29/2009, 12:37 PM
Not to mention that tax cuts don't do a damn thing to stimulate companies that aren't posting earnings.

Don't do a damn thing???

If a company is competing globally on a cost competitive basis, it sure as hell does do a damn thing.

A company can put money into R&D right now a hell of a lot cheaper than during a boom, fueling the recovery. Happens every time we cut the corp rate, and it works.

OklahomaTuba
1/29/2009, 12:40 PM
Not to mention what cutting the capital gains tax would do for the stock market right now.

But no, we can't do whats proven to work time and time again, instead we give illegal immigrants checks.

CHANGE!

Vaevictis
1/29/2009, 01:08 PM
Don't do a damn thing???

If a company is competing globally on a cost competitive basis, it sure as hell does do a damn thing.

If a company isn't posting any earnings, it's not paying any income taxes.

If they're not paying any income taxes, how is reducing the income tax rate going to help?

Vaevictis
1/29/2009, 01:17 PM
Not to mention what cutting the capital gains tax would do for the stock market right now.

In terms of helping the economy, who the **** cares? Seriously. The condition of the stock market is not the problem. It is a symptom.

Vaevictis
1/29/2009, 01:57 PM
Tuba, seriously. Go look at recent TED spreads. Then go look at the VIX.

The market don't want to invest money. The market wants to hoard cash. In this environment, tax cuts are going to result in more hoarding, not more investment.

JohnnyMack
1/29/2009, 02:57 PM
Cash is king right now.

Buy gold and guns.

Srsly.

jage
1/29/2009, 04:11 PM
I agree, it could be a wonderful thing. But, think about it. Several hundred thousand brand new gubmint workers, many of whom may never have had a full-time job, scanning and creating literally billions of .pdf's of everyone's medical records, then storing same on the Mother of All Servers. And what happens when its security is breached or the gubmint decides to sell or rent access to that server?

Well...that's not exactly how I would picture it working, and there definitely won't be a bunch of pdfs, lol.

My guess would be a giant database of everyone's records (a database of textual information on a server, not pdfs). Then everyone would get a credit card looking thing to carry around with them with their id on it, and it's magnetic strip would be the index key to access that database file.

Nothing is secure, but I'm betting the NSA could come up with some pretty advanced cryptographic techniques to keep people's medical files relatively safe...and as long as your social and payment information isn't stored, I don't really see what people would gain from stealing someone's medical information.

jage
1/29/2009, 04:17 PM
so, when I have a car accident, they get all my gynecology records too. just what I want. Everyone knowing everything. My ex husband will have acess to that stuff. it is NONE OF HIS BUSINESS.

I think it will prevent people from being completely truthful with their physicians, which is a bad thing.


Well, I don't understand how it would prevent people from being truthful, as they wouldn't have any control over what goes on their medical records, the doctors would.

Would it not make the gynecologist's life easier if he were discover something wrong? Wouldn't it be helpful if he could instantly pull up your family's medical history and see if it's related, only to next go through and see if there was anything previous that happened to you?

I could imagine the diagnosis time would take relatively less time, and the diagnosis would have a higher chance of being correct.

Besides, wouldn't the doctor being the one looking at your medical records, not your ex?

SicEmBaylor
1/29/2009, 04:37 PM
The medical records issue really concerns my dad as well. He absolutely does not want anyone to have access to his patients' records except for him unless they have a good reason for needing them.

soonerscuba
1/29/2009, 05:36 PM
I think it's cute the number of people who have tax cuts as a solution in search of a problem... it's really worked out well so far.

SicEmBaylor
1/29/2009, 05:50 PM
I think it's cute the number of people who have tax cuts as a solution in search of a problem... it's really worked out well so far.

Tax cuts are fine as long as they're coupled with equitable cuts in spending. The GOP has abandoned the principles of Barry Goldwater who always warned against deficit spending and cutting taxes without cutting spending. He voted against the Kennedy tax cuts for the same reason.

At any rate, it's not really tax cuts that got us into this problem.

soonerscuba
1/29/2009, 06:02 PM
Tax cuts are fine as long as they're coupled with equitable cuts in spending. The GOP has abandoned the principles of Barry Goldwater who always warned against deficit spending and cutting taxes without cutting spending. He voted against the Kennedy tax cuts for the same reason.

At any rate, it's not really tax cuts that got us into this problem.I know the mantra, but we are not going to cut spending, it's time to look that idea in the face and address problems as how they are, not as we wish them to be. I don't blame tax cuts for the current condition, I blame the "ownership society" so wildly touted by both parties for the last few decades. I think the idea that tax cuts are always good comes out of this line of thinking, but when rubber meets the road Democrats haven't been on a mountain professing their love for deregulation and tax cuts the past 3 decades. I find it funny that there are many who accuse Dems of buying votes through entitlement but don't seem to realize that tax cuts are little more than the same thing, simply deferred until the 4/15 every year.

I don't know if there is a solution, I think that I would probably get to the point in which I would be cofortable just letting poorly run business fail, but we would probably disagree about what course should be taken after the smoke clears.

I Am Right
1/29/2009, 06:07 PM
Porkulus

I Am Right
1/29/2009, 06:10 PM
By RUSH LIMBAUGH

There's a serious debate in this country as to how best to end the recession. The average recession will last five to 11 months; the average recovery will last six years. Recessions will end on their own if they're left alone. What can make the recession worse is the wrong kind of government intervention.

I believe the wrong kind is precisely what President Barack Obama has proposed. I don't believe his is a "stimulus plan" at all -- I don't think it stimulates anything but the Democratic Party. This "porkulus" bill is designed to repair the Democratic Party's power losses from the 1990s forward, and to cement the party's majority power for decades.
The Opinion Journal Widget

Download Opinion Journal's widget and link to the most important editorials and op-eds of the day from your blog or Web page.

Keynesian economists believe government spending on "shovel-ready" infrastructure projects -- schools, roads, bridges -- is the best way to stimulate our staggering economy. Supply-side economists make an equally persuasive case that tax cuts are the surest and quickest way to create permanent jobs and cause an economy to rebound. That happened under JFK, Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush. We know that when tax rates are cut in a recession, it brings an economy back.

Recent polling indicates that the American people are in favor of both approaches.

Notwithstanding the media blitz in support of the Obama stimulus plan, most Americans, according to a new Rasmussen poll, are skeptical. Rasmussen finds that 59% fear that Congress and the president will increase government spending too much. Only 17% worry they will cut taxes too much. Since the American people are not certain that the Obama stimulus plan is the way to go, it seems to me there's an opportunity for genuine compromise. At the same time, we can garner evidence on how to deal with future recessions, so every occurrence will no longer become a matter of partisan debate.

Congress is currently haggling over how to spend $900 billion generated by American taxpayers in the private sector. (It's important to remember that it's the people's money, not Washington's.) In a Jan. 23 meeting between President Obama and Republican leaders, Rep. Eric Cantor (R., Va.) proposed a moderate tax cut plan. President Obama responded, "I won. I'm going to trump you on that."

Yes, elections have consequences. But where's the bipartisanship, Mr. Obama? This does not have to be a divisive issue. My proposal is a genuine compromise.

Fifty-three percent of American voters voted for Barack Obama; 46% voted for John McCain, and 1% voted for wackos. Give that 1% to President Obama. Let's say the vote was 54% to 46%. As a way to bring the country together and at the same time determine the most effective way to deal with recessions, under the Obama-Limbaugh Stimulus Plan of 2009: 54% of the $900 billion -- $486 billion -- will be spent on infrastructure and pork as defined by Mr. Obama and the Democrats; 46% -- $414 billion -- will be directed toward tax cuts, as determined by me.
In Today's Opinion Journal



REVIEW & OUTLOOK

* Fan and Fred's Lunch Tab
* The Entitlement Stimulus
* Return to Pyongyang



TODAY'S COLUMNIST

* Wonder Land: The Geithner Exception
Daniel Henninger



COMMENTARY

* Obama Made a Rash Decision on Gitmo
John Yoo
* The Obama White House May Be a Crowded Mess
Karl Rove
* How About a Payroll Tax Stimulus?
Lawrence B. Lindsey

Then we compare. We see which stimulus actually works. This is bipartisanship! It would satisfy the American people's wishes, as polls currently note; and it would also serve as a measurable test as to which approach best stimulates job growth.

I say, cut the U.S. corporate tax rate -- at 35%, among the highest of all industrialized nations -- in half. Suspend the capital gains tax for a year to incentivize new investment, after which it would be reimposed at 10%. Then get out of the way! Once Wall Street starts ticking up 500 points a day, the rest of the private sector will follow. There's no reason to tell the American people their future is bleak. There's no reason, as the administration is doing, to depress their hopes. There's no reason to insist that recovery can't happen quickly, because it can.

In this new era of responsibility, let's use both Keynesians and supply-siders to responsibly determine which theory best stimulates our economy -- and if elements of both work, so much the better. The American people are made up of Republicans, Democrats, independents and moderates, but our economy doesn't know the difference. This is about jobs now.

The economic crisis is an opportunity to unify people, if we set aside the politics. The leader of the Democrats and the leader of the Republicans (me, according to Mr. Obama) can get it done. This will have the overwhelming support of the American people. Let's stop the acrimony. Let's start solving our problems, together. Why wait one more day?

Mr. Limbaugh is a nationally syndicated radio talk-show host.

OklahomaTuba
1/29/2009, 06:11 PM
I think it's cute the number of people who have tax cuts as a solution in search of a problem... it's really worked out well so far.

It has worked out well so far. Unless you're dumb enough to believe the current mess is because taxes were too low.

it got the economy going in the 1960's, helped spark the longest post-war economic expansion in the 1980s, and also helped get us out of the recession in 2001.

OklahomaTuba
1/29/2009, 06:17 PM
I find it funny that there are many who accuse Dems of buying votes through entitlement but don't seem to realize that tax cuts are little more than the same thing, simply deferred until the 4/15 every year.

Hard to buy someone off with their own damn money.

Ever heard of the Earned Income Tax Credit? Its a tax refund to people who don't pay taxes.

The One took care of them REEEL gud in the Porkulus.

Frozen Sooner
1/29/2009, 06:41 PM
Yeah, the Earned Income Tax Credit that Reagan signed into law? That one?

Vaevictis
1/29/2009, 07:15 PM
it got the economy going in the 1960's, helped spark the longest post-war economic expansion in the 1980s, and also helped get us out of the recession in 2001.

In the case of the 1960's, I wouldn't exactly say "it got the economy going." The recovery was tepid at best.

In the case of the 1980's and 2001, monetary policy probably had more to do with it than tax cuts.