The article is "Trade-off in the Stimulus Package" by Madison Powers. This article appeared in CQ today and was directed at America. It was informing us of the collapsing economy and how this stimulus might help save it.
I dont think that this will in the end "save our society" but it seems to be the main idea that the government can come up with. Sure it will be nice for people to get some money here and there, but we are saving banks/businesses that already messed up severely and just giving them a pat on the back and saying its ok, because the tax payers have money to give you.
By the time that the money trickles down to the common people they will have seen nothing of it but will have faced the most drastic aspects of this failing economy. Giving people a very small percentage of their tax money to spend and spend to help business grow is a very stupid idea.
This stimulus needs to be put to good use. Spend the money on schools, businesses that develop businesses, and places that will create jobs. Use it for health care and to help better society overall, not just for one quick burst. I am guessing they didnt learn from last time that one little burst really didnt help...because it happened again.
Saturday, February 14, 2009
Friday, February 13, 2009
Assignment # 3 scastaldo
Powers shares a saying with us in her article "Trade-Offs in the stimulus Package" she says "There is a saying in international development circles that both the World Bank and the international Monetary Fund knoe well how to spend a billion dollars on a single project but they have no idea how-- and when it is economically preferable--to spend a million dollars on 1,000 projects" What powers is saying is that mabey its time to stop thinking big and take everything down a notch. That we need to focus more on the smaller things rather then everything as a whole.
Her suggestion would be that instead of pooring millions of dollars into one large project, that mabey we need to divides these millions into smaller projects/problems. Having a detailed outline of where this money will go, how much is to be spent, when it is to be spent, and on what project it will be spent. Mabey if by focusing on the smaller issues at hand a fixing those, then its possible that the larger problems they create will be disloved along with them.
Her suggestion would be that instead of pooring millions of dollars into one large project, that mabey we need to divides these millions into smaller projects/problems. Having a detailed outline of where this money will go, how much is to be spent, when it is to be spent, and on what project it will be spent. Mabey if by focusing on the smaller issues at hand a fixing those, then its possible that the larger problems they create will be disloved along with them.
Assignment 3 C. Carolina
Throughout this past week President Obama has campaigned for an economic stimulus package. Obama and his administration see fit that some type of catalyst will dramatically impact our troubling economy. When speaking in terms of a “stimulus package” most people interpret that millions of dollars will magically fall out of the sky into the tax-payers’ pockets. Unfortunately this is not the case, and considering the amount of money proposed to be spent this issue isn’t something we can take lightly. In the article “Trade-Offs in the Stimulus Package” Madison Powers of CQ Politics is trying to convey to America that though we are in need of some sort of economic stimulus passed in the Senate, what is more imperative is how we plan to spend $789 Billion dollars effectively. In other words we need an infrastructure of checks and balances that clearly outline the ways our government plans to rejuvenate our economy with these funds. Step by step.
With all this being said it becomes obvious that every single American’s need won’t be met, and there are many major trade-offs to spending $789 billion dollars of tax-payers’ money. For one, the efficiency factor of the spending certainly raises a huge question mark. With conspiracy clouding the impressions of our members of congress, how can Americans ensure that our interest will stay in the heads of our government official’s minds? How can we be confident that we will end up with a secure economic system in which we get the “most bang for the buck”? Powers states that the proposed $789 Billion does not only need to be spent in the major banks and corporate businesses. The funds should also spread to our small businesses, small banks, lower and higher levels of education, and job security programs-at the state and local levels. The second trade-off to the stimulus package is whether or not spending this much money will balance out with the base structure of the capitalistic American economy. Which means if we can’t set up a solid infrastructure to coincide with the spending then this stimulus won’t guarantee the results.
Madison Powers sums up the article by stating that spending the nearly $1 trillion dollars in small sectors will hopefully ensure long-term economic stability instead of a quick fix for the years to come. I somewhat agree with the article in respect to making sure the government designs a system of checks and balances that will keep the population confident that this money doesn’t go to waste. It is clear that we must come up with some type of plan to allocate the $789 billion in a precise way that will affect the economy as a whole and promote financial security in the U.S.
With all this being said it becomes obvious that every single American’s need won’t be met, and there are many major trade-offs to spending $789 billion dollars of tax-payers’ money. For one, the efficiency factor of the spending certainly raises a huge question mark. With conspiracy clouding the impressions of our members of congress, how can Americans ensure that our interest will stay in the heads of our government official’s minds? How can we be confident that we will end up with a secure economic system in which we get the “most bang for the buck”? Powers states that the proposed $789 Billion does not only need to be spent in the major banks and corporate businesses. The funds should also spread to our small businesses, small banks, lower and higher levels of education, and job security programs-at the state and local levels. The second trade-off to the stimulus package is whether or not spending this much money will balance out with the base structure of the capitalistic American economy. Which means if we can’t set up a solid infrastructure to coincide with the spending then this stimulus won’t guarantee the results.
Madison Powers sums up the article by stating that spending the nearly $1 trillion dollars in small sectors will hopefully ensure long-term economic stability instead of a quick fix for the years to come. I somewhat agree with the article in respect to making sure the government designs a system of checks and balances that will keep the population confident that this money doesn’t go to waste. It is clear that we must come up with some type of plan to allocate the $789 billion in a precise way that will affect the economy as a whole and promote financial security in the U.S.
Thursday, February 12, 2009
Assignment #3 E. Lear
The article is "Trade-off in the Stimulus Package" by Madison Powers. He is telling his readers what the Stimulus package is going to do. It gives the pros and cons of the stimulus packages. Some are going to help the U.S. and others are going to make matters worse.
The first is equity-efficiency trade-off to which the stimulus will do is to get the economic back into a easier way. But this comes with it's pros and cons has i stated above. Taxes and other things will have to be made during this. This stimulus will also get economic activity back in order. I my self believe that the stimulus will only make things worse because the first stimulus package didn't do anything it only made things worse. But i will flow my president to the end he can make things worse or make thing better who knows we will see in the end when the dusk has settled.
The first is equity-efficiency trade-off to which the stimulus will do is to get the economic back into a easier way. But this comes with it's pros and cons has i stated above. Taxes and other things will have to be made during this. This stimulus will also get economic activity back in order. I my self believe that the stimulus will only make things worse because the first stimulus package didn't do anything it only made things worse. But i will flow my president to the end he can make things worse or make thing better who knows we will see in the end when the dusk has settled.
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
Assignment #2 A. Oliver
The article, "Scoppe: Government has to make choices families, business do not", was written by the associate editor Cindi Ross Scoppe and posted on South Carolina's "TheState.com." The Audience is anyone who has a stake in the choices that state legislature makes on what to do with the economy as it is. She draws parallels between national and state spending, saying that the national budget has an advantage because it can go into debt.
Her writing is quite interesting; it lays out the many options we have. I believe the main point that is attempted to be conveyed is the fact that there are no good decisions here. We have gotten to the point in debate where we have separated the rational from the irrational and the possible from the impossible. Now that we know what the possible options are for us, we can focus on the matter of choosing precisely what to do in this time of economic crisis. Which, brings me to the main point of the article, there is no good choice. We are at a fork in the road at every legislative piece, one way leading to a pro and a con while the opposing road leads to the exact same. Every choice that the state government makes from here on out will have a sacrifice. Do we gamble or play it safe? Should we stick with options that we can back out of, or get stuck in a bill that was by all means a shot at the moon? Should the working man, as a single entity, take a bullet, or should it sacrifice the weak? But, the latter is not so obvious, because it is the weak that drive the country and this would leave us with not only a bitter taste but the obvious human toll in its wake. Giving money to people who cannot afford to save it is very important, but means nothing if they are spending it all on their mortgage and debt's interest, and still going into further debt. There are no right answers, but there are certainly wrong answers; and, our country hingest on not hitting one of these 'land mines'. We have to tip toe, one unwise decision can make everything fall through. Everything is tied together, one failure will inevitably lead to more. This article is quite scary!
Her writing is quite interesting; it lays out the many options we have. I believe the main point that is attempted to be conveyed is the fact that there are no good decisions here. We have gotten to the point in debate where we have separated the rational from the irrational and the possible from the impossible. Now that we know what the possible options are for us, we can focus on the matter of choosing precisely what to do in this time of economic crisis. Which, brings me to the main point of the article, there is no good choice. We are at a fork in the road at every legislative piece, one way leading to a pro and a con while the opposing road leads to the exact same. Every choice that the state government makes from here on out will have a sacrifice. Do we gamble or play it safe? Should we stick with options that we can back out of, or get stuck in a bill that was by all means a shot at the moon? Should the working man, as a single entity, take a bullet, or should it sacrifice the weak? But, the latter is not so obvious, because it is the weak that drive the country and this would leave us with not only a bitter taste but the obvious human toll in its wake. Giving money to people who cannot afford to save it is very important, but means nothing if they are spending it all on their mortgage and debt's interest, and still going into further debt. There are no right answers, but there are certainly wrong answers; and, our country hingest on not hitting one of these 'land mines'. We have to tip toe, one unwise decision can make everything fall through. Everything is tied together, one failure will inevitably lead to more. This article is quite scary!
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
Assignment #2 areid
This is another article that has its own perspective of the "What if's" of the government. The author just puts this article into a comparison of the American family so that the reader can possibly get a better grasp of what the government is trying to do. If it is written so only economic professors can read the article than it serves little purpose to the common reader like you and me. The author is trying to show why the government spends the money that it does and if the government should spend US dollars in what types of directions. The article, as stated before is for the common man, i.e. the middle class who are the ones being laid off at work. The common man is the most worried about the economy and government because of what history has shown in a repression. They have read the books and listened to the stories of The Great Depression and do not want anything to do with that and hope that what ever the government decides to do, hopefully it is the right choice.
The author has a couple main points. Should the government keep spending money? The author says in comparison to the US family, as individuals, "if we have the means, we should keep up our spending." Spending is what keeps the economy in good stands but if the government makes more money and spending it then the debt will never slow and it will keep growing explanatory.
Another point the author makes is about taxes? If there is a tax cut and putting more money into the individuals or businesses hands then that means that there will be more spending, which is a good thing as stated before. Though will this solve the problems? The author throughout the whole piece defiantly leaves it into the readers’ hands to make their own opinions.
The author has a couple main points. Should the government keep spending money? The author says in comparison to the US family, as individuals, "if we have the means, we should keep up our spending." Spending is what keeps the economy in good stands but if the government makes more money and spending it then the debt will never slow and it will keep growing explanatory.
Another point the author makes is about taxes? If there is a tax cut and putting more money into the individuals or businesses hands then that means that there will be more spending, which is a good thing as stated before. Though will this solve the problems? The author throughout the whole piece defiantly leaves it into the readers’ hands to make their own opinions.
Sunday, February 8, 2009
Assignment 2 J. Williams
In her article, Government has to make choices families, businesses dont, Cindi Scoppe discusses the difficult decisions our governement is forced to make. Ms. Scoppe- associate editor of South Carolina's The State- talks about how the state government is facing some tough decisions. Ms. Scoppe states that our legislative body lacks common sense. She says the economic issue in America has no real quick fix. As the economy gets worse, people will be afraid to spend money- this only fanning the flameof our economic problem.
I agree with the idea of reducing pay raises and bonuses if it would allow others to keep their jobs. No person in their right mind would ask for a pay raise if they knew it would cost them their job six weeks down the road. This are tough times and as Ms. Scoppehas pointed out, there are many options. We shall wait and see which one is the "right" one.
I agree with the idea of reducing pay raises and bonuses if it would allow others to keep their jobs. No person in their right mind would ask for a pay raise if they knew it would cost them their job six weeks down the road. This are tough times and as Ms. Scoppehas pointed out, there are many options. We shall wait and see which one is the "right" one.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)