Comments:US Senate passes stimulus package

Back to article

Wikinews commentary.svg

This page is for commentary on the news. If you wish to point out a problem in the article (e.g. factual error, etc), please use its regular collaboration page instead. Comments on this page do not need to adhere to the Neutral Point of View policy. You should sign your comments by adding ~~~~ to the end of your message. Please remain on topic. Though there are very few rules governing what can be said here, civil discussion and polite sparring make our comments pages a fun and friendly place. Please think of this when posting.

Quick hints for new commentators:

  • Use colons to indent a response to someone else's remarks
  • Always sign your comments by putting --~~~~ at the end
  • You can edit a section by using the edit link to the right of the section heading

Possibly, not for a while though. However what wont help the economy is the continued party vs party politics. That will be the ultimate deciding factor in if America can fix this crisis. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs)

Not a chance. The only thing this bill does is give the next generation more debt, inflation, and a great big shove down the path of socialism. This bill could have been a three page, across-the-board tax cut, and it would have done a lot more to stimulate the economy for now and for later. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:55, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, untargeted tax cuts have been conclusively proven not to provide significant stimulus. There is a simple reason for this: if you give a poor person 100 dollars they feel compelled to go out and buy basic necessities for themselves, and this creates a rolling effect, because the person/corp that receives the money can go and spend it too; if you give a Bill Gates 100 dollars, he wipes his ass with it, and then flushes it down the toilet — or possibly he sticks it in a savings account. Either way, that money doesn't get spent, so there is no domino effect in the economy.
It's really quite simple: rich people don't need to spend the money that they'd get, so they won't. Thus, no stimulus effect occurs from money given to rich people. Unfortunate, but true nonetheless. This is why any tax cuts *cannot* be "across the board" as you say, but rather have to be specifically targeted to companies and individuals that will use them most effectively. Refundable Tax Credits to the lower middle class are the best way to go about this, but only if you refuse to engage in more lucrative and beneficial things like infrastructure repair/construction. Gopher65talk 15:06, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Your making the assumption that rich people just put their money in a vault or something. They are probably less likely to have cash on hand than those in the middle class, when measured as a percentage of net worth. Rich people buy stocks and bonds etc. which does stimulate and is probably what we need to get out the credit crunch. --SVTCobra 17:36, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

A combination of both spending and tax cuts is most effective in combating recession. It is text book economics and both components have their drawbacks. All money involved in government spending goes into the economy. However with tax cuts, a portion of the taxes are saved and only most of it is spent. The drawback to Government spending is that it takes a year or more for it to go into the economy due to administrative regulations while with tax cuts, you see their effects on your next paycheck. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:12, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

too much extra fat in this billEdit

Why should the American tax-payers have to pay (for the rest of our lives) for such a waste. You've heard of "girls gone wild", well this is "Senators gone wild!". There's just no stopping them this time. What does filling pot-holes, providing for more Neon lights (in Vegas), and funding a program for fighting sexually transmitted diseases have ANYTHING to do with the "stimulus package"?? The people need to take a closer look at who's really doing the harm here. We need a change as President Obama says. Yes, I can't agree more. However, this change is going to ruin our economy, and just pave the way for more bailouts and stimulus packages. Hyperinflation will become an understatement. This bill/package is riddled with ammendments of so much pork barrel politics that it's rediculus. Just yesterday on the radio, I've already heard that there's talk beginning for yet a third bailout bill. When does it stop?? Enough said. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zul32 (talkcontribs) 15:03, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Government spending will never immediately or directly relieve economic woes. The stimulus package will, however, provide a basis for initiative. Investments into the infastructure and green energy- both desperately needed- will open up many long term jobs and permanent jobs. Medical care and education is simply unsatisfactory in many overlooked places. Shady loans have destroyed the credit marker. There can be banter between which issue takes priority, but ultimately it will be a response of the people. It is necessary not to be overly skeptical because nothing happens right away, these things take time. Also interesting how the bailout plan under the last adminstration passed with ease and we know that it only fueled big cats. There is too much corruption involved. What would be really heartening through the dismal times is to see a government that will put away their own selfish interests and stubborn ideologies and collaborate to actually work for the people they are supposed to represent.


It's just a bunch of numbersEdit

Seriously. There are millions of empty homes. 2/3 of the food we put on shelves doesn't get eaten. These numbers we're freaking out about don't relate to anything real. It's all a game made up a long time ago to control people. There is absolutely no logical reason people should be lacking in necessities in today's world. As much as the planet is dying, there is still plenty of food and shelter to go around.

I guarantee you that no matter how bad things get, every person who suffers of hunger or exposure will do so within walking distance of wasted food or shelter. It's madness. We need to wake up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:51, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


I don't see the stimulus in this package. I think that the best way to help is get cash to people to spend fast. Like a break from income taxes on pay checks, this would put extra cash in our pockets to spend now... Maybe we should look at a flat tax so everyone pays equal!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:12, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

yessssssssssssss —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:15, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


Ugh. Fephisto (talk) 11:27, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Do you think that the stimulus package will help the economy?Edit

by printing money out of a printing press and letting the goverment politicians hand it out only guarentee's corruption of your money (you ever here of the state run project big dig in boston, half the money was scimed away buy crooked polititians and a 2 ton block of concrete killed a girl because the wanted to cut money on bolts) , inflation, and higher intrust rates to our nations debt.we paid 650 billion just to national debt last year. thats 1/6 of our budget that us the tax paying american pays each year. with the biggest ever spending bill proposed in the shortest amount of time to review it. how can you say thats responseable. that kind of reminds me of the iraq decision, hurry and vote our country is in a crisis. in a couple years they will be up for relection saying they were tricked into it and wherent showed all the facts of the bill. it disapoints me how offen history repeats its self —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:09, 19 July 2009 (UTC)