talkpolitics | Entries tagged with stimulus

Some are now speaking of a Biden boom. Although the first quarter of the year has passed, the data keeps mounting in favour of a real growth forecast. Even if based on partial data (as of yet), the expected growth of the US economy is hovering around 7-8%. More importantly, the outstanding first quarter will likely not be alone. A recent WSJ research registered a median growth forecast of 6.4% for 2021.

If this really is the case, that'd be the fastest recovery since 1984. That boom came after a deep recession, and brought the famed Reagan "Dawn of a new America", and consequently, his landslide victory. Clinton's boom was similar, but Biden's potential boom won't be entirely due to the president's policies. But they'll surely be of help.

Much of the credit goes to vaccination - including accelerated vaccination under Biden. Another factor is the remarkable resilience of the US private sector. Hundreds of millions of people and tens of millions of businesses got stuck in their own cells when Covid-19 hit, but then they crawled back out, finding new ways of doing business and trading.

The private economy has also received a huge boost from the government. Contrary to Reagan's famous words, the government actually turned out to be a major part of the solution. The huge fiscal push came from the 2.2 trillion dollar stimulus bill passed with a large majority by Congress in March 2020. Although there could be many reasons for criticism for that law, it did give so much money into American hands that the real personal purchase power has increased by 3% for 2020, despite the GDP shrinking by 2.4%. That's remarkable.

( Read more... )

luzribeiro

The $50 billion race to save America’s renters from eviction

My thoughts:
1 The last thing the US needs is more homeless people.
2 The landlords aren't in it for their health. Moreover, they also have bills to pay.
3 Once the government starts to subsidize day to day living expenses, it's difficult to quit. See also: Food stamps
4 There is no easy short-term solution to this problem other than a government bail-out.
5 The long-term solution is for people to have decent jobs that pay enough to live on, you know, like they did 40 years ago, and for them to forego luxuries that they can't afford to pay for.
6 Unfortunately, the trend is away from jobs that pay a living wage and away from fiscal responsibility on the part of the consumer.
7 The government doesn't owe everyone a living, and can't provide one anyway.

kiaa

Fuck McConnell.

Biden Transition Highlights: Congress Reaches a Deal on Stimulus Package
"Leaders struck a long-sought stimulus deal, agreeing to provide $900 billion in aid. President Trump has discussed appointing a conspiracy theorist to investigate election fraud."

I hope nobody here is hurting too badly. Grocery prices in the US have gone up markedly of late, I hear.

It's a total wonder to me how he can look himself in the mirror when the purse strings are only tightened if the poverty-stricken need help.

The mistake was asking businesses and people to lockdown and not provide compensation for it like nearly every other civilized country did.

The US elected officials are a disgrace.

You can't mandate that people cannot work unless you provide assistance to keep a roof over their heads. Most will roll the dice with COVID if faced with living homeless on the streets. If the US had politicians who truly cared... they would have followed Canada's lead. Instead, their politicians left for one of their tax-payer paid vacations while taxpayers were waiting in food lines.

What is 600.00 going to do? Seriously. Americans should be hanging their heads in shame for voting these morons in office.

mahnmut

Hey! Good news, probably...

Senate Republicans unveil $1 trillion economic stimulus package to address coronavirus fallout

And of course they did their best to make sure the stimulus wouldn't come without some nice strings attached, like including a tax cut and tying school money to reopening schools - but apparently, the effort failed:

White House drops payroll tax cut as GOP unveils virus aid

Whatever the final shape of the whole thing, something tells me it still won't be enough. Needs to be enough to bridge the gap for at least 3-4 months, this is only about 4 to 6 weeks' worth. The funds need to get to people and small businesses that cannot afford loans right now. Loans will cause future problems as the Federal government will be covering the costs when these same businesses inevitably file bankrupcy.

And then housing will be foreclosed on everywhere due to a lack of financial aid, and construction won't work because you'll have a huge number of empty dwellings everywhere and people will be on welfare everywhere, etc. Helping people maintain what they have as much as possible is better than trying to help everyone from scratch later on when they have lost everything. Same with coronavirus prevention being far cheaper than actual treatment. But you know... stimulus, yay!

( Read more... )

tcpip

The COVID-19 pandemic has now reached over three million confirmed cases, with almost two hundred and twenty thousand deaths. For the United States, which has shown a not-unexpected failure of policy, there are now more American deaths than the Vietnam war, keeping in mind that the United States had fewer than sixty cases and zero deaths as late as February 28. Whilst some countries - such as Australia, New Zealand, and even China - have had a high degree of success in significantly "flattening the curve" of new cases, the sickness opens up new fronts - now we see the numbers climb in Russia, Brazil, Turkey.

The pandemic still represents an existential risk for much of the world, and of course, that comes with a particular and special priority. But there is also a secondary battle that is being fought; and that is not just to save lives, but also to save livelihoods, with around half the world's workers at risk. That reified abstract noun, the economy, is also subject to critical care attention. As the best form of protection has been the graduated levels of social isolation, to restricted movements, to partial lockdowns, economies have come under enormous strain. Let us consider a report from the respected Grattan Institute in Australia:

( Read more... )

ddstory.livejournal.com

Remember Iceland's bank collapse? The country's economy tanking, angry people yelling and banging cutlery on the icy streets of Reykjavík, and people around the world pointing fingers at Iceland, citing it as the worst example of greed taking over a society? There were some pretty nasty comments, mostly coming from Britain (many of whose citizens had been directly affected by the default of Landsbanki, etc).

Well, just 3-4 years later, how does the situation look like? After a steep plunge down into the abyss, Iceland is supposed to have become a Third World country by now, right? But oh wait...

( What has ACTUALLY happened in Iceland for the last 4 years? )

sophia-sadek.livejournal.com

The topic of austerity and stimulus got me thinking back to my high school social studies lessons. One of the things we learned about was the economic trade-off between "guns and butter." During the second global conflict civilian consumption was drastically restricted with a strict rationing system. Citizens accepted this heavy-handed form of government control over the economy as a sacrifice that was essential to the war effort. (Of course, not all citizens were so acquiescent.) During the "police action" in Southeast Asia such sacrifices were not called for. According to our high school textbook, the failure to sacrifice domestic consumption led to an inflationary spiral.

When we think about austerity and stimulus it helps to consider who the austerity affects and how it does so. Cutting back on domestic programs in order to fund the military implies austerity for people and stimulus for arms merchants. Cutting back on military adventurism in order to fund domestic programs implies austerity for military industry and stimulus for human achievement. The military industry has given us civilian spin-offs such as recreational LSD use, MS-13 and movie theater terrorists. Civilian industry has given the military spin-offs such as satellite-based asset tracking and slick marketing techniques for packaging atrocities as life-saving necessities.

When a nation cuts back on public programs for the poorest citizens, the economy for police spending gets a shot in the arm. The rise in crime makes citizens fearful enough that they are willing to sacrifice their civil liberties in order to receive greater police protection. The American campaign to prevent communists from educating girls in Afghanistan created a climate of rampant crime which eventually resulted in the destruction of the World Trade towers. This crime wave provided a rationale to stimulate the military and police sectors of the economy to the detriment of human freedom and development. People who favor guns over butter have made out like bandits. Their motto may as well be, "Let them eat Parkay!"

I must confess that my own family participated in the military industrial complex. My father worked on the Manhattan Project instead of assaulting Japanese military strongholds in the islands of the Pacific. From that experience I learned to stay on the butter side of the economy. It does not make for a lucrative career in times of military stimulus, but it is a form of austerity that allows for more peaceful nights asleep.

What experience do you have in the economies of cow's milk byproducts and deadly devices?

Links: Wikipedia article on guns vs. butter. Reuben Oppenheimer on price and rationing boards. Muhammad Yousaf on Afghanistan.

luvdovz.livejournal.com

Well, it's Bash-a-Country month, but how about bashing an entire continent (or at least most of it)? I know you want to. OK, let's look at what's going on in Europe. Cos Europe is so funny and fucked up, right? But seriously. In its attempts to save the Euro, the EU is logically advocating ever more strongly the idea for a tighter and closer macroeconomic coordination. That's expected. Of course this would've been an absolutely brilliant idea, had the European history not already experienced similar attempts at globalization (or regionalization), and failed completely.

Today we see the consequences from the adoption of a common European currency in countries that were never any close to fulfilling the conditions for doing so, and this, coupled with a lack of the relevant fiscal institutions to really do it. On one side, the Euro zone remains too inefficient in terms of functionality. On the other, despite its flaws, its member states feel an urgent need to do everything in their abilities to keep the Union intact, at any cost. This way European politics is entirely focused on preserving the paying ability of the "ill states". As we know, until 2013 this task will rest upon the European rescue package which was created for fighting the crisis. After 2013 this package is expected to be substituted by the Stability Pact, which includes a European Stability Mechanism. It's supposed to prevent the "ill states" from taking credits that they couldn't pay back, or if they eventually take credits, those would be granted in exchange for heavy strings attached. Because, of course, no lunch should ever come for free (for too long). Except the American lunch maybe, but that's another story.

( But would that do the job? )

mahnmut.livejournal.com

Wall Street Banks Earned Billions In Profits Off $7.7 Trillion In Secret Fed Loans Made During The Financial Crisis
In the lead-up to the financial crisis that crippled the American economy and plunged the country into a recession, the Federal Reserve made trillions in undisclosed loans to struggling banks and financial institutions, according to official documents obtained by Bloomberg News. Banks then turned those loans into more than $13 billion in previously undisclosed profits.
The total commitment of the Fed loans amounted to $7.77 trillion, and unlike the funds made available by the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), the loans came with virtually no strings attached for the banks.

Congress was unaware of $7.77 trillion in secret Fed loans ahead of TARP vote
The Federal Reserve doled out a staggering 7.77 trillion dollars in secret loans in an effort to stabilize banks during the financial crisis — cheap money from the public purse that the banks subsequently lent out at higher rates for a profit of $13 billion dollars, Bloomberg News reports.

This is potentially *THE* biggest story in the recent decade. No, several decades. I wonder how it'll be met by the public. Hell, I wonder how much coverage it'll get on the mainstream media, if any. How would this reflect on the government, and more importantly, the Fed? Because you have to ask the question (again) who's really calling the shots, since apparently Congress had been conveniently kept in the dark about this throughout the entire duration of the scheme. And subsequently, ask the question how relevant representative democracy actually is in the US.

( So what happens now? )

blueduck37.livejournal.com

Apologies if this story was posted here already; I couldn't find a post on it.

Now we've all heard the ~~lie~~ statement that the Tea Party began as a ~~cultural backlash to a new President, who to conservatives was the face of a changing America that scared them~~ protest and backlash to the 2008 TARP program ~~even though no conservative protests occurred until early 2009~~.

So I assume they will join Occupy Wall St in demanding major changes to Wall St and our banking system after Bloomberg News' big story about a shadow bailout that was occurring, via the Federal Reserve. They gained this info through the invaluable Freedom of Information Act. As the article notes, "It dwarfed the Treasury Department’s better-known $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP. Add up guarantees and lending limits, and the Fed had committed $7.77 trillion as of March 2009 to rescuing the financial system, more than half the value of everything produced in the U.S. that year."

The article discusses how this "secret funding helped preserve a broken status quo and enabled the biggest banks to grow even bigger."

To me, the most anger-inducing facts are the lies and deception that surrounded this, from the Wall St. end. We learn that Wall St firms lied to investors (pretending to be healthy, while this was going on), as well as to Congress, who passed a weak reform bill with bad information.

For instance, we learn that-

Bankers didn’t disclose the extent of their borrowing. On Nov. 26, 2008, then-Bank of America (BAC) Corp. Chief Executive Officer Kenneth D. Lewis wrote to shareholders that he headed “one of the strongest and most stable major banks in the world.” He didn’t say that his Charlotte, North Carolina-based firm owed the central bank $86 billion that day.
....

JPMorgan Chase & Co. CEO Jamie Dimon told shareholders in a March 26, 2010, letter that his bank used the Fed’s Term Auction Facility “at the request of the Federal Reserve to help motivate others to use the system.” He didn’t say that the New York-based bank’s total TAF borrowings were almost twice its cash holdings or that its peak borrowing of $48 billion on Feb. 26, 2009, came more than a year after the program’s creation.

And that-

New York-based Morgan Stanley (MS), took $107 billion in Fed loans in September 2008, enough to pay off one-tenth of the country’s delinquent mortgages. The firm’s peak borrowing occurred the same day Congress rejected the proposed TARP bill, triggering the biggest point drop ever in the Dow Jones Industrial Average. (INDU) The bill later passed, and Morgan Stanley got $10 billion of TARP funds, though Paulson said only “healthy institutions” were eligible.

Free market!

Multiple Senators are quoted as saying “We didn’t know the specifics," which is great for a democracy. It notes that having all of the information of what was really going on would have likely resulted in a different (stronger?) Wall St reform bill. As it is, it doesn't really fix anything. Too big to fail still exists, etc.

If news about a secret bailout and its surrounding deception doesn't spur any action for real change, nothing will. This is why many in the OWS movement feel the system is hopeless. And that's not good for democracy either.

[PS- Bloomberg News also has another great story about how, as Bush's Treasury Secretary, Hank Paulson passed on insider info to his hedge fund friends.]

foxglovehp.livejournal.com

I received a check from the US Treasury for $250.00 yesterday. Fortunately, they printed on the bottom "VA Economic Recovery Payemnt".

I had to look it up.

Now, I don't mean to sound ungrateful, and at one point in my life not too long ago, this would have been a tidy sum of money. Not a meaningful amount of money even then, but nice. But really. $250? What am I supposed to stimuate with that? I suppose, as HH6 mentioned, in some neoghborhoods, I might be able to buy a hooker. That would be stimulating. Maybe get half a tattoo?

Incidentally, when I enlisted in the Army in 1981 my base pay as a Pv1 was $501 a month. So this would have been two weeks' salary for an Army Private. In 1981. Beer money!

I really don't mean to sound ungrateful here, but WTF? Why would they send me $250? Okay sure, it's because I am a disabled vet. I understand that. But really? $250? That's almost insulting in some ways. It's not really enough to actually do anything with it. Sure, it's a month's worth of groceries, but it's as if they are just sending out some token payment to attempt to placate the masses.

And they set up the whole government infrastructure to cut checks, track them, man the phones, answer questions, create websites, get coffee, and so forth. How much does all that cost? Is keeping more government employees busy part of the stimulus?

Oh, and the checks were supposed to have been sent out by 4 June. So they were late too.

dv8nation.livejournal.com

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/no-accord-on-debt-as-bailout-looms-for-portugal-2595481.html

Portugal looks to be the next European nation in need of a bailout (after Greece and Ireland) but the powers that be can't seem to get it together to make it happen.

What does it all mean? Well, just a lot of uncertainty for a few more months to be sure. A bailout of up 80 billion if things break Portugal's way. Honestly, I'm a bit envious of the EU here. When things like this happen they can split the bill. Back in the US bailouts come just from our wallets. Of course, if Portugal can't pay they money back then a lot of people get burned with nothing to show for it. But if the world economy picks up I'm inclinded to think the debts will be repaid.

Mood: sick
Location: Korea, Republic of, Seoul

meus-ovatio.livejournal.com

States in America provide, on their own, about 50 billion dollars of tax incentives to various companies to lure them in and provide jobs. The financial sector, if you are not aware, recently received Billions upon Billions of dollars in order to stabilize our economy. The auto and airline industries have also received their share of help. Our farming industry cannot survive without steady government subsidies.

Sometimes parents need to be sat down and talked to. It is a very tough and painful thing to address, but somebody has to ask:
( Cut. )

underlankers.livejournal.com

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-12648347

( under a cut for your FLs )____________________

I'll be the first to admit that this is not what the Obama Administration predicted or really wanted when they wanted unemployment to stay where it was when they were inaugurated. However looking at this, the unemployment figures appear to be showing more, and more effective, growth since the Administration's stimulus package has gone into effect. It makes me curious in fact whether or not a larger stimulus package would have had more effect. What do you guys think?

badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com

So, good news, folks - The recession is over! All hail the economy, and such. Even better, the economy's been out of recession for well over a year now! Rejoice! Can you feel the heat from that slow economic burn? Don't touch the economy! It's hot!

But seriously, we now have two issues facing us in regards to that "much-needed" stimulus package as opposed to the one I intended to post about today.

1) The stimulus package was passed in February 2009. According to Mark Zandi's research (Zandi being a reference for the theoretical multipliers that justified the stimulus), a whopping $53 billion of stimulus was paid out through May of 2009, only $7 billion of which went toward tax cuts. This raises two questions:

a) If the stimulus was the cause of the recovery, did we need $800b when such a little bit would do instead?

b) Did we really need the stimulus at all if, as the NBER has noted, we were already coming out of the worst of it by the time the government passed the stimulus bill.

Of course, the answer (one that many of us already knew) is that this is more definitive evidence that the stimulus wasn't necessary. But if you have an argument against these ideas, let's hear them.

2) I found two blog posts that really detailed the failure of the stimulus. The two posts can be found here and here. It's worth reading, but a couple quick excerpts:

( The most important things to understand about the Recovery Act )

It's hard to argue that the entire basis for how and why it would work wasn't an error (but many of us already knew that). The reality is that the use of these multipliers to justify poor policy - and make things worse - is not resulting in good news for us as an informed nation and end up making us have discussion after discussion about these sorts of stimulus fantasies with no historical evidence of success to support them. And yes, using bad multipliers to say that tax cuts stimulate is no better - they're prone to the same errors and require the same guesswork.

The reason that the response to the financial crisis should have been geared toward businesses and taxes was not because it would have a "more stimulating effect," but because the fiscal health of this nation is predicated on the private sector. We've ignored the private sector for two years, and we've seen them keep their wallets closed as they wait to see the results of the latest boondoggles in health care reform, financial reform, and the possibility of lame duck session activity on cap and trade and card check.

When are we going to learn?

badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com

Intel's CEO, Paul Otellini, had some fairly harsh words for the folks in power this week:

Otellini singled out the political state of affairs in Democrat-dominated Washington, saying: "I think this group does not understand what it takes to create jobs. And I think they're flummoxed by their experiment in Keynesian economics not working."

Since an unusually sharp downturn accelerated in late 2008, the Obama administration and its allies in the U.S. Congress have enacted trillions in deficit spending they say will create an economic stimulus -- but have not extended the Bush tax cuts and have pushed to levy extensive new health care and carbon regulations on businesses.

...

As a result, he said, "every business in America has a list of more variables than I've ever seen in my career." If variables like capital gains taxes and the R&D tax credit are resolved correctly, jobs will stay here, but if politicians make decisions "the wrong way, people will not invest in the United States. They'll invest elsewhere."

Take factories. "I can tell you definitively that it costs $1 billion more per factory for me to build, equip, and operate a semiconductor manufacturing facility in the United States," Otellini said.
The rub: Ninety percent of that additional cost of a $4 billion factory is not labor but the cost to comply with taxes and regulations that other nations don't impose. (Cypress Semiconductor CEO T.J. Rodgers elaborated on this in an interview with CNET, saying the problem is not higher U.S. wages but anti-business laws: "The killer factor in California for a manufacturer to create, say, a thousand blue-collar jobs is a hostile government that doesn't want you there and demonstrates it in thousands of ways.")

"If our tax rate approached that of the rest of the world, corporations would have an incentive to invest here," Otellini said. But instead, it's the second highest in the industrialized world, making the United States a less attractive place to invest--and create jobs--than places in Europe and Asia that are "clamoring" for Intel's business.

This is similar, as CNet reports, to what Carly Fiorina had to say on the matter, with the difference being that Otenelli isn't running for office. But clearly the business class is less concerned about speaking up right now.

We do need to think ahead to what's going to fix the problems, though. "Unexpectedly," unemployment claims are increasing again, home sales are in decline, and the stimulus, which was supposed to save us all, has "done exactly as we expected it to", which is to mean not performed as intended at all.

So let's see - we have a failed stimulus, a looming tax hike, new costs associated with health care and financial reforms, and businesses are not spending money in anticipation of this uncertainty. What's the way out? How do we fix this problem? Where do we go from here?

ytterbius.livejournal.com

http://stocks.investopedia.com/stock-analysis/2010/Chinas-700-Billion-Clean-Energy-Plan-NLR-TAN-GEX-FCG-PBD0811.aspx

"Jiang Bing, head of China's National Energy Administration, recently made an announcement that it will submit plans to develop cleaner energy, including nuclear power and gas from unconventional sources, in 2011 to 2020. Beijing plans to spend about 5 trillion yuan, or about $738 billion over next decade, developing cleaner sources of energy."

Those in the US that are against a US Energy Bill that creates massive investment in new Energy technologies (as well as existing underutilized technologies) may claim that they are for fiscal responsibility (though for other reasons than mentioned here, that would be a lie), but they can certainly not claim that they are interested in economic growth and global competition.

They're going to roll over and cling to their Fossils while the rest of the World runs over their Country (funny enough, they (the Chinese in this case) are doing it by using the very market forces that those on the US right claim to love).

korean-guy-01.livejournal.com

Should Obama really be bragging that the US Government spent & borrowed $287,333.33 for each "saved" or "created" job (as a result of the Stimulus package) as some great accomplishment? If so, can you justify why that high cost per job is worth it?

Opinion: Not worth the high cost/job if they can't justify beyond a "job now" looking glass (have some of the "saved/created" jobs resulted in termination since earlier cited?). I haven't seen sufficient commentary for additional benefits, as well as how they define saved or created.

malasadas.livejournal.com

Through 2009 and 2010 up until now, I've been on a "wait and see" horse regarding the administration's fiscal stimulus package. Certainly calling it a failure in the early months while the economy was still in deep recession and cratering jobs at a rate of 500,000 a month was ridiculously partisan. In fairness, administration partisans who immediately took the reversal of job losses from a flood to a trickle and used that as evidence of the stimulus working instead of the regular cycle of recovery setting in were equally partisan. For a while, those advocates could point at a slow recovery emerging even if job creation has not materialized.

Patience is not a common virtue in the face of a deep recession. And today's media environment makes it substantially worse. Consider that in the last truly deep recession during Reagan's early term (a recession of conditions Reagan inherited) unemployment rose to 10.8% in December 1982 and averaged 9.6% throughout 1983, only falling to 7.2% by the 1984 election. While Reagan suffered for it in the polls during his early term, there simply were not the media outlets to scream "failure" 24/7 while the economy recovered from multiple crises.

On the other hand, we are 18 months into the Obama administration, and the fragile recovery shows signs of cratering -- employment numbers are not good, home foreclosures are rising and home prices are dropping again, and there are good chances of a double dip, especially as state aid from the stimulus bill expires and tax receipts remain low due to extended high unemployment.

( So is it time to say the stimulus has failed? )

allhatnocattle.livejournal.com

http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/06/14/economic-crisis-the-end-of-the-great-stimulus-experiment/

I love Coyne. I've never liked the idea of bail-outs or stimulus.

I do think welfare is great with individuals, so they are not homeless and not starving. But corporate welfare should never exceed the welfare that would otherwise serve their employees and subs dependent on a business. In a free market, the market dictates success just as business savvy does. A bailout interferes in the natural economy.

And stimulus is just as bad. "Put simply, the money has to come from somewhere. Whatever funds you “put in” to the economy by government has first to be “taken out” of it. Borrow at home, and you displace private spending with public—the “crowding out” phenomenon. Borrow abroad, and you run into balance of payments difficulties: foreigners can only lend you the dollars they earn from trading with you. Borrow from the central bank, “print money,” and you bring on inflation, with all of its destructive impacts."

My take is that stimulus is not in keeping with the spirit of free market capitalism. It creates false economy that has to fail eventually.

A friend of mine's dad lost his foot last year to complications due to diabetes and a other illness's. Now he's about to loose his hand. Sadly it seems he's lost the will to live. But this is his journey and his alone. Rather then loose bits of himself in order to "save him" and prolong the inevitable, the man is now unwilling to see the surgeon. There is honour in this path.

Economic decisions are similar. While we could save Fanny, Freddie and even GM, the broader decisions to try to save whole nations is insane. USA never seemed in danger of complete collapse, but without the unnatural stimulus it probably would have suffered worse then it has these last two years.

And Greece, etc. What is the worse that could happen? These economy fail completely, and these nations revert back to a meagre existence of living off the land, unable to pay rent, and survival at a base level. Why is this so bad? Living within your earnings is a great lesson to learn.

Credits & Style Info

Talk Politics.

A place to discuss politics without egomaniacal mods

MONTHLY TOPIC:
The Scramble for Resources

DAILY QUOTE:

"Someone's selling Greenland now?" (asthfghl)

"Yes get your bids in quick!" (oportet)

"Let me get my Bid Coins and I'll be there in a minute." (asthfghl)

May 2025

M	T	W	T	F	S	S
			1	2	3	4
5	6	7	8	9	10	11
12	13	14	15	16	17	18
19	20	21	22	23	24	25
26	27	28	29	30	31

Talk politics.

A place to discuss politics without egomaniacal mods.

Entries tagged with stimulus

Joe's boom

Saving America's renters

You call that stimulus?

Oh, so Reps love stimulus now!?

Pandemic Economics

"Unorthodox" crisis response policy FTW

Monthly Topic: Guns vs. Butter‏

Back to the illusion of globalization

So, how big was the bail-out ACTUALLY, again?

The Secret $7.77 Trillion Bailout

Feeling Stimulated?

(no subject)

An Important Question

More economic recovery:

It's Fraud and Deception Week, which means more fact-checking on the stimulus

How to Fix What Ails Us

Chinese Energy Stimulus on the way. Approx $700 Billion over 10 Years.

(no subject)

Fiscal Stimulus -- time to call it a failure?

End of stimulus

Credits & Style Info

Links

May 2025

Summary