REPLIES TO THE CURRENT QUESTION

Our question last week was:

What effects do you think the stimulus bill will have on the economy, positive and negative?

Here are your answers.  The name of a writer is included only if he or she actually placed a name at the end of the message.  Otherwise, we assume the writer wished anonymity and "name withheld" is inserted.

In answer to one of the earlier questions in this forum, I commented that President Obama had made a career of running for something and would now have to shift gears and actually do something.  I clearly misunderestimated him, to steal a phrase.  He stood on the Capitol steps, was sworn in (twice) and immediately started running for reelection.  In keeping with that philosophy, I would expect him to use the example of a political fellow traveler from Venezuela and start lobbying for repeal of the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution.  He could then run for the office indefinitely and never actually have to "do something."

What does this all have to do with the asked question?  Everything, actually. The stimulus bill was never intended to do anything to stimulate the economy for good or ill.  It was designed very simply to do what Rahm Emmanuel said at the outset, "Take advantage of a good crisis."  By lathering lard on our financial situation, we may not affect that situation but it will sure ease the path to reelection for those in the Congressional Districts and States where the most lubricant gets laid on.  I adore alliteration.  

Will their be any incidental effects that actually do something for the economy good or bad?  Maybe, but no one has a clue which it will be, why it might occur; or, how much that effect might be.  The one guarantee is that at a point in the future, the Piper is going to want to be paid.  He will be paid with inflated dollars, which will reduce the net cost of the current activity but, it will be a Cost not a Benefit for everyone who actually earns real money and pays their taxes.  This obviously excludes most of the current administration.

One final thought:  Our local network television outlet has coined a new noun, "The Economy in Crisis," where they run all the words together and make it sound like a single word.  They use it to introduce their discussion of all economic/economy related news, whether it is positive or negative.  In a recent newscast they used it to introduce two subjects, the first being that home sales for the last two months in the local area have been surprisingly higher than expected by "some."  The second related to unemployment being at the highest point since the Carter administration.  How these two disparate items could be lumped under a single heading is impossible for me to understand rationally.  But then these are the same folks who have been in the tank for Obama from the beginning and "By God, he said we could turn a crisis into a catastrophe," so it must be so.  And this relates to the original question in one simple way.  So long as the media continues to play willing sycophant to President Obama, the effect of the stimulus bill will be whatever he says it is, no more, no less.

Don Newell

Stagflation.

Ken Braithwaite

The only thing to be stimulated by this outrageous spending plan is the growth of government and its intrusion into our lives. If you're a liberal that's positive.  If you're a conservative it's tragedy and/or farce.  Special contempt should be handed out to Arlen Specter, Olympia Snowe, and Susan Collins.  These three RINOs, who for years voted down all pro-growth, anti-tax legislation because these policies would have unbalanced the budget now have no qualms about putting the American people in perpetual debt.  Shame on them! These are the poster children for term limits.

Alan Weick