Monday, March 24, 2008

Economic Stimulus Package

Weeks ago, President Bush has signed the economic stimulus package. The package will include tax rebates and business tax cuts. Greg Mankiw criticized this action when the CEA (Council of Economic Advisers) has stated that $168 billion stimulus package would create 500,000 jobs this year— “In other words, each job created adds $336,000 to the national debt” (Mankiw). Taking Mankiw’s extremely sarcastic remarks into consideration there is a controversy between left-wing think tanks and right-wing think tanks.

The liberal think tanks such as EPI claims that with the tax rebate, people would spend more money buying goods. With more than a million people receiving the benefit, it will have multiple effects in the economy which would make a “dent in the twin trends of rising unemployment and shrinking retail spending” (Nancy Cleeland-EPI). They have been claiming that the government should spend 1% of their GDP to help the poor; such as tax rebates, individual supports and accelerate public investments. But at the same time, they are against the business tax cut— which was not on their strategy report— because it will just give benefits to the rich ones.

The conservative think tanks are supporting the business tax cut because they believe it will “increase business investment, which would create jobs and strengthen the economy” (Hederman— The Heritage Foundation). They are against tax rebates because looking back at 2001, the tax rebates were not directly used to buy products— which they believe was a waist of federal spending. Bloomberg has said that it is “like giving a drink to an alcoholic” (The New York Times). The AEI was against economic stimulus and to fix U.S. tax code (Hassett). Many opinions are given hoping that the economy of the United States would recover. Robert Kuttner gave a different suggestion before the bipartisan stimulus package has passed— “instead of debating the finer points of a "stimulus" package, or the Fed's next rate cut, Congress and the White House should get together to rescue the housing sector. Home equity represents the greatest part of the net worth of the American middle class.”

Grazie

13 comments:

akirano13 said...

It's interesting how the conservative think-tanks and the liberal think-tanks have the opposite opinion of this economic stimulus package

Kathryn Tyranski said...

I think if the government really did want to stimulate the economy, they would help those people who bought homes and can't make the payments now and are being forced to foreclose. As someone who is looking to be a first-time home buyer, I"ll be able to take advantage of the falling prices of homes, but it's not necessarily a good feeling to know that the home might be mine because someone else couldn't afford it.

bfadds said...

"Giving a drink to an alcoholic." Brilliant job by Mayor Mike. I can't say that I'll witness any of this stimulus as a poor college student who gets little to nothing to begin with. Here's hoping that it can buy some groceries for the month for a few families anyway...

I agree that the best way to stimulate the economy is not to give out an undisclosed sum, but to attempt to lower prices on some items so people are more willing to spend money in the marketplace. I'm no economist, but I know if I was toeing the line of whether or not to purchase something, I'd probably be more motivated to act if it was cheap.

I'll be interested to see how much the new XM-Sirius will cost subscribers. If Mel knows what he's doing (and many think he does) you may see an increbibly cheap bundle available for our slowing economy...

Good article Mondo.

mike's spot said...

Bloomberg should talk. NYC is an absolute Mecca for giving big business tax breaks, tax incentives, and shelters. He can eat it before he tells others not to do exactly what he does.

As for the stimulus package. . . the economy is tanking. a few hundred bucks isn't going to make a difference on the family / individual level.

as for benefits to the rich- not to sound like a pompous asshole, but the rich spend more than us peasants in the middle and lower class. if they spend an extra 2% it does far more for the economy than me paying down my 40$ credit card bill.

isn't something like half the wealth of the nation in less than 3% of the population's hands anyway? sounds like they just wanted to throw us a bone if you ask me.

mondemondomundo said...

akirano13>
I think the package was like to listen to both of their opinions.
That's why it seems a bit crazy.

mondemondomundo said...

ktyranski>
Yes, just as Kuttner says in the Boston Globe article!

Kathryn, you're planning to buy a house?

mondemondomundo said...

bfadds>

thanks for talking about satellite radio!

Like you said in class, maybe a coupon would have been better, rather than people paying their debt.

YiFaN ReN said...

I have to say the conservative think-tanks strategy makes more sense to me. It tends to fix the engine of this nation's economy- financial system- in a better way, although it might make us pretty uncomfortable since it's gonna benefit the riches rather than poors...
Btw if u have some time plz visit my little political blog POkerLitics
and leave some comments.
Thx buddy!

mondemondomundo said...

mike's spot>

actually I read a book that said the income for 90% of the population of America hasn't changed for 20 years.

but the price of commodity (price index?)has risen since then.

the income of the top 1% or 0.1% of the people are multiplying...

mondemondomundo said...

yifan ren>

I guess so, totally agree with you.

布蘭登 said...

Another liberal-conservative debate. So which side you would support? In my personal opinion, I always prefer liberal to conservative. I don't really like the AEI and its policies.

mondemondomundo said...

brandon hsu>

well I think both have good and bad.

mike's spot said...

Mondo I don't think you caught my point. . . we'll hash it out in class.