Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Applied Materials -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: BWAC who wrote (70406)	6/5/2003 10:56:08 AM
From: chomolungma	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 70976

I mean should we give rebates over and beyond the taxes paid by low income families. Together with all the other financial welfare assistance they receive? I say yes, we should and not because I am an advocate of the welfare state but because these are people that will spend the money. Don't forget what we're trying to do here. This is good old fashioned pump-priming. There is slack in the economy which is resulting in job losses which reduces wages which lowers spending which results in more job losses. There is no reason this has had to happen. The rebates of 2001 were extremely successful and should have been continued. The cost to the economy from the lost jobs far exceeds the measly $60 billion that was spent on those rebates. The investment of $200 billion in tax cuts now will pay for itself many times over if we reverse the cycle and return the economy to full employment over the next 3 years - which is what I figure it will take. Let's not confuse social policy with what's going on here. Stimulate the economy, stimulate the economy, stimulate the economy and worry about social policy when we're back at full employment.