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 : The Castle -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (5452)	1/6/2010 11:19:30 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 7936

The states cut back where things are most flexible (probably to add the spending back later), but this type of spending is harder to cut back later (in fact for a time they are committed not to cut it back by accepting the money), it takes over control of the state budgets giving them less and less flexibility to adapt to future situations. If those states have a very strong economic recovery than they can probably find a way to deal with it. If they don't (either because the country goes in to a severe double dip, or just grows slower going forward, or because something specific about the state) than they are creating a lot of problems for themselves. That's bull. You're talking as if people have no free will. Its always been understood that stimulus monies were temporary and that when the money ran out that would be it. Pain during the recession was expected...the stimulus monies were intended to mitigate some of that pain....not completely take it away. How much you want to bet that the unemployed people in those states would not agree? Irrelevant. If accepting the funds threatens to bankrupt the state, who agrees or disagrees with the policy doesn't change that fact. It may be irrelevant to you but its very relevant to the people who need the money. And this is bad why? Logic tells you that if people are paid more, then they have more money to spend. Because it increases the federal and state deficits, and reduces the amount of work that can get done for the money. Government spending isn't a free lunch, if you waste it lavishly you have less to spend elsewhere, and/or your in more debt. Throwing extra money at the construction workers beyond what you need to spend to get them to do the job, means less construction at more cost. The "more cost" part means your draining more from the rest of the economy. It increases the deficits temporarily when the economy improves those deficits can be pared back. The intent of the stimulus was to stimulate the economy. If it did its job, then the states will take in more revenue in 2010 than in 2009. It doing its job is a quite questionable idea. Also "take in more income" != "take in enough income to afford all this spending. No it means take in enough money to pay state expenses without the help of the stimulus.