Osler's Razor

I would spend it on elementary schools.
 

Just to be annoying and somewhat polemical (though I do believe this to an extent), I'd use it to fund renewable energy R & D, on the condition that then hand it all over -- at no cost -- to India, China, and the rest of the developing world. OK...maybe we can charge a little bit: a graduated fee according to a country's GDP? No; let's just make it free.
 

If the idea is PURELY to stimulate the economy NOW, give it to citizens so they can spend it and/or pay off debt.

-Individuals paying off debt helps the banks and other financial institutions.
-Buying things helps the purchaser, the retailer, the manufacturer, those transporting the goods and everyone in between, including lenders to the businesses and insurance companies (and lawyers)
-If the citizens just save the money, that helps banks and financial institutions too.

The other ideas are not stimuli, they are investments. And perhaps we SHOULD be investing instead of stimulating. But don't tell me that money spent on energy R&D or schools or roads or anything else is a stimulus.

Unless the project (construction of roads, schools or research, etc.) is READY TO GO NOW, they money will not flow out to the economy at large for months, if not years.

Like I've said before, that's just another form of trickle down economics. T

he money is handed by the Feds to another organization (a State Governement, a local government or a private contractor) and held there while plans are drafted, permits acquired, people interviewed, etc. etc. Meanwhile the managers and executives get paid, not the unemployed or underemployed.
 

Man, I need a copy editor....
 

I would pay for a copyeditor for IPLawGuy.
 

50% on schools/ libraries that need it.

25% ON CURING CANCER

25% reducing dependence on foreign oil such as; Incentives for buying hybrids, incentives to auto cos to develop electric cars, make better public trans so that more people can use it dependably
 

Also part of the last 25% SHOULD GO TO RETROFITTING BUIDLINGS TO SOLAR AND ALTERNATIVE ENERGY SOURCES
 

100% for confiscation of the All Caps key on Tydwbleach's keyboard.
 

Forgiving federal law school loan debt.
 

1. $10 billion award for the first automaker who successfully sells 10,000 four-door vehicles that get 100+ mpg at a price under $20,000.
2. $10 billion to the NBA player's union. Sure they make a lot of money, but they spend a lot too.
3. $80 billion to my wife, to be spent in whatever sector of the economy she indicates on Saturday afternoons and Sunday after church.
 

Guns. Tanks. Cool fighter jets like the ones in Top Gun. And really big missiles.

Or, in the alternative, Democrats have taken to referring to tax cuts as "spending" in recent years. So, I suggest "spending" 100% on tax cuts.
 

Since we're talking about spending billions and even trillions of dollars I thought you all might find this interesting:

http://www.pagetutor.com/trillion/index.html

And of course, by interesting I mean depressing. That is a lot of solar panel R&D we could do right there.
 

As for RRL's weapons suggestion, that would actually be an excellent financial STIMULUS for the economy. The defense contracts move faster than any others. Spending money on weapons is an EXCELLENT stimulus.

Not necessarily the best policy and not necessarily a great investment, but if all we're talking is stimulus, this is a good one.

The other suggestions made have nothing to do with stimulating the economy right now. They are long term investments for the future. Calling them stimuli is dishonest and Congress and the President should stop doing so.
 

~* I am all for retro fitting schools and public buildings with solar and or renewable energy sources (wind, etc...) and my house, too. They will then require fewre of my tax dollars to run the schools and gov't

More Hybrid vehicles!!! Although I am not getting the attraction of the Electric car. If I have to plug my car in won't that increase my power bill and cause the need for more power plants?

~* Health care for children to age 18.
~* Free cable tv and internet for ALL

~* A copy editor for Iplaguy.

I think the idea is to stimulate the economy next month, next year and beyond. My wallet could use some stimulus, but I don't see this money trickling my way.
 

We do need to replace all the military equipment that has been ruined in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Did you know that every piece of equipment over there that we bring back must be microscopicly cleaned so that it can pass inspection with the US Ag dept? This info came from a military spokesperson. They had to do this after Gulf War 1.

Did you know that you can't buy a small McDonald's French Fries with a share of Citi stock (as of noon today)?
 

I have an addendum to my original plan. I want the government to buy a lot of guns, tanks, sweet fighter jets, bombs for the fighter jets, and really big missiles with cool names.

This will = massive stimuli.

Then, I want to use said guns, tanks, planes, bombs, and missiles to blow up hybrid cars, solar panels, wind turbines, Birkenstock factories, Grateful Dead concerts, and whole foods stores. This has two benefits:

First, if you blow it up, they will rebuild it. This will double up the stimulus. More stimulus baby!

Two, this will make hippies angry. Richard Nixon hated hippies. And when was Nixon ever wrong about anything?
 

I have no idea what works best to stimulate the economy, but it sounds like it's going to take a wad of money to get RRL a tranquilizer!

Send him to an ashram in India so he can take Septimus' technology to the developing world (which having lived in India I fully agree with . . .)

RRL you know I'm just messin'with ya . . .
 

Not surprisingly, RRL and IPLawGuy have described exactly the stimulus plan that worked for Reagan-- massive defense spending.
 

Yep, that's right. Defense spending is a stimulus. An excellent one. It takes lots of employees to build weapons. Defense spending would put lots of people to work, fast. If the goal is to get people back to work and to "create 4 million jobs," this would be one of the best choices.

Would this be a good long term strategy? Good for the country in the long run? An investment for the future? Would it help kids, seniors and or address global climate change, healthcare, etc?

No, it would not.

The first question the govt should ask is "would a stimulus be a good idea?"

What are the priorities here?

The Reagan Defense stimulus had the goal of defeating the Russians and as its byproduct it got the economy rolling along quite nicely.

Reagan was abundantly clear that his number one priority was to defeat the Russians.

His number two priority was to cut taxes.

He pursued policies to do both.

Was the money really needed to defeat the Russians? Was spending all that money a good idea?

Don't know.

The problem with the current jumble of programs and proposals is there is no unified theme other than spending money. The byproduct of the Reagan binge (big spending) worked out great short term, but NOT long term. The Obama Administration and Democrats in Congress don't seem to have a unifying purpose like defeating the Russians or cutting taxes.

I liked the original idea that the money would only go to "shovel ready" projects. Most of what's being discussed here in Washington (and on this blog) are pies in the sky. Great ideas, but the money is not going to get out to the economy at large for a long time.

This is government by sledge hammer. There will be a reaction, but shards of debris are going to go flying and no one knows where they will land. And we're not sure what the target will look like after it absorbs the blows.
 

I would like to summarize Iplawguy's post like this:

"Obama: Change we can believe in"

Now where is my hybrid car, I gotta get to the whole foods store and buy some tofu.
 

I agree with iplawguy. Defense spending is not the answer. Considering that the worst attack on American soil in recent history was done with box cutters, I fail to see how billions in tanks and laser-guided monkey bombs will solve anything.
 

I would keep it and let me spend it on whatever I want in 30 days. Step 1: world's largest ever mariachi festival and tequila tasting. Canta y no llores . . .
 

Weapons are not the answer, however, during the Cold War that was the game. ICBM's, missile silo's in the heartland of the USA on standby to protect our citizens. Starwars anyone? Anyone ever do a 'duck and cover' drill at school? As if that would save anyone during a nuclear attack

He who had the biggest, baddest weapons is king of the hill. It is a method of deterance. I paid good money for a college course on the subject back in 1982. One of the few I received an 'A' in. Guess who was President? (for you youngsters) Reagan (really bad 'B' actor)! As RRL said - lot's of defense spending helped the economy turn the corner. Trust me the job market stunk back then, too.

As Justin pointed out - it doesn't take much more than a box cutter to create havoc and I can buy one at Walmart for $1.59 + tax.

On the other hand, you have Iran, N. Korea, and a handful of super power wannabe's with sketchy nuclear capabilities. You need to have weapons to show muscle and to maintain a strange balance in this world. Muscle = Defense Spending

That is why we elect people - to navigate this maze.

Back to my martini!
 

I agree, IPLawGuy, that there needed to be a theme for the stimulus bill, and there wasn't. I worry about any bill that passes as quickly as that one did--especially one that huge. Look at NoChild Left Behind, which also passed very quickly. The fallout is still happening.

I don't know what would work because I think it's impossible to predict how humans will react. Will they spend the money they're given? Will they pay off their credit cards or their other bills with it? Will they save it?

Yes, defense spending means stimulus, but as you hinted, IPLawguy, there needs to be an ethical element (in my opinion) to spending, or to stimulus, or whatever you want to call it. Other than giving people jobs in the short term (which of course is a good thing), to me defense spending is about the worst thing, ethically, we should spend money on.

I guess it meets Osler's two criteria--to stimulate the economy, yes; maybe it generally improves the welfare of the population, although that's kind of a stretch--but in terms of the good it does? Spending money on things that kill people?

I don't know, Christine . . . about the deterrence argument. The box cutters pretty much disproved that, didn't they?
 

The idea that defense spending generates jobs/stimulates the economy better than education spending/renewable energy spending (etc.) is nonsense. To be build hundreds of miles of solar and wind plants, to install solar panels on every home in America...this would all provide just as many jobs as building tanks and planes.

Whether the military industrial complex is more "efficient" with spending the money is another question -- one I could potentially "agree" with, but only with the caveat that it comes as a result of the massive history of its investment. Redirect that -- create a renewable energy-industrial complex (or any other productive, rather than destructive complex) -- and you'll have an equally efficient machine.

I'm not so naive as to think we'll all be happier and peace will spread on the earth. There will be new energy barons, et al., but let's shift the discourse and nodes of power, let alone the impact on the environment (and by extension, humans (and particularly, poor humans)).

And I'll put in some money for RRL to spend a week in an Ashram without government spending. See privatization works!
 

Well, yes, Septimus, I guess that's what I'm saying too: after a thousand years of depending on wartime spending to stimulate jobs, can't we think of something better?

I really really think we can.

I'll visit y'all in the ashram.
 

My CAPS loc keys are NOT for SALE.

HAHAHAHAHAAH
 

seriously. spend as much as you can paying off mortgages for as many people as you can. They, like me, would spend money tomorrow on 2nd mortgages to finance additions to the house or a bigger house, or a new car, or a new boat, etc etc.
The banks would be flush with money though not getting interest, thus forcing them to make loans at cheap rates.
This would increase business loans and thus business spending.
Consumers are happy cause they own homes, don't have mortgages to pay, banks are happy because they have money again and can make loans, businesses are happy cause they can get loans and increase production to meet the demand of all the homeowners now spending what they used to spend on their mortgages. Oh and we all keep our jobs and the government makes more in revenue because jobs continue or are created. Furthermore, they could raise taxes without much complaining because we don't have to make mortgage payments anymore, thus getting even more revenue to pay for stuff...like paying off more mortgages!
 

How about fried pies? I think it should be used for fried pies.
 

Small business loans - not SB guarantees, actual loans, with the most favorable terms earmarked for small business owners whose business plans included job creation.

Sidebar: Holscher, is that you? Are you the defense dude now?
 

Swissgirl - I didn't say I agree with the concept of deterrence, but that is the theory used when starring down superpower wannabe's. It has been the theory for a very long time. It is also used as a negotiation tool.

Yes, the box cutters worked quite well, but they were used by people not by a threatening country. Just a lot of angry, unhappy, unemployed men (for the most part).

Defense spendng as a stimulus: I find this a little lame as this spending has to happen no matter what the economy.
 

0% 30-yr fixed rate mortgages and car loans (domestic manufactured only) w/ no cap (i.e., everything is a conforming loan) for truly qualified buyers and refinancers, including the "wealthy."