Town Square

Post a New Topic

Support Stimulus bill

Original post made by Stephen Rock on Feb 5, 2009

I think that that we need a $1 billion stimulus bill for our economy that will put people to work, meet national goals and benefit our countries future. Only the government can provide the large amounts of money needed to ‘prime the pump' and get our people back to work. The large amount of money that will be borrowed to pay for this will be paid for by people living decades from now, so it is only fair that it will benefit them as well as us. That means dedicating most of the money to creating things that last a long time or have positive impacts in the future. Looking around we can see what was built in the past for us. BART was built almost 40 years ago, the Golden Gate Bridge 70 years ago, and most of our roads, sewers, aqueducts, dams, hospitals, school buildings etc. were built decades ago. But it is not only things that were invested in. Many of us were educated decades ago, technology depends on scientific research done in the past, and our health depends on medical training and research done in the past and for some, medical procedures done years ago.
So the stimulus bill should emphasize building for the future. We should choose projects that we think will have the best outcomes for the people living decades from now. My list includes education, public transportation, green energy, medical care, scientific research, maintenance of existing facilities like roads, bridges and sewers. As for individual spending the government should subsidize expenditures for only those items that meet the same goals as above. For example subsidies for energy conservation rather than for buying cars.
However, that is not enough. There are large numbers of people who are being thrown out of their homes and jobs who need help now. Money given to them will probably be spent quickly on necessities, thus providing work for others.
What we do not need is to benefit those already well off financially. Tax breaks to the upper middle class and wealthy are giving money to those who do not need it and might not even spend it. The best was to benefit business is not to reduce taxes on non existent income, but to provide customers for their products.
Thus I support a stimulus bill that will put people to work providing future benefits to society and helping those hurting the most by the economic crisis. I oppose benefits to those who already have enough.
I urge you to communicate with your legislators about this.

Comments (12)

Posted by Disagree, a resident of South of Midtown
on Feb 5, 2009 at 11:54 am

Stephen this is not a stimulus bill, it is a gross spending bill loaded with pork projects. It definitely will not put people back to work immediately. Why does it contain such things as $150 Million to research why bees are dying?

I voted for Barack Obama, but I think much of this Bill is a wish list for the spenders in the Democatic party. Giving people money does not necessarily translate into spending, as we have seen already people are not spending they are saving.

I have already told my Congresswoman that much of this spending package is a waste of money.


Posted by R Wray, a resident of Midtown
on Feb 5, 2009 at 2:44 pm

The "stimulus bill" will only stimulate the growth of government. The government can't create jobs; all it can do is tax or borrow. Every government job means a lost of a private job--actually more private losses because of the withhold of the bureaucrats. Get rid of the "stimulus bill", reduce spending and taxes, and let the private economy recover.


Posted by Citizen, a resident of Midtown
on Feb 5, 2009 at 4:21 pm

I totally support a $1 billion stimulus bill. As long as liberals like you can't do basic math, we don't have to worry about overspending.

Like Nancy Pelosi said, 500 million people a month are losing their jobs.




Posted by Lois, a resident of Green Acres
on Feb 5, 2009 at 4:30 pm

Can you afford BHO's spending plan?

Me thinks not!

Web Link


Posted by Give me a break, a resident of Midtown
on Feb 5, 2009 at 4:37 pm

The Bill has $400,000 for sexually transmitted deceases - now is this stimulus or what!!!


Posted by R Wray, a resident of Midtown
on Feb 6, 2009 at 9:34 am

Support for the "stimulus bill" is dropping rapidly. One poll
Web Link
says it is down to 37%. One of OB's biggest screw-ups in the short time he has been in office is letting the Democrats run wild with this bill.


Posted by stock trader, a resident of Crescent Park
on Feb 6, 2009 at 9:43 am

I support an economic situation like Iceland whose Krona collapsed under the weight of the country's debt. I support a Weimar Republic, I support a collapsing dollar. I support more and more debt!

Ya right. This so-called economic stimulus package will fail. Unbelievable how a drunk will continue asking for more liquor. America is drunk on debt.


Posted by Steve, a resident of Adobe-Meadows
on Feb 6, 2009 at 1:49 pm

I do not understand the comments that the government cannot put people to work. There are several million government employees who do work and many contractors payed by the government. Do you know that the people who deliver the mail, fight in Iraq, care for Vets, doe research at SLAC are Federal Government employees or contractors. Medicare pays
doctors, most of highway construction funds come from Washington, there is the FBI, CIA, NASA, FDA, EPA, Park Service, INS, etc., all employing people as well as doing important work.
Is there more work to be done? There is now no money to build wind turbines because the banking system has failed. Are you happy with the condition of our highways? Is California's education system loosing its funding?
One issue is how to stop the pattern of more people unemployed leads to fewer people buying things leads to less work producing things, leads to more workers loosing their jobs and on and on. Some people think the government should be put into deeper debt by reducing taxes. However, the data shows that a large fraction of tax cuts goes into saving and not into spending that produces jobs. Direct spending by the government also puts the government in deeper debt, but it also employees people building roads, bridges, schools. Federal money sent to states like California will go directly into keeping state workers employed doing essential services like police, teaching and health care.
So the tax cut method hopes that people will spend the money (which they did not in the tax rebate of last year), and hopes that most of it will be spent to provide US jobs, rather than jobs in China. Government spending creates jobs directly and can result in a better infrastructure and better education.
Will all the government spending be done wisely and effectively? Certainly not. Is all private money spent wisely and effectively? Certainly not. Are there somethings in the
stimulus package which seem unwise? Certainly. Do you stop a 1 Trillion dollar program because there is a $400,000 provision you do not like?
An important issue is if the money can be spent "immediately". Will a tax cut result in money being spent immediately. No way. A tax reduction will result in each paycheck having a little more money than before, so only a small fraction will get to people immediately. Remember that the tax rebate of last year took about half a year to get to us. Will some of the government spending be felt very quickly. The part that goes to the states so that they have money to keep their current employees will have an immediate effect. Just look at the headlines about proposed cuts in public transit, public education and health care and imagine those unemployed people reducing their spending and thus perpetuating the pattern described above. Extending unemployment insurance will put
large sums of money directly into the hands of people who need it
What is needed is a sustained effort to put people to work doing useful things. Private spending is failing to do that despite all the Bush tax cuts. The banks are failing to make loans to people and businesses. Investors are putting their money into very low interest Federal bonds because they think it is the only safe place. So unlike private companies, the Federal government can borrow the money needed.
In summary, the fastest (but not all immediate) and the surest (but not absolutely certain) way of transforming money into jobs is by Federal spending. By the way, the last time I looked into it, bees dying was a very big problem for agriculture which relies on them for pollination. And yes, research does employ people.


Posted by Perspective, a resident of Midtown
on Feb 7, 2009 at 7:57 am

Unforgivable to repeat the mistakes of FDR..at least then it wasn't known how bad his policies were and how much they would deepen and extend the depression, and I believe it was all done in good faith.

We know better now, any one who can read can learn how and why FDR's New Deal made everything worse, longer. So, I can only conclude that BHO and his Cabinet are ignorant ( which is very hard to believe), or that they are political fundamentalists determined to implement their socialist agenda regardless of the effect on America. In other words, you can thank them as our economy continues to sink.

Think, people..remember the 70s. Compare the 80s to the 70s. Which do you prefer?


Posted by R Wray, a resident of Midtown
on Feb 7, 2009 at 1:47 pm

Steve wrote: "I do not understand the comments that the government cannot put people to work." If you want to understand, a good source is "Economics in One Lesson" by Henry Hazlitt. This is a classic, short(about 150 pages)book and is also available on audio CD.
The basic lesson is that one must look at all the consequences of an economic action and not be short-sighted. For instance, you see the government mailman and think how great it is that the government provided him a job. What you don't see is the extra FedEx or UPS job that would otherwise exist-because it doesn't exist. There's no net increase because of the government.


Posted by Perspective, a resident of Midtown
on Feb 7, 2009 at 3:45 pm

Another way to look at it that someone sitting at a desk 1,000 miles away takes money from your pocket and decides which, say...car company is worth giving your money ( and everyone else's) to. Then, after taking 1/2 of the money he took from you to pay his salary and all the bosses above him, he gives it to ..say...Ford.

Now, you not only don't have the money to buy a car because the "govt" took it from you, when you finally do have enough money saved up, the car you WANTED is gone because it has gone out of business. So, you have less money, and less choice,..and there are fewer jobs in the Auto industry which actually produce something, which increases GDP. And there aren't any improvements in the cars because there is less competition in the auto industry since there are fewer players.

Over time, you have the lovely situation the Russians had with their cars.

And fewer jobs.

With less govt income since fewer people have work from which they can pay taxes.

So, net loss of jobs, GDP,and freedom, and net increase debt. For what? To "feel good" in the short term and get More bureuacrats.


Posted by Perspective, a resident of Midtown
on Feb 8, 2009 at 7:08 am

This is a Quote from the Heritage Foundation at AskHeritage.org

"Rahm Emanuel, the new White House Chief of Staff, was quoted as saying "Never allow a crisis to go to waste…They are opportunities to do big things." The leftists in Washington are using our economic recession as their opportunity to grow government and fund all their liberal projects—at the expense of the American taxpayer."

This is a near plagiarism, through shortening it quite a bit, of the same article.

BHO is trying to do an even more vastly expanded "New Deal" than FDR did, which means that history will judge him even worse than it judges FDR as concerns economic ineptitude because WE KNOW BETTER NOW. We KNOW that this stuff makes it all worse, longer, so what is the real reason BHO et al want to implement this? Why are he and his staff now predicting massive catastrophes if we don't go along with this absurd spending plan? Power...power, ...power.

At least in FDR's day it was ignorantly well-intentioned, and even HE changed course after about 5 years and started decreasing his "New Deal" malarky.

What are the consequences of this sort of proposal?

1)Tripling the Fed Budget.. This bill makes the New Deal pale in comparison. Who will pay? We are selfishly piling yet more debt onto our CHILDREN AND GRANDCHILDREN because we are too weak to roll up our sleeves and take care of ourselves, looking to Mommy and Daddy "government" to make our decisions for us.

2) Massive debt. The United States looks to increase by 50%, that is between $3.5 and $4 trillion, of government debt over the next two years, thanks to deficit spending under current policy, the stimulus bill, and the financing of TARP II. To put this in context, the total publicly held debt today is about $6.4 trillion, so we're talking about increasing the outstanding debt by more than half in just two years up to $10 TRILLION. We threw out Republicans because of increased debt, who will we have left after the Dems increase at 3 times the rate the Repubs did?

3) Increased Interest Rates. Remember 21% interest rates in the late 70s? Here we go again folks..We've reached the point where deficits are now large enough nationally and worldwide to drive up interest rates." We aren't at 11% unemployment yet, but with the massive and continuing "thumbs down" vote of the nation's businesses of this Admin from the moment BHO was elected, we are well on our way, aren't we? THe more unemployment, the more national debt. Great cycle.

Have you had enough of "change" yet, Palo Alto? Chicago style muck with Tax dodging and conflict of interest Cabinet/State Secretaries, tripling national debt, zero "post-bipartisanship", saber rattling around the world especially from Russia, Gitmo closing with NO plans of where to put them, how much more before you admit that your "Bush Derangement Syndrome" blinded you to the reality of what you chose, and start apologizing to your children for what you have done to them?

Thank you Palo Altans all across the nation.


If you were a member and logged in you could track comments from this story.

Post a comment

Posting an item on Town Square is simple and requires no registration. Just complete this form and hit "submit" and your topic will appear online. Please be respectful and truthful in your postings so Town Square will continue to be a thoughtful gathering place for sharing community information and opinion. All postings are subject to our TERMS OF USE, and may be deleted if deemed inappropriate by our staff.

We prefer that you use your real name, but you may use any "member" name you wish.

Name: *

Select your neighborhood or school community: * Not sure?

Comment: *

Verification code: *
Enter the verification code exactly as shown, using capital and lowercase letters, in the multi-colored box.

*Required Fields

Palo Alto quietly gets new evening food truck market
By Elena Kadvany | 3 comments | 3,131 views

On Tour - The Highly Selective Liberal Arts Colleges: Occidental, Pitzer, and Scripps
By John Raftrey and Lori McCormick | 1 comment | 1,891 views

See Me. Hear Me. Don’t Fix Me.
By Chandrama Anderson | 2 comments | 1,606 views

Foothills Park: a world away
By Sally Torbey | 9 comments | 1,486 views

Candidate Kickoff Events: Public, not just for supporters
By Douglas Moran | 6 comments | 875 views