Debate:Is the 2009 Stimulus Plan the right approach, and if not what would be?
|!||THIS IS A DEBATE PAGE, NOT AN ARTICLE. Opinions expressed are not necessarily those of Conservapedia.
Your opinion is welcome! Please remember to sign your comments on this page, and refrain from editing other user's contributions.
New Users: Please read our "Editing etiquette" before posting
- 1 Premise
- 2 The 2009 Stimulus Plan is a fundamentally right approach
- 3 The 2009 Stimulus Plan is a fundamentally wrong approach
- 4 A Significant Federal Stimulus effort is needed, but should focus more on these things instead
- 5 This crisis requires free-market corrections to run their course instead of trillion-dollar Govt. spending
There was controversy of the purpose and effectiveness of the 2008 TARP program & Federal assistance/bailouts for major corporations, and even more controversy over the 2009 Stimulus program being promoted by President Obama. The purpose of this debate page is twofold - to offer a platform for constructive criticism of any of these programs, but more importantly, to offer a forum where alternative proposals that would be better can be offered instead of just criticism.
It's also worth noting that these plans are so broad that it's easy to approve of some provisions while rejecting others. Rather than attacking or defending these plans in their entirety, please expand on the particular aspects that concern you in order for your responses to be as informative as possible.
Whether one agrees with the 2008 or 2009 government actions to deal with the economic crisis, most would agree with one of President Obama's points - inaction would be worse than action. That's why it's important to offer constructive, well-reasoned alternatives to proposals that are disfavored. If we shouldn't do "X", what should we do instead?
The categories below are provided to get the discussion started - please feel free to add or modify them as appropriate.
The 2009 Stimulus Plan is a fundamentally right approach
Example - this is true because only the government can inject enough capital and liquidity through spending to keep this recession from lasting years longer. Tax cuts take too long to have an impact, and the Bush cuts from the prior eight years didn't prevent the crisis. Etc.
The 2009 Stimulus Plan is a fundamentally wrong approach
Example - this is true because infrastructure project spending takes too long get money into workers' hands, and these jobs are temporary. Most of the stimulus money is going to pork. Etc.
21 august 2014 manila. ph
economy in an intelligent view,
“debate: is the 2009 stimulus . . . . . . . ?” http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Nlcraul&action=edit
with all respect to all the intelligent economists. bail-outs, stimulus package, tarp, talf, qe 1 to a never ending qe are all and were all “wrong approach”. meaning - not a solutions but merely a complex, complicated problem. why? simple, these are all and were all “debt”. and debt is simply . . . . . . . . meaning - you are going to return, to come back to the 2008 year great depression the second time around. you solve the economic falldown temporarily and not absolutely. (then what it would be - i already had written it on my facebook account). thanks’
please kindly take good care and God bless . . . . . . . raul
A Significant Federal Stimulus effort is needed, but should focus more on these things instead
Alternative1, alternative 2, etc.
This crisis requires free-market corrections to run their course instead of trillion-dollar Govt. spending
...but the following controls are needed to prevent this from happening again