PDA

View Full Version : What are you gonna do with the check?



FunkyPeaNutZ
03-28-2008, 07:50 PM
Hey, just wanted to know what everyone is gonna spend with the check that the government will be sending out. For me, it looks like I'm gonna buy me an eleuke. More of a luxury though, but I guess it'll be nice to having something to strum with late at nite and not waking anyone up. just plug in the headphones and start playing.

NukeDOC
03-28-2008, 08:44 PM
i want to say nothing. i want to say that im going to put all of it back into the savings that i have been tapping into here and there for the last couple of years. i want to say that im going to take care of my guitar center credit card and cut it in half. but i have to tell the truth. i will be finishing the tattoos on my arms to end up with two full sleeves. wanna be a rockstar. at least ill kinda look like one? hahaha.

UkuLeLesReggAe
03-28-2008, 09:07 PM
The government are sending out checks?? This just a specific country??

But if its for me - im not sure why i would get one anyway but i wud put it towards my car, so when i buy it i can get my 1k ukulele and my laptop.

:D

Fred Miu
03-28-2008, 09:43 PM
i actually dont know if im getting money. its if you are an adult and i heard now that you have to make at least 3k a year. or something ridiculous.

it would be nice to get a check for either 300 or 600. either way, its going to my car for tires and brakes haha. or hawaii.

Ukeguy510
03-29-2008, 12:55 AM
I'm putting mine in my IRA account. I'll end up with $15k more after 30 years

russ_buss
03-29-2008, 06:15 AM
i'm going to do my part to help stimulate the economy by blowing it all on some cowboy boots.

ChiyoDad
03-29-2008, 06:20 AM
I owe so I'm not getting a check. I don't see the point in letting the feds have my money interest-free. :D

But I am getting a rebate which will go to overseas investments because returns here in the US aren't that great. I still expect more fallout from the sub-prime mortgage crisis. :mad:

Funny how the idea of building the economic strength of our nation went from "saving" to "spending". :rolleyes: Who are those Economics flunkies in our administration?

BUGOY
03-29-2008, 06:24 AM
dont know about ya'll but im getting aNEWther Uke! :D

UKESTAR
03-29-2008, 07:32 AM
The checks are sent out with the intention that you SPEND the money, thus "stimulating" the economy.

Problem is...seems like the majority of people polled and personally spoken to have little to no intention of actually SPENDING the money.

Instead, people are planning to sink it into retirement accounts or pay off credit card debts, for example.

Maybe I am missing something, but IF the majority of people don't end up SPENDING the check, it seems like a lost cause.......actually one that may backfire and end up hurting the already weakened US economy...

Anyone know something that I am missing here??

ChiyoDad
03-29-2008, 07:44 AM
Maybe I am missing something, but IF the majority of people don't end up SPENDING the check, it seems like a lost cause.......actually one that may backfire and end up hurting the already weakened US economy...

Anyone know something that I am missing here??

You can read this article (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/25/AR2008012502047.html) from the Washington Post. It's not a bad summary that highlights:

The flaws in the "logic" of the stimulus package
Why it won't work
Why we wouldn't want it to work


The author is Steve Landsburg who is a professor of Economics at the University of Rochester. His summary is in synch with what I had been told by other Economics professors that I had stayed in-touch with since leaving college.

We seem to be a nation of short attention-spans and sound-bites. If we delve deeper into the whys and hows, we would probably be better citizens, and better-off economically.

UKESTAR
03-29-2008, 07:46 AM
You can read this article (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/25/AR2008012502047.html) from the Washington Post. It's not a bad summary that highlights:

The flaws in the "logic" of the stimulus package
Why it won't work
Why we wouldn't want it to work

We seem to be a nation of short attention-spans and sound-bites. If we delve deeper into the whys and hows, we would probably be better citizens, and better-off economically.


"We seem to be a nation of short attention-spans and sound-bites. If we delve deeper into the whys and hows, we would probably be better citizens, and better-off economically."

Ahhhh.....but that would require effort...haah.:rolleyes:

ChiyoDad
03-29-2008, 07:59 AM
Ahhhh.....but that would require effort...haah.:rolleyes:

True.

We want it easy; no effort and no brains. Hey. As they say, "No brain, no gain." :D

For those smart enough not to take it easy, they can also read the article in the Harvard Crimson on our impending problem of eventually paying for the Iraq war (http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=522615). (What? You didn't know that it was financed by borrowing money?)

UKESTAR
03-29-2008, 08:06 AM
True.

We want it easy; no effort and no brains. Hey. As they say, "No brain, no gain." :D

For those smart enough not to take it easy, they can also read the article in the Harvard Crimson on our impending problem of eventually paying for the Iraq war (http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=522615). (What? You didn't know that it was financed by borrowing money?)

You mean we don't have money to be paying for the war in IRAQ??..haha:eek:
Yep, it will be interesting to see how we go about paying for it.

Yeh, they say "No brain, no gain"....whatever happened to "Ignorance is bliss". I wish that I was a little bit less aware at times....:D No, I don't claim to know all, just wish I knew less at times...kind of odd, I know...:o

Read the article in the Harvard Crimson....yeh the costs are outstanding. Just the "burn cost of the war" at the end of 2008 will be upwards of 800 billion dollars. Most have failed to acknowledge the ongoing cost of war once it has actually ended..ie, medical coverage for wounded....disability compensation and the cost to "reset" and rebuild our military back to standards...OUCH!!!!!!!!!!!

Q: IF..and a BIG IF...we can rebuild Iraq and make it a better place for the locals to live in and they are happier than ever....would it THEN be OK to repay ourselves for the war effort using their oil? In other words, Iraq "repays" the USA with 800 billion in "free" oil.

IamRobbyah
03-29-2008, 08:46 AM
if americans paid as much attn to politics that we do to american idol, i would like to think that things might actually be a lil different around here...

as far as the check? i've been a good patriotic consumer, as my bank account shows. i'm throwin that bad boy into savings.

experimentjon
03-29-2008, 09:34 AM
You can read this article (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/25/AR2008012502047.html) from the Washington Post. It's not a bad summary that highlights:

The flaws in the "logic" of the stimulus package
Why it won't work
Why we wouldn't want it to work


The author is Steve Landsburg who is a professor of Economics at the University of Rochester. His summary is in synch with what I had been told by other Economics professors that I had stayed in-touch with since leaving college.

We seem to be a nation of short attention-spans and sound-bites. If we delve deeper into the whys and hows, we would probably be better citizens, and better-off economically.

Really? I had always thought that the stimulus should be good.

Well, I'm no professor of economics. But I know a thing or two, and I'm going to try to tell you how his article is wrong. In macroeconomics, there are many ways to look at a problem, and the final result really depends on which results are stronger and have a greater impact. I don't have any training in that area, but with my general economics, I can find a couple of other ways to look at what he is saying.

First of all, from the people here, it may seem that Friedman's Permanent Income Hypothesis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permanent_Income_Hypothesis) holds true, and the stimulus won't work. But I think that's due more to a higher MPS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propensity_To_Save). Which merely means that the stimulus may be less effective, but not ineffective. (See Keynesian multiplier (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keynesian_multiplier).) And this point addresses:


Non-marginal tax cuts -- such as the ones in the stimulus package -- have exactly the opposite effect, when they have any effect at all.

The degree of the effect may be questionable, but I'm quite sure that it can't do any harm...and I'm absolutely sure that not everyone will be saving the money making it have a negative or zero effect.

Alright. Onto the rest of his article.


Investment and consumption are natural rivals.

It really doesn't matter. An increase in either increases aggregate demand (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aggregate_demand) in the short run. And that helps to stave away recession.


But even if you manage to pull this trick off, sooner or later you must tax Paul.

Basically he says that to pay for this stimulus, the government will have to increase taxes in the future. Which is true (unless they decide to cut back spending...very unlikely.) But really, his argument fails because I'm sure the council of economic advisers realizes that an active Keynesian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keynsian)fiscal policy to help fix the recession now is better than just letting the economy slide down the tubes. And a part of sound fiscal policy during recession is not raising taxes. Furthermore, increased taxes during times of booms is perfectly fine as it helps to control inflation. So there's nothing wrong with taxes in the future.


If you care about your grandchildren, you should be encouraging everyone else not to consume, but to save.

I hope that by "saving" he means "investment." Because "saving" is a leakage in the rGDP model. That just decreases rGDP and puts us more into recession. However, investment is good. The Fed with Bernanke is already doing all they can by slashing our interest rates to put more money into the economy and stimulate business investment spending.

Again, I don't see why Professor Landsburg thinks consumption is bad. CONSUMPTION IS GOOD. It increases our aggregate demand and rGDP and again keeps recession away. Furthermore, when we are not in recession, we can invest more in the future, which is exactly what Professor Landsburg wants.

Professor Landsburg makes good points, I just disagree with them.

Kateri
03-31-2008, 02:58 PM
My money is going to updating my bedroom. Going to be moving back home so I might as well make my space a bit more livable and modern.