Comments on: When ‘good’ is bad and bad leads to good (maybe)

By: Marilou

Marilou — Tue, 24 Feb 2009 00:26:49 +0000

I think that we need stimulus, but that we should be looking forward – not backwards. The New Deal DID promote recovery, but we don’t need to dredge it up to prove that investing in our infrastructure now will promote recovery. I think that now is the time for NEW ideas, not a re-hashing of history. Also, I think that though there are echoes of the New Deal era in what is happening now – the specific details are different. I agree that it needs to be the RIGHT changes. Anyone else read Thinking Big (http://thinkingbigthebook.com/)? It’s a great guide to the new progressive agenda, and suggests the specific funding that I think would bring about change. It’s interesting to compare that to Obama’s bill… Certainly Thinking Big doesn’t contain funds for building a Mafia Museum in Las Vegas…. the stimulus bill DOES.

By: LA

LA — Fri, 20 Feb 2009 00:49:26 +0000

At the risk of sounding like a labour party hack(!), of the $42bn package, most of it – $30bn – is being spent on Big Kev’s Education Revolution, Public Housing, Energy projects, road and rail upgrades, etc. All good stuff in my opinion. The rest of the $12bn is split amongst handouts to low income earners, single parent families, farmers in hardship, and an eductaion/back to school bonus.

I think if low income earners, farmers in hardship etc can get a small helping hand to stave off potential foreclosures on their property, etc, then that’s better than not helping. I would agree the limit set is way too high – someone earning $79k per year is still eligible for a handout – it should be set much lower so that they’re only helping people truly in hardship. But that’s politics and this package is obviously designed to win votes.

By: Dan

Dan — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 23:45:51 +0000

Thanks for your comment Lakun.

I would argue that the effects will be long term in the form of the budget deficit.

I just fail to see how putting money in people’s pockets represents a sustainable or wise use of public funds. I’ve heard figures that up to 80% of the pre-Xmas budget package went into gambling. What positive impact has that had on the economy?

I don’t have a problem with investments in things that are likely to deliver a return on investment, such as education, infrastructure etc.

To that point, why didn’t the Government re-direct extra money to teacher training courses or take steps to make this a more attractive career option – thereby addressing unemployment and putting in place a positive foundation for the future?

By: LA

LA — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 06:38:40 +0000

Hi Dan – I think there’s too much whingeing about the stimulus package. Of course the effects will be short term. That’s exactly what they’re trying to do – to provide a stimulus.

I think the areas the Gov’t are targeting (low income earners, infrastructure projects, schools) are exactly the sort of thing they should be doing. They’re not bailing out banks in Oz, they are guaranteeing deposits instead – which I would argue benefits the humble consumer more than the banks. In summary, I think the government is doing a reasonable job in the circumstances, but I would like to see more tax cuts as that would be a more permanent stimulus to the economy – both to individuals and corporations.

I take it you dont agree with the stimulus package. Fair enough. But you havent discussed/offerred any alternative. Would you rather the government do nothing? Or what would you like to see?