If the money is - at least in part - going right back into your hands regardless, then why bother with the lump sum payout to me in the first place?

Um, so you can buy marijuana, beer and ciggies?
guy | 01.23.08 - 9:28 am | #

Funny how the stimulus is a 1 time rebate of $150B (the bidding has just started) which will supposedly keep us out of recession. The same affect could be achieved on an annual basis just by ending the occupation and policing of Iraq, what an economy we would have again! The Iraq money is literally pissed away with almost no economic benefit.
z | 01.23.08 - 9:55 am | #

good post...however, didn't the data after the last tax rebate show that most of the people saved the rebate, instead of spending it? in other words as a stimulus it was pointless...
Rob | Homepage | 01.23.08 - 4:47 pm | #

I don't know if the stimulus was pointless. Even if people saved it, their banks invested it. Unintended consequences in economics usually benefit the most people and hurt the government be subverting the original intent.

It may not have done what was intended, but it did have a positive effect. Was that positive effect worth the cost?
Area Man | 01.23.08 - 5:19 pm | #

I signed my last $300 right over to NORML and thought I was being clever. Maybe I'll go the more direct route this time and have some fun with it!
greg | 01.23.08 - 6:43 pm | #

Z- Lots of people have been making your same point about the spending on the Iraq War being a drain on the US economy. But there is a strong argument to be made that it has been a stimulus, with so much money going to domestic contractors, DHS, government workers etc. Keynes, the classic liberal demand-sider, would argue that the Iraq War spending actually helped the US avoid sliding into recession sooner.

I personally am opposed to the Iraq War spending as a matter of principle and the long-term debt ramifications, but I think it is hard to argue that it has not been a short-term stimulus for the economy.
Leonardo | 01.24.08 - 10:01 pm | #