French PM: "Obama-style" stimulus plan "irresponsible"

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

LYON: Prime Minister François Fillon on Monday rejected demands that the French government seek to stimulate consumer spending, rather than follow his plan to stimulate corporate and infrastructure investment, to lift France out of its economic slump.

"It would be irresponsible to chose another policy, which would increase our country's indebtedness without having more infrastructure and increased competitiveness in the end," Fillon said in a speech in Lyon.

...

Opponents of the government have been calling for an "Obama-style" stimulus plan, one that puts money directly into the pockets of working people.

...

In December, Sarkozy announced a stimulus package worth €26 billion, or $33.4 billion, over 2009 and 2010, including €11.4 billion in early state reimbursement to companies, and about €10 billion in infrastructure investment by the government, local authorities and state-controlled companies.

Fillon said Monday that Électricité de France would increase investment this year by €2.5 billion to build and renovate new power plants and its grid. GDF Suez, the natural gas and water utility, would lift investment by €200 million.

The Paris transportation authority and the national railroad would increase investment on new trains and infrastructure by €1.35 billion.

The government would spend €400 million on road building and renovation, €300 million on railroads, and €170 million on ports and river infrastructure. It would spend €731 million on universities and research centers and €620 million to renovate prisons, courts and more than 70 monuments and 50 cathedrals.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2009/02/02/business/frecon.php

[almaty 19]

stfu frenchie!

[one...two...tree 2,762]

The percentage of the stimulus bill going to tax cuts was a concession to the Republicans. A sincere effort on the part of Obama to reach across the aisle, even though many economists have said that the tax cuts will not boost consumer spending the way the Republicans believe it will.

[rclouse 0]

The percentage of the stimulus bill going to tax cuts was a concession to the Republicans. A sincere effort on the part of Obama to reach across the aisle, even though many economists have said that the tax cuts will not boost consumer spending the way the Republicans believe it will.

This.

I was watching the Rachel Maddow show and she talked about this. She cited an economic study that found the most beneficial stimulus to the economy was food stamps (yes, food stamps), followed by building infrastructure. For every $1 put in to food stamps, it generates $1.53 in the economy. For infrastructure it was like $1.47.

Tax cuts, however, only generate $1.03 to the economy. And corporate tax cuts are actually negative to the economy, putting 30 cents in for every dollar.

But hey, what do a bunch of economists know? More tax cuts, especially for the wealthy and for corporations!

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

The percentage of the stimulus bill going to tax cuts was a concession to the Republicans. A sincere effort on the part of Obama to reach across the aisle, even though many economists have said that the tax cuts will not boost consumer spending the way the Republicans believe it will.

This.

I was watching the Rachel Maddow show and she talked about this. She cited an economic study that found the most beneficial stimulus to the economy was food stamps (yes, food stamps), followed by building infrastructure. For every $1 put in to food stamps, it generates $1.53 in the economy. For infrastructure it was like $1.47.

Tax cuts, however, only generate $1.03 to the economy. And corporate tax cuts are actually negative to the economy, putting 30 cents in for every dollar.

But hey, what do a bunch of economists know? More tax cuts, especially for the wealthy and for corporations!

What all those analyses don't take into account (because they can't) is the long-term effects of the expenditure. Food stamps are a one shot deal. You give me food stamps, I consume with it once. It creates a single ripple down the economic chain. Infrastructure, on the other hand, if the project is chosen wisely, is the gift that gives once and gives again and again and again and again.

[NickD 203]

The percentage of the stimulus bill going to tax cuts was a concession to the Republicans. A sincere effort on the part of Obama to reach across the aisle, even though many economists have said that the tax cuts will not boost consumer spending the way the Republicans believe it will.

This.

I was watching the Rachel Maddow show and she talked about this. She cited an economic study that found the most beneficial stimulus to the economy was food stamps (yes, food stamps), followed by building infrastructure. For every $1 put in to food stamps, it generates $1.53 in the economy. For infrastructure it was like $1.47.

Tax cuts, however, only generate $1.03 to the economy. And corporate tax cuts are actually negative to the economy, putting 30 cents in for every dollar.

But hey, what do a bunch of economists know? More tax cuts, especially for the wealthy and for corporations!

What all those analyses don't take into account (because they can't) is the long-term effects of the expenditure. Food stamps are a one shot deal. You give me food stamps, I consume with it once. It creates a single ripple down the economic chain. Infrastructure, on the other hand, if the project is chosen wisely, is the gift that gives once and gives again and again and again and again.

Especially that €620 million to renovate prisons, courts and more than 70 monuments and 50 cathedrals.

Ha, our state whatever wants 9,000 more prison beds, with prisoners, that would give her $270 million more a year for her budget at $30K a prisoner. That would certainly improve our economy if you think like a politician. Or maybe that would improve her economy.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

The percentage of the stimulus bill going to tax cuts was a concession to the Republicans. A sincere effort on the part of Obama to reach across the aisle, even though many economists have said that the tax cuts will not boost consumer spending the way the Republicans believe it will.

This.

I was watching the Rachel Maddow show and she talked about this. She cited an economic study that found the most beneficial stimulus to the economy was food stamps (yes, food stamps), followed by building infrastructure. For every $1 put in to food stamps, it generates $1.53 in the economy. For infrastructure it was like $1.47.

Tax cuts, however, only generate $1.03 to the economy. And corporate tax cuts are actually negative to the economy, putting 30 cents in for every dollar.

But hey, what do a bunch of economists know? More tax cuts, especially for the wealthy and for corporations!

There were some economists on the news last night talking about this - that the failure of the 2008 stimulus rebate was that everyone didn't go out and spend their $600 - $1200 on a new HDTV but instead used it to pay outstanding debts.

So it makes at least some kind of sense to put the money into things like welfare (given the increasing number of unemployed) and investing in infrastructure to encourage future investment.

[Jasman0717 9]

stfu frenchie!

Most excellent advice