Am I on-target in thinking the stimulus will pay for itself?

[backscatter712]

One of the arguments that President Obama touched on during the SOTU address last week was that by spending money on the economic stimulus now, by boosting the economy and accelerating its recovery, that increases tax revenue, and in a few years, assuming we have sane budgets, the stimulus package would actually pay for itself.

In other words, if there wasn't a stimulus, and the economy continued to be in the toilet, given equivalent, or at least analogous .gov budgetary decisions, we'd actually be running bigger deficits and the government would have a higher national debt than if the stimulus was passed and helped the economy recover.

I have the feeling this is true, but googling around doesn't provide me with much in the way of data to say one way or the other.

If this is true, this is an argument we should have been advancing that we overlooked.

[Optical.Catalyst]

1. The stimulus package will pay for itself if we can keep the Republican's fingers out of it

Every time the Republicans want to modify legislation to "improve" it, they are actually attempting to poison it so that it will fail. The Republicans don't want a recovery while the Democratic Party is in control, and they will do everything they can to ensure failure. They do this for purely political reasons without regard to the well being of the people of the United States.

[backscatter712]

2. Fair enough.

Of course, the Rethugs are going to try to sabotage wherever possible, but I'm operating under the assumption that they're mostly prevented from doing so.

I was operating under the assumption that enough of the stimulus was effective at jump-starting the economy to boost federal tax revenues to the point where it actually makes more money than it spent on the stimulus after a few years.

In other words, is the tax revenue from a revived stimulated economy at least $780 billion more than the revenue from a depressed, unstimulated economy over the course of five years? If it is, that means that we're actually saving money over the long haul by spending now.

[soothsayer]

3. if you mean will we pay for it via carbon and gas taxes? then yeah

We pay for everything and the gov't squanders it for us

[vaberella]

4. Well it's a long run idea that it would pay for itself.

But in essence we pay for everything. The idea is that once we start having jobs people will spend the money. But during the time of the jobs this will spur a boom in economic development and ie growth. With better road ways food will be able to go over miles faster and at a better advantage. Better bridges keeps people in jobs for years and that spurs development because people will always spend their checks on uniforms, food, goods and items. Those goods and items that are purchased flourish companies. Construction that is interested in diversifying to "green" will then send their people on training programs which will give some nice addition and that will us move faster. Hence are focus shoudl be on spending and hoisting "green" at the same time. By producing our own green tech and putting that in all our buildings in some way shape or form will sustain us but make a new income/living bracket that can NEVER be outsourced and that's the truth since our nation would be in and of itself somewhat unique based on the environment/climate that is specific to each region. Now with that built in yes the stimulus would not only pay for itself but would actually cut into the economic deficient. So construction and green come hand and hand. Engineers will be specialized, urban planners (like myself), and various other fields would just be US based and NEVER taken out and would always generate huge income levels.

[jody]

5. No, but you are a promising comedian. n/t

[harun]

6. It isn't guaranteed but likely it will. When you look at many areas of the plan

you see where the money will go to start projects, the people working on those projects will be paid and in turn pay taxes and spend (paying sales taxes and providing income to business's where in turn they may pay taxes). So much of the plan comes back home to roost in terms of taxes. If it gets commerce really hopping again it could help bring much more in than it spent. Which I think within two years it will.

[freemarketer6]

7. If there were any idication of what you say, there would have been

a jump in the markets when the stimulus bill was first being discussed. The reverse happened. That seemed strange to me. It has always been buy the perception, sell the fact. That didn't happen with this stimulus package. I don't think it will have the negative effect others have suggested in the financial media. I don't think it will have any effect at all. There is too much negativity in the market. People are frozen with fear, as Buffett said the other day. I think we may have already entered the depression.

[Terran]

8. Homeless Prevention Funds do that

Homeless Prevention is a relatively small part of the bill--'just' $1.5 billion--but it will save the states untold millions in taxes not lost, and money not spent on the foster care, mental health and corrections systems. In my state it costs an average of almost $8000 per year to have one child in the foster care system; because families who experience homelessness are far more likely to have their kids end up in foster care, if you spend $1500 over the course of a year to keep a family stable in their existing housing, you potentially save that much money on state care for the children. Likewise, it costs $14,000 per year to house an inmate in a corrections facility in my state; so if you keep one person off the streets by helping them pay their rent a couple of times, you've possibly saved that much, because homeless peope are far more likely to become incarcerated. Unless they're working, homeless persons generally aren't paying taxes the way non-homeless do--sales taxes, property taxes, personal property taxes, income taxes, all kinds of sources of governemnt income are maintained when you keep people in their homes.