Will the Bush Administration stimulus package prevent a recession?

Set as news: False

Set as news: True

Set as news: True

Yea it should definitely be the Bush Administration. Some are saying that there already is a recession.

As long as there's evidence on both sides of the "prevent a recession" version, it is the more interesting issue.

Maybe we should leave it as the Bush (or Bush administration) stimulus package to be specific, per JZipp.

I'm a little confused on why we should say "federal government" as opposed to "Bush administration"... haven't other administrations put forth stimulus packages to congress in our nation's history? This is particularly Bush's proposed package... so why not specify it as such?

Maybe I'm playing devil's advocate a little bit here, but it's worth noting.

I think it should be whether it will avoid a recession, I am sure there will be plenty of arguments from Republicans (who say it will), Democrats (who say it won't), and economists or market analysts (mixed).

we could go with strengthen the US economy or could tie the question to avoiding a recession.

Will the federal government stimulus package strengthen the U.S. economy?

Marinaz, focus on the issue at hand please.

I thought the package was worked out with the House leaders. Technically, then, I don't know that it's proper to call it the "Bush" stimulus package. Is the implication that, if the Senate comes out with a different version, it won't also strengthen the economy?

On the other hand, I guess we do need "Bush" to make sure what stimulus package we're talking about. If it morphs into something else, then there will also be a "Plan B" package.

On balance, okay, I'm in. But what are the options? "Yes. Yes, but only as part of an overall program of fiscal hygiene and regular Fed-sponsored care. No."

My name's been running away from my thumbnail too! Hate when that happens.

Why is my name trying to run away from my thumbnail? Dammit!

Forbes: Uh-oh. Washington wants a stimulus package to rejuvenate our slowing economy. Usually such programs are full of nice-sounding but wasteful spending initiatives, as well as tax breaks that have a weak, one-shot impact on the economy. President Bush should therefore offer a deal: strong, pro-growth measures as the price for signing off on the usual unproductive stuff. But the White House has panicked and will go for things that won't solve the problems plaguing us. The President should recover his nerve and verve. Otherwise, he will blast away a positive economic legacy.

If there's enough argument about it, I think we can ask gethro's question.

"Will the Bush stimulus package help the economy?" (To me, "improve" sort of implies permanent change.)

I like the issue... however, I'm worried that we'll only come across "no" responses... or something to the effect of "the stimulus package alone will not prevent a recession"...

How about,

Will the Bush stimulus package improve the economy?

The House just passed it, but the Senate is probably going to hold it up for some revisions:

The House voted on Tuesday to approve a $146 billion fiscal stimulus package, hoping to seal a fast-paced deal with President Bush on tax rebates and business incentives intended to jolt the economy with new spending.

 

But the deal, which would be the most striking show of bipartisan cooperation since Democrats won control of Congress in 2006, was at risk as Senate Democrats forged ahead with their own, more expensive plan and jockeyed over what to include in it.

 

The House plan was approved by an overwhelming vote of 385 to 35. Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the Republican leader, Representative John A. Boehner of Ohio, immediately called on the Senate to adopt the House bill without changes, as did President Bush when he was signing an executive order at the White House.

 

Reps aren't coming out and saying it will definitely prevent a recession. In fact, I don't think anyone is. But they obviously agree that it will be effective in jolting the economy.