By obama's own stats only 10% of the stimulus package has been spent

[droski]

"Vice President Joe Biden said the Obama administration "misread how bad the economy was" and didn't foresee unemployment levels nearing double digits"

Brilliant!!! obama has saved so many jobs!


The scary part of this article "White House economists are discussing whether a second round of stimulus is needed."

Calls Grow to Increase Stimulus Spending - WSJ.com

 

[DC Vol]

"Vice President Joe Biden said the Obama administration "misread how bad the economy was" and didn't foresee unemployment levels nearing double digits"

Brilliant!!! obama has saved so many jobs!


The scary part of this article "White House economists are discussing whether a second round of stimulus is needed."

Calls Grow to Increase Stimulus Spending - WSJ.com

I guess they'll just keep stimulating until we're in a state of stimulation overload.

 

[lawgator1]

Well, now, your quote is very misleading and you need to put that line about a second stimulus package into context:



White House economists are discussing whether a second round of stimulus is needed, but a decision isn't expected until at least the fall. "We remain focused on putting thousands of Americans back to work" through implementation of the February stimulus act, an administration official said Sunday. "Any discussion of a second stimulus is premature at this point."

That timetable isn't fast enough for some economists, who say quick action is necessary to avoid a protracted period of joblessness.

"A second stimulus should be the one they should have done the first time, something that is relatively fast and thoughtful," said Phillip Swagel, a professor at Georgetown University's McDonough School of Business. Mr. Swagel, a former Treasury assistant secretary for economic policy under President George W. Bush, said a more-effective package could include more assistance to struggling state and local governments and personal tax cuts.


The article says its being disucssed and that some economists are for it, in the form of tax breaks and some assistance to state governments, and that at least one of the economists touting it is a Bush advisor. So let's not just make it seem like they are going to spend for the sake of spending.

 

[KB5252]

If only 10% of stimulus funds have been spent to date why are we even considering spending more?

Is this administration set on the idea of spending us into oblivion? This is a serious question that plays directly into the conspiracy theorists ideas of how Obama plans to undermine the country and bring about the new world order or bring socialist government to America (I'm certainly not sold on new world order but the later does seem to be plausible). Am I misguided for believing this might be the ultimate goal? Just about every single example of my mistrust of Obama and his agenda have been proven right up to this point.

Edit: I want to be clear and state that I do not think this to be the most likely reason Obama passed the stimulus. It is much more likely he passed this bill as a real effort to jump start the economy, the plan and execution were flawed and it was never going to have the effect he wished.

 

[KB5252]

Well, now, your quote is very misleading and you need to put that line about a second stimulus package into context:



White House economists are discussing whether a second round of stimulus is needed, but a decision isn't expected until at least the fall. "We remain focused on putting thousands of Americans back to work" through implementation of the February stimulus act, an administration official said Sunday. "Any discussion of a second stimulus is premature at this point."

That timetable isn't fast enough for some economists, who say quick action is necessary to avoid a protracted period of joblessness.

"A second stimulus should be the one they should have done the first time, something that is relatively fast and thoughtful," said Phillip Swagel, a professor at Georgetown University's McDonough School of Business. Mr. Swagel, a former Treasury assistant secretary for economic policy under President George W. Bush, said a more-effective package could include more assistance to struggling state and local governments and personal tax cuts.


The article says its being disucssed and that some economists are for it, in the form of tax breaks and some assistance to state governments, and that at least one of the economists touting it is a Bush advisor. So let's not just make it seem like they are going to spend for the sake of spending.

Fall is only a few months away, at the going rate we can expect maybe 20% of stimulus funds to be spent by the fall at most?

 

[droski]

by the time this stimulus actually gets going we are going to be in a full recovery. $1 trillion down the tubes. thanks obama.

 

[SavageOrangeJug]

by the time this stimulus actually gets going we are going to be in a full recovery. $1 trillion down the tubes. thanks obama.

....and Obama will get full credit for a recovery he had nothing to do with. :shakehead:

 

[volinbham]

Well, now, your quote is very misleading and you need to put that line about a second stimulus package into context:



White House economists are discussing whether a second round of stimulus is needed, but a decision isn't expected until at least the fall. "We remain focused on putting thousands of Americans back to work" through implementation of the February stimulus act, an administration official said Sunday. "Any discussion of a second stimulus is premature at this point."

That timetable isn't fast enough for some economists, who say quick action is necessary to avoid a protracted period of joblessness.

"A second stimulus should be the one they should have done the first time, something that is relatively fast and thoughtful," said Phillip Swagel, a professor at Georgetown University's McDonough School of Business. Mr. Swagel, a former Treasury assistant secretary for economic policy under President George W. Bush, said a more-effective package could include more assistance to struggling state and local governments and personal tax cuts.


The article says its being disucssed and that some economists are for it, in the form of tax breaks and some assistance to state governments, and that at least one of the economists touting it is a Bush advisor. So let's not just make it seem like they are going to spend for the sake of spending.

What it also implies is that the critics of the original stimulus were correct - it was a poorly crafted stimulus plan.

It was more about funding every pet project than truly giving the economy a short term jolt - what some economists (including the one you quote) are still advocating.

 

[lawgator1]

What it also implies is that the critics of the original stimulus were correct - it was a poorly crafted stimulus plan.

It was more about funding every pet project than truly giving the economy a short term jolt - what some economists (including the one you quote) are still advocating.

Ok, that's fine and a legitimate criticism, i.e. that the initial stimulus plan was too much pork, too little substantce. I agree with that. Have said many times I wish Obama had hung out to dry any Democrat who forced into the bill some pork project for their district.

All I am saying is that let's not just go crazy by even the thought of a second stimulus package without some details, which is how I read the initial post.

 

[hndog609]

Also, wasn't this some kind of screaming 12 alarm fire emergency thing to get passed since we had to get that money into the system, like, right NOW? If that was the case then WTH are we only 10% into doing what was so flaming urgent?

 

[droski]

Have said many times I wish Obama had hung out to dry any Democrat who forced into the bill some pork project for their district.

:lolabove: do you really think obama was against the pork?

what has he done since that would lead you to this conclusion? obviously his attitude is he is going to use this crisis to get every BS pet project/bill he has ever wanted to get passed/funded.

 

[volinbham]

All I am saying is that let's not just go crazy by even the thought of a second stimulus package without some details, which is how I read the initial post.

What indication do you have that this administration could:

1. accurately determine if another stimulus is needed?
2. structure an appropriate and effective stimulus package if one is needed?

We know their economic projections are off.

We know they screwed up the first stimulus package.

We know they are pushing through programs with high costs that will not help the economy in the short run.

I think it's perfectly appropriate to be concerned when they start talking about another program.

 

[lawgator1]

:lolabove: do you really think obama was against the pork?

what has he done since that would lead you to this conclusion? obviously his attitude is he is going to use this crisis to get every BS pet project/bill he has ever wanted to get passed/funded.

I don't think they were his ideas, they were the standard things congresspeople insist on to take back to their individual districts. He should have outed them for it, but didn't, and that was dissapointing though not really all that surprising since it seems habitual for any new president.

 

[OrangeEmpire]

Insanity all around, this gives the bastard, I mean Obama an excuse to print out trillions of worthless paper dollars!

 

[lawgator1]

What indication do you have that this administration could:

1. accurately determine if another stimulus is needed?

Not sure they've decided that. But former Bush adviser says so.

2. structure an appropriate and effective stimulus package if one is needed?

Again, I don't agree with the assumption. They've not decided to do anything, yet. But if so, and with even conservatives promoting something to promote job growth, I think that would be the focus.


We know their economic projections are off.

Not by a ton. And everyone's were off. This is fairly new territory.

We know they screwed up the first stimulus package.

I think its a bit early for that judgment, though as I say I agree that it had way too much pork in it.

We know they are pushing through programs with high costs that will not help the economy in the short run.

Depends on how you define "short run" and whether its a bad thing if it only helps make the recession shorter or less deep at the back end.

I think it's perfectly appropriate to be concerned when they start talking about another program.

I agree, but let's be concerned for the right reasons, which would be whether its needed and whether its focused on the right areas. The first part is not established and it seems like initial discussions are targeted on things conservatives might support, such as small business tax breaks to encourage employment.

See above.

 

[utvolpj]

what if instead misreading how bad it was they actually made it worse? :question:

 

[volinbham]

See above.

You are quoting a Bush advisor on sound economic policy - that has to be a first for you.

Christina Roemer has repeatedly talked about a second stimulus package.

The problem with their projections being off is that they are also off on future GDP growth and as a result DEFICITS. We were sold the first package based on what the impact would be - they were wrong regarding that impact.

I don't think it's early to judge the first stimulus was poorly structured. Virtually all the economists that called for stimulus did so on the basis of planned massive injections of spending into the economy - this stimulus package was structured in a way that such an influx was impossible.

Also, the package from the House was virtually identical to the plan proposed from the WH. In fact the WH sent a plan to the House. To claim BO wasn't the architect of the stimulus plan is simply wrong.

Healthcare reform and Cap and Trade will not shorten this recession.

 

[hndog609]

You are quoting a Bush advisor on sound economic policy - that has to be a first for you.

Christina Roemer has repeatedly talked about a second stimulus package.

The problem with their projections being off is that they are also off on future GDP growth and as a result DEFICITS. We were sold the first package based on what the impact would be - they were wrong regarding that impact.

I don't think it's early to judge the first stimulus was poorly structured. Virtually all the economists that called for stimulus did so on the basis of planned massive injections of spending into the economy - this stimulus package was structured in a way that such an influx was impossible.

Also, the package from the House was virtually identical to the plan proposed from the WH. In fact the WH sent a plan to the House. To claim BO wasn't the architect of the stimulus plan is simply wrong.

Healthcare reform and Cap and Trade will not shorten this recession.[/quote]

I think you're being more than charitable with that last part.

 

[SWIL]

This doesn't surprise me. Large structural/civil capital projects take a long time to get off the ground; 10 - 22 months sometimes.

We'll likely start seeing simulus jobs take hold right as the economy begins to slowly turn around. Hopefully, it will aid in jump starting the sluggish grow that is predicted for the first quarter of 2010.

 

[droski]

This doesn't surprise me. Large structural/civil capital projects take a long time to get off the ground; 10 - 22 months sometimes.

We'll likely start seeing simulus jobs take hold right as the economy begins to slowly turn around. Hopefully, it will aid in jump starting the sluggish grow that is predicted for the first quarter of 2010.

if the plan was for this to not help for a year then why the urgency to get it passed so quickly?

 

[TennTradition]

if the plan was for this to not help for a year then why the urgency to get it passed so quickly?

I'm not trying to defend everything about the stimulus here...but if something takes that long to take effect, isn't getting it started as early as possible even more important?

One side of that argument could be that if the bill were debated longer, perhaps a better solution could have been developed that would have had an effect sooner. However, with Congress, I find that to be a dubious proposition, so I think that we would have just further delayed a piece of legislation that still would have taken a year to get rolling.

 

[SWIL]

if the plan was for this to not help for a year then why the urgency to get it passed so quickly?

The public wanted action and they got it. Whether or not this was the right action has yet to be seen...

 

[KB5252]

I'm not trying to defend everything about the stimulus here...but if something takes that long to take effect, isn't getting it started as early as possible even more important?

only if it benefits the economy as advertised, which in this case it has not. For the most part this stimulus was a free for all who wanted local projects done at home to bolster the public sentiment at home.

 

[droski]

I'm not trying to defend everything about the stimulus here...but if something takes that long to take effect, isn't getting it started as early as possible even more important?

One side of that argument could be that if the bill were debated longer, perhaps a better solution could have been developed that would have had an effect sooner. However, with Congress, I find that to be a dubious proposition, so I think that we would have just further delayed a piece of legislation that still would have taken a year to get rolling.

tax cuts or rebates could have been implemented immediately.

 

[TennTradition]

only if it benefits the economy as advertised, which in this case it has not. For the most part this stimulus was a free for all who wanted local projects done at home to bolster the public sentiment at home.

And debating it longer wasn't going to change that.