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

#26
#26
SWIL said:
The public wanted action and they got it. Whether or not this was the right action has yet to be seen...
Click to expand...

I don't know that this is truly the case, IIRC there was a large portion of the American public that was against the bailouts. After details about the stimulus were made known there was also a large portion of the country that questioned how this was directed at jump starting the economy.
 
#27
#27
droski said:
tax cuts or rebates could have been implemented immediately.
Click to expand...

Do you think that more debate would have gotten you those things? I don't think that could have happened in this Congress.

It is a valid point of attack of the nature of the stimulus, but it doesn't support the argument about how quickly the bill was pushed.
 
#28
#28
TennTradition said:
And debating it longer wasn't going to change that.
Click to expand...

debating it longer would have given the public more insight as to what this bill was directed at. It would also have given them more time to make adjustments to this bill that would have kicked the economy into a positive direction, the very same thing they are debating doing this second go around.
 
#29
#29
TennTradition said:
Do you think that more debate would have gotten you those things? I don't think that could have happened in this Congress.
Click to expand...

nope. but as said before the overwhelming majority of hte american people were against the stimulus package in the form it was passed. so therefore obviously there wasn't some sort of mandate from the american people to get it done.
 
#30
#30
KB5252 said:
debating it longer would have given the public more insight as to what this bill was directed at. It would also have given them more time to make adjustments to this bill that would have kicked the economy into a positive direction, the very same thing they are debating doing this second go around.
Click to expand...

Constructive debate may have done that, but I don't think that is where it would have gone. It seemed each day this bill sat around the House and Senate, the bigger it got.

In their defense, wasn't a good portion of the last 200 billion the Senate added in the form of tax breaks?
 
#31
#31
droski said:
nope. but as said before the overwhelming majority of hte american people were against the stimulus package in the form it was passed. so therefore obviously there wasn't some sort of mandate from the american people to get it done.
Click to expand...

It was going to be a spending bill rather than a tax-break bill regardless of how long it was debated - so, despite not having a mandate from the people to get it done as quickly as possible in the form it was in, I don't see the value in them waiting another month to pass the same thing.
 
#32
#32
TennTradition said:
Do you think that more debate would have gotten you those things? I don't think that could have happened in this Congress.

It is a valid point of attack of the nature of the stimulus, but it doesn't support the argument about how quickly the bill was pushed.
Click to expand...

TT, I think the hard question to pose is IF this was really some legislation addressing a right now need (which is how it was most certainly presented) then how is it there were (seemingly) no provisions in expediting implementation? 10% in at this point just doesn't look good if we were really facing a crisis.

It doesn't make for nearly as good TV but it's this "late with implementing your plan for fixing things" that Bush et al got relentlessly beat for after Katrina.
 
#33
#33
Only about 100 billion or so is truly infrastructure so the "it takes awhile to get these off the ground" argument is a bit moot.

Also, if it's a crappy bill I don't see how speed helps it.

Bottomline, it was crappy bill. The leadership was not going to allow it to be anything else.

I'm more concerned if Team Obama thought this actually was a good stimulus bill than if they were just paying back some constituencies.
 
#34
#34
hndog609 said:
TT, I think the hard question to pose is IF this was really some legislation addressing a right now need (which is how it was most certainly presented) then how is it there were (seemingly) no provisions in expediting implementation? 10% in at this point just doesn't look good if we were really facing a crisis.

It doesn't make for nearly as good TV but it's this "late with implementing your plan for fixing things" that Bush et al got relentlessly beat for after Katrina.
Click to expand...

I think that the implementation time is obviously a knock on the administration and Congress. The bill would have obviously been better structured as a tax-break and jobs creation bill that had several phases. However, this Congress was not interested (particularly in the House) in offering tax breaks. They wanted projects and an almost purely Keynesian spending bill. While I think that spending and jobs creation can certainly work, they take time - and tax breaks would have obviously been a quicker way to get some of the money into the economy.

I think that something that hasn't been brought up yet, but is important, is the nature of the administration when this bill was passed. I talked to the CFO of the DOE after the bill had passed, and he told me that he and the secretary alone were the only two high-ranking officials in the department (and this was quite some time after the election...probably in April) who were actually on the job (he was one of the very few holdovers from the previous administration). The nomination/confirmation process takes forever and most of the agencies were left short-handed at the ranks where these types of high-level decisions are made. He was finding himself swamped in trying to make sure the money got out the door...while at the same time trying to be careful to make sure the money was not going to be wasted.

While the career service employees were still around, things needed to be signed off on and new procedures were being put in place...really bogging a lot of things down.

Trying to get a 1 trillion dollar spending bill going while at the same time having a complete administration overhaul (because of the party change) is going to lead to some serious delays, which I think are a big part of why only (ha ha) 100 billion dollars of the money has been spent.
 
#35
#35
obama_black_hole.gif
 
#41
#41
TennTradition said:
I think that the implementation time is obviously a knock on the administration and Congress. The bill would have obviously been better structured as a tax-break and jobs creation bill that had several phases. However, this Congress was not interested (particularly in the House) in offering tax breaks. They wanted projects and an almost purely Keynesian spending bill.
While I think that spending and jobs creation can certainly work, they take time - and tax breaks would have obviously been a quicker way to get some of the money into the economy.

I think that something that hasn't been brought up yet, but is important, is the nature of the administration when this bill was passed. I talked to the CFO of the DOE after the bill had passed, and he told me that he and the secretary alone were the only two high-ranking officials in the department (and this was quite some time after the election...probably in April) who were actually on the job (he was one of the very few holdovers from the previous administration). The nomination/confirmation process takes forever and most of the agencies were left short-handed at the ranks where these types of high-level decisions are made. He was finding himself swamped in trying to make sure the money got out the door...while at the same time trying to be careful to make sure the money was not going to be wasted.

While the career service employees were still around, things needed to be signed off on and new procedures were being put in place...really bogging a lot of things down.

Trying to get a 1 trillion dollar spending bill going while at the same time having a complete administration overhaul (because of the party change) is going to lead to some serious delays, which I think are a big part of why only (ha ha) 100 billion dollars of the money has been spent.
Click to expand...

Your last point is only further damning to the plan. If implementation was going to be difficult due to changeover, why on earth structure the plan so that it needed these people in place.

It could still match Keynsian stimulus if they had simply targeted certain sectors and created tax credits or direct payments of cash to those who could spend it.

I go back to my earlier statement - if Team Obama really thought this was a good STIMULUS plan then I'm even more concerned about the future under their economic policies.
 
#43
#43
volinbham said:
Your last point is only further damning to the plan. If implementation was going to be difficult due to changeover, why on earth structure the plan so that it needed these people in place.

It could still match Keynsian stimulus if they had simply targeted certain sectors and created tax credits or direct payments of cash to those who could spend it.

I go back to my earlier statement - if Team Obama really thought this was a good STIMULUS plan then I'm even more concerned about the future under their economic policies.
Click to expand...

I think that the fact that the administration wasn't in place was largely overlooked when structuring the stimulus, which is obviously a huge knock on the plan.

I bring it up not as defense that the plan is OK but other things are wrong, but more to bring up another compounding factor.

I'm not greatly familiar with how the bill is doling out money (for example, what are they doing instead of targeting sectors and making cash payments?). I see how tax-breaks/credits can be extremely fast. I'm a little less clear on how to find the projects, assemble the teams, develop the contracts, etc. in a fast vs. slow manner. How is it exactly that this bill is doing it as opposed to the direct cash payments you mentioned?
 
#44
#44
TennTradition said:
I'm not greatly familiar with how the bill is doling out money (for example, what are they doing instead of targeting sectors and making cash payments?). I see how tax-breaks/credits can be extremely fast. I'm a little less clear on how to find the projects, assemble the teams, develop the contracts, etc. in a fast vs. slow manner. How is it exactly that this bill is doing it as opposed to the direct cash payments you mentioned?
Click to expand...

1. the tax cuts that are included are basically ineffectual since they are miniscule and broadly distributed. I personally believe they were simply a political tool to claim "tax cuts".

2. Some of the monies are highly targeted (e.g. keeping teachers on the job, keeping police on the job) and can have a stimulative effect or at least prevent a negative stimulative effect.

3. As for tax credits, they could be aimed at sectors and based on spending/investment by businesses - this at least would have a stimulative and direct effect on the economy.

4. I think more monies should have been placed into true infrastructure projects - these would take longer to implement but would be investments rather than simply spending.

5. The argument against broad tax cuts is that people will save them - that's why I think tax credits could have been a more stimulative tool.

So, what would I have done?

Tax credits (substantial) to key sectors of the economy to spur economic activity. (immediate impact)

A bigger emphasis on infrastructure (as much as 40% of the bill).

Some monies directly to states for essential services.
 
#47
#47
So, is the major knock the fact that the bill was structured to be too highly focused on spending (and not necessarily in infrastructure) instead of a balance between spending and the right kind of tax credits?

I see how the targeted tax credits can have a direct and quicker stimulative effect. However, you also seem to be keying in on a problem with how they are spending the "spending" portion of the bill in that it is structured poorly and leading to a long implementation time. I think that you are noting that the infrastructure spending would probably not be that much faster...so is you point that if the money had gone more directly to the states that it would have been spent faster? I'm trying to figure out what it is about the structure (besides the balance between tax credits and spending) that is wrong and is leading to the long implementation time, in your opinion.
 
#48
#48
volinbham said:
Some of the monies are highly targeted (e.g. keeping teachers on the job, keeping police on the job) and can have a stimulative effect or at least prevent a negative stimulative effect.
Click to expand...

Like thinking of Margaret Thatcher naked on a cold day? :)
 
#49
#49
TennTradition said:
So, is the major knock the fact that the bill was structured to be too highly focused on spending (and not necessarily in infrastructure) instead of a balance between spending and the right kind of tax credits?

I see how the targeted tax credits can have a direct and quicker stimulative effect. However, you also seem to be keying in on a problem with how they are spending the "spending" portion of the bill in that it is structured poorly and leading to a long implementation time. I think that you are noting that the infrastructure spending would probably not be that much faster...so is you point that if the money had gone more directly to the states that it would have been spent faster? I'm trying to figure out what it is about the structure (besides the balance between tax credits and spending) that is wrong and is leading to the long implementation time, in your opinion.
Click to expand...

printing_money_for_aig.jpg
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top