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

#52
#52
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...

I'm saying the "spending" portion is problematic in several ways:

1. unfocused - while spending may have some stimulative effect it can have much more impact by being focused in areas that are crucial to economic growth. While I'm not advocating this in particular - here is an example. They could have bought a portion of the foreclosed homes and destroyed them. Seems harsh and wasteful but it would artificially impact supply/demand in the housing market which could stabilize prices. Stabilizing prices gives homeowners better asset values; more equity and could spur home building which is key driver of economic growth. Funding some dumb museum somewhere would not have the same effect.

2. timing - far too much of the spending is in the future to have a short-term stimulative effect. So, the payments to states to prevent immediate layoffs of personnel is a relatively quick spend and while not stimulative on its face it would lessen the negative stimulus of unemployment.

3. non-productive - like #1 in a way; this spending is not investment driven. Broad use infrastructure spending is more of an investment than turtle tunnels.

So, I don't have a problem with spending as a major portion of the stimulus but I do have a problem with the specific spending they've chosen.

Add to that the lack of a true short-term stimulus portion of the plan.
 
#54
#54
volinbham said:
I'm saying the "spending" portion is problematic in several ways:

1. unfocused - while spending may have some stimulative effect it can have much more impact by being focused in areas that are crucial to economic growth. While I'm not advocating this in particular - here is an example. They could have bought a portion of the foreclosed homes and destroyed them. Seems harsh and wasteful but it would artificially impact supply/demand in the housing market which could stabilize prices. Stabilizing prices gives homeowners better asset values; more equity and could spur home building which is key driver of economic growth. Funding some dumb museum somewhere would not have the same effect.

2. timing - far too much of the spending is in the future to have a short-term stimulative effect. So, the payments to states to prevent immediate layoffs of personnel is a relatively quick spend and while not stimulative on its face it would lessen the negative stimulus of unemployment.

3. non-productive - like #1 in a way; this spending is not investment driven. Broad use infrastructure spending is more of an investment than turtle tunnels.

So, I don't have a problem with spending as a major portion of the stimulus but I do have a problem with the specific spending they've chosen.

Add to that the lack of a true short-term stimulus portion of the plan.
Click to expand...

government.jpg
 
#56
#56
to further what vbh was saying:

4. The money being sent to the states has strings attached that will inevitably become unfunded mandates.

5. Infrastructure jobs are always temporary. Also, what is the purpose of building a road, to help commerce, or to provide jobs?

6. Obama's rosy predictions are based on 5+% economic growth.
 
#62
#62
BigPapaVol said:
Anybody catch Laura Tyson getting on the second stimulus train?
Click to expand...

I took a class from her when i was an economics major at cal. scary scary stuff. she couldnt' keep her political views and economic theory seperate. she and obama have very very similar views about the world. how someone like that get's put as the head of hte business school is beyond me. i know more about economics than laura tyson.
 
#63
#63
This is the same university that admitted Ksusha...just sayin', they don't always pick a winner, present company excluded of course.
 
#65
#65
droski said:
I took a class from her when i was an economics major at cal. scary scary stuff. she couldnt' keep her political views and economic theory seperate. she and obama have very very similar views about the world. how someone like that get's put as the head of hte business school is beyond me. i know more about economics than laura tyson.
Click to expand...

did she ever own a business. i never understood why these "economic professionals" never started or ran a business.
 
#67
#67
joevol320 said:
did she ever own a business. i never understood why these "economic professionals" never started or ran a business.
Click to expand...

those who can, do. Those who can't, teach. Those who can't teach, teach gym.

--Dewey Finn
 
#68
#68
droski said:
I took a class from her when i was an economics major at cal. scary scary stuff. she couldnt' keep her political views and economic theory seperate. she and obama have very very similar views about the world. how someone like that get's put as the head of hte business school is beyond me. i know more about economics than laura tyson.
Click to expand...
she's a scary woman
 
#70
#70
volinbham said:
To be fair, the field of economics isn't about running a business.
Click to expand...

no, but there are many basic economic theories that are universal. obama and tyson aparently haven't read such books.
 
Last edited:
#73
#73
droski said:
no, but there are many basic economic theories that are universal. obama and tyson aparently haven't read such books.
Click to expand...

True about Obama. I actually read some of Tyson's stuff during my PhD program - definitely a government interventionalist.
 
#74
#74
volinbham said:
True about Obama. I actually read some of Tyson's stuff during my PhD program - definitely a government interventionalist.
Click to expand...

which would make her a Keynesian economist, right? I'm trying to wrap my head around an economic philosophy that views government spending as superior to a private market.
 
#75
#75
MG1968 said:
which would make her a Keynesian economist, right? I'm trying to wrap my head around an economic philosophy that views government spending as superior to a private market.
Click to expand...

She's of that mind only because the government is decidedly more efficient than the private sector, as has been proven over and over again.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top