There was a mention on one of the news networks last night that France's stimulus package required that the overwhelming percentage of the money be spent during the 2009 fiscal year, so as to have an immediate or short term impact on the economy. Does the U.S. stimulus package have similar stipulations? I understand our stimulus package was far larger than any other, but what the French did strikes me as the prudent thing to do.
Obama's own advisors and supporters are calling it a failure by pressing for a second stimulus. Would this be needed if the first stimulus was anything but a failure?
I don't need to please you, Sam. Your evidence was not reliable, as you cited a source stating that government spending had a multiplier of "x" vs a "y" multiplier for tax cuts. Yeah, because that can accurately be measured... What has this stimulus bill done so far? Is it creating jobs, like Obama trumpeted? Since you have access to every piece of information in the world, maybe you could shed some light on this. I'd really like to know what's being stimulated. Anyways, like I said, it is my belief and opinion that Obama should have focused more on small businesses such as decreasing the costs of having employees, and also reduce the capital gains tax temporarily to promote more investment. That opinion comes from a background of being an owner of several small businesses and a heavy investor in the markets. Where does yours come from?
lets say the stimulus bill was directed totally to highway projects. do you think those things get up and running in six months. yeah, they need to start expanding hwy 290 yesterday, i mean its only hwy expansion that needs surveying, buying up land, engineering, etc, etc. the construction crews should be there yesterday. the criticism of the stimulus (and I'm skeptial myself) isn't creating jobs right now is beyond ridiculous.
Citation? But the Man has his finger on the pulse of this thing and knows it has a long way to play out. If the bleeding has been stopped by the bank and auto bailouts, there are some advantages to spreading the recovery over a longer term anyway (the term envisioned). It allows for consideration of changing conditions and fine tuning. The first checkpoint isn't until the mid-term elections and the real evaluation will be 2012.
We were warned by the administration, that if the bill didn't pass, we could see unemployment reach levels in excess of 9% (I believe it was 9) How much of it was underestimating the severity of the economy or the stimulus not being effective, we don't know. But it's definitely a mix of both.
Traitor, aren't tired of being a serial liar ? the incompetent W's tax cuts pissed away the huges surplus, that he had inherited from Clinton, in his first 6 months in office--- some 2 months before the 9/11 attack. stop lying correction, that's where all the Clinton-generated budget surplus went from Jan 22, 2000 to mid-July 2000, ~ 2 months before the 9/11 attack. W pissed away the huge surplus in his first 6 months in office.
It can accurately be measured - it is an accepted tenet of contemporary economics. It's not that hard - you don't even have to bring multipliers into it. We can just start on the first generation. When the government spends $100 to build a bridge, $100 in consumption is pumped into the economy. When the government spends $100 on a tax cut, $100 - Savings is pumped into the economy. Assuming S is a positive number, what part of 100 > 100 - S do you find controversial?
Good post. We're losing jobs at a rate of around 15,000 per day since the stimulus passed. Unemployment has far outstripped the level that Obama said it would not exceed -- rendering the bill a failure from a jobs perspective. Biden himself is criticzing Obama -- saying he misread the economy. Sam Fisher was been utterly discredited by trumpeting all of those spending multipliers, none of which have played out as planned. Why? Because we didn't get stimulus. We got porkulus and a sloppy liberal orgy of social programs that reward failure. I guess every so often we need a reminder of just how deeply flawed the liberals' fiscal policy positions are. Sadly, our nation's nest eggs must bear the brunt of the libs' misguided efforts...
You expect this problem, that took 7 years of massive rape and greed to even be revealed, to be solved in six months? You watch too much TV.
its not a mix of both, the economy sucks, it was lonnnnng overdue for a correction. Obama's team didn't know how much it sucks, but that isn't a criticism for passing the stimulus.
In typical SamF fashion... choosing a small part of the argument to respond to. What, you don't have any other objections to what else I posted? Could you provide the evidence that the stimulus is effective, or at least tell me where you base your opinion from? Face it, multiplier cannot be accurately measured. It's even more flawed for government spending funded by the deficit as that does not factor in how borrowing that money gets paid off in the future.
the height of ignorance, expecting an economic cure, in less than 6 months, to reverse the damage caused by W's incompetence over an 8-year period ? get a clue, will ya ! Obama's economic rescue mission has got a long way to go. thus far, he has added stability to the economy.
Obama's team didn't know? I'm not saying they should be right 100% of the time, but it is their job to have the best people possible to avoid making those mistakes. Maybe if they had a better idea of how bad the economy was, the stimulus would have been different. I never said a stimulus was not needed. I just think it should be less government spending, and more incentives for investors and cost reductions for small businesses. I believe we would have seen better results in a shorter period of time.
how could the stimulus be different? how can they save the economy in six months. you guys are being obtuse about the severity of the problem.
I have an open mind, and always willing to learn. So if you'd like to, tell me why and I'll gladly listen.
I already stated how, less focus on government programs and projects and more incentives for small business (a major factor for the US economy) and investors. Why are you skeptical? What would you need to see right now in the economy to not have that skepticism? Anything different you would see in the stimulus?
do you really think that's the problem. what do you want to do lower taxes more than bush did. obviously that didn't work.
