If “stimulus” was supposed to be timely, why wait to spend the money already allocated?
With the “stimulus” failing to work as advertised, Democrats having two primary ideas when it comes to economic difficulties, “borrow and spend,” are considering a second such package, despite a paucity of economists’ supporting such a proposal.
With “only 14 percent of the [package's] $787 billion has been spent so far,” however, some of its defenders claim it hasn’t had time to work. If the President and congressional Democrats really believe that government spending will help lift the economy out of its doldrums, why then did they so calibrate the “stimulus” so that only a paltry percentage would be spent in the nearly five months since its passage?
I mean wasn’t the spending supposed to be “timely” (in addition to temporary and targeted)? So, here’s a plan, instead of doling out just a quarter of the “stimulus” money this year and instead of passing another plan to increase the national debt, why don’t Democrats just recalibrate the legislation already in place–and release the balance of the money this year?
Congress has already appropriated the money. If they believe spending is the key, well, then, just spend the money they’ve allocated. Shouldn’t that then provide the economy the needed shot in the arm, spurring it back to health and obviating any need for future such stimuli?
16 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
“why then did they so calibrate the “stimulus” so that only a paltry percentage would be spent in the nearly five months since its passage?”
money, when we’re talking about figures in the billions, takes time to spend. if they spent too quickly, they’d be accused of being wreckless (well you make this charge regardless). i’m not saying they couldn’t do a better job here, but logisitically speaking, injecting massive amounts of money into the system in a productive way takes some time.
Comment by bob (aka boob) — July 10, 2009 @ 5:12 pm - July 10, 2009
I’ve already explained this to you; rather than respond to the argument, you’re pretending there isn’t one.
Krugman talked about this months ago: We’re likely not facing a V recession (simple down, simple up), but an L: where it drops and then trails along for a long time at a low level. The stimulus is supposed to stimulate over time to accommodate this reality: we’re going to need help over the long haul, not just an explosion of money now.
Bob’s comment above is well-taken too.
But hey: let’s take it from a (or one of the) recent scandal-bearers, John Ensign, on how long it will take for the stimulus to be judged: “”I think you have to give it at least a year, things like this don’t happen overnight.”"
In other words, when you say the stimulus “fail[ed] to work as advertised,” you’re simply lying: it was advertised that it would take time. It’s like claiming a recipe is a failure when you only bake a cake for 5 minutes instead of the called-for time.
Also, in the real article (you know, the one you didn’t link to, because you never link to the data), there is this gem: “When asked how much the stimulus has helped the economy, 53% of respondents said it has provided somewhat of a boost but that the larger effect is still to come.”
Even your own source material proves you wrong. Rough day, huh?
Comment by torrentprime — July 10, 2009 @ 5:58 pm - July 10, 2009
So you both conceed that there was no need to push this through in a hurry and that a second stimulus isn’t needed.
Thank you gentlemen.
Comment by The_Livewire — July 10, 2009 @ 6:01 pm - July 10, 2009
um torrent, why don’t you actually address the words of the posts to which you attach your comments. Who cares what Ensign says about it? He voted against it. (And why do you feel compelled to bring up his scandal? What relevance does it have here?)
Sorry, torrent, wrong again, I do link to data.
And do you know what I mean by “as advertised”? I mean that as the President promised. He forecast the unemployment level should the “stimulus” pass; we’ve now exceeded that.
And, no, my source material doesn’t prove me wrong. This was not a post about polls, but about promises and results. Krugman is irrelevant here because we’re not dealing with what he said, but with, let me repeat so you might actually pay attention, with what the Administration forecast, contrasting that with the actual results of its polices.
So you cake-baking analogy is ludicrous. I’ve linked a graph comparing the Administration’s predictions to the actual results. (How many times do I need repeat that?) If they had said, it would take time, well, then you’ve have a point. So, please instead of accusing me of dishonesty, go check the record. And don’t pretend that just because Obama and his team said something in February means that it doesn’t matter in July.
So, before rushing to criticize, please address the actual point of the post.
Comment by GayPatriotWest — July 10, 2009 @ 6:10 pm - July 10, 2009
Yes, until enough Republicans get elected to undo the devastating policies Democrats have enacted that caused the crisis and are preventing a recovery and stop the destructive uncertainty and fear that any day now, the federal government is going to reach in and seize everything they have.
The only place people are going to invest under the lawless environment Obama and Democrats have created is elsewhere.
Now who is lying? You just got done making excuses for why it WON’T work!…
“where it drops and then trails along for a long time at a low level”
In other words a recession that doesn’t recover!
Comment by American Elephant — July 10, 2009 @ 7:02 pm - July 10, 2009
Because his DNC talking points don’t usually address the question, so he has to make do with what he can find.
Comment by V the K — July 10, 2009 @ 8:03 pm - July 10, 2009
More importantly, why are blue counties getting all the dough? More importantly still, why is the federal government spending money on local projects that state, county or city governments should be funding?
And even more importantly than that, where’s the Constitutional authority to do so?
Comment by ThatGayConservative — July 10, 2009 @ 8:54 pm - July 10, 2009
And even more importantly, how the f–k are we going to pay for all this spending by the Obamacrats?
Comment by V the K — July 10, 2009 @ 9:36 pm - July 10, 2009
I don’t think liberals care about how their spending is covered. They just destroy the economy and piss on the proles, too many of whom lap it up.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — July 10, 2009 @ 9:39 pm - July 10, 2009
The problem with the “stimulus” is that the money is directed at non-productive activities (ACORN?! John Murtha Airport, unused train stations…Democrat constituencies).
How does a $3.4 million underpass (that much?!) for animals in Florida represent a better investment than, say, $3.4 million invested by a private company in a new product or service?
The government is pissing away the peoples’ money on things the people wouldn’t piss on.
Comment by SoCalRobert — July 11, 2009 @ 1:07 am - July 11, 2009
Not only that, Fwank is trying to make sure we never see dime one from the bank bailouts. He’s busy trying to redirect that cash to ACORN and other “special interests” (read: CRONIES).
Comment by ThatGayConservative — July 11, 2009 @ 1:54 am - July 11, 2009
Oh come now. ACORN is productive. You cant stuff the ballot box if you don’t have phony voters registered to begin with.
Comment by American Elephant — July 11, 2009 @ 5:59 am - July 11, 2009
Before one of the dupes repeats the official Obamacrat line that no money is going to ACORN, recall that the Obamacrats also denied that money in the Spendulus would go to preserve the salt marsh harvest mouse in Nancy Pelosi’s district. Well, guess what: Spendulus money is being spent to preserve the salt marsh harvest mouse.
Comment by V the K — July 11, 2009 @ 12:05 pm - July 11, 2009
And then the entertaining part about this is that Oblahblah blabbed about all the “shovel-ready” projects so that we would see “immediate impact”.
Oops. Turns out there weren’t many of them — or, as it seems, if there were, they were in areas that didn’t vote for Obama, so they weren’t getting anything.
And how are we going to pay for this, V? By raising taxes to crushing levels on individuals and businesses.
The problem with having people like torrentprime, bob, and Obama run the government is that people who have never paid taxes in their lives have no concept of what it does to the spending power of people who actually pay them. The priorities of the Bobs of the world are simple; they believe that businesses should make no profits and should instead be forced to pay for Bob’s free healthcare and fat welfare check so he doesn’t have to work.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — July 11, 2009 @ 6:42 pm - July 11, 2009
By raising taxes to crushing levels on individuals and businesses.
The thing is, if you doubled taxes on everybody making $75K or higher, you still don’t pay for Obama’s deficits.
The USA already has the second highest business taxes in the world. Obama wants them to be higher, at the same time he is crippling business with cap and trade regulations, micromanagement of the financial markets, and the threat of health care reform and card check.
Could one of you Democrats please explain to me how the economy is supposed to grow if it’s government policy to pile businesses with new taxes, regulations, restrictions, and mandates?
Comment by V the K — July 11, 2009 @ 7:22 pm - July 11, 2009
Tax cuts would have been faster and less wasteful. But, Dems couldn’t help but trash cuts and Reagan. And unfortunately, they try to reinforce how “bad” Reagan was all the time, because otherwise they wouldn’t be able to push their taxes so they can spend more. Look what’s happening here in Colorado, and I’m sure elsewhere. We are facing huge budget deficits, and the Dems can’t even bring themselves to make cuts to address that. Bloated education spending is off the table. Frustrating
Comment by keegan — July 13, 2009 @ 5:27 pm - July 13, 2009