How do liberals react when they realize the first stimulus bill was a bust? They do it again. Question is, who will lend us the money and who is going to pay it back?

Hey liberals on this board, are you guys starting to see a trend you might want to start worrying about?

Quote:Reporting from Washington - Troubled by the rising jobless rate, President Obama and the Democratic majority in Congress are assembling a new jobs package that would devote billions of dollars to projects meant to put people back on payrolls in 2010 and keep them working.

Discussions over the scale of the bill are fluid, but lawmakers said the intent was to move swiftly and get a bill to Obama's desk as early as January.

The renewed push to create jobs is driven by a recognition that the $787-billion stimulus program enacted in February is not a sufficient remedy for an unemployment rate that stands at 10.2%.

Nearly 16 million people were unemployed as of October, and 3.49 million jobs have been lost since January, when Obama took office, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

The stimulus boosted employment but "did it in a way that was not as highly visible as a lot of people would like," said Rep. Betty Sutton (D-Ohio), one of the House members devising the jobs bill. (What the hell does that mean? Either the jobs were created or they weren't.)
"It did so in somewhat of a scattershot approach -- a job here and a job there, trickled out over time. . . . Far too many Americans are without a job, and far too many more are worried about what tomorrow is going to bring," Sutton said.

Congressional aides said the new program could cost tens of billions of dollars. Democratic House members who had wanted a larger stimulus said they would press for a substantial spending plan this time.

Read more

Why should they worry, they are medicated.

(11-27-2009 09:46 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  How do liberals react when they realize the first stimulus bill was a bust? They do it again. Question is, who will lend us the money and who is going to pay it back?

Hey liberals on this board, are you guys starting to see a trend you might want to start worrying about?

Quote:Reporting from Washington - Troubled by the rising jobless rate, President Obama and the Democratic majority in Congress are assembling a new jobs package that would devote billions of dollars to projects meant to put people back on payrolls in 2010 and keep them working.

Discussions over the scale of the bill are fluid, but lawmakers said the intent was to move swiftly and get a bill to Obama's desk as early as January.

The renewed push to create jobs is driven by a recognition that the $787-billion stimulus program enacted in February is not a sufficient remedy for an unemployment rate that stands at 10.2%.

Nearly 16 million people were unemployed as of October, and 3.49 million jobs have been lost since January, when Obama took office, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

The stimulus boosted employment but "did it in a way that was not as highly visible as a lot of people would like," said Rep. Betty Sutton (D-Ohio), one of the House members devising the jobs bill. (What the hell does that mean? Either the jobs were created or they weren't.)
"It did so in somewhat of a scattershot approach -- a job here and a job there, trickled out over time. . . . Far too many Americans are without a job, and far too many more are worried about what tomorrow is going to bring," Sutton said.

Congressional aides said the new program could cost tens of billions of dollars. Democratic House members who had wanted a larger stimulus said they would press for a substantial spending plan this time.

Read more

I think one may be needed because the first one didn't contain what it should have in order to actually stimulate the economy. A few extra bucks per paycheck wasn't going to stimulate anything. There are better and more effective ways(there is a list of which areas get most "bang for the buck") to stimulate the economy. I would hope that if they did try for another one that there would be some spending cuts to offset the cost(I am pretty sure they can find a way to cut some fat without cutting jobs).

you really think they're going to cut fat? I know for a fact you're not that thick

(11-28-2009 11:54 AM)flyingswoosh Wrote:  you really think they're going to cut fat? I know for a fact you're not that thick

Cut fat? Hell, everything thay want to spend money on is fat!

(11-28-2009 04:13 AM)RobertN Wrote:  I think one may be needed because the first one didn't contain what it should have in order to actually stimulate the economy.

What should it contain in your opinion?

(11-28-2009 03:11 PM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  

(11-28-2009 04:13 AM)RobertN Wrote:  I think one may be needed because the first one didn't contain what it should have in order to actually stimulate the economy.

What should it contain in your opinion?

In my opinion it should contain no money.

(11-28-2009 03:11 PM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  

(11-28-2009 04:13 AM)RobertN Wrote:  I think one may be needed because the first one didn't contain what it should have in order to actually stimulate the economy.

What should it contain in your opinion?

I was trying to find the list of items that give the biggest bang for the buck but can't find it right off hand. Anyway, there were many things such as a short term increase food stamp program returned a high % back. Tax cuts were fairly low in this reguard.

(11-30-2009 02:57 AM)RobertN Wrote:  

(11-28-2009 03:11 PM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  

(11-28-2009 04:13 AM)RobertN Wrote:  I think one may be needed because the first one didn't contain what it should have in order to actually stimulate the economy.

What should it contain in your opinion?

I was trying to find the list of items that give the biggest bang for the buck but can't find it right off hand. Anyway, there were many things such as a short term increase food stamp program returned a high % back. Tax cuts were fairly low in this reguard.

The problem is that there's nothing that really gives much bang for the buck, certainly not enough to justify the long-term harmful impacts of the debt we are taking on.

The list to which I think you are referring is one widely circulated at the time of the last "stimulus" suggesting Keynesian multipliers ranging from about 0.5 to 1.6; for every dollar of "stimulus" you get 50 cents to $1.60 increase in GDP. Various government spending programs produced higher projected multipliers than tax cuts; I tried to get proponents on the board to explain, but none ever responded, whether or not that difference simply reflected the fact that a dollar of government spending is counted as a dollar of GDP when spent, while a dollar of tax cut isn't counted until the recipient spends the money. I think that's the case, and that means that the claimed superiority for spending programs is illusory. The analyses I've seen are putting the actual impact of the first "stimulus" at about 1:1, meaning we got about $1 of GDP for each dollar of stimulus.

If anything in the previous paragraph is anywhere close to correct, then the "stimulus" will ultimately prove to be a collosal disaster, very likely destroying the remains of the US economy.

We are a society of me-first greed, arrogance, and hubris. We cannot get on the right track without taking our medicine and reforming our ways. Obviously, no political leader wants that to happen on his watch. So they get elected by promising something for nothing to a populace that believes it is entitled to precisely that, and they stay in power by doing more of the same. Shrub tried to hide the fact that our economy has been in the toilet since 9/11 by creating a housing boom artificially inflated by easy debt. Obama is trying to paper over the resulting debt crisis by incurring more debt. When we run out of somebody else's money, this is all going to crash and burn.

We are a society of me-first greed, arrogance, and hubris. We cannot get on the right track without taking our medicine and reforming our ways. Obviously, no political leader wants that to happen on his watch. So they get elected by promising something for nothing to a populace that believes it is entitled to precisely that, and they stay in power by doing more of the same. Shrub tried to hide the fact that our economy has been in the toilet since 9/11 by creating a housing boom artificially inflated by easy debt. Obama is trying to paper over the resulting debt crisis by incurring more debt. When we run out of somebody else's money, this is all going to crash and burn.




I feel the same way. If the second stimulus passes I am done defending this administration. I did not vote for this. I voted for someone I thought would be responsible with someone else's money. Who I believed would balance the budget. I can excuse the first stimulus because things were bleak last year. This second stimulus is all about job preservation. HIS OWN, with no regards for the overall health of our nation long term. We need a leader who will talk about sacrifice through actions not words.

(11-30-2009 07:41 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  I feel the same way. If the second stimulus passes I am done defending this administration. I did not vote for this. I voted for someone I thought would be responsible with someone else's money. Who I believed would balance the budget. I can excuse the first stimulus because things were bleak last year. This second stimulus is all about job preservation. HIS OWN, with no regards for the overall health of our nation long term. We need a leader who will talk about sacrifice through actions not words.

wow. i didn't expect that

(11-30-2009 07:41 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  I feel the same way. If the second stimulus passes I am done defending this administration. I did not vote for this. I voted for someone I thought would be responsible with someone else's money. Who I believed would balance the budget. I can excuse the first stimulus because things were bleak last year. This second stimulus is all about job preservation. HIS OWN, with no regards for the overall health of our nation long term. We need a leader who will talk about sacrifice through actions not words.

I never had even the slightest inclination to believe that Obama would be fiscally responsible or balance the budget. Those were just lies he told to get elected. Since nobody called him on the lies, he won.

As more and more people figure out that they were lied to, big time, I wonder what the impact will be.

No way I could even consider voting for Obama because of this, and precisely this. For what it's worth, I don't think things would have been any better under the other guy, so I didn't vote for him either. I even had to hold my nose to vote libertarian, the first time I've ever felt that way.

(11-30-2009 06:33 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  The list to which I think you are referring is one widely circulated at the time of the last "stimulus" suggesting Keynesian multipliers ranging from about 0.5 to 1.6; for every dollar of "stimulus" you get 50 cents to $1.60 increase in GDP. Various government spending programs produced higher projected multipliers than tax cuts; I tried to get proponents on the board to explain, but none ever responded, whether or not that difference simply reflected the fact that a dollar of government spending is counted as a dollar of GDP when spent, while a dollar of tax cut isn't counted until the recipient spends the money. I think that's the case, and that means that the claimed superiority for spending programs is illusory. The analyses I've seen are putting the actual impact of the first "stimulus" at about 1:1, meaning we got about $1 of GDP for each dollar of stimulus.

At first blush, the floor should be set much lower - i.e. zero. Especially for specific programs that funneled money abroad. At second blush, I'd think that by spending $1 in govt. bureaucracy, you could easily cost the GDP more than $1, so I'd suggest putting the floor in negative numbers, say Keynesian multipliers of -0.5 to 1.6. I have long believed in the concept of "negative productivity" in the corporate environment.

(11-27-2009 09:46 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  How do liberals react when they realize the first stimulus bill was a bust?

I don't think most consider it a bust. Some companies specializing in financial analysis seem to agree, if you check the chart on the left.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/21/busine...Hd2Z0diaGw