10 Reasons to Whack Obama's Stimulus Plan

[nowhereman 1]

Alienlovechild doesn't like Obama's plan simply because it comes from a Democratic President... if McCain had won & presented the same plan he would love it. Bottom line is that he's incapable of seeing the truth because he's too busy hating those awful libruls.

If you want a more objective view of the plan try:

Economic Stimulus: How It Works (or Fails)

Like any other plan there are Pros or Cons to it. Ignore the rhetoric and decide for yourself.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I think that link relates to the Bush plan from last year.

This is the current set of proposals I believe.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Reco...investment_Plan

Plenty of economists are behind it (including Paul Krugman - who won the Nobel Prize in economics) so I guess it comes to down to which set of people you want to believe. I can't say I know enough about economics to really critique the proposals in any detail, but it seems to me that as the general economic outlook is less than ideal (and to some extent - a precedent), no response plan is going to be foolproof or guaranteed of success.

I do however, object to the earmarking that's coming out of Congress. Certainly not something that should be indulged by a supposedly "transparent" government.

[alienlovechild 75]

However, I would suggest that continuing with failed Bush policies (tax reductions for big business) is not a suitable strategy either as clearly that wasn't working out too well! I do think however that a 'do much less' policy might be a better course of action and I really think that investment in real infrastructure is a good plan and with the emphasis on transparency and the use of internet solutions to track spending we will be able to find out exactly where the money goes, which is a postive change.

It's fair ask how well Bush's tax rebate fared in helping the economy. I haven't seen any results probably it's hard to say the economy was spurred solely by that act. There is some solace that we may be discussing Obama's grandiose but failed economic plan. I'm in the infrastructure business myself doubt it will change much in my area. It's too slow (don't have many to let projects in 120 days anyway), won't reduce un employment much and doesn't have of much of a multiplier effect on the economy. Sorry, I knew nobdy read the article so I summarized points 4, 5 and 7.

"4) An initial CBO analysis found that a mere $26 billion out of $274 billion in infrastructure spending, just 7 percent, would be delivered into the economy by next fall. An update determined that just 64 percent of the stimulus would reach the economy by 2011."

"5) University of Chicago economist and Nobel laureate Gary Becker doubts whether all this stimulus spending will do much to lower unemployment: "For one thing, the true value of these government programs may be limited because they will be put together hastily, and are likely to contain a lot of political pork and other inefficiencies. For another thing, with unemployment at 7% to 8% of the labor force, it is impossible to target effective spending programs that primarily utilize unemployed workers, or underemployed capital. Spending on infrastructure, and especially on health, energy, and education, will mainly attract employed persons from other activities to the activities stimulated by the government spending. The net job creation from these and related spending is likely to be rather small. In addition, if the private activities crowded out are more valuable than the activities hastily stimulated by this plan, the value of the increase in employment and GDP could be very small, even negative."

"7) Economists Susan Woodward and Robert Hall find that the multiplier effect from infrastructure spending maybe just 1-for-1, less than that 3-to-1 ratio for tax cuts that Romer found: "We believe that the one-for-one rule derived from wartime increases in military spending would also apply to increases in infrastructure spending in a stimulus package. We should not count on any inducement of higher consumption from the infrastructure stimulus."

Now now. Not reading posted articles was your forte, if you remember.

That and the abundance of ego.

Oh course, you've never been accused of that before. . . at least not today.

Alienlovechild doesn't like Obama's plan simply because it comes from a Democratic President... if McCain had won & presented the same plan he would love it. Bottom line is that he's incapable of seeing the truth because he's too busy hating those awful libruls.

If you want a more objective view of the plan try:

Economic Stimulus: How It Works (or Fails)

Like any other plan there are Pros or Cons to it. Ignore the rhetoric and decide for yourself.

Nowhereguy, you can't use that source. It's reactionary right bs, ask Almaty. . . it's from the same source I used the in OP- U.S. News. Nevermind, I actually read some of the article before trashing it outright. If we must have some kind of economic jolt from Uncle Sam:

The tax rebates might work because inflationary fears are the least of our worries. Tax breaks for business should be for small businesses. I cut see how interest rate cuts can go much lower and have an effect. Don't tell Obama about this part:

"Government spending- "The money ultimately comes from taxpayers, and the government generally spends money less efficiently than consumers: The Sen. Millard F. Blowhard Memorial Bridge to Nowhere isn't going to save the economy."

[Peikko 1,575]

I read it, I just didn't agree with the conclusions drawn re infrastructure. My bad, I know.

As for the Bush stimulus - the economy spurred solely by that act? The economy wasn't spurred period. What financial markets have you been watching?

[spookyturtle 9,466]

I read it, I just didn't agree with the conclusions drawn re infrastructure. My bad, I know.

As for the Bush stimulus - the economy spurred solely by that act? The economy wasn't spurred period. What financial markets have you been watching?

Rose colored glasses?

[nowhereman 1]

I think that link relates to the Bush plan from last year.

This is the current set of proposals I believe.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Reco...investment_Plan

Plenty of economists are behind it (including Paul Krugman - who won the Nobel Prize in economics) so I guess it comes to down to which set of people you want to believe. I can't say I know enough about economics to really critique the proposals in any detail, but it seems to me that as the general economic outlook is less than ideal (and to some extent - a precedent), no response plan is going to be foolproof or guaranteed of success.

I do however, object to the earmarking that's coming out of Congress. Certainly not something that should be indulged by a supposedly "transparent" government.

My bad I saw a January date & thought it was about Obama's plan... I googled for Obama, not Bush! Anyways my point is the same... the plan has Pros & Cons.

[nowhereman 1]

However, I would suggest that continuing with failed Bush policies (tax reductions for big business) is not a suitable strategy either as clearly that wasn't working out too well! I do think however that a 'do much less' policy might be a better course of action and I really think that investment in real infrastructure is a good plan and with the emphasis on transparency and the use of internet solutions to track spending we will be able to find out exactly where the money goes, which is a postive change.

It's fair ask how well Bush's tax rebate fared in helping the economy. I haven't seen any results probably it's hard to say the economy was spurred solely by that act. There is some solace that we may be discussing Obama's grandiose but failed economic plan. I'm in the infrastructure business myself doubt it will change much in my area. It's too slow (don't have many to let projects in 120 days anyway), won't reduce un employment much and doesn't have of much of a multiplier effect on the economy. Sorry, I knew nobdy read the article so I summarized points 4, 5 and 7.

"4) An initial CBO analysis found that a mere $26 billion out of $274 billion in infrastructure spending, just 7 percent, would be delivered into the economy by next fall. An update determined that just 64 percent of the stimulus would reach the economy by 2011."

"5) University of Chicago economist and Nobel laureate Gary Becker doubts whether all this stimulus spending will do much to lower unemployment: "For one thing, the true value of these government programs may be limited because they will be put together hastily, and are likely to contain a lot of political pork and other inefficiencies. For another thing, with unemployment at 7% to 8% of the labor force, it is impossible to target effective spending programs that primarily utilize unemployed workers, or underemployed capital. Spending on infrastructure, and especially on health, energy, and education, will mainly attract employed persons from other activities to the activities stimulated by the government spending. The net job creation from these and related spending is likely to be rather small. In addition, if the private activities crowded out are more valuable than the activities hastily stimulated by this plan, the value of the increase in employment and GDP could be very small, even negative."

"7) Economists Susan Woodward and Robert Hall find that the multiplier effect from infrastructure spending maybe just 1-for-1, less than that 3-to-1 ratio for tax cuts that Romer found: "We believe that the one-for-one rule derived from wartime increases in military spending would also apply to increases in infrastructure spending in a stimulus package. We should not count on any inducement of higher consumption from the infrastructure stimulus."

Now now. Not reading posted articles was your forte, if you remember.

That and the abundance of ego.

Oh course, you've never been accused of that before. . . at least not today.

Alienlovechild doesn't like Obama's plan simply because it comes from a Democratic President... if McCain had won & presented the same plan he would love it. Bottom line is that he's incapable of seeing the truth because he's too busy hating those awful libruls.

If you want a more objective view of the plan try:

Economic Stimulus: How It Works (or Fails)

Like any other plan there are Pros or Cons to it. Ignore the rhetoric and decide for yourself.

Nowhereguy, you can't use that source. It's reactionary right bs, ask Almaty. . . it's from the same source I used the in OP- U.S. News. Nevermind, I actually read some of the article before trashing it outright. If we must have some kind of economic jolt from Uncle Sam:

The tax rebates might work because inflationary fears are the least of our worries. Tax breaks for business should be for small businesses. I cut see how interest rate cuts can go much lower and have an effect. Don't tell Obama about this part:

"Government spending- "The money ultimately comes from taxpayers, and the government generally spends money less efficiently than consumers: The Sen. Millard F. Blowhard Memorial Bridge to Nowhere isn't going to save the economy."

Nothing wrong with the source... but you chose to highlight what you thought was wrong with the plan. In reality the plan is a mixed bag & there isn't a panacea out there. One encouraging thing is that instead of saying bite me & pass the damn package (like Bush did) Obama is saying to Republicans that he's receptive to their ideas.

[alienlovechild 75]

As for the Bush stimulus - the economy spurred solely by that act? The economy wasn't spurred period.

Maybe this helps, "I haven't seen any results probably it's hard to say if the economy was spurred solely by that act." I haven't seen anything showing its positive or negative effects.

Nothing wrong with the source... but you chose to highlight what you thought was wrong with the plan.

I didn't say anything until posters starting slamming the article without reading it.

One encouraging thing is that instead of saying bite me & pass the damn package (like Bush did) Obama is saying to Republicans that he's receptive to their ideas.

Recheck your history. The GOP only controlled both houses in Congress from 2003-2007. Bush couldn't ram through budgets without bipartisan support in the outlying years.

[Amby 490]

House Passes $819B Stimulus Package

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/01/28...-stimulus-plan/

[one...two...tree 2,762]

House Passes $819B Stimulus Package

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/01/28...-stimulus-plan/

God, I hope this will work...

[nowhereman 1]

Recheck your history. The GOP only controlled both houses in Congress from 2003-2007. Bush couldn't ram through budgets without bipartisan support in the outlying years.

Well the Dems didn't have the votes to override Bush's veto (as I recall the only veto they did beat was Child Health Plus or whatever its called) so instead of trying to work with the Dems Bush consistently played a game of chicken with them & if the Dems resisted the Bush cronies always pulled some BS (like suggesting the Dems were unpatriotic when they threatened not to pass funding for the troops).

Whether you like or dislike Obama it's very easy to see that he is at least trying to get bipartisan support vs Bush's strong arm tactics.

Edited January 29, 2009 by nowhereman

[dalegg 143]

House Passes $819B Stimulus Package

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/01/28...-stimulus-plan/

Yet, they voted against delaying DTV..

GOP voted unanimously against the bill. This will be the ultimate political victory or defeat.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

House Passes $819B Stimulus Package

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/01/28...-stimulus-plan/

Yet, they voted against delaying DTV..

GOP voted unanimously against the bill. This will be the ultimate political victory or defeat.

Yep. Not all the Democrats supported it. You can see which party has no spine right now.

[Danno 1,228]

I guess for at least the next four years, anytime someone disagrees with a move by Obama, it's really because the complaining person has it in for Obama... rather than just disagrees with a lot of his ideas.

If throwing money at Government were the secret to a prosperous economy, why are we in a recession now?

Bush did nothing but throw around money and grow Govt.

It is always the "Private sector" which produces jobs ....and small business, at that.

Obama's plan only considers this incidentally.

[nowhereman 1]

I guess for at least the next four years, anytime someone disagrees with a move by Obama, it's really because the complaining person has it in for Obama... rather than just disagrees with a lot of his ideas.

In reality its both reasons (disagreeing & being petty). The Republicans and Democrats don't have to like or agree with each other, but unfortunately there are a lot of Republicans (the Rush Limbaugh wannabes) that (in a heartbeat) would chose Obama failing over the nation succeeding.