Could you imagine how bad unemployment wuld be if Obama did not do the stimulus?

[AngryAmish]

I think we should all thank our President, Speaker Pelosi and Leader Reid for their brave leadership on the economy.

[Deep13]

1. I don't have to imagine it.

The 1930s are a lucid example.

[Romulox]

2. Wall Street wouldn't be enjoying record bonuses, that's for sure.

Otherwise, the stimulus hasn't made much difference to regular people in Michigan--it was primarily another tax cut bill, after all. That's the exact same type of "stimulus" W. had been pushing down our throats for 8 years. :shrug:

[Jennicut]

8. No, it was 58% spending. And 19% of it has been spent, as was the plan.

As was planned from the start, in fact, only a small portion of the $787 billion has been spent. The Council of Economic Advisers recently issued a comprehensive report on the impact of the stimulus. "As of the end of August, $151.4 billion of the original $787 billion has been outlaid or has gone to American taxpayers and businesses in the form of tax reductions," the CEA reports. That's 19 percent. If projections made for September expenditures are right, "between one-fifth and one-quarter of the total $787 billion" was spent by the beginning of October.

This is not surprising. The ARRA is divided into six different types of components, from tax cuts to infrastructure investments. Some can be done quickly (cutting and mailing tax rebate checks) while others (building bridges) take longer. "The areas where stimulus has been largest in the first six months are individual tax cuts, state fiscal relief, and aid to those most directly hurt by the recession," the CEA reported. Through the end of August, in fact, tax cuts accounted for $62.6 billion of expenditures, and government investment outlays accounted for only $16.5 billion.

In other words, nearly eight months after its passage, a large majority of the stimulus has yet to start impacting the economy—as was the plan. And as was also the plan, the most visible parts of the stimulus are only taking effect now and will remain active through 2010. As you drive around town, it's difficult to visualize tax rebates or aid to states—the fast-acting components of the stimulus. But as I drive around my town today, I can see workers laboring at a $4 million, stimulus-backed road project that is just getting started and will run through the spring of 2011.

"There is broad agreement that the ARRA has added between 2 and 3 percentage points to baseline real GDP growth in the second quarter of 2009 and around 3 percentage points in the third quarter," the CEA reports. Given that Macroeconomic Advisers is projecting the economy grew at about a 3 percent clip in the third quarter, it's possible that stimulus activity could have meant the difference between growth and contraction in the just-ended quarter. And far from being out of ammunition, the government still has about 75 percent of the $787 billion Congress appropriated to spend during the next two years.
http://www.newsweek.com/id/217358

[Romulox]

14. No matter how many times I hear that the current malaise was "planned", it still fails to impress.

If only a small portion of the stimulus bill has been spent, then it is a horribly inept plan. Moreover, may I point out the alacrity with which trillions more have been distributed to the banksters? :hi:

[Jennicut]

19. I agree with the bailout on the banksters but too late now.

They scared many into thinking when they collapsed, they would take us all down too.
I think the stimulus was designed to be incremental as the economy obviously was going to have issues for a long period of time.

[Romulox]

32. "Too late now" (!) Exactly why is that, again? The Wall Street bailouts are ongoing.

:hi:

[Jennicut]

51. The biggest bailout was already done.

You can stop whatever you want now but the most amount of money already went out the door a long time ago.

[RaleighNCDUer]

24. Exactly. And when the stimulus is directed to building a new bridge,

there must be a time lag as the site is examined, the bridge is designed for that site, environmental studies are done, etc., meaning it could be a full year before the actual bridge building even begins, putting the construction crew to work and people seeing them working.

Not seeing it doesn't mean it's not happening.

[Romulox]

31. This is silly. Money must be dedicated to projects before they are planned.

:hi:

[RaleighNCDUer]

49. Dedicated to the project is not the same as in the hands of the people

it is to go to.

How do you dedicate money to a project before it's planned?

You think if someone says "we need a new bridge" they just say "OK - here's 40 million dollars". The studies must be done first, to make sure it is a viable project, and then when it is approved, six months later, the 40 million is deducted from the stimulus budget. If not approved, it would end with a few hundred thousand, maybe, spent on the approval process. Also, the project can't be put out to bid until the environmental studies are completed and the project is approved, so they don't know just how much it would actually cost until then.

Major infrastructure projects can take a long, long time.

[Statistical]

54. Less than $50B of the $787B is infrastructure.

Most of the stimulus was simply regular spending with a fancy name.

[jpak]

42. YOU LIE!!!111111111 Obama is a failure - a soshilist failure I tell you!!111

yup yup yup

:rofl:

[Winterblues]

16. How did the stimulus bill help Wall Street?

I understand the huge bailout that Bush* signed off on that Obama supported went to Wall Street and the Banking Industry. I believe it was named TARP...Not sure where the connection to the Stimulus Bill is though.. I have heard that less than 20% has actually even been spent.

[Romulox]

18. Yes, yes. I'm conflating the two. It makes little difference.

The TARP was a straight up looting and the "stimulus" is a George Bush style tax cut bill with a bunch of pork tacked on. Mea culpa for conflating the two.

[jpak]

29. The bailout of GM & Chrysler did not save any MI jobs - is this what you are saying?

and what about Cash 4 Clunkers?

No jobs benefit in Michigan?

Really?

I think your post is a steaming heap...

[Romulox]

30. The bailout of GM and Chryselr are DWARFED by the bailout of Wall Street

And Wall Street is handing out record bonuses while Detroit drowns. That's what I'm saying.

"what about Cash 4 Clunkers?"

Most of the sales went to the foreign marques, particularly Toyota, Nissan, Honda, Hyundai.

"No jobs benefit in Michigan?"

Posted: Oct. 16, 2009

So far, stimulus contracts aren't big boost for Michigan jobs

BY TODD SPANGLER
FREE PRESS WASHINGTON STAFF

WASHINGTON -- Despite Michigan's worst-in-the-nation unemployment rate, not many jobs -- 400 or so -- have been created or saved in the state so far by federal contracts under the stimulus bill, according to new data released Thursday by the Obama administration.

http://www.freep.com/article/20091016/NEWS07/910160373/?imw=Y

:hi:

[jpak]

33. Palin 2012!

:hi:

[jpak]

35. Ron Paul Rules!

:hi:

[jpak]

37. Obama MUST fail!

:hi:

[Romulox]

44. Coherent responses are OVERRATED!

:hi:

[jpak]

45. PALINnomics is overated! Obama rules!

:hi:

[Romulox]

46. OK, now I'm pretty sure you're parodying *yourself*. nt

[jpak]

47. Nope and Ron Paul, Palin, McCain, Boner and the Teabagger Obama Failure Crowd still suck

:hi:

[Romulox]

48. So does being drunk before noon, but we all do what we hafta to get by.

:shrug:

[jpak]

50. Beats being stupid 24/7 - like the Obama Must Fail Teabagger Crowd!

:hi:

[MercutioATC]

3. That's like applauding a firefighter for pissing on a house fire.

They had the opportunity to take steps that would have REALLY made a difference. Instead, they chose to maintain the status quo and simply throw trillions of OUR dollars at the problem.

Sorry, no thanks from me.

[Individualist]

34. Hear, hear!

:thumbsup:

[AllentownJake]

4. HA!

:rofl:

[SammyWinstonJack]

5. +1

:evilgrin:

[Jennicut]

9. Read my post.

We would have been worse off and it has barely even started to be spent because many projects take time to set up and get going. I think it should have been bigger but then again I think Harry Reid should lose in 2010 and we need a better majority leader. Doubt we could get one anyway. Going for Snowe was a mistake but then again, she might be better then Baucus and some other conservadems.

[AllentownJake]

10. 3% GDP growth funded by the government is not growth

Most people understand that. If the governement borrows 700 billion and spends it GDP will go up.

The stimulus bill was an awful mix of tax breaks, idiotic programs like cash for clunkers and the home owner tax credit, pork, welfare payments, and paving pot holes.

The actually stimulative effect in the long term is probably next to zero.

[Jennicut]

11. Right, so we should not borrow money to put in into the economy.

What would you do? I don't have an economics degree and suck with #'s so I that is not my strong spot.
Should we have not had a stimulus at all?

[AllentownJake]

12. We should have spent most of it on investment activities

like research, paying for kid's education in egineering, medicine, or manufacturing technology and invested about 100 billion in public transportation infrastructure.

However, that would never pass the lobbyist scrutiny.

The rest of the bill should have been welfare payments.

Filling a pot hole creates not much later economic benefit, it should be done but it isn't going to create jobs for the 21st century.

[Jennicut]

13. Hmm, I tend to agree with many of those but that would not stop

unemployment rising short term. Those are long term investments. Biden was a big backer of money going to public transportation and I think he was correct.
I agree, it would not pass the Senate Corporatists.
I think some things in the Stimulus were good but some unnecessary, like the tax cuts.
Thanks for the feed back.

[AllentownJake]

15. I'm fine with 20% unemployment for a year

if the policies that are introduced are ones that will result in 4% unemployment and a rebuilding of the American Middle Class.

I don't see that in this President's plan.

[Jennicut]

20. If we had 20% unemployment, Obama would never be reelected.

And we would get a Repub in again. Remember, this is not the 1930's. We have the internet and 24 hour tv. Obama would never get away with that...people freaked out over 8%. We have an instant gratification problem in the US though I tend to agree with you on this.
While Obama is more of a moderate and as liberal as some would like, a Republican again as President is not something I want to deal with again, at least for 8 years.

[jpak]

40. Palin 2012 for America's Sake!

:rofl:

[dionysus]

41. jake, you're fine with obama failing because it fits your narrative. the rest of the nation is not

allentown.

[HamdenRice]

23. Actually it is. That's exactly why Keynes is considered the greatest economist of the 20th century

Keynes had the answer and the Obama administration applied it.

[hfojvt]

26. not the tax cut part of that - that's Reaganomics

It was put in there to get bi-partisan support, support which did not happen, but also thanks to their propaganda "AMT relief" is also publicly popular - even on DU, and that's what the largest part of the tax breaks was.

[HamdenRice]

27. The tax cut part as well, according to Keynes

That's one of the big secrets of partisan politics -- that both sides are Keynesian.

Keynes' famous formula is:

GDP = C+I+G+(X-M)

C= consumer spending
I= business investment

C = (to simplify) gross pay minus savings, income taxes and other taxes
I is similar, ie net of taxes

So reducing taxes increases C and I in Keynes theory, thereby increasing GDP.

The difference is distributive, but not in terms of the increase in GDP.

Cutting taxes is just as Keynesian as outright spending. Liberal Keynesians tend not to favor cutting taxes, however, because it benefits those who already have incomes and therefore taxes to cut. Also in the past, there was the fear that tax cuts would go into savings instead of consumer spending, but in a modern banking system, savings are more efficiently recycled than in the 30s.

This is why Republican ideology is based on lies. They have accepted Keynes theory just as much as Democrats. They just lie about it, like they lie about everything else.

[hfojvt]

36. no, it is not

"cutting taxes is just as Keynesian as outright spending"

At least when I taught it, a tax increase combined with a government spending increase had a positive multiplier of 1, the logic being that if the government tax an extra $100 in taxes, it is taking money that would be some combination of "spent and saved" and that therefore by spending the part that would have been saved, they create a positive stimulus.

In the same way though, tax cuts, particularly to richer people, are not as stimulative as government spending. Because those rich people won't necessarily buy themselves a seventh car or a fifth house. It is just as likely that they will take their extra money and just stick it in the stock market.

But the key here to me, is that Republicans blunt the usefulness of the stimulus by including tax cuts in the stimulus and the Progressive base of the Democratic party wants to blame the Democrats for that, and either sit out the next election or vote Republican or 3rd party, because that worked so well for us in 2000.

What is it that they say about "doing the same thing and expecting different results"?

Now a wise progressive might point back to the Republicans and their philosophies for blunting the effect of the stimulus, but not our left arm. We are like a boxer who thinks he can win the fight if his left arm just beats the crap out of his right arm. Don't even swing or shoot at the opposition, the REAL enemy is our own right flank.

[jpak]

39. Obama MUST fail! He must! He must!

Ron Paul sez so!

:rofl:

[tonysam]

43. He should lose and another Republican take his place

I love that thinking.

It's one thing not to have him as majority leader, but it's another to say a Republican should be voted in.

Reid has no Democratic challengers of note in the primary.

[Jennicut]

52. Reid is an utter failure and sometimes failures deserve what they get.

I don't live in Nevada so maybe I would think differently if I did.

[ShortnFiery]

6. The stimulus was "a drop in the bucket" compared to how the banksters got

by with FINANCIALLY RAPING our nation.

Don't talk this bunk about that piddly ass stimulus when we have record numbers of unemployment yet the banksters are getting all the perks of the past plus are first in line for the H1N1 vaccines. :grr:

[butterfly77]

7. I just think about how bad it would be now if..

McCain or any repub would have won and if they had a majority in the house and senate..

[AllentownJake]

17. Yes I'm sure if Ron Paul was elected we would be in worse shape as well

What the hell is your point?

[butterfly77]

21. You know what my point is..

I stated it. What in the hell does Ron Paul have to do with it,I was talking about McCain.

I agree with Paul on a lot of points concerning the war but,the same goes for Ron Paul he is another fruitcake.

[HamdenRice]

22. Economists are saying that much of the growth so far is due to the stimulus

so you are exactly right. Things would be very, very dire if the stimulus had not been enacted.

[question everything]

25. Not just unemployment, but the whole economy

including, yes, the stock market.

(I don't know why anyone would U this..)

[Dreamer Tatum]

28. Seeing as how they swore it wouldn't go over 8% with the stimulus, NONE of us can

Do you mean for us to throw roses at his feet here?

[salguine]

38. I'm sorry, but when I saw "Reid", "Pelosi", and "leadership" in the same sentence,

I blew my tea out of my nose.

[Statistical]

53. Um under the best estimate available the stimulus saved or created

So we can imagine how bad it would be 10.6% instead of 10.2%.

The stimulus was mostly non-stimulative. Basically worthless when you consider we will have to pay it back with interest.

The $50B in infrastructure project spending was good. The $87 billion in extended unemployment was good.

However the reality is the vast majority of the $787 billion never was stimulative and was simply a method to lock in spending for pet projects. Some of the "stimulus money" won't be spent until 2013. Smart senators locked in 5 years of funding for their personal projects and called it "Stimulus".

China had a real stimulus bill and their unemployment is in decline. We just spent a lot of untargeted money and no President should get accolades for spending our money.

[MercutioATC]

55. "Pet projects"???

Things like money specifically targeted for the manufacturers of children's wooden arrows, maybe?