Why can't we get our stimulus money back?
The Amerikan stimulus bill was passed over a year ago. It was created to "create or save" jobs. It didn't. But that was a bad promise to make.
But the $700 billion was also drafted for "shovel ready" projects. To date, around $400 billion hasn't been spent. How about we, umm, just not spend it? And why are some in Washington talking about another stimulus bill when the first one hasn't been spent?
Because liberals always want more and more government. This stimulus was sold as something we needed to have or unemployment would go over 8%.... LOL. Clearly its failed. Free enterprise will get us out of this mess. That and of course time.
Free enterprise. The cause of, and solution to, all our problems. Hail free enterprise! Worship free enterprise at the church of your choice!
Well, do you think we should all get our money back?
There are a lot of projects in the pipe around florida bidding for the funds. I'm actually glad the money wasn't completely thrown down a hole without any thought put into where it goes. God forbid we plan, compare, and understand the best uses for the stimulus.
Was there a list of these so called "shovel ready" projects, or was that political talk?
Last edited by Ominous Gamer; 07-02-2010 at 02:34 AM.
#1. It saved millions of jobs. Without the stimulus we'd be in a worse depression than the Great Depression and I challenge you to prove or disprove what I said or what you said.Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
#2. The money's slated for some good stuff and I think it would be idiotic and injure the economy to "give it back." And I challenge you to prove otherwise.
What are you a fucking socialist?
The Rules
Copper- behave toward others to elicit treatment you would like (the manipulative rule)
Gold- treat others how you would like them to treat you (the self regard rule)
Platinum - treat others the way they would like to be treated (the PC rule)
It was sold as an emergency jump-start. CPR of sorts. It's not meant to be a long-term mandate, as once you spend it on new programs, departments, entitlements, etc. they become permanent.#1. It saved millions of jobs. Without the stimulus we'd be in a worse depression than the Great Depression and I challenge you to prove or disprove what I said or what you said.
#2. The money's slated for some good stuff and I think it would be idiotic and injure the economy to "give it back." And I challenge you to prove otherwise.
If it keeps on droning on for years (with little bits and pieces added to the programs it funds over the next half decade), it becomes a giant pork barrel of social engineering.
Equally important is this ludicrous idea that it would "injure the economy" to actually free-up the money for consumers and employers to tap credit markets, invest in jobs, etc. You can see a lot of folly in this line of thinking when Western European governments are urging us to adopt fiscal restraint and rejecting our calls for them to keep debt-spending.
The economy is already beginning to sputter, as business owners face a ton of uncertainty when it comes to government health mandates, business tax rates, costly environmental legislation and debt markets being gobbled up by the Fed and Treasury. My company just instituted a de-facto hiring freeze, which is frankly stunning.
Wake up, folks. Stimulus isn't the answer. Rational economy policy is.
So taking less than a year to spend $700 dollars on government infrasture and public projects = good.
Making sure you know what the hell you are blowing $700 billion on = bad.
I agree its meant to be a jumpstart, but expecting something literally overnight with a scope like this is retarded.
wake up.
You're framing this in a way that the stimulis bill was never meant to be. The bill was meant to jump-start the economy. If they allocated so much they literally can't spend it in 15-18 months, they should not plan to use the unspent parts.
If someone gives you a credit card with a $700 billion limit, it doesn't mean you have to go spend all of it. You're going to have to pay it back with interest after all. Long-term infrastructure and other investments should be planned and allocated deliberately, not rolled into some giant emergency spending bill.
Dread - if the alternative to stimulus was giving an equal tax credit to every American, you might have a decent case, but it would even then be hampered by the fact that savings rates have shot way up, so an injection of cash into pocketbooks won't necessarily increase aggregate demand. I think you're also exaggerating the current recovery - employment is flat, and looks to be low for a very long time, indicating that some longer term government support is not unreasonable.
It's hard to know how employment would look with different levels of stimulus (and different strategies thereof) but I think everyone can agree that unemployment is unacceptably high and likely to continue to be so for a while - largely due to a dramatic shortfall in aggregate demand. Whether the specifics of the stimulus were worthwhile is a very good question, but the fundamental concept of the government intervening in times of crisis to temporarily support demand (and stem a cycle of layoffs) is not really something I disagree with.
Please offer a reasonable alternative to government stimulus that would support aggregate demand until the private sector can do so.
In which case, you're back to where the country was 2 years ago. Aging infrastructure with no budget for expansion and replacement. At least with the stimulus sitting there in front of everyone, we are able to divide it up now, and determine now, how and where it needs to be put. Taking 15 months to determine such important facts is not uncommon, or unexpected. As for how the stimulus was framed, thats where your interpretation of political agendas gets in the way.
Last edited by Ominous Gamer; 07-02-2010 at 03:46 AM.
I'm not exaggerating the recovery, I think this recovery is likely to sputter out. And I think a big component of that is a lack of business confidence. Business are wary to invest and take risks when tax rates are about to skyrocket and national economy policy seems to be up in the air. Our business climate is practically third-worldish.
Just as importantly, banks seem to be more interested in carry trades and lending to the government than doing a ton of real investing. Government intervention in financial crises makes sense in many situations, but governments also need to have sane fiscal policies and promote a healthy business climate, which isn't happening at all.
But explain how my interpretation of political agendas gets in the way? This was pushed as a stimulus bill to stimulate short-term demand.
We've had aging infrastructure because our government can't prioritize its spending properly. Stuffing $700 billion down the pipes doesn't solve that problem.
I can't believe you guys are talking about this stimulus money as if it's a heap of dollar bills kept in a safe; that stimulus money doesn't exist anywhere untill it gets spent. There is no stimulus money to 'give back'. It's either spent or not there.
Congratulations America
I know, I'm using "get back" as a very general phrase, instead of saying "why can't we get our stimulus money un-allocated and not borrowed from the credit markets".
Yes, lots of funding was put into that package that probably would not qualify as a quick fix jumpstart. IMO, like OG said, that makes it a better use of that money. And to call it a 'long term mandate' leading to 'new programs departments and entitlements' sniffs of your ass. I suspect you have no idea what the outstanding money is to be spent on. I know I don't, except for the expansions in science funding which is absolutely critical to our nation and 8 years overdue. Let's 'give it back.'
No no no - it becomes free money for fat black welfare queens who have dozens of babies and move to states with the best welfare benefits so they can set up meth labs and whore houses int he basement. Yeah, that's what this so called 'stimulus' will do.If it keeps on droning on for years (with little bits and pieces added to the programs it funds over the next half decade), it becomes a giant pork barrel of social engineering.
Dread, you and I have no fucking idea. At least I'm willing to admit it. Its a riot seeing you advocate letting SOCIALIST Europe lead the way.Equally important is this ludicrous idea that it would "injure the economy" to actually free-up the money for consumers and employers to tap credit markets, invest in jobs, etc. You can see a lot of folly in this line of thinking when Western European governments are urging us to adopt fiscal restraint and rejecting our calls for them to keep debt-spending.
Yeah, so quick, lets defund billions of dollars in projects, leaving companies that thought had contracts suddenly with more people than they need. That'll help.The economy is already beginning to sputter, as business owners face a ton of uncertainty
Dude, are you reading fucking talking points? Jesus.when it comes to government health mandates, business tax rates, costly environmental legislation and debt markets being gobbled up by the Fed and Treasury.OMFG! You're KIDDING me!?!?! My company's had a hiring freeze since BEFORE I was hired. Dont' worry about it.My company just instituted a de-facto hiring freeze, which is frankly stunning. .
The Rules
Copper- behave toward others to elicit treatment you would like (the manipulative rule)
Gold- treat others how you would like them to treat you (the self regard rule)
Platinum - treat others the way they would like to be treated (the PC rule)
County has been under a hiring freeze for 3 years and some change. During that time I went from being the only LTA here to being 1 of 6.
I call bullshit and since you're making the claim its up to you to prove it.
How about not support aggregate demand, realise that a correction was required and let it take effect so that we can sooner go forwards with new worthwhile jobs and without a mammoth ball and chain of debt causing higher interest rates which prevents proper growth and major interest repayments causing higher taxation choking off future growth. All so we can 'save' some jobs that otherwise wouldn't be worth saving.
Besides 'stimulus' won't save jobs, it'll create new ones. Ones that will have to be cut back in the future displacing the unemployment while wasting money and leaving a future debt burden.
Despite your response, I assume you actually got the point, right?
The Rules
Copper- behave toward others to elicit treatment you would like (the manipulative rule)
Gold- treat others how you would like them to treat you (the self regard rule)
Platinum - treat others the way they would like to be treated (the PC rule)
You seemed to be arguing that stimulus should be withdrawn since it's already done its job, whatever that may have been (since you also seem to dispute it may have helped stabilize unemployment at lower levels than in most of the Western world). Yet you also acknowledge you're not out of the woods yet on the recovery, so why withdraw stimulus? Stimulus always takes some time to rev up - hence Germany's higher deficit this year than last - but recoveries also take far longer than most people realize. Shoring up demand is hardly unreasonable.
I agree that businesses (and banks) are wary of expanding/useful activity right now, but I would challenge that it has little to do with policy and more to do with uncertainty about the extent and longevity of the recovery. We paid for previous expansion with money we didn't have, so now things are going to get tricky. I honestly don't think people are worried about US deficits right now - long-term inflation expectations have been ridiculously low for a long time, despite what should be inflationary policies on the part of the Fed. Hell, our problem is not a few trillion dollars now but the huge structural liabilities with healthcare and retirement that need to be addressed (and have been ignored for a few decades). Tied in with this is a large appetite for government debt. You see it as government debt crowding out the market, but with returns so low I'm very skeptical. I think that people don't flock to higher yielding assets because they are fundamentally uncertain about the recovery. This is bad news for the economy, of course, but not due to poor policy planning or stimulus.
The 'correction' will be a much worse and longer recession if aggregate demand falls into a black hole. Demand almost always overreacts to a given situation, meaning that people don't buy when they probably should (hell, even companies did this - depleting their stocks for months before they started putting in orders again). You can get an unemployment spiral which will dramatically shock the economy without some sort of government cushion. Look, I'm not a fan of this in general but a good case can be made in extreme situations. I'm also unsure that the jobs being created/saved are so unworthwhile - they are just not currently in demand. Doesn't mean that in a normally functioning recovery they wouldn't be important.
As I said before, the actual money here (a few hundred billion dollars) is chump change compared to our fiscal issues. If you want to worry about debt problems, look at long-term structural issues, not a one-off spending spree. I'm still undecided whether Obama is serious about tackling this issue, but that's largely irrelevant to the stimulus spending.
Partly true - some of the jobs will only be temporary (others will be shifted to private demand once things get better). Yet the point of stimulus isn't some permanent improvement in employment or demand - it's to smooth out the peak in unemployment and shore up demand. There will be some substitution of stimulus jobs for the private sector as the recovery continues, but that won't really be slowing the recovery, just keeping aggregate demand at its trough better than would have been possible otherwise.Besides 'stimulus' won't save jobs, it'll create new ones. Ones that will have to be cut back in the future displacing the unemployment while wasting money and leaving a future debt burden.
Aggregate Demand is not going to fall into a black hole. The US is already out of recession. In fact, which nations are still in recession? AFAIK the UK was the last G20 nation in recession and we're out of it now so unless any nations have slipped back there isn't even a single major developed nation in the world in technical recession at least.
Indeed, that is what a recession is. And the recession ends and we come out of it and move on, as is already happening. No need to throw the baby out with the bathwater.Demand almost always overreacts to a given situation, meaning that people don't buy when they probably should (hell, even companies did this - depleting their stocks for months before they started putting in orders again). You can get an unemployment spiral which will dramatically shock the economy without some sort of government cushion. Look, I'm not a fan of this in general but a good case can be made in extreme situations. I'm also unsure that the jobs being created/saved are so unworthwhile - they are just not currently in demand. Doesn't mean that in a normally functioning recovery they wouldn't be important.
A few hundred billion dollars is never 'chump change' and its that sloppy attitude that causes the structural issues. No individual spending spree ever on its own causes a fiscal mess, but only by treating cash seriously can the problem ever be fixed. Do we seriously need to adjust Reagan's famous quote to "a few hundred billion here, a few hundred billion there and soon we're talking real money"?As I said before, the actual money here (a few hundred billion dollars) is chump change compared to our fiscal issues. If you want to worry about debt problems, look at long-term structural issues, not a one-off spending spree. I'm still undecided whether Obama is serious about tackling this issue, but that's largely irrelevant to the stimulus spending.
When the government pumps money into state budgets and projects, you create an interest group that depends on that money. And it becomes that much harder to pull back that funding, which the government had to borrow to dole-out in the first place. Is this really that hard to understand?Yes, lots of funding was put into that package that probably would not qualify as a quick fix jumpstart. IMO, like OG said, that makes it a better use of that money. And to call it a 'long term mandate' leading to 'new programs departments and entitlements' sniffs of your ass. I suspect you have no idea what the outstanding money is to be spent on. I know I don't, except for the expansions in science funding which is absolutely critical to our nation and 8 years overdue. Let's 'give it back.'
For example...
So we have a state government that can't even hold itself down to a hiring freeze? Florida's unemployment rate has gone from 3.7% in April 2007 to 11.2% in April 2010. It's all good and well to employ people and of course these people deserve jobs, but how in the hell can the state sustain this?
That's a pretty Keynesian way to look at things. The reason I'm saying the government should not rely on stimulus is that it's never been demonstrated that it actually works. Many feel monetary, tax and trade policy have more of an impact. Some feel government spending can have a negative multiplier.
The most direct stimulus has been giving people cash directly. Yet pretty solid research has suggested most people save or pay off debt with stimulus checks.
The point is it's sort of fallacious to assume all of this spending does anything besides keep public-sector workers paid (even though some states can't pay their bills). Which frankly isn't a good-enough justification for relying on a massive expansion of government spending (instead of just borrowing to keep things steady and stable in the public sector).
The library system cut 47 positions last year, parks and rec lost half its staff, County CAC was dissolved and the library system is now the call center for county complaints. No company survives a hiring freeze by not hiring anyone. Turn over would gut the company into being inoperable. A hiring freeze only means that the hiring decisions are reserved for people higher up the ladder than what used to be.
My fellow LTAs? Old librarian positions. I've mentioned that before. Ignoring that the wages of 30+ year veterans are being moved down to FNG wages, every LTA position makes 70% that of a librarian.
So please, shut the fuck up when it comes to shit you don't have a fucking clue on.
Last edited by Ominous Gamer; 07-03-2010 at 11:02 PM.
Dude, you made that very unclear. When you say, "There's been a hiring freeze for three years, but there are now six more workers in my department", how the fuck is someone supposed to interpret that beyond there has been more hiring around you?
None of this actually answers my original question of how a state can sustain any of these jobs and projects if the tax revenue isn't there.
This is the correct interpretation. This however is not your original interpretation.
A hiring freeze does not mean no one will get hired.
No where did I suggest the freeze was being ignored while the county hired positions they can not fund.
Dude, you were vague. Simple as that.
and you created a baseless and factless scenario in your mind to create another big government is wasteful and evil post.
In other words, you posted exactly as was expected you would post. You took a factual blurb and spun it to fit your posting agenda, everything else be damned.
Because you said your employer -- a government-funded agency -- had a hiring freeze but you nonetheless had six more people working with you than before.
In other words, you posted something vague that only made sense to you. Chill, it happens.
Our of curiosity, is your employment governed by a collective bargaining agreement? Are you unionized? Just curious, I'm not asking this as a loaded question or something. Just that we've spoken about this a lot and it's never been clear.
Not aware of a collective bargaining agreement, and I've never seen anything to do with a union in the 9 years I've been here.
I know the employees had no say when the county commisioners approved a week of furlough, or on what days furlough would fall on.
BUMP.
Wiggin or others, I'm really curious if "a few hundred billion" is such "chump change", how and where exactly a few hundred billion plus compound interest will be found to be cut from discretionary spending in order to pay for this? On top of the cuts in discretionary spending that already is needed to balance the budget.
Sorry; holiday weekend and my wife was in town. I'll get around to responding later today, I hope.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote