Isn't it a little early to declare the stimulus a failure?

[Egnever]

Barely a third of the money has been paid out yet. How is it everyone is suddenly calling it? Clearly the economy has not recovered as of yet but the slide does seem to be slowing. Wouldn't it be a good idea to wait till maybe I don't know at least half or 3/4 of it were actually distributed before calling it a failure?

http://www.recovery.gov/?q=content/investments-agency

You can look there and see for yourself whats been paid out by agency so far. Seems like we are calling the game before the end of the 2nd quarter.

[babylonsister]

1. I'm not calling a thing, but thank you for calling naysayers out!

:thumbsup:

[Rosa Luxemburg]

2. is everyone?

[DJ13]

3. When I read that the bulk of the stimulus wasnt planned to be spent until 2010

It sounded (to me) that the idea of providing stimulus to stave off further economic deterioration wasnt the point of the spending, the mid term elections in 2010 were the point of the spending.

That money needs to be put to use now, in the next month or two, if (IF) its supposed to really be about trying to improve the economy.

[masuki bance]

4. Wow, honesty. nt

[Jennicut]

5. No, it was designed that way because of fears that the economy might recover slightly

and then stall out again in 2010. Why not just change it and send out the majority of the money now? Doesn't matter anyway, if governors won't use it correctly.

[mkultra]

48. well, there are actual economic reasons for the speed

[depakid]

6. With the states melting down, the stimulus is rendered ineffective

-and it wasn't large enough nor targeted correctly in the first place.

[doc03]

7. Around these parts they just got around to posting a

sign at the stimulus projects. The radio wingnuts and our right-wing newspaper are bitching about the cost of the signs. One project nearby is close to $1m and they are worrying about a $400 sign. The only reason they are bitching about the signs is when people see the work being done and people employed they don't want people to know Obama had anything to do with it.

[zulchzulu]

8. It's a Palin approach to a problem. Give up early. Blame others.

The Stimulus was started about two months ago and was designed to be deployed in segments over an 18 month period.

To say it's not working is to complain that a cake tastes like cake mix because you started eating it in the mixing bowl.

[Egnever]

54. Sweet analogy

:toast:

[FrenchieCat]

9. Not in this "what have you done for me last minute" fast food country.

[AllentownJake]

12. The stimulus bill was a fast food plan

I hope he learned his lesson in listening to this morons Geithner and Summers.

[FrenchieCat]

15. Actually, it wasn't.

It is like one of those time release capsule.

But some are having premature stimulus evaporation!

President's last Press conference.....

Q: Thank you, Mr. President. If I can just return to the economy more generally. When you were selling the economic stimulus package, you talked and your advisors and economists talked about keeping unemployment below 8 percent. Last week you acknowledged that unemployment is likely to reach double digits, being 10 percent. Do you think you need a second stimulus package?


THE PRESIDENT: Well, not yet, because I think it's important to see how the economy evolves and how effective the first stimulus is. I think it's fair to say that -- keep in mind the stimulus package was the first thing we did, and we did it a couple of weeks after inauguration. At that point nobody understood what the depths of this recession were going to look like. If you recall, it was only significantly later that we suddenly get a report that the economy had tanked.

And so it's not surprising then that we missed the mark in terms of our estimates of where unemployment would go. I think it's pretty clear now that unemployment will end up going over 10 percent, if you just look at the pattern, because of the fact that even after employers and businesses start investing again and start hiring again, typically it takes a while for that employment number to catch up with economic recovery. And we're still not at actual recovery yet.

So I anticipate that this is going to be a difficult -- difficult year, a difficult period.

Q: What's the high water mark, then, for unemployment? Eleven percent?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, I'm not suggesting that I have a crystal ball. Since you just threw back at us our last prognosis, let's not -- let's not engage in another one.

Q: Does that mean you won't be making predictions ever? (Laughter.)

THE PRESIDENT: But what I am saying is that -- here are some things I know for certain. In the absence of the stimulus, I think our recession would be much worse. It would have declined -- without the Recovery Act -- we know for a fact that states, for example, would have laid off a lot more teachers, a lot more police officers, a lot more firefighters, every single one of those individuals whose jobs were saved. As a consequence, they are still making their mortgage payments, they are still shopping. So we know that the Recovery Act has had an impact.

Now, what we also know is this was the worst recession since the Great Depression, and people are going through a very tough time right now. And I don't expect them to be satisfied. I mean, one thing that -- as I sometimes glance at the various news outlets represented here, I know that they're sometimes reporting of, oh, the administration is worried about this, or their poll numbers are going down there -- look, the American people have a right to feel like this is a tough time right now. What's incredible to me is how resilient the American people have been and how they are still more optimistic than the facts alone would justify, because this is a tough, tough period.

And I don't feel satisfied with the progress that we've made. We've got to get our Recovery Act money out faster. We've got to make sure that the programs that we've put in place are working the way they're supposed to. I think, for example, our mortgage program has actually helped to modify mortgages for a lot of people, but it hasn't been keeping pace with all the foreclosures that are taking place. I get letters every day from people who say, you know, I appreciate that you put out this mortgage program, but the bank is still not letting me modify my mortgage and I'm about to lose my home. And then I've got to call my staff and team and find out why isn't it working for these folks, and can we adjust it, can we tweak it, can we make it more aggressive?

This is a very, very difficult process. And what I've got to do is to make sure that we're focused both on the short term, how can we provide families immediate relief and jumpstart the economy as quickly as possible; and I've got to keep my eye on the long term, and the long term is making sure that by reforming our health care system, by passing serious energy legislation that makes us a clean energy economy, by revamping our education system, by finally getting the financial regulatory reforms in place that are necessary for the 21st century -- by doing all those things, we've got a foundation for long-term economic growth, and we don't end up having to juice up the economy artificially through the kinds of bubble strategies that helped to get us in the situation that we're in today.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/06/23/politics/main5107407.shtml

[AllentownJake]

16. Article dated June 23, 2009 Frenchie?

Stimulus Bill passed in April I believe. Could be wrong past 4 months are a blur.

I was part of the lobbying effort on this bill locally, for OFA. I had talking points for local TV. We didn't have that much information from Obama Central. However, it was being sold as being able to save jobs and to end the recession quickly.

Things are worse than they thought. They made a mistake. Its ok, you can make mistakes. Its what you do next.

That also being said the congress watered it down and took out some key provisions. The bill the President wanted and the one he got were two different things.

[FrenchieCat]

17. It's too early for you to say "I told you so".......even if you want to.

Cause the stimulus wasn't planned to be a fast food solution to an instant problem.

And of course the shit ain't perfect.
I don't think anyone ever said it would be......

[AllentownJake]

19. It's early enough for me to say they underestimated the extent of the problem

Usually happens when the people you are listening to are people whose policies and the policies they support were part of the cause of the problem.

He's not an economist. He's a lawyer and a diplomat. I don't like the people he has in the room with him on economic matters.
On the diplomat front he's getting an A.


:shrug:

[FrenchieCat]

21. Like I said,

you want to say "I told you so" so badly, and maybe you will, but I think you are premature in your assessment, and I don't necessarily think you were right, just because you think so!

But go ahead, make your day.

[AllentownJake]

23. Geithner and Summers were bad picks

No big deal. Even the best CEO hires some morons.

[FrenchieCat]

24. That's your opinion.

not mine.

I don't think you want to be so relentlessly dogmatic.
It ain't healthy when on a Democratic board.

[AllentownJake]

27. I'd rather be wrong about Geithner and Summers

than to be right.

However, Geithner oversaw the NY Fed when this problem was being created and in full bloom. Summers was fine with the legislation that led to these mega banks and financial holding companies that caused this.

I know how we got here. Those two were part of the group that got us here.

:shrug:

[AllentownJake]

26. I have friends who are unemployed and being threatened to be taken

to court by creditors right now.

Believe me, I'd rather say that Geithner was a great Treasury Secretary than I told you so.

[FrenchieCat]

29. Your friend's problems weren't all going to be solved "instantly"

by the Magic Negro.

That was a myth.

Guess he bought into it, and espected an "instant" recovery.....just like magic.

The President has warned us again and again to be patient, but that it wasn't going to
be solved all at once. He also said that this was the worse financial situation since
the Great Depression. If that is the case, and I think it is, why would you and your friend
think that in six months time the shit would all be just going dandy?
Are we in kindergarden or something? :shrug:

[AllentownJake]

33. Frenchie

Never have I called him a "Magic Negro"

I feel you have developed a knee jerk response to get angry when anyone says anything that isn't I love President Obama.

I've written my opinions on what I like, namely I think his Foreign Policy is brilliant.

From the appointment of Geithner and Summers I have expressed skeptism that these two knuckleheads who were fine with revoking the New Deal aren't the best guys he could get.

I'd rather be wrong than right about the two.

[FrenchieCat]

34. Look, I'm dealing with the question in the OP.

Isn't it a little early to declare the stimulus a failure?

I say yes.
You say no, since you have called it a failure since day one.

If your friend wants to blame Obama for his financial condition,
he should just go right ahead.....
but it simply doesn't make your friend right, or you for that matter.

So go ahead with your "I told you so" and hope it makes you feel better.

I'm not into instant gratification nor did I expect instant results,
especially on the job front.

We see things differently on this.

I won't hold it against you or call you an Obama hater,
and I hope that you won't hold my opinion against me
and call me an Obama lover/fan/bot or what-E-va'!

[AllentownJake]

35. I don't hold anything against you

This isn't personal. My friend loves the President and still leads the OFA group.

I told her to blame Biden on the Credit Card and bankruptcy front...there is legit blame that can be thrown at his feet for this.

[Oregone]

39. How is it premature to look at current unemployment and compare it to the predicted unemployment?

Why is it premature to see that NOW the unemployment is 1.5% higher than the administration predicted it would be NOW?

Why then is it premature, based on CURRENT comparisons between reality/predictions, to assess that the stimulus was designed for a recession that was predicted to be much lighter?

Why then, before it really kicks in, is it premature to ask for a corrective stimulus to bridge the gap between the predicted numbers and reality?

I am seriously not following you here. Whether a dime of it has been spent is 100% irrelevant to scaling stimulus to the size of the problem. The size of the problem has proven to be much larger than predicted, and hence, the original stimulus is not scaled properly.

Why then....can people not grasp this simple notion?

[Jakes Progress]

10. Not a failure yet. Just insufficient.

Of course, some here will close their eyes, click their heels and ignore everything because they think that it might be an attack on the president. To them, every word or suggestion or post that doesn't come with a picture of the president and a couple of paragraphs attacking the unholy is an attack on the president.

The states are failing because the stimulus wasn't sufficient to help. Most have seen the credit card collapse around the corner. Those that would like the president to succeed would like to avoid having him holding the bag for this. How about we just get ahead of the problem?

[vaberella]

13. That's the thing...we need to know how insufficient if insufficient at all.

You can't call that until we see how the economy is after a little over 50% of the stimulus has been put back in the economy. Until then we can gouge where we stand---which is what the President has said. Some economists have said too much has been spent. While louder and more popular ones have said not enough or regulations are not up to par to allocate properly. We have to many economists saying too many things and speculating like mad all over the world. We need to address this cautiously although I do think that it may need more in the future. Which the President has said himself.

[AllentownJake]

18. Analysis needs to be done on what caused this

and what can be done to prevent it or something similar from happening again.

I think the answer is restore New Deal legislation...

[mkultra]

49. what caused the meltdown? I thought that was pretty clear.

[Oregone]

37. We already know quite a bit.

First off, without a stimulus, they predicted a PEAK unemployment rate of 9% next year.

We are, with a stimulus, at 9.5%. We are 1.5% higher now than originally projected we would be with stimulus.

The stimulus was designed for a light recession. They "guessed the numbers wrong", as they admitted.

By just looking at the projections they used to design the stimulus, you can easily deduct that it is insufficient in this current economy with hard numbers.

You don't need to spend a dime of it yet to know it isn't enough. It was simply not designed for what we are seeing now.

If you wait a year until 50% is spent, it will take another 7 to 12 months until the second kicks in, so you are looking at telling unemployed people (and there will be a lot more) tough shit for a long time.

And if we cannot do anything to stop the deflation, the result could be, well, read about Japan a bit. Not good.

[AllentownJake]

11. Time to move past the idea of a quick recovery

Which is what the stimulus was designed for.

There are fundamental flaws in our economic system and our culture that would make a quick recovery a very bad thing.

Time to start talking about fixing our economic system and not just putting a band-aid on a system that has been on the verge of collapse for 30 years.

[vaberella]

14. Agreed. n/t

[FrenchieCat]

20. I don't know who expected a "quick recovery"? You?

Cause the President has been saying this wasn't going to be a quick recovery for some time now.

But I guess that from April 14th to July 8th must be an eternity! :eyes:



Obama's speech: times still tough; need patience to rebuild economy on solid foundation.
By Lynn Sweeton April 14, 2009 9:20 AM | Permalink | Comments (3)

WASHINGTON--President Obama delivers a major economic speech Tuesday morning where he injects enough optimism to hopefully keep the markets from diving while reminding folks--in case they don't see it all around themselves--times are still tough.
snip

The president urges patience--not instant gratification--because short term solutions don't work.
snip

"There's been a tendency to score political points instead of rolling up sleeves to solve real problems. There is also an impatience that characterizes this town - an attention span that has only grown shorter with the twenty-four news cycle, and insists on instant gratification in the form of instant results or higher poll numbers. When a crisis hits, there's all too often a lurch from shock to trance, with everyone responding to the tempest of the moment until the furor has died away and the media coverage has moved on, instead of confronting the major challenges that will shape our future in a sustained and focused way."
http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2009/04/obamas_speech_times_still_toug.html

[AllentownJake]

22. Frenchie

The man would not say he would have created and or saved the number of jobs he said he would if he knew the extent of our trouble.

They under-estimated this. Its ok, a lot of people did. It will be cool as long as they re-evaluate the plan.

[FrenchieCat]

25. You said that the stimulus was supposed to be a fix for a quick recovery.....

and I said, no...that wasn't the plan.

Did you want to respond to that?

[AllentownJake]

28. The President did not anticipate these unemployment numbers

Nor did he anticipate the states to be in near bankruptcy right now.

Depends on how you define recovery. If recovery means return to growth and a stop of the bleeding they believed this would lead to that.

If it means we return to where we were in 2006 they did not believe it would do that.

[FrenchieCat]

30. What is it about "The Worse financial meltdown since the Great Depression"

don't you understand?

Why in the world do you think this is supposed to be all solved by now?

The job numbers were always going to lag.

So they were off some in reading their crystal balls?
That's fucking life, not the end of the world.

[AllentownJake]

31. Never did I say its the end of the world in this thread

However there is talk of a "second stimulus" being bandied about right now.

Stop printing money and look at the financial system that caused this.

[FrenchieCat]

32. The media is bandying about a "2nd stimulus" in order to kill it before

anyone actually suggests it.

See the CNN poll on the subject, and this thread: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8518125

[Jakes Progress]

46. Give it up.

Her pom-poms are relentless. Not logical. Not purposeful, but very relentless.

[mkultra]

50. Quick recovery? who said that?

[Oregone]

36. It is a failure in design if it is meant to address the current economic crisis

It was designed for an economy that would have peak unemployment in 2010 of 9% WITHOUT a stimulus.

In the middle of 2009, with a stimulus, the UE rate is 9.5%. We have already exceeded the projection of next year.

Now, while the stimulus may work, it is not designed to address these conditions at all. There is a huge gap between where we are in reality, and what this is supposed to do. And in that gap, are suffering and unemployed people. The longer a corrective stimulus isn't put in place to compensate for the erroneous projections, is the longer these people (people who the Democrats claim to care about) will suffer.

How long? Who knows actually. If this stimulus, designed for a light recession, cannot combat deficient demand and the ever growing deflation (rather than inflation) rate, we may just be looking at another lost decade.

[FrenchieCat]

38. It wasn't designed for a "Light" recession.......

cause even if they were off a couple of percentage, they still understood that this was going to be a bad recession.

I just wrote my letter to my local paper telling them that I believe that we need more spending, and that I hope my congressperson will support such if it is ever proposed.

How about you?

Still talking about how Obama was wrong, and how terrible that is, since we are now dealing with a totally different economy, and now how everything is going to be just terrible...for how long? A decade?

How constructive and innovative!

[Oregone]

40. A peak of 9% in 2010 without a stimulus is a "light recession"

And we are already past that. Nice try. Those were the conditions they had in mind when they were at the drawing board.

[FrenchieCat]

41. Like I said, you are starting to repeat yourself.

But go ahead...since I guess your appointed job is to educate us stoopids here on the nets.....
so that we may know all that you know. :sarcasm:

[Oregone]

42. "What about a peak of 10% or 11% in 2010 WITH a stimulus?"

I wouldn't go so far as to call that "light" (and that would be an optimistic outlook really).

If we peak at 11% with a stimulus, that is indicative that the economy is in much worse shape, and may of been 12-13% without one (unless deficient demand reciprocally drove the economy down).

So, compare 9% peak to a 12-13% peak (quick estimate), and it will probably tell you that the later isn't so light (yeah, Im comparing the without scenarios, because you don't compare apples to oranges). Remember, the original peak WITH stimulus was predicted at just under 8%, so you are essentially asking if an economy with 2% to 3% higher unemployment is still a "light" recession.

But even if the current stimulus can suppress the job losses and keep it at 11%, one must wonder how many people a corrective stimulus could save from losing jobs, homes, lives, etc. There used to be a Democratic Party that cared about that type of trivial "pet" issue.



But just ponder that if you will a bit. The original numbers predicted, WITH stimulus, just shy of 8% PEAK unemployment (and now we are at 9.5%). This is a whole other animal. Just look at the entire west coast for example. The original numbers predict that WITH stimulus, the unemployment will only crawl down from here, period. If they do not, that is not only an indication that the package is too small, but also that it is too small to work effectively.

[Kdillard]

43. It is way too early and the message has been from the beginning

that we shouldn't expect to see a recovery until later this year into the next year. Economists have said this, the President has said this from the very start that it would be a difficult road. Even if we do recover jobs would be a lagging indicator. If people want to bash Obama for not having the economy recover as quickly as they would like so be it but he never promised that would happen. To top it off we have Republican Governors who are trying to make damn sure that the money is not spent as it was intended to be spent to make sure there is no recovery and the media will just use every chance it gets to portray the President in a bad light with some crappy poll or slanted piece.

[Ganja Ninja]

44. Before we can call it a failure we have to consider where we would be

right now if it had never been passed. Just because we aren't back to Bill Clinton levels doesn't mean we aren't better off then we were back on January 20th. At least the downward slide has slowed down.

[Oregone]

52. Good point. According to the Obama Administration, we would be at about 8.25% UE if it didn't pass

:)

They guessed their numbers wrong. Now isn't a terrible time to call for a corrective stimulus adjustment.

[stray cat]

45. Only if you don't care about facts and many don't

[rocktivity]

47. Randi Rhodes mentionted this yesterday

She said that in addition to a only fraction of the money being in circulation, some states are using it to pay down their debt instead of what it was intended for.

:headbang:
rocktivity

[Life Long Dem]

51. Has spin ever changed anything?

I get a kick out of all here who post MSM's bullshit. No one has to reply to the post either. And the spin won't matter. That's because the lies will never change the words in the Bill!
:hi:

[ItNerd4life]

53. I'm glad people are speaking up about this

Give the stimulus a chance.