Give the Porkulous Money Back

We aren't sure that we are out of the woods yet...and we are in dire need of infrastructure improvements.

We don't need a part 2, but I'd hold off on asking for a recall on part 1. I don't like the borrowing either, but we need some of this work.

Oh yes give us part II. One success deserves another. We won't spend that money right away either. Instead, (after we are certain of market stabilization), we can eliminate much of the national debt by buying back all those bonds sold to China. Eliminating bonds, which is exactly our total debt, is the ONLY way to get the annual deficit under control.

Having done that, you just watch our economy explode into prosperity. At least until the republican party gains control again. It's always better to have the money in responsible Democrat hands than with Republican borrow and spend debt mongers.

"Instead, (after we are certain of market stabilization), we can eliminate much of the national debt by buying back all those bonds sold to China."

THANK YOU! Holy cow! I just spit up part of a perfectly good soda laughing that hard,and I really needed it. The idea of Congress taking tax money and spending it to pay down the debt rather than blowing it! Especially the Democrats! Hell's bells, we couldn't even talk the Republican congress critters into that one! Have you considered writing for Letterman? :-)

You sir are an idiot.

I happen to be one of those state employees who isn't currently unemployed because of the stimulus "bled away" by "dysfunctional state governments"

You clowns really enjoy sticking it to public sector workers. We're just regular Joes doing our jobs at substandard pay as compared to the public sector. Most of us because we really believe in public service.

But where would you jerks be without us to use as a punching bag every time you need a bogyman.

Government works and works well 90% of the time. You earn a living finding the 10% and painting the other 90% with that broad brush.

Get honest. It would be refreshing to hear one commenter who admits to the good and the bad in any system and works to expand the good and reduce the bad. Unfortunately it is much easier, and pays the same, to just go with simple slogans, demonizing things you oppose, and deifying the things you support.

Two points:

#1 Anyone that claims that the economy is stabilizing without government spending is ignorant or distorting the facts. The private sector contracted at about the same pace last quarter that it had the previous quarters, and without the increased government spending that would be the headline number and no one would be calling for a recovery. Also, while most of the stimulus spending has "only" helped states patch up their budgets without creating many new jobs, that is hardly trivial. Probably about 1/3 of the union would be bankrupt with millions of people either laid off or without social benefits.

#2 The deficits are huge without counting any of the stimulus money and have been for a long time. There is no buying back bonds for quite a while, and the theory behind the stimulus is that revenues dry up faster than expenditures during a recession.


I say all of this as someone that was against the stimulus (but not the part that gave states money) and tons of other intervention.

D...careful with "idiot"...the use of that word in personal debates usually makes the user look like more of an idiot.

That being said...I went to the Los Angeles DMV yesterday and received prompt and accurate service. Much faster than any private doctor ;)

The economy is still in the crapper, state governments are still struggling and Jazz would like to cut off the line. Makes sense, because there aren't anymore recently unemployed folks in dire need of public services.

"You might remember the controversy two months ago when we found out that the pace of the stimulus spending was much lower that anybody expected."

anybody? Some of us were arguing from the beginning that the stimulus was too watered down with long-term spending: http://sovereignmind.wordpress.com/2009/02/02/w... Based on my math, the pace seems to be about what was predicted: slow.

But with that said, I don't think you can make the argument yet that we've definitely turned the corner, so I think this proposition is premature. But because of the slow implementation of the stimulus, if the economy truly does rebound in the next year, there ought to be a lot left of that stimulus money that could be reclaimed. But like you, I don't hold out much hope for that.

"The idea of Congress taking tax money and spending it to pay down the debt rather than blowing it!"

Hahaha....

Under Clinton didn't we have a budget surplus and decreasing national debt before those "cut taxes and spend like there's no tomorrow" Republicans came in?

I, like DeGrance, can see the benefit of the stimulus in my own life. My food stamps, which had been $160 a month before, went up to $200. In addition, having recently been approved for SSD benefits, I qualified for a one-time $250 cash allotment that goes to recipients of SSD and SSI -- and that was directly deposited into my checking account two days after I received the letter from the government telling me I would receive it within 30 days. I can handle that kind of efficiency.

I don't know this for sure, but it's possible that the extra money my local Dept. of Social Services got from the stimulus package made the difference in getting my temporary rental assistance approved -- and w/o that I would have been homeless three months ago.

Furthermore, my ex-husband, who lost his job in November and only recently began to get some interviews (less than a handful, and he's sent out close to 1,000 resumes since November), would have had trouble surviving w/o extended unemployment benefits. He went for over six months w/o one interview. That's discouraging, to say the least, and if he did not have extended unemployment benefits, he'd be in deep trouble. As it is, he's very anxious about the future.

I also seem to recall that a few weeks ago, conservatives were complaining that the economy was *not* improving, and blaming the stimulus package for that. I really do find it astounding that now that the economy is showing some small signs of improvement, the stimulus package is being discounted as at least part of the reason, just as it was blamed for doing nothing to help improve the economy a few weeks ago when the recession still looked intractable.

Hmm, well, there are some parts of the stimulus package that, while generally useful or nice, are less important than the deficit and I'd like to see some of those cancelled still if possible. That said, most economists who think this may be the bottom still don't project much actual improvement in employment for at least a year if not more. If so, the stimulus bill still has a part to play in getting us from sitting at the bottom of the valley to actually climbing the next hill again.

jazz

i called this tactic months ago.

if the economy does not stablize, it shows that Obama's stimulus package is wasted for nothing.
And if the economy stabilizes, it has nothing to do the the stimulus.

I wish I could pick lottery numbers like I can preview right wing talking points.

The one question I don't see addressed, What exactly would have been the effect if a number of states had run out of unemployment funds and basic operating funds?

I take it the right wing would have been comfortable with that kind of breakdown. Everybody knows how stimulating millions of unemployed with no money can be to not only an economy, but also a society. Good thing we have cops, oh that's right, states/communities wouldn't have been able to pay them either.

BTW
Missouri started infrastructure work the day the bill was signed, and the current broadband internet plan is going to contract award this week. No jobs or upgraded resources in that.

Well half the comments are the usual "GOP sucks" or "the government should give me more money". But actually focusing on the topic, although I consider myself a fiscal conservative I would not yet consider giving back the stimulus money. I agree the economy is stabilizing and part of the reason for that is the expectation of more government funds coming in. If those funds are taken away the effect is unknown, and could lead to destabilization. So in my view it's better the devil you know than the one you don't.

I agree the economy is stabilizing and part of the reason for that is the expectation of more government funds coming in. If those funds are taken away the effect is unknown, and could lead to destabilization

And that's actually a genuinely conservative stance (compliment alert).

HemmD: "if the economy does not stablize, it shows that Obama's stimulus package is wasted for nothing. And if the economy stabilizes, it has nothing to do the the stimulus."

Yes, the right is spinning this issue, and so is the left: When good economic numbers come out, it is clear proof that the stimulus worked. When numbers don't meet the expectations (such as the unemployment numbers) it is because the problem was worse than we thought and we need a second stimulus. The left sets up these predictable arguments just as the right does.

The fact is, you can't look at the economic picture and say definitively whether the stimulus is or is not working. The real answer is probably somewhere in the middle: it has helped, but to what degree is uncertain. We will likely be debating that until the 2010, 2012, and maybe beyond, when the people will decide if they think it worked or was an unprecedented waste of money (the reality probably being somewhere in between). So it will be an ongoing question on whether the stimulus worked and was worth it. (Yes, Degrance, I'm heartless enough to suggest that saving your job *might* not have been worth the cost--or, to put it another way--I'm suggesting that maybe we could have saved your job at less of an expense, if we had not stapled long-term spending priorities onto a bill sold as urgent stimulus).

But the root of the question that the post raised is not whether the stimulus has worked. Even if one concedes that the stimulus has been wildly successful, it is still a valid question to ask whether at some point, if the economy improves, it might be appropriate to cut off the remainder of the spending that was pushed through on the grounds that we desperately needed to pass the bill without debating particulars.

I predict that Republicans will make this a theme of the 2010 campaign if the economy improves. Since we won't have come close to spending all of the stimulus money, they will challenge Democrats to cut off the money. If Democrats don't, The Republicans will rightly point out that the stimulus, at least partially, was about funding the liberal agenda that should have been debated in front of the American people on its own merits.

Even if one concedes that the stimulus has been wildly successful, it is still a valid question to ask whether at some point, if the economy improves, it might be appropriate to cut off the remainder of the spending that was pushed through on the grounds that we desperately needed to pass the bill without debating particulars.

Depends what you mean by "valid." Any question is "valid" in the sense that people should feel free to ask questions, but your implied assumption -- that we should end the economic stimulus because it's been successful -- does not make sense to me at all. Again, though, that may be the liberal in me that prevents me from understanding why we would want to take back funding from something that's doing what it's supposed to be doing.

If you think it might be a good thing to cut off the remainder of the stimulus spending, even though it's working to improve the economy, because it "was pushed through on the grounds that we desperately needed to pass the bill without debating particulars," you are, first of all, advocating that we cut off our nose to spite our face (why cancel a program that's working just because there wasn't enough debate?). And second, you are positing a situation (that the stimulus was pushed through w/o much debate) that, although technically true, is at best misleading. Barack Obama based his entire campaign, in the context of domestic issues, on two key policy ideas: health care reform and fixing the economy. He was clear from the start that he wanted an economic stimulus package, that it had to be bold and strong, and that he intended to get the ball rolling on it the day after (if not the day that) he took office.He talked about infrastructure; he talked about immediate relief measures; he talked about helping people keep their houses -- over and over and over and over again, countless times, continuously, at every opportunity, at every campaign appearance. That was the debate, AD, and Obama won it, because he won the election, fair and square, with no room for doubt, and with a healthy mandate via the popular vote. Americans knew what they were getting when they voted for Obama, and a majority wanted to get it.

If the patient is better, why keep giving the (expensive) medicine? Note also that I said in my previous comment that I don't think we're there yet.

We had a long debate on the general direction of our country, which culminated in the election. We didn't have a debate on the particulars of the bill, as any opposition was dismissed with, "we have to do something, and quick." And I agreed. What I objected to was the inclusion of long term spending priorities that had nothing to do with stimulus.

If you believe that Obama had a mandate for those spending priorities from the public, then why did he have to push them through on the back of urgent stimulus? We could have considered them separately and called the second bill the Obama Mandate Liberal Spending Bill 2009.