Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Will the stimulus actually stimulate? Economists say no

By Kevin G. Hall | McClatchy Newspapers

WASHINGTON — The compromise economic stimulus plan agreed to by negotiators from the House of Representatives and the Senate is short on incentives to get consumers spending again and long on social goals that won't stimulate economic activity, according to a range of respected economists.

"I think (doing) nothing would have been better," said Ed Yardeni, an investment analyst who's usually an optimist, in an interview with McClatchy. He argued that the plan fails to provide the right incentives to spur spending.

"It's unfocused. That is my problem. It is a lot of money for a lot of nickel-and- dime programs. I would have rather had a lot of money for (promoting purchase of) housing and autos . . . . Most of this plan is really, I think, aimed at stabilizing the situation and helping people get through the recession, rather than getting us out of the recession. They are actually providing less short-term stimulus by cutting back, from what I understand, some of the tax credits."

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/62082.html

I agree, actually. Turned into a mess

I'm still planning to have my package stimulated.

HI54UNI wrote:Will the stimulus actually stimulate? Economists say no

By Kevin G. Hall | McClatchy Newspapers

WASHINGTON — The compromise economic stimulus plan agreed to by negotiators from the House of Representatives and the Senate is short on incentives to get consumers spending again and long on social goals that won't stimulate economic activity, according to a range of respected economists.

"I think (doing) nothing would have been better," said Ed Yardeni, an investment analyst who's usually an optimist, in an interview with McClatchy. He argued that the plan fails to provide the right incentives to spur spending.

"It's unfocused. That is my problem. It is a lot of money for a lot of nickel-and- dime programs. I would have rather had a lot of money for (promoting purchase of) housing and autos . . . . Most of this plan is really, I think, aimed at stabilizing the situation and helping people get through the recession, rather than getting us out of the recession. They are actually providing less short-term stimulus by cutting back, from what I understand, some of the tax credits."

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/62082.html

hmmmmmmm.............fokkers!

You don't need to tell me, I've been sayin that shit too all the candyasses out there since the first piece of shit.

Well, WR that's what happens when you have Obama acting like that candy ass GWB and trying to spend money to solve America's problems...not going to work.

What caught my attention last night, was that after voting this week to require that the Rules Committee (Pelosi) post a copy of the draft at least 48 hours prior to bringing the bill to the floor for debate and vote, Pelosi IGNORED the vote, didn't release the 1,588 page bill (posted it on the Rules Committee website) until 11 pm Eastern LAST NIGHT, and scheduled the bill for floor discussion and vote at 9a EST this morning.

Congress has 10 hours to review, assuming they don't sleep at night.

WORSE...the document was posted as SCANNED .PDF IMAGES, that aren't searchable.

All this pertaining to passage of a crucial economic recovery bill with $760 Billion in expentures that analysts believe, when complete, will easily top $1 plus Trillion dollars...the single largest "bailout" bill in the history of our country.

OK, Dem flotulants...go ahead and defend Pelosi...

...she is the single WORST Congressional leader our country has ever had.

ASUMountaineer wrote:Well, WR that's what happens when you have Obama acting like that candy ass GWB and trying to spend money to solve America's problems...not going to work.

It isn't even all about a lack of spending. It is about spending during a time where spending is appropriate. I look at fundamental portfolios when I think about it. Spending during a downturn in your portfolio leads to a bigger down turn, therefore what was once say a 20% loss and needed 40% on the back side to make up those losses, turns into a 30% loss and now needs a 60% turn around (and that is to just BREAK EVEN). Spending when your portfolio is up, may hinder growth, but doesn't negate it entirely. Now granted it is not that cut and dry with the economy, but essentially that is all we are doing, running one gigantic terribly run portfolio.

wideright82 wrote:

ASUMountaineer wrote:Well, WR that's what happens when you have Obama acting like that candy ass GWB and trying to spend money to solve America's problems...not going to work.

It isn't even all about a lack of spending. It is about spending during a time where spending is appropriate. I look at fundamental portfolios when I think about it. Spending during a downturn in your portfolio leads to a bigger down turn, therefore what was once say a 20% loss and needed 40% on the back side to make up those losses, turns into a 30% loss and now needs a 60% turn around (and that is to just BREAK EVEN). Spending when your portfolio is up, may hinder growth, but doesn't negate it entirely. Now granted it is not that cut and dry with the economy, but essentially that is all we are doing, running one gigantic terribly run portfolio.

I agree...and anyone that thinks it's just the amount of the bailout(s) is fooling themselves. Once the "bad bank" is created, just wait and see what kind of losses we'll have.

travelinman67 wrote:OK, Dem flotulants...go ahead and defend Pelosi...

...she is the single WORST Congressional leader our country has ever had.

She has energized the Rep party.