Friday, February 18, 2011
Where is the stimulus?
The stimulus that Obama proposed was supposed to stimulate our economy. But why hasn't it happened yet? There has been some good that the stimulus has provided, but our unemployment rate has increased since Obama signed the bill in 2009. Only a third of the money has gone to creating or saving jobs. The other 2/3's have been issues for tax benefits and entitlements. Part of the money still hasn't even been paid out, even though there is the funds to do so now. How do you feel about this whole plan was supposed to get us out of the recession, but not even all the funds have been used? The bottom of the article helps to show what goals are out there, even if they haven't been utilized. Thoughts?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Like any political policy, economic ones also take time to implant. Personally, I am glad for the stimulus bill. After the stock market crash of 1929, the government pursued a policy of austerity. This lead to the worsening of the economic slowdown, with the full effects of this policy realized in 1933, when the economy bottomed out. Most of the money in the stimulus plan is being used for investment, not an instant band-aid, but something that will pave the way for future growth.
ReplyDeleteI think there is quite a bit of argument to be had on whether or not there has been any "stimulating of the economy." I would say there has without a doubt been an improvement in the last two years. Although the unemployment rate remains high, things aren't nearly as bad as they were. Also, the last blog post stated that our economy is predicted to see growth in the next year. It doesn't bother me that all of the funds haven't been used yet. After all, stimulating the economy is a process, not an event.
ReplyDeleteThere has been improvement over the past two years. As I'm studying for my macro test, I want to see how these policies have affected Philips and ISLM curves. There is always trade offs my friends.
ReplyDeleteIn theory, it probably all worked out. but there's that little thing called politics that tends to get in the way. The TARP money that was supposed to get the banks lending again was just used to clear off their books of bad debt. The banks have no incentive to lend yet. They are raking in huge profits and, thanks to the taxpayers, have little or no risk right now. So why lend and take on the risk when you can just invest? In econ 101 we learned (repeatedly) that an increase in C, G, or I would increase GDP, thereby getting us out of a recession. So, in theory, by increasing G by $700B should have worked. Problem is, we are impatient. I think it will work more over time. I think the term stimulus implies 'immediate', a term which should never be used when discussing government. If 70% of our GDP is consumer spending, the focus should have been there. They could have paid off everyones mortgage in this country for a lot less than $700B. I know that I would be a spending fool if I had an extra $1500 in my wallet each month. Multiply that by 150 million, and you have yourself a recovery. Socialism you argue? So is Social security
ReplyDeleteI agree with Richard; the term "stimulus" implies immediacy, yet from what the article suggests, the stimulus package does not show very much immediacy at all. Although the stimulus package didn't immediately push us out of the recession and into full recovery, I think it has helped to improve our country economically, and I think these long-term projects will benefit our country more so than quick, random, and sometimes unnecessary jobs would have.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Ashley, I think the stimilus bill will prove to be a good thing in the coming years. Key words here 'in the coming years', this is something that will take time no matter how bad the economy is suffering. I think that it is good to see that we are already making moves in the right direction, even though it does not show in employment rates.
ReplyDelete