Biden admits Stimulous was a failure

[Navy1960]

bacically oreo the same people and the same speed in which the we need to get healthcare passed now. However, because they "guessed" on that one with 787 Billion were only supposed to assume they are not "guessing" with 1.2 Trillion on this one.

 

[amrchaos]

Apparently Biden hasn't learned anything about economics if he still says the stimulus is going to "save or create" any amount of jobs, because any job "saved or created" by the stimulus package is going to come at the expense of some other job.

How so? The Stimulus money put in to the economy was money borrowed from foreigners, so what exactly did you mean Kevin by it coming at the expense of some other job? I don't understand?

Care

Well borrowing represents future taxation, and since there is interest on money borrowed it's actually going to cost more for the taxpayers when it is finally taxed. So any money taken out of the private sector through taxation means that the private sector has less money to spend. This means that you're able to see where the stimulus money is going, in public works projects and whatever other nonsense was in the stimulus. But you don't see where the money would have gone had it not been taxed away from the private sector by the government. This means that there is a group that is hurt by the stimulus as large, and probably larger in the end, than the group that benefits from the stimulus package.

Considering that the package was supposed to create jobs(this is the hypothetical jobs it was said to create, not the actual goose egg that we have seen so much of) the money would have filtered back into the private sector through government contracts and purchases made by the employees of these contracts.

In other words, the problem would be the debt that would have accued, not the missing "opportunities" that are being surmised. In fact, during recessions, very few opportunities are even realized since the behavior is to wait for better economic conditions, not piss it away in the economic Tornado.

But since we spent 700 billion dollars and there are no jobs created nor saved, one would have to ask:Where in the hell did the money go?? What did the Democrats spend it on? I smell corruption hidden by the concept of "worst economic conditions". By the way, corruption is worst.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

How so? The Stimulus money put in to the economy was money borrowed from foreigners, so what exactly did you mean Kevin by it coming at the expense of some other job? I don't understand?

Care

Well borrowing represents future taxation, and since there is interest on money borrowed it's actually going to cost more for the taxpayers when it is finally taxed. So any money taken out of the private sector through taxation means that the private sector has less money to spend. This means that you're able to see where the stimulus money is going, in public works projects and whatever other nonsense was in the stimulus. But you don't see where the money would have gone had it not been taxed away from the private sector by the government. This means that there is a group that is hurt by the stimulus as large, and probably larger in the end, than the group that benefits from the stimulus package.

Considering that the package was supposed to create jobs(this is the hypothetical jobs it was said to create, not the actual goose egg that we have seen so much of) the money would have filtered back into the private sector through government contracts and purchases made by the employees of these contracts.

In other words, the problem would be the debt that would have accued, not the missing "opportunities" that are being surmised. In fact, during recessions, very few opportunities are even realized since the behavior is to wait for better economic conditions, not pissed it away in the economic Tornado.

But since we spent 700 billion dollars and there are no jobs created nor saved, one would have to ask:Where in the hell did the money go?? What did the Democrats spend it on? I smell corruption hidden by the concept of "worst economic conditions". By the way, corruption is worst.

Yes, the money filters back to the private sector after the government decides where it's supposed to go. This leads to malinvestment because it is the government and not the market dictating demand.

Opportunities, as you call them, are absolutely lost when the government takes money out of the private sector during a recession. Perhaps people don't want to spend as much during the recession so they save their money rather than spending it frivolously. However, the recession is not going to last forever and people will then want to spend the money that they've accumulated. If the government takes away the money that I would otherwise have saved, then I'm unable to spend that money in the future. Which again means that someone has lost business as a result.

 

[Bfgrn]

$75,000,000.00 million for a program to end smoking
$400,000,000.00 for researching sexually transmitted diseases
$200,000,000.00 to force the military to buy environmentally-friendly electric cars
$50,000,000.00 million for the National Endowment for the Arts

Where was the concern for paying for healthcare when they were giving money away to study pig farts. The facts are, this bill could have just about funded the entire healthcare debacle for 10 years and not one single Republican voted for this stimulus in the house so who was it that was really working for the American people on this one, and who was it that was diving into the pork barrel?

Hey pea brain... did the thought ever crack your tiny little pea that environmental abuses at corporate pig farms LED to a swine flu pandemic with the potential of costing America MORE money than the deficit?

Do you understand the word commerce?

Do you understand factors that effect the COST of commerce and goods & services?

Do you only go to the grocery store when you are hungry?

Can you cross the street without an adult?

 

[amrchaos]

Well borrowing represents future taxation, and since there is interest on money borrowed it's actually going to cost more for the taxpayers when it is finally taxed. So any money taken out of the private sector through taxation means that the private sector has less money to spend. This means that you're able to see where the stimulus money is going, in public works projects and whatever other nonsense was in the stimulus. But you don't see where the money would have gone had it not been taxed away from the private sector by the government. This means that there is a group that is hurt by the stimulus as large, and probably larger in the end, than the group that benefits from the stimulus package.

Considering that the package was supposed to create jobs(this is the hypothetical jobs it was said to create, not the actual goose egg that we have seen so much of) the money would have filtered back into the private sector through government contracts and purchases made by the employees of these contracts.

In other words, the problem would be the debt that would have accued, not the missing "opportunities" that are being surmised. In fact, during recessions, very few opportunities are even realized since the behavior is to wait for better economic conditions, not pissed it away in the economic Tornado.

But since we spent 700 billion dollars and there are no jobs created nor saved, one would have to ask:Where in the hell did the money go?? What did the Democrats spend it on? I smell corruption hidden by the concept of "worst economic conditions". By the way, corruption is worst.

Yes, the money filters back to the private sector after the government decides where it's supposed to go. This leads to malinvestment because it is the government and not the market dictating demand.

Opportunities, as you call them, are absolutely lost when the government takes money out of the private sector during a recession. Perhaps people don't want to spend as much during the recession so they save their money rather than spending it frivolously. However, the recession is not going to last forever and people will then want to spend the money that they've accumulated. If the government takes away the money that I would otherwise have saved, then I'm unable to spend that money in the future. Which again means that someone has lost business as a result.

First--the money is actually borrowed. In fact, the money comes from selling of treasury notes and what comes from the tax revenue of the current tax rate and nothing of new rates until furhter notice. Now the talk about taking money from the private sector, there are only two ways--increasing taxes or increasing inflation(which may or may not occur) through deficit spending.

But there was a tax cut--implying that we are implementing the deficit spending idea. Which also signifies that money stayed in the private sector, but it has lost value.

Even here there is a problem, since the beginning of the recession, there were DEFLATION fears by many in the private sector. In fact, the drop in home values and the devaluation of credit may have off set inflation.

So there is a chance that inflation may not occur--with the added benefit of tax cuts to keep funds inside the private sectors. The whole theory of removing money through direct or indirect means does not seem to apply in this case.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Considering that the package was supposed to create jobs(this is the hypothetical jobs it was said to create, not the actual goose egg that we have seen so much of) the money would have filtered back into the private sector through government contracts and purchases made by the employees of these contracts.

In other words, the problem would be the debt that would have accued, not the missing "opportunities" that are being surmised. In fact, during recessions, very few opportunities are even realized since the behavior is to wait for better economic conditions, not pissed it away in the economic Tornado.

But since we spent 700 billion dollars and there are no jobs created nor saved, one would have to ask:Where in the hell did the money go?? What did the Democrats spend it on? I smell corruption hidden by the concept of "worst economic conditions". By the way, corruption is worst.

Yes, the money filters back to the private sector after the government decides where it's supposed to go. This leads to malinvestment because it is the government and not the market dictating demand.

Opportunities, as you call them, are absolutely lost when the government takes money out of the private sector during a recession. Perhaps people don't want to spend as much during the recession so they save their money rather than spending it frivolously. However, the recession is not going to last forever and people will then want to spend the money that they've accumulated. If the government takes away the money that I would otherwise have saved, then I'm unable to spend that money in the future. Which again means that someone has lost business as a result.

First--the money is actually borrowed. In fact, the money comes from selling of treasury notes and what comes from the tax revenue of the current tax rate and nothing of new rates until furhter notice. Now the talk about taking money from the private sector, there are only two ways--increasing taxes or increasing inflation(which may or may not occur) through deficit spending.

But there was a tax cut--implying that we are implementing the deficit spending idea. Which also signifies that money stayed in the private sector, but it has lost value.

Even here there is a problem, since the beginning of the recession, there were DEFLATION fears by many in the private sector. In fact, the drop in home values and the devaluation of credit may have off set inflation.

So there is a chance that inflation may not occur--with the added benefit of tax cuts to keep funds inside the private sectors. The whole theory of removing money through direct or indirect means does not seem to apply in this case.

It absolutely applies. The government only gets its money from the private sector. So eventually the money is going to be taken out of the private sector to pay the debt or deficit.

 

[Navy1960]

$75,000,000.00 million for a program to end smoking
$400,000,000.00 for researching sexually transmitted diseases
$200,000,000.00 to force the military to buy environmentally-friendly electric cars
$50,000,000.00 million for the National Endowment for the Arts

Where was the concern for paying for healthcare when they were giving money away to study pig farts. The facts are, this bill could have just about funded the entire healthcare debacle for 10 years and not one single Republican voted for this stimulus in the house so who was it that was really working for the American people on this one, and who was it that was diving into the pork barrel?

Hey pea brain... did the thought ever crack your tiny little pea that environmental abuses at corporate pig farms LED to a swine flu pandemic with the potential of costing America MORE money than the deficit?

Do you understand the word commerce?

Do you understand factors that effect the COST of commerce and goods & services?

Do you only go to the grocery store when you are hungry?

Can you cross the street without an adult?

Swine influenza (also called swine flu, hog flu, and pig flu) is an infection of a host animal by any one of several specific types of microscopic organisms called "swine influenza virus". In 2009 the media labeled as "swine flu" flu caused by 2009's new strain of swine-origin A/H1N1 pandemic virus just as it had earlier dubbed as "avian flu" flu caused by the recent Asian-linage HPAI (High Pathogenic Avian Influenza) H5N1 strain that is still endemic in many wild bird species in several countries.

A swine influenza virus (SIV) is any strain of the influenza family of viruses that is usually hosted by (is endemic in) pigs.[2] As of 2009, the known SIV strains are the influenza C virus and the subtypes of the influenza A virus known as H1N1, H1N2, H3N1, H3N2, and H2N3. Swine influenza is common in pigs in the United States (particularly in the midwest and occasionally in other states), Mexico, Canada, South America, Europe (including the United Kingdom, Sweden, and Italy), Kenya, and eastern Asia (namely China, Taiwan, and Japan).[2]

Transmission of swine influenza virus from pigs to humans is not common and does not always cause human influenza, often only resulting in the production of antibodies in the blood. The meat of the animal poses no risk of transmitting the virus when properly cooked. If transmission does cause human influenza, it is called zoonotic swine flu. People who work with pigs, especially people with intense exposures, are at increased risk of catching swine flu. In the mid-20th century, identification of influenza subtypes became possible, which allows accurate diagnosis of transmission to humans. Since then, fifty confirmed transmissions have been recorded, Rarely, these strains of swine flu can pass from human to human. In humans, the symptoms of swine flu are similar to those of influenza and of influenza-like illness in general, namely chills, fever, sore throat, muscle pains, severe headache, coughing, weakness and general discomfort.
Swine influenza - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is just a suggestion, before you actually engage in a conversation on this thread that you may want to read a little before actually portraying yourself the way you just did. As a matter of fact I'd be happy to engage anyone that has anything to offer in the way of an adult nature to a debate even if I happen to disagree with them. When your ready to address me in such a way, I'd be happy to debate you as well, until then I have nothing to offer children but advice.

 

[amrchaos]

Yes, the money filters back to the private sector after the government decides where it's supposed to go. This leads to malinvestment because it is the government and not the market dictating demand.

Opportunities, as you call them, are absolutely lost when the government takes money out of the private sector during a recession. Perhaps people don't want to spend as much during the recession so they save their money rather than spending it frivolously. However, the recession is not going to last forever and people will then want to spend the money that they've accumulated. If the government takes away the money that I would otherwise have saved, then I'm unable to spend that money in the future. Which again means that someone has lost business as a result.

First--the money is actually borrowed. In fact, the money comes from selling of treasury notes and what comes from the tax revenue of the current tax rate and nothing of new rates until furhter notice. Now the talk about taking money from the private sector, there are only two ways--increasing taxes or increasing inflation(which may or may not occur) through deficit spending.

But there was a tax cut--implying that we are implementing the deficit spending idea. Which also signifies that money stayed in the private sector, but it has lost value.

Even here there is a problem, since the beginning of the recession, there were DEFLATION fears by many in the private sector. In fact, the drop in home values and the devaluation of credit may have off set inflation.

So there is a chance that inflation may not occur--with the added benefit of tax cuts to keep funds inside the private sectors. The whole theory of removing money through direct or indirect means does not seem to apply in this case.

It absolutely applies. The government only gets its money from the private sector. So eventually the money is going to be taken out of the private sector to pay the debt or deficit.

Hold it. How did the government recieve the money from the private sector?

Through taxes or the selling of treasuries? If it was through taxes, was there a tax hike?

If it is through treasuries, did the government force the buyers to take these notes on?

Now, if you are referncing the deficit that will aaccue from the stimulus, then there is one significant problem here: is it better for the government to sit on the side and leave the financial system and private markets alone in the recession. If that is the case, then the government should not cut taxes at all and still sell treasuries to cover any deficits like it has done for the past thirty years. The only difference--higher tax rate yet less treasury sold.

 

[amrchaos]

Hey KK--Let me ask you a question

Should the government intercede with the economy, or should it ignore the economy?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

First--the money is actually borrowed. In fact, the money comes from selling of treasury notes and what comes from the tax revenue of the current tax rate and nothing of new rates until furhter notice. Now the talk about taking money from the private sector, there are only two ways--increasing taxes or increasing inflation(which may or may not occur) through deficit spending.

But there was a tax cut--implying that we are implementing the deficit spending idea. Which also signifies that money stayed in the private sector, but it has lost value.

Even here there is a problem, since the beginning of the recession, there were DEFLATION fears by many in the private sector. In fact, the drop in home values and the devaluation of credit may have off set inflation.

So there is a chance that inflation may not occur--with the added benefit of tax cuts to keep funds inside the private sectors. The whole theory of removing money through direct or indirect means does not seem to apply in this case.

It absolutely applies. The government only gets its money from the private sector. So eventually the money is going to be taken out of the private sector to pay the debt or deficit.

Hold it. How did the government recieve the money from the private sector?

Through taxes or the selling of treasuries? If it was through taxes, was there a tax hike?

If it is through treasuries, did the government force the buyers to take these notes on?

Now, if you are referncing the deficit that will aaccue from the stimulus, then there is one significant problem here: is it better for the government to sit on the side and leave the financial system and private markets alone in the recession. If that is the case, then the government should not cut taxes at all and still sell treasuries to cover any deficits like it has done for the past thirty years. The only difference--higher tax rate yet less treasury sold.

It doesn't matter how the government receives the money, whether it's directly or indirectly it's always taken out of the private sector. If it's borrowed from another country then that means the American taxpayer will be taxed to pay that back with interest. If it's directly taxed then that speaks for itself. If it's through inflation then the government simply robs the currency of its value. One way or the other the private sector is on the line for what the government spends.

Yes, it is better for the government to allow the recession to do what it needs to do and allow the market to correct itself. Cutting taxes is always good, but the government needs to significantly cut its spending to go along with the tax cuts.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Hey KK--Let me ask you a question

Should the government intercede with the economy, or should it ignore the economy?

Whenever the government intervenes in the market it simply makes things worse.

 

[oreo]

It absolutely applies. The government only gets its money from the private sector. So eventually the money is going to be taken out of the private sector to pay the debt or deficit.

Hold it. How did the government recieve the money from the private sector?

Through taxes or the selling of treasuries? If it was through taxes, was there a tax hike?

If it is through treasuries, did the government force the buyers to take these notes on?

Now, if you are referncing the deficit that will aaccue from the stimulus, then there is one significant problem here: is it better for the government to sit on the side and leave the financial system and private markets alone in the recession. If that is the case, then the government should not cut taxes at all and still sell treasuries to cover any deficits like it has done for the past thirty years. The only difference--higher tax rate yet less treasury sold.

It doesn't matter how the government receives the money, whether it's directly or indirectly it's always taken out of the private sector. If it's borrowed from another country then that means the American taxpayer will be taxed to pay that back with interest. If it's directly taxed then that speaks for itself. If it's through inflation then the government simply robs the currency of its value. One way or the other the private sector is on the line for what the government spends.

Yes, it is better for the government to allow the recession to do what it needs to do and allow the market to correct itself. Cutting taxes is always good, but the government needs to significantly cut its spending to go along with the tax cuts.

DITTO--& that's one thing the government never seems to be able to do. CUT SPENDING.

Our government--has a no limit credit card--with our grandchildrens names on it.

There is no such thing as "fiscal responsiblity" in the federal government. They just want more-& more & more. Meaning we have less, & less & less.
When we have less expendable cash in our pockets--means our economy is going to have less--meaning less jobs--less private sector job growth.

I do not understand Americans who do not get this basic premise: BIG MASSIVE GOVERNMENT SPENDING does not equate to private sector job growth. Never has--never will.

 

[Sarah G]

So basically you just want all Republicans to die. Is that about it?

If they support Democrats, they are Democrats. There's no use in having two democrat parties. We only need one, that's plenty.

You were saying that Rs are fighting with Letterman and not doing their job. When I pointed out they were doing their job, you said they shouldn't do it and if they did it, nobody should listen. Got it! Rabid Dembot.

Typical neocon rhetorical spin here.

America voted a resounding Democratic majority in this time. That means Repubs don't get to demand anything. If they want a voice, they need to start supporting Dem programs even if it is with some intelligent debate of course.

Nobody is going to listen to them whining and obstructing like they are now.

This election was more of a repudiation of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, et al than an endorsement of any particular Democratic policies per se. We only had two choices.
I'm glad the Republicans are fighting against nationalized health care because I think it would be a huge mistake.

A 60 seat senate majority and you think the American people were voting against Bush policies?

They are just now revving up the healthcare debate and you have all the answers already, at least enought to categorically reject it, I see. Your side isn't fighting anything they're just attempting to block any forward movement. In order to fight, they would have to have a plan of their own.

 

[Tech_Esq]

Typical neocon rhetorical spin here.

America voted a resounding Democratic majority in this time. That means Repubs don't get to demand anything. If they want a voice, they need to start supporting Dem programs even if it is with some intelligent debate of course.

Nobody is going to listen to them whining and obstructing like they are now.

This election was more of a repudiation of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, et al than an endorsement of any particular Democratic policies per se. We only had two choices.
I'm glad the Republicans are fighting against nationalized health care because I think it would be a huge mistake.

A 60 seat senate majority and you think the American people were voting against Bush policies?

They are just now revving up the healthcare debate and you have all the answers already, at least enought to categorically reject it, I see. Your side isn't fighting anything they're just attempting to block any forward movement. In order to fight, they would have to have a plan of their own.

Your mistake is that you think what Obama wants to do is "forward movement." It's a giant leap into the past.

 

[Navy1960]

Sarah, I don't mean this in an insulting way, but what would you consider as "forward movement" as it applies to healthcare? Would bringing the costs under control so that healthcare insurance is more affordable for those that want it fall under that catagory? Or do you see the Federal Govt. as having a larger role to play, such as mandating converage and providing a so called "public option"?

 

[Yurt]

Do you suppose that the Democratic majority is ready to accept Republican plans for healthcare at this point? Rs have proven themselves to be all about obstruction and the antiquated HMO and insurance company mindset.

I don't think they should have a voice either unless they are willing to support Democrats.

So basically you just want all Republicans to die. Is that about it?

If they support Democrats, they are Democrats. There's no use in having two democrat parties. We only need one, that's plenty.

You were saying that Rs are fighting with Letterman and not doing their job. When I pointed out they were doing their job, you said they shouldn't do it and if they did it, nobody should listen. Got it! Rabid Dembot.

Typical neocon rhetorical spin here.

America voted a resounding Democratic majority in this time. That means Repubs don't get to demand anything. If they want a voice, they need to start supporting Dem programs even if it is with some intelligent debate of course.

Nobody is going to listen to them whining and obstructing like they are now.

so when repubs were in the majority you of course supported all their programs and you of course kept quiet, didn't whine and obstruct....and of course when the repubs take the majority again, you will sit down and shut up like you expect repubs to do now....

right

 

[Sarah G]

So basically you just want all Republicans to die. Is that about it?

If they support Democrats, they are Democrats. There's no use in having two democrat parties. We only need one, that's plenty.

You were saying that Rs are fighting with Letterman and not doing their job. When I pointed out they were doing their job, you said they shouldn't do it and if they did it, nobody should listen. Got it! Rabid Dembot.

Typical neocon rhetorical spin here.

America voted a resounding Democratic majority in this time. That means Repubs don't get to demand anything. If they want a voice, they need to start supporting Dem programs even if it is with some intelligent debate of course.

Nobody is going to listen to them whining and obstructing like they are now.

so when repubs were in the majority you of course supported all their programs and you of course kept quiet, didn't whine and obstruct....and of course when the repubs take the majority again, you will sit down and shut up like you expect repubs to do now....

right

Of course not. Who would want to be a part of that mess? I just kept hoping that America would wake up, which they eventually did and that we would survive.

 

[neurosport]

everyone guessed wrong ?

kinda like they guessed wrong about Saddam being Osama's alter-ego and him having a stash of Nukes in his closet.

it seems Obama's administration is as adept at making multi-billion dollar wrong guesses as Bush's was.

will the people ever notice that whenever government spends money ... it just disappears into a black hole with nothing to show for it EVER ?

anybody comes up to you and says "give me your money and i will solve your problems" you would tell him to fuck off. but when it's the government people give the money. probably because the government has the most consistent record of lying, cheating and not delivering on promises is why people always believe it ?

the people are TOO SMART. makes me proud to be a member of the human race

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Key Quotes from Biden on the StimulusFrom NBC's "Meet the Press":

"No one realized how bad the economy was. The projections, in fact, turned out to be worse. But we took the mainstream model as to what we thought -- and everyone else thought -- the unemployment rate would be."

"Everyone guessed wrong at the time the estimate was made about what the state of the economy was at the moment this was passed."

"The bottom line is that jobs are being created that would not have been there before."

"Can I claim credit that all of that's due to the recovery package? No. But it clearly has had an impact."

i think he was being brutally honest.

Any other politician(like Obama as example or his press secretary) would have glossed it over with sugar much more so imo....

care

Yeah Ole joe is grooming himself for the "Truman slot"... He clearly see's 2012 comin' and looks to me like he's already making his move; thus we can expect Joe to slip in the shower or be caught with his hand in the kiddy-jar fairly soon.

The fact is that the stimulus didn't work, because they can't work... they have NEVER WORKED... they didn't 'work' in the 30s and they aren't gonna start working today.

What the 'Stimulus Bill' was, was a FUND THE DNC with a MOUNTAIN RANGE full of cash... bill. It's economic subversion of the highest order and as I've said many times; this is NOT going to end well...

The nature of economic cycles is that jobs are lost on the down side and created on the upside... such is the nature of cycles. That the left wants to take credit for jobs that are CREATED, while STILL BLAMING THE FORMER ADMINISTRATION FOR THE JOBS THAT ARE LOST... is as HYSTERICAL as it is LAME.

The irony is, that what the "Stimulous" did was to prolong the recession EXPONENTIALLY... and if they had just left it alone and NOT SPENT 4 TRILLION DOLLARS, we'd LONG SINCE have been out of this and the idiots could be claiming TOTAL VICTORY...

But we will now bump along the bottom, until such time that the markets can absorb the housing glut and return the US Constitution back to its place as the arbiter of Federal Policy.

As it stands now, those who formerly bought bonds as a hedge against inflation, have just been body slammed by the direct actions and policy of THIS ADMINISTRATION; which will devastate long term investment in such... thus capital development will be sluggish at BEST until a government can come to power to overtly, unapologetically, INTENTIONALLY RENOUNCE such policy and set in place protections which will provide that NO SUCH MARXIST NONSENSE CAN EVER AGAIN COME BETWEEN A BOND HOLDER AND THE GUARANTEES INTRINSIC TO THAT INSTRUMENT.

And that's gonna be while...

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

everyone guessed wrong ?

kinda like they guessed wrong about Saddam being Osama's alter-ego and him having a stash of Nukes in his closet.

it seems Obama's administration is as adept at making multi-billion dollar wrong guesses as Bush's was.

Well, everyone in the Obama administration guessed wrong. There were many who saw the foolishness of the stimulus package from the beginning.