Example# 1,000,000,015 showing why government spending doesn't solve problems

[iamwhatiseem]

Geez...

AP Spin Meter: What Biden Didn't Mention on Stimulus

FRESNO, Calif. (AP) - Vice President Joe Biden said this week that the Obama administration "hit the accelerator" toward spending $5 billion under the economic stimulus law to weatherize people's homes, create thousands of jobs, help consumers save money and put the nation on track for energy independence.

Yet the weatherization program the vice president highlighted in his visit Thursday to New Hampshire is widely considered among the least organized spending projects under the $814 billion economic stimulus law and has regularly been targeted for criticism of its slow progress by auditors and outsiders. Biden didn't hint much at its troubles.

Nearly 18 months since it started, the stimulus weatherization program has experienced spending delays, inefficiencies and mismanagement. In Biden's home state of Delaware, the entire program has been suspended since May, and last month federal auditors identified possible fraud.

http://www.fresnobee.com/2010/08/27/2055603/spin-meter-what-biden-didnt-mention.html

 

[daveman]

The economy would have been a lot better off if the government had just divided up the porkulous cash among all the citizens and sent everyone a check.

But we couldn't pay back cronies and special interest groups that way, no sirree.

It's the Chicago way.

 

[Flopper]

The economy would have been a lot better off if the government had just divided up the porkulous cash among all the citizens and sent everyone a check.

But we couldn't pay back cronies and special interest groups that way, no sirree.

It's the Chicago way.

If the government would have sent everyone a check, most of that money would have ended up in bank doing nothing for the economy. If you give the money to the poor, most of the money will be spent. If you give it to the rich, most of the money will not be spent. But using the money to encourage consumer spending that benefits society and adds jobs is the best alternative, although not always effective. Some will of course argue that the best thing government can do is to avoid spending money and just let the economic downturn runs it's course.

 

[Big Black Dog]

I would have spent my stimulus check money down at Wal-Mart.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The economy would have been a lot better off if the government had just divided up the porkulous cash among all the citizens and sent everyone a check.

But we couldn't pay back cronies and special interest groups that way, no sirree.

It's the Chicago way.

If the government would have sent everyone a check, most of that money would have ended up in bank doing nothing for the economy. If you give the money to the poor, most of the money will be spent. If you give it to the rich, most of the money will not be spent. But using the money to encourage consumer spending that benefits society and adds jobs is the best alternative, although not always effective. Some will of course argue that the best thing government can do is to avoid spending money and just let the economic downturn runs it's course.

It would have ended up in the bank? What planet do you live on?

 

[The Rabbi]

The economy would have been a lot better off if the government had just divided up the porkulous cash among all the citizens and sent everyone a check.

But we couldn't pay back cronies and special interest groups that way, no sirree.

It's the Chicago way.

If the government would have sent everyone a check, most of that money would have ended up in bank doing nothing for the economy. If you give the money to the poor, most of the money will be spent. If you give it to the rich, most of the money will not be spent. But using the money to encourage consumer spending that benefits society and adds jobs is the best alternative, although not always effective. Some will of course argue that the best thing government can do is to avoid spending money and just let the economic downturn runs it's course.

Yet another believer in Keynesianism. Hey Flop. This program is a failure. Government spending "stimulates" more government, higher taxes, bigger deficits, and more corruption. It doesnt do a damn thing to help the economy. ANyone who thinks handing out money to the poor helps the economy needs to jump out a high window.

 

[editec]

Geez...

AP Spin Meter: What Biden Didn't Mention on Stimulus

FRESNO, Calif. (AP) - Vice President Joe Biden said this week that the Obama administration "hit the accelerator" toward spending $5 billion under the economic stimulus law to weatherize people's homes, create thousands of jobs, help consumers save money and put the nation on track for energy independence.

Yet the weatherization program the vice president highlighted in his visit Thursday to New Hampshire is widely considered among the least organized spending projects under the $814 billion economic stimulus law and has regularly been targeted for criticism of its slow progress by auditors and outsiders. Biden didn't hint much at its troubles.

Nearly 18 months since it started, the stimulus weatherization program has experienced spending delays, inefficiencies and mismanagement. In Biden's home state of Delaware, the entire program has been suspended since May, and last month federal auditors identified possible fraud.

---



---

In his visit to Manchester, N.H., Biden said the program already had retrofitted 200,000 homes and would meet its ambitious goals of nearly 600,000 homes by March 2012.

He called it "one of our signature programs" under the stimulus law, saying that "thousands of construction workers across the country are now on the job making energy-saving home improvements that will save working families hundreds of dollars a year on their utility bills."

What Biden failed to mention:

_In Alaska, the program has yet to retrofit one home.

_In Texas, auditors found the private contractor earning the most in stimulus money did shoddy work on 60 percent of the houses it was hired to weatherize.

_In California, a contracting company paid nearly $3 million to caulk low-income residents' homes didn't train two dozen of its employees, the state's inspector general found last week.

Just months ago, at the one-year anniversary of the stimulus law, the Energy Department's inspector general complained in a report about "little progress" weatherizing homes and said the government's best efforts "appeared not to have significantly increased the tempo of actual units weatherized across the nation."

Government rules about how to run the complex program, including how much to pay contractors and how to protect historic homes, were among early hurdles. There were further, unexpected delays as the money flowed from Washington to the states and later to local nonprofits that hired contractors. The recession itself, and state hiring freezes, compounded the problems.

Well, FWIW, here in Maine people's houses are being weatherized all the time.

I personally know three people whose houses have already had that treatment.

So that program seems to be working here in Maine rather well.

 

[daveman]

The economy would have been a lot better off if the government had just divided up the porkulous cash among all the citizens and sent everyone a check.

But we couldn't pay back cronies and special interest groups that way, no sirree.

It's the Chicago way.

If the government would have sent everyone a check, most of that money would have ended up in bank doing nothing for the economy. If you give the money to the poor, most of the money will be spent. If you give it to the rich, most of the money will not be spent. But using the money to encourage consumer spending that benefits society and adds jobs is the best alternative, although not always effective. Some will of course argue that the best thing government can do is to avoid spending money and just let the economic downturn runs it's course.

How can the government encourage consumer spending when people don't have the money to spend?

 

[Si modo]

Boy, it sure would be nice to have a link to the entire article.

Really, is it all that difficult to do? Apparently for some, it's a real challenge.

 

[The Rabbi]

Geez...

AP Spin Meter: What Biden Didn't Mention on Stimulus

FRESNO, Calif. (AP) - Vice President Joe Biden said this week that the Obama administration "hit the accelerator" toward spending $5 billion under the economic stimulus law to weatherize people's homes, create thousands of jobs, help consumers save money and put the nation on track for energy independence.

Yet the weatherization program the vice president highlighted in his visit Thursday to New Hampshire is widely considered among the least organized spending projects under the $814 billion economic stimulus law and has regularly been targeted for criticism of its slow progress by auditors and outsiders. Biden didn't hint much at its troubles.

Nearly 18 months since it started, the stimulus weatherization program has experienced spending delays, inefficiencies and mismanagement. In Biden's home state of Delaware, the entire program has been suspended since May, and last month federal auditors identified possible fraud.

---



---

In his visit to Manchester, N.H., Biden said the program already had retrofitted 200,000 homes and would meet its ambitious goals of nearly 600,000 homes by March 2012.

He called it "one of our signature programs" under the stimulus law, saying that "thousands of construction workers across the country are now on the job making energy-saving home improvements that will save working families hundreds of dollars a year on their utility bills."

What Biden failed to mention:

_In Alaska, the program has yet to retrofit one home.

_In Texas, auditors found the private contractor earning the most in stimulus money did shoddy work on 60 percent of the houses it was hired to weatherize.

_In California, a contracting company paid nearly $3 million to caulk low-income residents' homes didn't train two dozen of its employees, the state's inspector general found last week.

Just months ago, at the one-year anniversary of the stimulus law, the Energy Department's inspector general complained in a report about "little progress" weatherizing homes and said the government's best efforts "appeared not to have significantly increased the tempo of actual units weatherized across the nation."

Government rules about how to run the complex program, including how much to pay contractors and how to protect historic homes, were among early hurdles. There were further, unexpected delays as the money flowed from Washington to the states and later to local nonprofits that hired contractors. The recession itself, and state hiring freezes, compounded the problems.

Well, FWIW, here in Maine people's houses are being weatherized all the time.

I personally know three people whose houses have already had that treatment.

So that program seems to be working here in Maine rather well.

If they're being weatherized all the time then why do they need a gov't "stimulus" to make them do something they would have done anyway??

 

[Flopper]

The economy would have been a lot better off if the government had just divided up the porkulous cash among all the citizens and sent everyone a check.

But we couldn't pay back cronies and special interest groups that way, no sirree.

It's the Chicago way.

If the government would have sent everyone a check, most of that money would have ended up in bank doing nothing for the economy. If you give the money to the poor, most of the money will be spent. If you give it to the rich, most of the money will not be spent. But using the money to encourage consumer spending that benefits society and adds jobs is the best alternative, although not always effective. Some will of course argue that the best thing government can do is to avoid spending money and just let the economic downturn runs it's course.

Yet another believer in Keynesianism. Hey Flop. This program is a failure. Government spending "stimulates" more government, higher taxes, bigger deficits, and more corruption. It doesnt do a damn thing to help the economy. ANyone who thinks handing out money to the poor helps the economy needs to jump out a high window.

Stimulates to consumer spending do exactly what they are suppose to do. They put money in the pockets of those most likely to spend it, lower and middle income families. It's value is to slow or stop an economic slide. It just buys time till economic excesses are corrected and other methods kick in.

The other fiscal stimulus, tax cuts has a two fold effect. It stimulates investments which creates jobs plus increases consumer spending. However, tax cuts at this point in time would be very risky. A tax cut would be viewed by many as irresponsible considering the deficit. The answer to this, as any conservative would point out is reducing government spending. I'm in favor or reducing spending but not at a time when the country is pulling it's way out of the worst recession in 70 years. Serious reductions in federal spending with suck money out of communities across the country reducing consumer spending and jobs. Lastly, tax cuts and big cuts in government spending are just not going to happen, even if Republicans controlled ever seat in Congress.

Turning to monetary policy, the fed is limited due to the current low interest rates. About all they can do is assure us that rates will remain low. Increasing the money supply will do little to increase jobs and may well bring on inflation.

The economic recovery that is underway will continue and expand as the economic excesses are slowly eliminated and businesses gains confidence in the economy.

 

[The Rabbi]

It is clear as day that the "stimulus" did no such thing. It took from one group of people (the productive) and gave to another group of people (the unproductive). No economic growth can come from that. No wealth is created that way.
"Tax cuts" do not work per se. Cash for clunkers was a "tax cut" if you will. It didnt work. It shoved demand into a few months.
The tax cuts that work are those that are made at the margin and encourage businesses and individuals to work harder and invest more. These are precisely the tax cuts that did work from the Bush tax cuts, the very ones due to expire in January.
Pleading that we cannot afford tax cuts because of the deficit is like killing one's parents and pleading mercy because he is an orphan.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Boy, it sure would be nice to have a link to the entire article.

Really, is it all that difficult to do? Apparently for some, it's a real challenge.

Sorry, didn't meant to upset your highness...how insolent of me to forget to link the article.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

How about the latest round of this administrations "solution".
Now this is funny...they want to pass a small business loan package...so they want to loan small businesses money before they raise their taxes.

yeah...makes sense.

 

[The Rabbi]

The bill seems to create yet another bureaucracy to administer yet another government fund that is supposed to do something positive. Yeah. Right.

 

[Flopper]

It is clear as day that the "stimulus" did no such thing. It took from one group of people (the productive) and gave to another group of people (the unproductive). No economic growth can come from that. No wealth is created that way.
"Tax cuts" do not work per se. Cash for clunkers was a "tax cut" if you will. It didnt work. It shoved demand into a few months.
The tax cuts that work are those that are made at the margin and encourage businesses and individuals to work harder and invest more. These are precisely the tax cuts that did work from the Bush tax cuts, the very ones due to expire in January.
Pleading that we cannot afford tax cuts because of the deficit is like killing one's parents and pleading mercy because he is an orphan.

Government spending should be reduced or at least held in check when the economy is expanding. When the economy contracts, taxes can be cut without running deficits. Economists are very critical of this country's increases in government spending without sufficient revenues to cover those expenses. Cutting taxes now would be look on as the height of irresponsibility and would certainly not provide business with the confidence to expand. Cutting spending to cover a tax cut would mean reducing funds flowing into local government and communities throughout the country. This would result in an immediate decreased in consumer spending and job cuts. No congress, Democrat or Republican is going to do this.

 

[The Rabbi]

Failing to cut taxes will increase business' unwillingness to expand. Government will never generate sufficient revenues to cover their deficit because every extra dime gets pledged out in new programs. Reagan was right that the only way to cut government was to starve it of funds. I agree the fed gov will not cut taxes. And I hope you agree that this will keep this recession prolonged for the rest of Obama's one term.

 

[Si modo]

Boy, it sure would be nice to have a link to the entire article.

Really, is it all that difficult to do? Apparently for some, it's a real challenge.

Sorry, didn't meant to upset your highness...how insolent of me to forget to link the article.

Not insolent, just stupid. I hate to tell you this, Iam; not only are you filled with drama, but you're not all that bright.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Boy, it sure would be nice to have a link to the entire article.

Really, is it all that difficult to do? Apparently for some, it's a real challenge.

Sorry, didn't meant to upset your highness...how insolent of me to forget to link the article.

Not insolent, just stupid. I hate to tell you this, Iam; not only are you filled with drama, but you're not all that bright.

Yes, well no one would accuse you of being dramatic now would they?
Noooooo

 

[Si modo]

Sorry, didn't meant to upset your highness...how insolent of me to forget to link the article.

Not insolent, just stupid. I hate to tell you this, Iam; not only are you filled with drama, but you're not all that bright.

Yes, well no one would accuse you of being dramatic now would they?
Noooooo

Take a poll and find out. Unlike you, I don't read into others' posts shit that isn't there. I have yet to develop any sort of mind-reading capabilities.

Moron. You are exactly what you seem. Reactionary drama queen who isn't too bright.