Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
There's a whole lotta kids going to school, a whole lotta cops firemen and services personel on the job, and millions of Americans who ate, and who lived in heated homes BECAUSE OF THE STIMULUS.
Sans that stimulus money States would have laid off millions of workers in essantial services.
Where the stimulus fails is in job CREATION.
Why?
Well for one thing there wasn't enough money in it to replace the nearly 8 TRILLION dollars that were lost when the stock market and real estate markets collapsed.
BWAHAHAHHAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
YES! It's for the CHILDREN! Yes it is!!!
Boohoo. You really believe this line of bullcrap or are you just hunting for something--anything--that will excuse this monumental waste of resources? The stimulus was for "shovel ready projects" or did you forget that? It wasn't supposed to be yet another gov't transfer program.
How many people lost their jobs because companies saw tax rates and regulatory burdens increasing and closed divisions?
The fact remains that unemployment would be 1.5-2.0% greater, had it not been for the stimulus.
You cannot prove that as fact.
Now tell us, if the stimulus was so important that it had to be passed immediately, why is it that parts of it weren't even planned to take effect for several years later?
States' and Localities' Uses of Funds and Actions Needed to Address Implementation Challenges and Bolster Accountability
This review responds to two ongoing mandates under the Recovery Act. It is the latest in a series of reports on the uses of and accountability for Recovery Act funds in 16 selected states, certain localities in those jurisdictions, and in the District of Columbia. This review also responds to GAO's mandate to comment on the jobs estimated in recipient reports.
Issued on September 20, 2010, this review focuses on the federal programs identified below, which are funded under the Recovery Act. The review also updates the status of agencies' efforts to implement GAO's previous 58 recommendations and makes 5 new recommendations to improve management and strengthen accountability to the Departments of Transportation (DOT), Housing and Urban Development (HUD), the Treasury and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Agency responses to GAO's new recommendations, as well as to key recommendations that remain open, are included below.
Federal Medical Assistance Percentage (FMAP) View details More Results Toggle
As of July 31, 2010, the 16 states and the District had drawn down $43.9 billion in increased FMAP funds. If current spending patterns continue, GAO estimates that these states and the District will draw down $56.2 billion by December 31, 2010about 95 percent of their initial estimated allocation. Most states reported that, without the increased FMAP funds, they could not have continued to support the substantial Medicaid enrollment growth they have experienced, most of which was attributable to children. Several states also reported that the increased FMAP funds freed up states' funds which helped finance other needs. States and the District remained concerned about the sustainability of their programs without these funds, and most have already reduced or frozen certain provider payment rates or imposed new provider taxes. Congress recently passed legislation to extend the increased FMAP through June 2011, although at lower rates than provided by the Recovery Act. For future program adjustments, states and the District will also need to consider the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, which prohibits federal Medicaid reimbursement through 2014 if they apply more restrictive eligibility standards, methods, or procedures.
Education
As of August 27, 2010, the District and states covered in GAO's review had drawn down 72 percent ($18.2 billion) of their awarded State Fiscal Stabilization Fund (SFSF) education stabilization funds; 46 percent ($3.0 billion) for Elementary and Secondary Education Act, Title I, Part A; and 45 percent ($3 .4 billion) for Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, Part B. In the spring of 2010, GAO surveyed a nationally representative sample of local educational agencies (LEA) and found that job retention was the primary use of education Recovery Act funds in school year 2009-2010, with an estimated 87 percent of LEAs reporting that Recovery Act funds allowed them to retain or create jobs. Even with Recovery Act funds, one-third of LEAs reported experiencing budget cuts in school year 2009-2010 and nearly 1 in 4 reported losing jobs overall. Because of their budget situations, relatively few LEAs reported making significant progress in advancing the four core education reform areas states are required to address as a condition of receiving SFSF funding. In August 2010, the Education Jobs Fund was created to provide $10 billion to retain and create education jobs nationwide.
Highway Infrastructure Investment and Public Transportation Funding
Nationwide, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) obligated $25.6 billion in Recovery Act funds for over 12,300 highway projects, and reimbursed $11.1 billion as of August 2, 2010. The Federal Transit Administration obligated $8.76 billion of Recovery Act funds for about 1,055 grants, and reimbursed $3.6 billion as of August 5, 2010. Highway funds were used primarily for pavement improvement projects, and public transportation funds were used primarily for upgrading transit facilities and improving bus fleets. With emphasis placed on the Recovery Act, many states were slower in obligating regular federal-aid highway funds; FHWA expects all regular funds to be obligated by the end of the fiscal year. Publicly available data likely overstates the number and amount of contracts awarded. GAO recommends that DOT improve the accuracy of these data. DOT has also not corrected previous public information overstating the amount of funds directed to economically distressed areas. GAO recommends that DOT make revised information publicly available. DOT expects to be able to report on Recovery Act outputs, but did not commit to assessing whether transportation investments produced long-term benefits as we recommended in May 2010. GAO believes that understanding the impact of Recovery Act investments continues to be important, plans to continue to monitor DOT's actions, and encourages it to report on long-term benefits.
Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant (EECBG), State Energy Program (SEP), and Weatherization Assistance
The EECBG program provides about $3.2 billion in grants to implement projects that improve energy efficiency; of this amount, approximately $2.8 billion has been allocated directly to recipients. As of August 2010, DOE has obligated about 99 percent of the $2.8 billion in direct formula grants to recipients, who have in turn, obligated about half to subrecipients. The majority of EECBG funds have been obligated for three purposes: energy efficiency retrofits to existing facilities, financial incentive programs, and buildings and facilities. The Recovery Act also provided $3.1 billion to the SEP, which provides funds through formula grants to achieve national energy goals such as increasing energy efficiency and decreasing energy costs. SEP recipients are obligating funds, monitoring, and reporting on project outcomes. The Recovery Act also appropriated $5 billion for the Weatherization Assistance Program. During 2009, DOE obligated about $4.73 billion of the Recovery Act's weatherization funding, while retaining about 5 percent of funds to cover the department's expenses. According to DOE officials, as of June 30, 2010, about 166,000 homes have been weatherized nationwide, or about 29 percent of the 570,000 homes currently planned for weatherization. In May 2010, GAO made several recommendations to DOE, expressing concerns about whether program requirements were being met. DOE generally agreed and has begun to take steps in response to GAO's previous recommendations.
Public Housing Capital Fund, Tax Credit Assistance Program (TCAP), and the Section 1602 Program
As of August 7, 2010, housing agencies had obligated about 46 percent of the nearly $1 billion in Recovery Act Public Housing Capital Fund competitive grants allocated to them for projects such as installing energy-efficient heating and cooling systems in housing units. HUD officials anticipate that some housing agencies may not meet the September 2010 obligation deadline, resulting in those funds being recaptured. GAO believes HUD should continue to closely monitor agencies' progress in obligating remaining funds. As of July 31, 2010, HUD had outlayed about $733 million (32.6 percent) of TCAP funds and Treasury had outlayed about $1.4 billion (25.5 percent) of Section 1602 Program funds. Some state Housing Finance Agencies (HFA) and projects may face challenges meeting upcoming deadlines, including that projects spend 30 percent of Section 1602 Program project costs by December 2010. GAO recommends that Treasury provide guidance to HFAs and plan to deal with the possibility that projects could miss the spending deadline. Treasury said it will monitor project spending and provide additional guidance, if needed. GAO also found that for some TCAP projects, enhanced HUD oversight may be needed. GAO recommends that HUD develop a plan that recognizes the level of oversight others, including HFAs and investors, provide. HUD agrees these projects need additional monitoring.
You cannot prove that as fact.
Now tell us, if the stimulus was so important that it had to be passed immediately, why is it that parts of it weren't even planned to take effect for several years later?
it was a 10 year, RECOVERY ACT....not just a stimulus. the $780 billion was for 10 years, front loading the first few years.
NOTE: This is for Public Use and not limited copy right material.
GAO Releases Its Most Recent Report On The Recovery Act | Following the Money | GAO.gov
States' and Localities' Uses of Funds and Actions Needed to Address Implementation Challenges and Bolster Accountability
This review responds to two ongoing mandates under the Recovery Act. It is the latest in a series of reports on the uses of and accountability for Recovery Act funds in 16 selected states, certain localities in those jurisdictions, and in the District of Columbia. This review also responds to GAO's mandate to comment on the jobs estimated in recipient reports.
Issued on September 20, 2010, this review focuses on the federal programs identified below, which are funded under the Recovery Act. The review also updates the status of agencies' efforts to implement GAO's previous 58 recommendations and makes 5 new recommendations to improve management and strengthen accountability to the Departments of Transportation (DOT), Housing and Urban Development (HUD), the Treasury and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Agency responses to GAO's new recommendations, as well as to key recommendations that remain open, are included below.
Federal Medical Assistance Percentage (FMAP) View details More Results Toggle
As of July 31, 2010, the 16 states and the District had drawn down $43.9 billion in increased FMAP funds. If current spending patterns continue, GAO estimates that these states and the District will draw down $56.2 billion by December 31, 2010about 95 percent of their initial estimated allocation. Most states reported that, without the increased FMAP funds, they could not have continued to support the substantial Medicaid enrollment growth they have experienced, most of which was attributable to children. Several states also reported that the increased FMAP funds freed up states' funds which helped finance other needs. States and the District remained concerned about the sustainability of their programs without these funds, and most have already reduced or frozen certain provider payment rates or imposed new provider taxes. Congress recently passed legislation to extend the increased FMAP through June 2011, although at lower rates than provided by the Recovery Act. For future program adjustments, states and the District will also need to consider the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, which prohibits federal Medicaid reimbursement through 2014 if they apply more restrictive eligibility standards, methods, or procedures.
Education
As of August 27, 2010, the District and states covered in GAO's review had drawn down 72 percent ($18.2 billion) of their awarded State Fiscal Stabilization Fund (SFSF) education stabilization funds; 46 percent ($3.0 billion) for Elementary and Secondary Education Act, Title I, Part A; and 45 percent ($3 .4 billion) for Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, Part B. In the spring of 2010, GAO surveyed a nationally representative sample of local educational agencies (LEA) and found that job retention was the primary use of education Recovery Act funds in school year 2009-2010, with an estimated 87 percent of LEAs reporting that Recovery Act funds allowed them to retain or create jobs. Even with Recovery Act funds, one-third of LEAs reported experiencing budget cuts in school year 2009-2010 and nearly 1 in 4 reported losing jobs overall. Because of their budget situations, relatively few LEAs reported making significant progress in advancing the four core education reform areas states are required to address as a condition of receiving SFSF funding. In August 2010, the Education Jobs Fund was created to provide $10 billion to retain and create education jobs nationwide.
Highway Infrastructure Investment and Public Transportation Funding
Nationwide, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) obligated $25.6 billion in Recovery Act funds for over 12,300 highway projects, and reimbursed $11.1 billion as of August 2, 2010. The Federal Transit Administration obligated $8.76 billion of Recovery Act funds for about 1,055 grants, and reimbursed $3.6 billion as of August 5, 2010. Highway funds were used primarily for pavement improvement projects, and public transportation funds were used primarily for upgrading transit facilities and improving bus fleets. With emphasis placed on the Recovery Act, many states were slower in obligating regular federal-aid highway funds; FHWA expects all regular funds to be obligated by the end of the fiscal year. Publicly available data likely overstates the number and amount of contracts awarded. GAO recommends that DOT improve the accuracy of these data. DOT has also not corrected previous public information overstating the amount of funds directed to economically distressed areas. GAO recommends that DOT make revised information publicly available. DOT expects to be able to report on Recovery Act outputs, but did not commit to assessing whether transportation investments produced long-term benefits as we recommended in May 2010. GAO believes that understanding the impact of Recovery Act investments continues to be important, plans to continue to monitor DOT's actions, and encourages it to report on long-term benefits.
Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant (EECBG), State Energy Program (SEP), and Weatherization Assistance
The EECBG program provides about $3.2 billion in grants to implement projects that improve energy efficiency; of this amount, approximately $2.8 billion has been allocated directly to recipients. As of August 2010, DOE has obligated about 99 percent of the $2.8 billion in direct formula grants to recipients, who have in turn, obligated about half to subrecipients. The majority of EECBG funds have been obligated for three purposes: energy efficiency retrofits to existing facilities, financial incentive programs, and buildings and facilities. The Recovery Act also provided $3.1 billion to the SEP, which provides funds through formula grants to achieve national energy goals such as increasing energy efficiency and decreasing energy costs. SEP recipients are obligating funds, monitoring, and reporting on project outcomes. The Recovery Act also appropriated $5 billion for the Weatherization Assistance Program. During 2009, DOE obligated about $4.73 billion of the Recovery Act's weatherization funding, while retaining about 5 percent of funds to cover the department's expenses. According to DOE officials, as of June 30, 2010, about 166,000 homes have been weatherized nationwide, or about 29 percent of the 570,000 homes currently planned for weatherization. In May 2010, GAO made several recommendations to DOE, expressing concerns about whether program requirements were being met. DOE generally agreed and has begun to take steps in response to GAO's previous recommendations.
Public Housing Capital Fund, Tax Credit Assistance Program (TCAP), and the Section 1602 Program
As of August 7, 2010, housing agencies had obligated about 46 percent of the nearly $1 billion in Recovery Act Public Housing Capital Fund competitive grants allocated to them for projects such as installing energy-efficient heating and cooling systems in housing units. HUD officials anticipate that some housing agencies may not meet the September 2010 obligation deadline, resulting in those funds being recaptured. GAO believes HUD should continue to closely monitor agencies' progress in obligating remaining funds. As of July 31, 2010, HUD had outlayed about $733 million (32.6 percent) of TCAP funds and Treasury had outlayed about $1.4 billion (25.5 percent) of Section 1602 Program funds. Some state Housing Finance Agencies (HFA) and projects may face challenges meeting upcoming deadlines, including that projects spend 30 percent of Section 1602 Program project costs by December 2010. GAO recommends that Treasury provide guidance to HFAs and plan to deal with the possibility that projects could miss the spending deadline. Treasury said it will monitor project spending and provide additional guidance, if needed. GAO also found that for some TCAP projects, enhanced HUD oversight may be needed. GAO recommends that HUD develop a plan that recognizes the level of oversight others, including HFAs and investors, provide. HUD agrees these projects need additional monitoring.
LOL, what ever you want to believe......
So I guess the term "shovel ready" was nothing more than showboating. Which is what people with common sense knew all along.
BWAHAHAHHAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
YES! It's for the CHILDREN! Yes it is!!!
Boohoo. You really believe this line of bullcrap or are you just hunting for something--anything--that will excuse this monumental waste of resources? The stimulus was for "shovel ready projects" or did you forget that? It wasn't supposed to be yet another gov't transfer program.
How many people lost their jobs because companies saw tax rates and regulatory burdens increasing and closed divisions?
The fact remains that unemployment would be 1.5-2.0% greater, had it not been for the stimulus.
First, that contradicts the Administration's own projections.
Second that is not supported by research.
You cannot prove that as fact.
Now tell us, if the stimulus was so important that it had to be passed immediately, why is it that parts of it weren't even planned to take effect for several years later?
it was a 10 year, RECOVERY ACT....not just a stimulus. the $780 billion was for 10 years, front loading the first few years.
NOTE: This is for Public Use and not limited copy right material.
GAO Releases Its Most Recent Report On The Recovery Act | Following the Money | GAO.gov
States' and Localities' Uses of Funds and Actions Needed to Address Implementation Challenges and Bolster Accountability
This review responds to two ongoing mandates under the Recovery Act. It is the latest in a series of reports on the uses of and accountability for Recovery Act funds in 16 selected states, certain localities in those jurisdictions, and in the District of Columbia. This review also responds to GAO's mandate to comment on the jobs estimated in recipient reports.
Issued on September 20, 2010, this review focuses on the federal programs identified below, which are funded under the Recovery Act. The review also updates the status of agencies' efforts to implement GAO's previous 58 recommendations and makes 5 new recommendations to improve management and strengthen accountability to the Departments of Transportation (DOT), Housing and Urban Development (HUD), the Treasury and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Agency responses to GAO's new recommendations, as well as to key recommendations that remain open, are included below.
Federal Medical Assistance Percentage (FMAP) View details More Results Toggle
As of July 31, 2010, the 16 states and the District had drawn down $43.9 billion in increased FMAP funds. If current spending patterns continue, GAO estimates that these states and the District will draw down $56.2 billion by December 31, 2010about 95 percent of their initial estimated allocation. Most states reported that, without the increased FMAP funds, they could not have continued to support the substantial Medicaid enrollment growth they have experienced, most of which was attributable to children. Several states also reported that the increased FMAP funds freed up states' funds which helped finance other needs. States and the District remained concerned about the sustainability of their programs without these funds, and most have already reduced or frozen certain provider payment rates or imposed new provider taxes. Congress recently passed legislation to extend the increased FMAP through June 2011, although at lower rates than provided by the Recovery Act. For future program adjustments, states and the District will also need to consider the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, which prohibits federal Medicaid reimbursement through 2014 if they apply more restrictive eligibility standards, methods, or procedures.
Education
As of August 27, 2010, the District and states covered in GAO's review had drawn down 72 percent ($18.2 billion) of their awarded State Fiscal Stabilization Fund (SFSF) education stabilization funds; 46 percent ($3.0 billion) for Elementary and Secondary Education Act, Title I, Part A; and 45 percent ($3 .4 billion) for Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, Part B. In the spring of 2010, GAO surveyed a nationally representative sample of local educational agencies (LEA) and found that job retention was the primary use of education Recovery Act funds in school year 2009-2010, with an estimated 87 percent of LEAs reporting that Recovery Act funds allowed them to retain or create jobs. Even with Recovery Act funds, one-third of LEAs reported experiencing budget cuts in school year 2009-2010 and nearly 1 in 4 reported losing jobs overall. Because of their budget situations, relatively few LEAs reported making significant progress in advancing the four core education reform areas states are required to address as a condition of receiving SFSF funding. In August 2010, the Education Jobs Fund was created to provide $10 billion to retain and create education jobs nationwide.
Highway Infrastructure Investment and Public Transportation Funding
Nationwide, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) obligated $25.6 billion in Recovery Act funds for over 12,300 highway projects, and reimbursed $11.1 billion as of August 2, 2010. The Federal Transit Administration obligated $8.76 billion of Recovery Act funds for about 1,055 grants, and reimbursed $3.6 billion as of August 5, 2010. Highway funds were used primarily for pavement improvement projects, and public transportation funds were used primarily for upgrading transit facilities and improving bus fleets. With emphasis placed on the Recovery Act, many states were slower in obligating regular federal-aid highway funds; FHWA expects all regular funds to be obligated by the end of the fiscal year. Publicly available data likely overstates the number and amount of contracts awarded. GAO recommends that DOT improve the accuracy of these data. DOT has also not corrected previous public information overstating the amount of funds directed to economically distressed areas. GAO recommends that DOT make revised information publicly available. DOT expects to be able to report on Recovery Act outputs, but did not commit to assessing whether transportation investments produced long-term benefits as we recommended in May 2010. GAO believes that understanding the impact of Recovery Act investments continues to be important, plans to continue to monitor DOT's actions, and encourages it to report on long-term benefits.
Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant (EECBG), State Energy Program (SEP), and Weatherization Assistance
The EECBG program provides about $3.2 billion in grants to implement projects that improve energy efficiency; of this amount, approximately $2.8 billion has been allocated directly to recipients. As of August 2010, DOE has obligated about 99 percent of the $2.8 billion in direct formula grants to recipients, who have in turn, obligated about half to subrecipients. The majority of EECBG funds have been obligated for three purposes: energy efficiency retrofits to existing facilities, financial incentive programs, and buildings and facilities. The Recovery Act also provided $3.1 billion to the SEP, which provides funds through formula grants to achieve national energy goals such as increasing energy efficiency and decreasing energy costs. SEP recipients are obligating funds, monitoring, and reporting on project outcomes. The Recovery Act also appropriated $5 billion for the Weatherization Assistance Program. During 2009, DOE obligated about $4.73 billion of the Recovery Act's weatherization funding, while retaining about 5 percent of funds to cover the department's expenses. According to DOE officials, as of June 30, 2010, about 166,000 homes have been weatherized nationwide, or about 29 percent of the 570,000 homes currently planned for weatherization. In May 2010, GAO made several recommendations to DOE, expressing concerns about whether program requirements were being met. DOE generally agreed and has begun to take steps in response to GAO's previous recommendations.
Public Housing Capital Fund, Tax Credit Assistance Program (TCAP), and the Section 1602 Program
As of August 7, 2010, housing agencies had obligated about 46 percent of the nearly $1 billion in Recovery Act Public Housing Capital Fund competitive grants allocated to them for projects such as installing energy-efficient heating and cooling systems in housing units. HUD officials anticipate that some housing agencies may not meet the September 2010 obligation deadline, resulting in those funds being recaptured. GAO believes HUD should continue to closely monitor agencies' progress in obligating remaining funds. As of July 31, 2010, HUD had outlayed about $733 million (32.6 percent) of TCAP funds and Treasury had outlayed about $1.4 billion (25.5 percent) of Section 1602 Program funds. Some state Housing Finance Agencies (HFA) and projects may face challenges meeting upcoming deadlines, including that projects spend 30 percent of Section 1602 Program project costs by December 2010. GAO recommends that Treasury provide guidance to HFAs and plan to deal with the possibility that projects could miss the spending deadline. Treasury said it will monitor project spending and provide additional guidance, if needed. GAO also found that for some TCAP projects, enhanced HUD oversight may be needed. GAO recommends that HUD develop a plan that recognizes the level of oversight others, including HFAs and investors, provide. HUD agrees these projects need additional monitoring.
I knew that, but certain people keep saying it had to be done immediately when in reality it didn't. Just like they claim there was so little fraud but ignore the huge waste. All in all it didn't and isn't working.At least wise I don't believe it can be proven. But then again, that's just my opinion.
Well, the CEA and CBO analysis on the progress of the bill is fact, not opinion.
Well, the CEA and CBO analysis on the progress of the bill is fact, not opinion.
The same CEA and CBO that were dreadfully wrong last year. I have no confidence in their analyses.
Well, the CEA and CBO analysis on the progress of the bill is fact, not opinion.
The same CEA and CBO that were dreadfully wrong last year. I have no confidence in their analyses.
They were wrong on their estimate, so you don't trust their analysis of progress. Yeah, that's the ticket. Hell, why trust anything the CBO says if that's how you feel. Do you seriously expect predictions and estimates to be perfect? Do you know anyone who has that crystal ball? It could be worth a lot of money.
The same CEA and CBO that were dreadfully wrong last year. I have no confidence in their analyses.
They were wrong on their estimate, so you don't trust their analysis of progress. Yeah, that's the ticket. Hell, why trust anything the CBO says if that's how you feel. Do you seriously expect predictions and estimates to be perfect? Do you know anyone who has that crystal ball? It could be worth a lot of money.
I don't know anyone that has a dumbass board name like "dick tuck" either.
WTF is that anyway? You tuck your dick? You tuck other people's dick's? What is this dick tucking? A penis tucking fetish?
I don't know anyone that has a dumbass board name like "dick tuck" either.
WTF is that anyway? You tuck your dick? You tuck other people's dick's? What is this dick tucking? A penis tucking fetish?
I don't know anyone that has a dumbass board name like "dick tuck" either.
WTF is that anyway? You tuck your dick? You tuck other people's dick's? What is this dick tucking? A penis tucking fetish?
It may be his real name, like a boy named Sue.
No, but that benchmark was based on expert opinion that by doing nothing unemployment would reach 10%, and was arrived at only within weeks of Obama taking office. Things were much worse than thought, and instead of hitting 10%, unemployment would have reached 11.5-12%. It turns out that Freidman, who had the most dire prediction was closest to being right. What would you have done? Many thought we should have just invested more money.
"Expert Opinion", not fact, so there is no way to prove that opinion. And how can they say it was much worse than they thought when Obama, Biden Geithner et al stated it was the worse economic times since the great depression! That means either they were too stupid to realize the size of the problem or they were just making things up as the economy continued to crash. Either way, it shows an ineptness in the administration.
The "well it could have been worse" is not much of a selling point when it comes to re-election and the current polls seem to prove that.
Can you show me a single case of a prediction or estimate, that's a fact, before the outcome?
One tiny problem the big reason that public sector jobs are being lost was not addressed by the stimulus.
The costs of state and local borrowing has gone way up in the last four years which is the reason for the layoffs.
The reason that borrowing costs have gone up is that the companies that issued CDSs on munis blew themselves up in the housing bubble.
What is needed to reduce those borrowing costs so roads and stuff get built are CDSs for munis. That problem was not addressed by the stimulus package.
Guess what if you don't address the problem you don't get a solution. If an internet poster like me can find that out through casual reading ("Bailout Nation" a book published prior to Obama taking office has a summary of this problem.) then why couldn't the experts find this out. Those three little words "Triple A insured" mean so much like say 400 basis points reduced interest rate expense.
No, the stimulus package was and is a piece of crap.
There's a whole lotta kids going to school, a whole lotta cops firemen and services personel on the job, and millions of Americans who ate, and who lived in heated homes BECAUSE OF THE STIMULUS.
Sans that stimulus money States would have laid off millions of workers in essantial services.
Where the stimulus fails is in job CREATION.
Why?
Well for one thing there wasn't enough money in it to replace the nearly 8 TRILLION dollars that were lost when the stock market and real estate markets collapsed.
There's a whole lotta kids going to school, a whole lotta cops firemen and services personel on the job, and millions of Americans who ate, and who lived in heated homes BECAUSE OF THE STIMULUS.
Sans that stimulus money States would have laid off millions of workers in essantial services.
Where the stimulus fails is in job CREATION.
Why?
Well for one thing there wasn't enough money in it to replace the nearly 8 TRILLION dollars that were lost when the stock market and real estate markets collapsed.
So "where the stimulus failed" was exactly in what it was stated to do. Complete failure and waste of taxpayer dollars in what it was intended to do.
And now we find that $162 million dollars of stimulus money is "missing".
Weasel Zippers Blog Archive Good News: $162 Million in Stimulus Money Missing
I seem to recall the job of making sure the funds were spent timely and correctly was Bidens'. Way to go Joe!
"Feds Spent $800,000 of Economic Stimulus on African Genital-Washing Program"
Feds Spent $800,000 of Economic Stimulus on African Genital-Washing Program | CNSnews.com
Please explain how that stimulates jobs in the US?
I would like to see the Obama explain that to families, (without a teleprompter), who are struggling and now have an increased tax burden because of this program. Each family is estimated to pay $10,000.00 in taxes to cover this program. He can have a backyard Q & A with the 80 families and ummm and ahhh his way into that explaination.
There are many more examples of misuse of funds from paying back the unions for helping Obama get elected to building turtle tunnels in Florida.
Turtle Tunnel
You can't honestly agree with these obvious wastes of taxpayer dollars...can you? You can't be that much of a partisan to ignore these facts.
What a complete and utter mess the administration made of this.
One tiny problem the big reason that public sector jobs are being lost was not addressed by the stimulus.
The costs of state and local borrowing has gone way up in the last four years which is the reason for the layoffs.
The reason that borrowing costs have gone up is that the companies that issued CDSs on munis blew themselves up in the housing bubble.
What is needed to reduce those borrowing costs so roads and stuff get built are CDSs for munis. That problem was not addressed by the stimulus package.
Guess what if you don't address the problem you don't get a solution. If an internet poster like me can find that out through casual reading ("Bailout Nation" a book published prior to Obama taking office has a summary of this problem.) then why couldn't the experts find this out. Those three little words "Triple A insured" mean so much like say 400 basis points reduced interest rate expense.
No, the stimulus package was and is a piece of crap.
nothing that mattered was addressed in the stimulus.
It was a pork barrel bill founded on hope and adverse to change. All for the benefit of campaign contributors and feel good liberal publicists/PR firms.
