Are you optimistic that this "stimulus plan" will work?

[kentuck]

Personally, I am not optimistic. They tried the one-time rebate to Americans, said it didn't work, and moved back to the "trickle down" method, it seems to me. What did they spend on the rebate?? Was it about $185 billion? In my opinion, it should have been a 3 or 4-step program every 4 months until people could dig themselves out of the hole they were in. The one-time rebate did not work because many folks used it to pay off credit cards and, otherwise, stave off the wolves. So, now, we are going to try other ways to "stimulate" the economy.

The spending on infrastructure and immediate jobs will help. But it will do nothing for those that are already working and going deeper in the hole. I think there should have been another couple of rebates to the people, but that is just my opinion.

[Warpy]

1. I don't think anything will work over the next two years.

However, doing everything right now will shorten the misery. Doing what the conservatives in both parties want will prolong it.

[JFN1]

2. No. It's not enough

has too many tax cuts, not enough spending...

[ItNerd4life]

3. Not at all.

The GAO says it won't help and will only hurt. I trust them more.

[schmear happens]

4. It's so hard to say; I feel like printing money is a disaster waiting to happen, but

what is the alternative? I am hoping we go to a more Socialist system like they have in Europe. Rampant capitalism just seems to have failed miserably.

Given that the rebates are coming anyway, I wish they would have been large (like, say, $1500 per person) and include EVERYONE, even the unemployed like me who didn't file in the last year! Even homeless people! Even babies!

*Edit: I meant to add that printing money creates inflation, which hurts the lower-income folks like me the worst. I have noticed a steady increase in the price of food, even as gas prices plummeted and it is a concern...

[mmonk]

5. No. Too much of it is wasted on tax cut ideology.

[Aviation Pro]

6. Some of it will work, some of it will not.....

...it's like explosives. Sometimes you get the boom time on target, sometimes you don't (especially when someone sabotages the fuse length).

[OhioChick]

7. I don't expect it to work.

People need jobs....yesterday.

No jobs equal No recovery.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

8. I don't agree at all on the rebates.

Seriously, less than a dollar or two a day (if you use the $300-600 model used before) for each American isn't going to do jack. It didn't do jack. And it certainly isn't going to help everyday people that are in the hole you describe very much.

In fact, you will be getting a 52 step version of the rebate, with people expecting to save about $13/week on their paychecks. That's a little less than $2 per day. That isn't going to stimulate squat.

The spending, on the other hand, I think will help quite a bit. It won't pull us out of the whole by itself, and certainly not with immediacy, but I think it will stem the tide. I'd have preferred more spending and fewer tax cuts/rebates, but it will do.

So yes, I am optimistic.

[Still Sensible]

9. I believe the one-time-rebate is not part of this package

except for individual checks that will go to seniors. The personal tax relief in this measure, last I heard, was in the form of payroll tax reductions.

[TahitiNut]

10. The system itself is broken.

Until repairs are made, it's like pouring water into a bucket with holes in the sides.

[taught_me_patience]

11. It will work for a year

but after that, we'll have a shitty economy and high government debt. A true recipe for disaster.

[Winterblues]

12. It is already working and hasn't even been signed into being yet

Consumer Confidence is rising and January sales figures are up 1%. I think a major part is how Americans feel about it and right now they are pretty positive overall.

[Xenotime]

13. Pugs have torn it appart in an attempt to shame Obama.

We need more action and working "across the isle" isn't the way to go.

[leftstreet]

14. No.

No

[RebelOne]

15. Clark Howard, the conumer guru, said would work for the short term.

I believe him, because no one knows money like Clark Howard. He will be explaining it on his TV spot or radio show sometime today.

[mmonk]

16. It's a short term solution with a balloon payment.

[Juche]

17. No

Our economic problems are too deep for this alone to cure it. In between the collapse of the middle class by regressive taxes, higher expenses and lower wages; healthcare/real estate/college costs through the roof; a trade deficit and the banks having trillions in bad assets we aren't going to get out of this one easily. We are a wealthy version of a latin american country, with a handful of super rich people and everyone else just scraping by. I don't think you can sustain an economy on that since we are a consumer driven economy.

I really don't know. I'm not an economist, but it seems our problems are too deep to be solved by one stimulus. Its going to be decades of lifting the middle class up to a reasonable standard of living (so they don't all abandon their homes during a downturn and collapse the banking system), fixing the trade deficit, etc.

In the long run I'm sure we will be fine, but I think it'll take a while to get there. My fear is if the public blames Obama and starts electing wingnuts again. That'll make it even worse.

[BonnieJW]

18. No.

I think we are in for some very bad times. We are going to have to help each other, meaning our family members and close friends. I think if we stick together, we'll be able to make it through, but it's going to be a long haul. My middle daughter has a 14 month old and wants to have another baby; she's 33 and she doesn't want to wait too long. The simple fact is that she and her husband can't afford it.

[leftchick]

19. No, Not in the least

as David Sirota wrote a couple of weeks ago, Obama did not even need to water it down for repukes and conservative Dems. Which begs the question, just who is he working for?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-sirota/economic-stimulus-bill-so_b_161376.html?page=3

<snip>

This is the Republicans trap - and it is pretty smart political strategy. They get to advocate for policies that appease their base and satisfy their corporate donors. If they succeed in getting those policies amended into the stimulus bill, they will help sabotage the effectiveness of that bill and then have a perfect attack point with which to bludgeon Obama on the economy. If they fail in getting those policies amended into the stimulus bill, they will be able to say that's the reason the economy is not doing well in 2009. And one these outcomes are guaranteed, whether they vote for the bill or not.

What's not guaranteed is the effectiveness of the strategy - that's up to Democrats and Obama. If they fall for the trap and they continue watering down the bill with the very right-wing tax cuts that the public rejected during the 2008 election, they will make the GOP strategy look brilliant. But if they stop playing games with an opposition that just got drubbed in the election - and if they pass a robust spending plan without regard to how many extra GOP votes they get - they will at least hold out the possibility that the recovery package will ultimately boost the economy (and thus their political support), if not in 2009, then soon after.

The problem may be the deeper conflict between Obama's two key sets of campaign promises. On the one hand, he promised a huge agenda of new progressive spending. On the other hand, he promised bipartisanship. As we are seeing, those two goals create a fundamental conflict - not in the country at large, as polls show, but in Washington, D.C., where the term "bipartisanship" has little to do with true bipartisanship among the American public. The Republican Party in Washington - despite polls and the election mandate - simply will not agree to support the kind of robustly progressive spending that Obama campaigned on.

Thus, Obama has to choose between his campaign spending promises and his odes to bipartisanship - and unfortunately, it looks like he's trying not to make a choice at all. He's proposing a plan that tries to split the difference between GOP-backed tax cuts that Democrats acknowledge are ineffective, and progressive spending proposals. Policy-wise, the net effect is a weaker stimulus package than the moment requires. Politically, the effect is to help resuscitate a Republican Party and conservative movement that should be left to wither away. Indeed, the only way the GOP can claw itself back to political relevance is to garner attention from Obama and the Democrats - and sadly, it seems Obama seems intent on helping the GOP get back in the game.

As I told Rachel in concluding our interview, this situation is particularly sad from a historical perspective. If Franklin Roosevelt's main concern during the Great Depression was getting the majority of the Republican Party to support his proposals, we probably wouldn't have Social Security. Same thing for Lyndon Johnson during the 1960s - if he was primarily worried about getting GOP support for bills he signed, we probably wouldn't have the era's landmark civil rights laws nor Medicare.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

20. No. At best, it's a stopgap measure to ease the pain.

At worst, it can backfire by bringing on hyper-inflation after deflation or a global trade war if protectionism is introduced in a significant way.

It, or nothing else the politicians and economists try, can bring the economy back to what it was just 6 months ago. Those days are gone, and they ain't comin' back. To paraphrase Bruce Springsteen.

[prolesunited]

21. It will certainly work for our family

The unemployment extension will help me because I'm not having much luck and the COBRA assistance will allow us to keep our health insurance. With our bare bones budget, I'm more optimistic that we'll be able to keep our house this year. And the few extra bucks means we can pay the water bill.

[yodoobo]

22. Well hell. If we don't think it will work

and republicans don't think it will work.

Who does that actually believes in this thing?

Why the heck aren't they putting together a package that someone actually believes will work?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

23. Because they can't. There is no short term solution.

The recession will end when price = value and that's going to be a long and very painful process that they have no control over.

[hologram]

24. If it doesn't...

some people will still end up with a new bridge or road or levee that they needed but might not otherwise have had for years or decades or ever. The spending portion has LASTING material benefits even if it doesn't stimulate the economy as planned.

[northernlights]

25. Did you even read the stimulus package?

The little tax rebate was an acknowledged failure.

This stimulus package is very, very different.

1. THE PAYROLL TAX CUTS are aimed at lower and middle income families, to help those who are already working and going deeper into the hole. And because they don't involve mailing a check, the program expense doesn't include cutting and mailing checks. So it's a less expensive program that puts far more money into working people's wallets.

2. The EDUCATION FUNDING will help those going deeper in the whole due to kids in college.

3. The HEAD START FUNDING, CHILD CARE FUNDING, FREE LUNCH EXPANSION, FOOD STAMP EXPANSION all will help those going deeper into the hole.

4. The TAX CREDIT for new home buyers will help those going deeper who need to sell their home to downsize and restructure to get out of the hole.

5. The HOME WEATHERIZATION FUNDING for 2 million homes will cut energy costs for 2 million families going deeper into the hole.

[soothsayer]

30. no, did congress? i doubt it

[Mme. Defarge]

26. Oui! n/t

[renate]

32. moi aussi!

I don't think we'll go back to the kind of economy and consumption that we had six or seven months ago, but as long as people are working and able to pay for food and shelter and insurance and a few small luxuries, a less consumption-oriented culture could be a good thing. There's nothing sustainable about living beyond our means. I hope we can go back to the mindset of "enough is enough" so that people with a living wage can get themselves out of debt and stay out without feeling any kind of pressure to keep up with the Joneses.

I think this stimulus (which will probably need to be followed by other, smaller boosters) will keep us from going into a depression, but the economy we'll get is going to look a lot less exuberant than it used to. People who are used to living within their means instead of going to the mall as entertainment (I'm not looking down on them--I like to shop too!) aren't going to notice a big change in lifestyle in the long run; people who took out home equity loans to buy stuff they couldn't afford are definitely going to notice a change.

I suppose the perceived success of the stimulus is going to depend quite a lot on what people consider recovery--whether it's a job that pays the bills with something left over for savings and fun, or a return to the overconsumption that had somehow gotten to seem "normal" over the past few years.

[Mme. Defarge]

33. I'm convinced that Obama

is VERY smart, and that he plays to win. I can't imagine him signing a bill that he doesn't believe has a good chance of being effective.

[earth mom]

27. No, I'm not optimistic about the plan. It does nothing to keep people from falling over the cliff.

Giving taxpayers a measly 20 bucks a payday-which is like 5 bucks in todays money-infuriates me and is but a drop in the bucket to the kind help most people in this country need right now.

How many people would benefit from being given some REAL money like 10K or more?

How many people could pull themselves back from the edge, get caught up on their mortgages, be able to escape homelessness, start a micro business, or just get the hell out of debt with that much money?

To me, the stimulus package is nothing more than a bandaid covering a huge gaping oozing wound.


Until they help the middle class, working class and poor, nothing is gonna change in this country.

Like Edwards said a year ago-the new powers that be are "status quo" and nothing is going to change.

And he was 100% correct.

[blues90]

28. No , I'll tell you what it looks like to me.

It looks like some political move to show they are doing something, that's all this is.

If any of these politicians wanted to do something then they should have done it well before it got this damn bad.

They spend more time patting themselves on the back than anything else in their grand padded huge hall and desks.

They talk about schools yet they put this insane no child left behind act in that does nothing to promote education. Certainly they need schools but why let them reach the bad condition they are in now.

As far as jobs go it is another failed policy that once again if these politicians really wanted to do something that helped the people then why allow the corporations to ship all the jobs over seas and then give them tax breaks.

They look back at Lincoln and the founding fathers but have moved so far off course that the ship is lost at sea bogged down in that wonderfull mass of floating garbage off the coast twice the size of Texas.

With most of the money in the hands of the corporations as well as most of the control what do the people really have? Not to leave out compeating in global economy where a real time living wage is a thing of the past as well as healthcare.

Absolutely none of this fits into the realm of common sense, but it certainly does fit into the realm of illusion and delusion.

I mean really , what do these politicians have to lose , they can walk away tomarrow and still live out their lives just fine , the people cannot.

[soothsayer]

29. the're just contnuing to rob us. now ackerman wants to take pension money. it's a crime!

[terisan]

31. I think US needed to bite bullet and let failed big banks fail-better they fail than the US . nt

[Xithras]

34. No, it's a "poo" bill. There's no "plan" to it

They're just flinging poo against the wall in the hope that something will stick.

The New Deal was a PLAN. It created programs and departments with the specific goal of putting people back to work. It changed government project award procedures to ensure that every government dollar worked toward the goal of putting people back into jobs.

The Stimulus Plan does nothing of the sort. It just injects funding into the existing bureaucracy in the hopes that existing agencies will hire more people in response. I don't expect that to happen, and here's an example why: Part of the stimulus plan will inject money into local governments for transportation funding. Our local paper ran an article recently on the sorts of things our local transportation boards are planning on doing with the funds. Ready? One city will be using it to add security cameras to its buses. Another will use it to perform some deferred maintenance on their vehicles and storage buildings. A third will use it to purchase some right-of-way's for a future project that won't be built for another decade. NONE will really do anything to create jobs or stimulate the economy.

Where's the National Recovery Administration to manage business output, reduce competition, and increase industrial output? Where's the Resettlement Administration, to help move people from areas of dire poverty to areas with jobs? Where's the Farm Security Administration to combat rural poverty? Where's a modern equivalent to the Rural Electrification Administration? The original put people to work bringing power to remote areas, but a new one could build a broadband network across America. Where's the freaking WPA? Sure, we may not need any more hiking trails, but infrastructure across America is crumbling and in need of upgrades. Roosevelt had a PLAN that DIRECTLY put people to work.

In comparison, this stimulus plan just injects a little extra money into already-existing government programs. That's nice, but it doesn't do much. Our politicians are cowards, and none are fit to even walk in Roosevelts shadow. We have a government full of Hoovers.

[.... callchet ....]

35. Throwing good money at a bad situation. Need a plan.

The USA dsoes not have anything to sell. We have to spend all our money on developing a new career for hte USA.

[deaniac21]

36. I'm in agreement with the GAO. They have been consistently correct

since the beginning of time. Heavily Democratic careerists for the most part. They think it will have no effect.