"Only 8% of the stimulus have been spent" said George Will

[question everything]

"so if the recession is over, let's not spend the rest of it."

(On ABC This Week)

If this is true, why not spend more of the stimulus money to help the jobless and the ones who lost their health insurance? Why not send some of it to the states that cannot keep up with unemployment payments and with Medicaid? Why not send some of it to hospitals that are forced to lay off workers because fewer people can pay for their services?

Why not send some of it to California so that it can re open its state parks and help generate more tourism revenue?

Why not give a $1,000 credit to anyone buying a new car? A lot better than simply pump money into the car makers if no one is buying.

Why not pump money into organizations that purchase foreclosed homes and then sell or rent to people, thus preventing entire neighborhoods from becoming a blight with board-up houses?

What am I missing?

[undeterred]

1. So if the recession is over for Wall Street, its over?

Fuck that.

[depakid]

2. "What am I missing?"

The fact that George Will is a serial liar and hasn't had an original thought in 20 years.

[Orsino]

14. A heart, a brain, and courage.

The good news, of course, is that he's got plenty of hot air for the balloon ride.

[MarjorieG]

3. So maybe not spent, but committed to unfinished projects ongoing, maybe more unemployment...

[stray cat]

4. Excellent - lets get rid of the tax cut, unemployment, food stamp and aid to states!

that the stimulus supplies.

[stray cat]

5. I hired someone with stimulus funds - but haven't paid them yet

however I have guaranteed funds to pay them for two years. - he seemed happy to have a job....

[question everything]

9. This is wonderful. I hope that the funds come soon (nt)

[TomCADem]

6. What are you missing? Quite a bit...

so if the recession is over, let's not spend the rest of it."

- This would repeat the mistake of FDR who suddenly cut spending in 1937, which killed the momentum of the recovery. The 2009-2010 fiscal year has just begun, and notwithstanding the approval of the stimulus in February 2009, most state and local governments simply cannot revise and implement such spending at the tail end of their fiscal year. Now, these same governments are now relying on that money in passing their 2009-10 budgets, and you want to kill the program. This will wrech havoc on state and local budgets, particularly California, which would be in full default but for the stimulus. You think it's bad now.

Why do you think even AZ's new Republican governor freaked out when the Obama administration floated the idea of AZ refusing its stimulus alotment. State and local governments are hurting, and their balance sheets for 2009-10 would be much, much worse if the stimulus is rescinded, because suddenlty, those anticipated funds in the budgets will not materialize. Its like pulling the rug from underneath state and local government, which is now relying on the stimulus. If anything, Paul Krugman has the better of the argument that California shows that the stimulus should be larger, not rescinded, because California's problems will slow the recovery.

The economy is starting to recover, but we are near 10% unemployment, and unemployment is a lagging indicator. Companies will be reluctant to hire due to the severity of the recession, thus the infrastructure projects that come on line this fiscal year 2009-10 are vital to reducing unemployment.

(On ABC This Week)

If this is true, why not spend more of the stimulus money to help the jobless and the ones who lost their health insurance? Why not send some of it to the states that cannot keep up with unemployment payments and with Medicaid? Why not send some of it to hospitals that are forced to lay off workers because fewer people can pay for their services?

- Again, the money is being spent and has been committed for the 2009-2010 fiscal year. See above. Also, remember Mark Sanford? The stimulus specifically does include unemployment benefit funds. This is what Mark Sanford was complaining about.

Why not send some of it to California so that it can re open its state parks and help generate more tourism revenue?

- California, $8 million has already been spent, and up to $25 million is potentially available. If you look at the recently passed California budget, it relies on the stimulus funds. Sure, California could use more money, but it is a mistake to assume that California does not depend on the stimulus package. Finally, the vast majority of California state parks remain open under the new California budget.

Why not give a $1,000 credit to anyone buying a new car? A lot better than simply pump money into the car makers if no one is buying.

- The stimulus includes a $4,500 cash for clunkers program. So, the President is way ahead of you on this idea.

Why not pump money into organizations that purchase foreclosed homes and then sell or rent to people, thus preventing entire neighborhoods from becoming a blight with board-up houses?

- The TARP program is currently funding foreclosure assistance programs even for mortgages in excess of home value up to a certain point. Sure, you could use stumulus money, but then it would not be stimulus, and then what about the TARP funds? Its robbing Peter to pay Paul to use stimulus money instead of TARP money to fund mortgage assistance.

Also, the fact that existing home sales are now going up, and the fact that mortgage rates remain low, show that President's actions in concert with the Fed are working. You can get a 15 year fixed rate mortgage for as low as 4.5 %. The programs are starting to work as the statistics show. So, I would focus on job creation, because if someone is unemploymed, no amount of mortgage assistance is going to help them. Thus, continue with infrastructure projects.

What am I missing?

- See above.

[question everything]

10. Thank you for a detailed explanation

Just shows that Will has no idea who local governments operate, and the inter dependency between the Federal and local governments.

[andym]

7. Will is exaggerating, and the reason to keep the stimulus is more jobs.

G. Will exaggerates what economists are saying, which is that the recession is ending (not ended), and that growth may begin again in the next quarter.

The stimulus bill should help accelerate the recovery. Therefore, no reason to stop it.

But jobs are a known economic trailing indicator, which means that unemployment is going to be high for quite some time. People not working impede the recovery. The stimulus package was designed in part to increase jobs, which will help Americans and the economy.

[BlooInBloo]

8. Not sure who's wrong more: Will or Kristol.

[question everything]

11. Don't know what Kristol said but it cannot be illuminating

After all, it was he who went to Alaska to recruit Palin for the ticket..

And then, what can one expect for Dan Quayle's Chief of Staff?

[wiggs]

12. to say the recession is over might be true but is also somewhat misleading. Recession is a

technical term meaning two quarters of falling GDP. Maybe GDP has hit bottom and isn't falling anymore...doesn't mean it's good or healthy. GDP has been so bad that we're bound to have an increase sooner or later.

Same thing when Bush and GOP kept saying we're NOT in a recession....we had fallen off a cliff but technically we didn't meet the definition of recession

[pinb1212]

13. It's not falling GDP

It's 2 quarters of negative GDP. Big difference.

[kestrel91316]

15. STFU, Will. A lot of the stimulus money in CA is going for some

desperately needed environmental remediation measures that will employ a LOT of people and deliver permanent financial and social benefits.