Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Flipx99" data-source="post: 7928364" data-attributes="member: 562352">The red and blue are independent.The stimulus was successful in stimulating the economy. GDP did grow from the time period 2009 to 2012.The reason, I believe, the stimulus was not as successful as it could have been is the deployment. We had to have &quot;shovel ready jobs&quot; and what some agencies did with these funds is pave roads that were already recently paved. Reason is that the money had to be spent quickly and they already had the environmental studies handy, so it&#039;s an easy choice. A much harder choice is a stimulus that gets Americans back to real, steady, work. It was why FDR&#039;s CCC was more successful (another reason is the CCC didn&#039;t have the red tape) is that the projects were larger and self-renewing. An example is the Tennessee Valley Authority. TVA still generates cheap electricity to this area today thanks to &quot;stimulus&quot; efforts. Those are good paying jobs for nearly 80 years. I think Obama tried that with green energy but failed. Here&#039;s why, instead of guaranteeing loans to political partners (on both sides) it should have been a competition/grant type of deal.&nbsp; A good model is the &quot;X Prize&quot; in space exploration.So while I do take some issue with the magnitude of dollars spent, I take more offense to him dousing the economy with gasoline instead trying to use a little kindling and build a roaring flame.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Flipx99, post: 7928364, member: 562352"] The red and blue are independent. The stimulus was successful in stimulating the economy. GDP did grow from the time period 2009 to 2012. The reason, I believe, the stimulus was not as successful as it could have been is the deployment. We had to have "shovel ready jobs" and what some agencies did with these funds is pave roads that were already recently paved. Reason is that the money had to be spent quickly and they already had the environmental studies handy, so it's an easy choice. A much harder choice is a stimulus that gets Americans back to real, steady, work. It was why FDR's CCC was more successful (another reason is the CCC didn't have the red tape) is that the projects were larger and self-renewing. An example is the Tennessee Valley Authority. TVA still generates cheap electricity to this area today thanks to "stimulus" efforts. Those are good paying jobs for nearly 80 years. I think Obama tried that with green energy but failed. Here's why, instead of guaranteeing loans to political partners (on both sides) it should have been a competition/grant type of deal. A good model is the "X Prize" in space exploration. So while I do take some issue with the magnitude of dollars spent, I take more offense to him dousing the economy with gasoline instead trying to use a little kindling and build a roaring flame. [/QUOTE]

Verification