WH Economist....

[TXduckdog]

AP reports the WH economist Christine Romer says the first stimulus package has pretty much shot its wad and will top out in effectiveness in early 2010.

Kind of funny that so little of it has been spent and yet 49 of 50 states report rising unemployment.

Word is....a lot of that left over stimulus money is going to end up in campaign coffers to re-elect the geniuses that came up with the idea.

I'm trying to locate the exact story so JDogger won't pee down his leg over not sourcing the comments.

Here it is:

Romer: Impact of stimulus will level off
By JIM KUHNHENN (AP) – 4 hours ago

WASHINGTON — A top White House economist says spending from the $787 billion economic stimulus has already had its biggest impact on economic growth and will likely not contribute to significant expansion next year.

Christina Romer, the chair of President Barack Obama's Council of Economic Advisers, said Thursday that the $194 billion already spent gave a jolt to the economy that contributed to growth in the second and third quarters of the year. She told a congressional panel that by the middle of next year, the impact of the stimulus will level off. Romer said spending so far has saved or created 600,000 to 1.5 million jobs but warned that unemployment will remain high, above 9.5 percent, through the end of 2010.


Now I ask you, sincerely......is this a good thing? And, where the hell is the remaining $593 billion???????

You know darn well if the other major party was in the WH.....there would be blood all over the place.

[Gerry Clinchy]

I'd have the same question! Where is the other $593 billion? If only $194 billion has impact on the economy, why did they even appropriate the other $593 billion?

Why not just put it back where it was supposed to come from and keep the deficit smaller?

If it's not spent yet, they could always use it to help out Medicare ... or SS ... or other govt programs that are going bankrupt.

Somehow, it occurs to me that the administration is not going to be too doggone happy with this comment to the press

[YardleyLabs]

Before anyone starts thinking this is an admission of failure, it should be noted that in January, when the stimulus plan was still under discussion, the estimates provided by Romer and other economists were that the proposed stimulus plan would reduce the unemployment rate by about 2% (less than one-third of the projected increase at that time, or about one-fourth of the actual increase experienced). It was never estimated that the stimulus plan would prevent a loss of jobs and consequent increase in unemployment (See, for example, http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/200...n-on-stimulus/). The estimates at that time were that the effect would reach its peak early in 2010 and then decline over the next year. The initial parts of the plan were to have immediate tax cuts that would be paid out in small enough amounts that they would go to spending instead of savings in contrast to previous tax rebate programs, (implemented in February) and to extend unemployment benefits including subsidies for COBRA premiums (done). The spending components of the plan required approval and implementation of capital projects through state governments. This is moving forward with the primary impact not expected until next spring. That benefit should extend the boost already provided. Most economists have estimated that the stimulus plan, as implemented, has boosted economic growth by 2-3% and is the only reason that we now appear to be emerging from the recession that many felt would drive unemployment to 12-15% and last until late 2010 or longer. While that is a lot of good news, the reality is that for the majority of Ammericans jobs are not being created at a level that provides a middle class income. Instead, those jobs are still moving off shore where labor is cheaper.

[road kill]

Before anyone starts thinking this is an admission of failure, it should be noted that in January, when the stimulus plan was still under discussion, the estimates provided by Romer and other economists were that the proposed stimulus plan would reduce the unemployment rate by about 2% (less than one-third of the projected increase at that time, or about one-fourth of the actual increase experienced). It was never estimated that the stimulus plan would prevent a loss of jobs and consequent increase in unemployment (See, for example, http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/200...n-on-stimulus/). The estimates at that time were that the effect would reach its peak early in 2010 and then decline over the next year. The initial parts of the plan were to have immediate tax cuts that would be paid out in small enough amounts that they would go to spending instead of savings in contrast to previous tax rebate programs, (implemented in February) and to extend unemployment benefits including subsidies for COBRA premiums (done). The spending components of the plan required approval and implementation of capital projects through state governments. This is moving forward with the primary impact not expected until next spring. That benefit should extend the boost already provided. Most economists have estimated that the stimulus plan, as implemented, has boosted economic growth by 2-3% and is the only reason that we now appear to be emerging from the recession that many felt would drive unemployment to 12-15% and last until late 2010 or longer. While that is a lot of good news, the reality is that for the majority of Ammericans jobs are not being created at a level that provides a middle class income. Instead, those jobs are still moving off shore where labor is cheaper.

"Most economists??"

I have not seen one thing written other than what you have here that states or supports that.
In fact, quite the contrary.

[Buzz]

"Most economists??"

I have not seen one thing written other than what you have here that states or supports that.
In fact, quite the contrary.

That's because you limit your news sources to those who validate your version of reality.

If you read a little bit of Krugman and Stiglitz you'd see lots of criticism of the administration, but it would very different from the arguments you'd hear on right wing radio and FOX.

[Goose]

Most economists are Keynesian hucksters mugging America with their blatant lies and misinformation. And leading the pack is Paul Krugman who is nothing more than a socialist Keynesian witch doctor and debt apologist.

Krugman wants us all to live in Cuba.

[Buzz]

Most economists are Keynesian hucksters mugging America with their blatant lies and misinformation. And leading the pack is Paul Krugman who is nothing more than a socialist Keynesian witch doctor and debt apologist.

Krugman wants us all to live in Cuba.

Trickle down economics makes us all pee ons.

[M&K's Retrievers]

That's because you limit your news sources to those who validate your version of reality.

If you read a little bit of Krugman and Stiglitz you'd see lots of criticism of the administration, but it would very different from the arguments you'd hear on right wing radio and FOX.

That's right. These two aren't very liberal.

[YardleyLabs]

"Most economists??"

I have not seen one thing written other than what you have here that states or supports that.
In fact, quite the contrary.

See, for example:

http://www.forbes.com/2009/10/22/gol...-forecast.html

http://www.rgemonitor.com/financemar...nt_act_of_2009

[road kill]

See, for example:

http://www.forbes.com/2009/10/22/gol...-forecast.html

http://www.rgemonitor.com/financemar...nt_act_of_2009

Mr. Yardley,
In the Forbes article Hatzius talks of "increasing inventories."
Eveyone I know in the real world (not Govt or Academia) we are fighting to reduce inventory.

Essentially in the articles you posted I see excuses, not answers or clear assesments.

"slobbering love affair" regards.....