We were "promised?" that if we agreed to pass......

[rushmc 18]

We've been duped. Well, some of us have been duped yet again

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=acS92O5awdhM

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[mnealtx 0]

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[rushmc 18]

Quote

I think I need to change my sig line to say something about not listening to what you are being told/promised

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[riddler 0]

Can you be more specific? I remember that the unemployment was promised to be 11% by the economists, but now they're only saying 10%. Is that the promise you were referring to?

Still, 10% is pretty high. I guess all the promises of the Bush administration didn't work out so well.

Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Can you be more specific? I remember that the unemployment was promised to be 11% by the economists, but now they're only saying 10%. Is that the promise you were referring to?

Still, 10% is pretty high. I guess all the promises of the Bush administration didn't work out so well.

Remember the number used if we passed the spending bill? And remember what we were told it would be if we didnt? Well, the "if we didnt" was 10%. But we did and where is it heading? Obama's plan is a pure failure, now he wants more?

GMFB

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Can you be more specific? I remember that the unemployment was promised to be 11% by the economists, but now they're only saying 10%. Is that the promise you were referring to?

Still, 10% is pretty high. I guess all the promises of the Bush administration didn't work out so well.

Look at the graph I posted - that came from the OBAMA administration. The red dots were added to show the adjusted unemployment numbers (not the U6).

So, yeah... Bush promises don't play into that, sorry.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[jerryzflies 0]

Quote

Quote

Can you be more specific? I remember that the unemployment was promised to be 11% by the economists, but now they're only saying 10%. Is that the promise you were referring to?

Still, 10% is pretty high. I guess all the promises of the Bush administration didn't work out so well.

Look at the graph I posted - that came from the OBAMA administration. The red dots were added to show the adjusted unemployment numbers (not the U6).

So, yeah... Bush promises don't play into that, sorry.

So Obama has been slower to fix the Bush recession than originally expected. Pity Bush and the GOP were in denial for so long before taking action last year.

If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical.

[mnealtx 0]

That *might* have worked if porkulus hadn't passed. As it is, we've blown through the roof of what Obama said would happen WITHOUT the stimulus.

This is ALL his.

Nice try, though.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[jerryzflies 0]

Quote

That *might* have worked if porkulus hadn't passed. As it is, we've blown through the roof of what Obama said would happen WITHOUT the stimulus.

This is ALL his.

Nice try, though.

This IS Bush's recession, deny it as you may.

If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical.

[FallingOsh 0]

Quote

Quote

That *might* have worked if porkulus hadn't passed. As it is, we've blown through the roof of what Obama said would happen WITHOUT the stimulus.

This is ALL his.

Nice try, though.

This IS Bush's recession, deny it as you may.

And it's Obama's trillion dollar bullshit rescue plan that didn't do what he promised it would. But that's not his fault, right? Bush pushed and pushed for the bill. Bush had fireside chats whining about how high unemployment would be if it didn't pass. Bushed promised the American people that the trillion dollars worth of added debt would keep unemplyment under 10%.

--------------------------------------------------
Stay positive and love your life.

[mnealtx 0]

The REST of the thread is talking about OBAMA'S unemployment numbers - come join us.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[airdvr 200]

I see the problem as the stimulus money hasn't yet been injected into the economy. Only something like 3% has actually been released. They're waiting for the mid-term elections.

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[TomAiello 25]

Quote

I see the problem as the stimulus money hasn't yet been injected into the economy. Only something like 3% has actually been released. They're waiting for the mid-term elections.

The whole point is to reward the political faithful with a turn at the trough of government. It makes sense to do that as close as possible to the time you want their obedience. Reward obedience, punish disobedience, control access to the feed. Politics follows many of the same principals as training a dog.

-- Tom Aiello

[email protected]
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

I see the problem as the stimulus money hasn't yet been injected into the economy. Only something like 3% has actually been released. They're waiting for the mid-term elections.

Released? Or allocated? Or distributed?

Do you have a source for that figure?

Georgia has awarded stimulus funds already, e.g., for transportation (more on GA DOT projects) and for water and sewer repairs. Those are the "shovel ready" projects.

Additional distributions and award of already allocated funds (i.e., stimulus funds coming to Georgia) are dependent on the agencies submitting budgets, e.g., for education. Iirc, there was already some issue with Georgia anticipating failing one reporting milestone w/r/t allocation because of lack of State employees … can’t find that specific article at the moment.

[Edit to add: Georgia's Governor-ship and legislature are both Republican-controlled, so it's hard to argue that it's a rewarding "the political faithful" process, at least w/r/t Georgia's $2B+ in federal stimulus funds that will be awarded through the State.]

Some federal funding agencies are dealing with merit-based review processes. Without merit-based review, one is just sending money to ones friends/cronies/etc.

Requests for proposals (RFPs) or Broad Agency Announcements (BAA) had to be written and distributed. Proposers had some number of days to submit (30 to 90, depending on agency & program). Review panels have to be composed. E.g., I’ve already been asked to review additional NIH proposals, which I accepted, and got an email last week asking for me to review some DOE proposals, which I will probably decline. Reviewers have to read and comment. Proposals have to be ranked.

And then the contracting side starts. A couple months ago had lunch with a friend of mine, who heads one of the research directorates at AFOSR. His concern was NIH, DOE, and NSF “poaching” the acquisitions contracting staff.

NSF did it differently than NIH & DOE with a good portion of the stimulus funds, e.g., they took highly ranked projects from the previous 12 months that they were unable to fund but that were highly ranked in the merit-based review process and is funding some of those. NSF projects that were supposed to be funded from stimulus money that were awarded in April had not been distributed middle of last month largely due to lack of certified acquisitions contracting folks.

I strongly suspect it’s less a political maneuver than logistics and process.

/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[airdvr 200]

Quote

Released? Or allocated? Or distributed?

Do you have a source for that figure?

Here http://www.recovery.gov/?q=content/report-progress

OK...looks more like 6% than 3%

Under the impact heading...that's some funny shit.

http://www.recovery.gov/?q=content/impact

I don't doubt that the wheels of the bureaucracy spin slowly.

Can you say Form 34620/58-24 in triplicate?

Quote

I strongly suspect it’s less a political maneuver than logistics and process.

I suspect a bit of both...but I'm jaded.

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

Here http://www.recovery.gov/?q=content/report-progress

Thanks for that link. That's useful.

Quote

OK...looks more like 6% than 3%

How did you calculate that? What are you seeing that I'm missing?

I see $46.4B ("paid out")/$141B ("available") = 32.9%

Appropriation and Distribution by agency is interesting too. SSA is almost 100%. HHS is at almost 66% USDA almost 63%. Labor is ~25%. DHS is 3.4%. Treasury is at 1.4%. NSF is at 0%

33% distribution rate by 1 month is *high,* at least by DoD norms, standards, and requirements. Typically it's 6 months after appropriations are released before DoD programs/agencies get to 33% distribution rate, iirc. And they've already gone through the BAA & review process ... Checking the DoD's distribution rate: it is 4.7% for recovery & reinvestment act funds. For DoD, yeah ... that sounds about the usual for one month since funds available.

/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[airdvr 200]

Figured against $787 billion

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

Figured against $787 billion

Aah ... okay ... the $787B goes out to 2016.

See page 3 of GAO report on expected appropriation by year.

And in reality some of those 'out-year' funds are allocated/will be allocated to multiple year programs. They won't be distributed ('paid-out') until the next fiscal year (assuming the recipients satisfy whatever review criteria are in place, varies by agency).

This is not something new. E.g., the 21st Century Nanotechnology Research and Development Act, signed by President Bush in 2003, was for $3.67B over four years.

/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[airdvr 200]

I see that the bulk of the funds are in 2010 and 2011, with the biggest chunk in 2010...probably before November

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[Butters 0]

Making Sense of Stimulus Spending

"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

I see that the bulk of the funds are in 2010 and 2011, with the biggest chunk in 2010...probably before November

Again, it is unlikely to have anything to do with political posturing but process and logistics.

In reality some of those 'out-year' funds are allocated/will be allocated to multiple year programs. They won't be distributed ('paid-out') until the next fiscal year (assuming the recipients satisfy whatever review criteria are in place, varies by agency).

Budgetary rules do not allow one to obligate money that hasn't been appropriated.

May is more than halfway through the fiscal year, which starts in October of the year before.

Assuming appropriations bills are signed in October, distribution rates are likely to not be distributed 100% in one month. Over the last few years, only the DoD and intelligence community has had appropriation bills signed by start of the fiscal year. Most agencies have been on continuing resolution (CR) up to 6 months into the fiscal year. Under a CR, an agency can only spend 90% of the previous year's approved budget. So until there is a approved bill, that "bump" you see in FY2012 money won't be available.

I'm trying to explain the underlying processes. It is complicated.

/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

This IS Bush's recession, deny it as you may.

And it's Obama's trillion dollar bullshit rescue plan that didn't do what he promised it would. But that's not his fault, right?

Well, let's all get on the same page. While it's easier for each side to just work the angle that favors them, this is really just partisan ranting.

Obama made fairly specific projections as part of his sell of the program. Obvious that worked against him. One reason why many politicians never deal in specifics. Your call if you prefer that.

But failure to meet the projections doesn't by itself damn the spending package. Would unemployment be even worse? Will the spending ultimately pay off?

The GOP side likes to act as if all this deficit spending already took place. It's easier to say he unsuccessfully blew $780B in red ink without tangible gain. Instead it may be as little as 34B spent.

I'm more bothered by the type of spending. Take the Cash for Clunkers bill that is morphing into the cheap hummers for all bill. Not a good use of debt to improve the economy. The best spending are capital investments - infrastructure that will be used for decades to come. We've been underspending on that for a while.

[penniless 0]

Quote

The REST of the thread is talking about OBAMA'S unemployment numbers - come join us.

Apparently you don't think the recession and unemployment are linked.

Clearly a right wing ploy to distract from the source of the unemployment in the first place.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Clearly a right wing ploy to distract from the source of the unemployment in the first place.

*yawn*

Got anything RELEVANT to the thread? thx.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[penniless 0]

Quote

Quote

Clearly a right wing ploy to distract from the source of the unemployment in the first place.

*yawn*

Got anything RELEVANT to the thread? thx.

So you ARE claiming that the recession isnot relevant to unemployment.

That is completely asinine.

I guess that means we can all ignore anything further that you have to say about the subject.

Have a nice day.