SkinsHokieFan Posted May 13, 2009 Share Posted May 13, 2009 Kinda defeats the purpose of passing it so quickly Use this link http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/13/us/politics/13stimulus.html?_r=1 Stimulus Aid Trickles Out, but States Seek Quicker Relief Article Tools Sponsored ByBy MICHAEL COOPER Published: May 12, 2009 Nearly three months after President Obama approved a $787 billion economic stimulus package, intended to create or save jobs, the federal government has paid out less than 6 percent of the money, largely in the form of social service payments to states. Although administration officials say the program is right on schedule, they have actually spent relatively little so far. The stimulus bill has directly injected around $45.6 billion into the economy, mostly to help states cover the costs of Medicaid and unemployment benefits, one-time $250 checks that were mailed to Social Security recipients last week, and income tax cuts that began to take effect this spring. Although states around the country are beginning roadwork projects, the Department of Transportation had spent only about $11 million on highway projects through the first week of May. The intent of the stimulus program was to pump money into the economy quickly, and many members of Congress said at the time of its passage that speed was of the essence. But the huge program has been a challenge to administer for both a new administration and for states and local governments grappling with their own fiscal problems. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/13/us/politics/13stimulu... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrockster21 Posted May 13, 2009 Share Posted May 13, 2009 Link is broken Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexey Posted May 13, 2009 Share Posted May 13, 2009 Should have just dropped the cash from helis like we did in Iraq. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrockster21 Posted May 13, 2009 Share Posted May 13, 2009 To quote a reporter friend of mine: "Anyone familiar with the government's glacial contracting process should not be surprised." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
December90 Posted May 13, 2009 Share Posted May 13, 2009 Link is broken http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/13/us/politics/13stimulus.html?ref=politics Simple search for NY Times isn't that hard... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrockster21 Posted May 13, 2009 Share Posted May 13, 2009 http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/13/us/politics/13stimulus.html?ref=politicsSimple search for NY Times isn't that hard... In the 7 minutes from when I made my comment, and you decided to come in here, SHF had already updated his link. Why even make the comment? Not to mention, I was helping him out, as per the rules of the board, you must provide a link. I cannot search NYT, and then update his post, now can I? Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpillian Posted May 13, 2009 Share Posted May 13, 2009 Should have just dropped the cash from helis like we did in Iraq. This is a complete mis-characterization of what we did in Iraq, and I object. We actually brought it in on C130's by the palletful. Helicopters weren't big enough. The blue packages were each $1.5M in brand spanking new $100 bills. I calculated there was roughly $342 on each of these pallets. :doh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
armstrong001 Posted May 13, 2009 Share Posted May 13, 2009 To quote a reporter friend of mine: "Anyone familiar with the government's glacial contracting process should not be surprised." As a federal employee, I completely agree. Construction contracts typically take 30 days to advertise, 30 days to award, a few more weeks for notice to proceed, then we only pay based on percent complete. The money won't all be paid up front. And this is if a project is truely "shovel ready". We have several projects slated for stimulus money now that are at 95% reviews. You have to figure a few more weeks to get that ready for packaging. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PleaseBlitz Posted May 13, 2009 Share Posted May 13, 2009 That 'measly' 6% is still Eleventy Bajillion dollars that have been paid out. My street is almost finished being paved with gold. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ccsl2 Posted May 13, 2009 Share Posted May 13, 2009 As a federal employee, I completely agree. Construction contracts typically take 30 days to advertise, 30 days to award, a few more weeks for notice to proceed, then we only pay based on percent complete. The money won't all be paid up front.And this is if a project is truely "shovel ready". We have several projects slated for stimulus money now that are at 95% reviews. You have to figure a few more weeks to get that ready for packaging. As Contracting Officer I agree with you there...and it is not liek they are hiring extra staff right away to help with this new stimulus money obligated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
armstrong001 Posted May 13, 2009 Share Posted May 13, 2009 As Contracting Officer I agree with you there...and it is not liek they are hiring extra staff right away to help with this new stimulus money obligated. Nope. We're pulling design people out in to the field and in to contracting to add manpower for the time being. But how much good are they when they don't know the process? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ccsl2 Posted May 13, 2009 Share Posted May 13, 2009 Nope. We're pulling design people out in to the field and in to contracting to add manpower for the time being. But how much good are they when they don't know the process? Exactly...that's half the battle...u gotta train them not only on the process, but you hve to send them to training contracting in general. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LaxBuddy21 Posted May 13, 2009 Share Posted May 13, 2009 If they were not being careful and were spending it too quickly, we would be up in arms about that too. I actually prefer they do things properly and make sure the money is spent properly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TMat184 Posted May 13, 2009 Share Posted May 13, 2009 So I guess we shoulda just gave out the money no strings attached and no work needing to be accomplished first? We did that already with $700 billion.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
armstrong001 Posted May 13, 2009 Share Posted May 13, 2009 Actually, I didn't think it should have been given out from the beginning. However, the whole reason to push this through Congress was to stop the bleeding immediately. We were getting doomsday scenarios of what would happen if it was passed on a Monday instead of Friday. Anyone with any experience working for or with the federal government knew that realistically, nothing was going to happen for months. In that case, why not debate the bill, or an even more novel idea, read it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted May 14, 2009 Share Posted May 14, 2009 Much of that is going to science funding hasn't been paid out, BUT no matter when you pass it is going to take 3 months or so for it to be paid out. The agencies involved can't move until they have the money. Passing it quickly still gets it out faster. And they pretty quickly alerted some people that would be getting money so even if the money has changed hands yet, people now and are making plans according (in fact, I'm not getting money from this (yet), but know people that are and some have bought equipment where they were able to borrow money from the University at which they work because everybody knows the federal government is going to provide the money at some time). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.