. . . indefinitely. That never was the proposition or expectation. The stimulus was a stopgap measure to allow these local and state concerns to get back on their feet without completely collapsing. The succession of CBO reports and analysis fro economists is that the effort worked. Just because it didn't solve every economic problem isn't a credible argument against making the effort in the first place. The federal government doesn't/didn't have the capacity to just put every disrupted economy in complete order, but it did have some influence, which this President exerted against republican opposition.
Of course, it's postponement, but you can see many of these economies making their way back. I don't think we should forget that these are real lives which were bolstered by this Act. Instead of looking at this like an actuary (where economists agree that the effect was productive and prudent), consider the real lives which were behind these jobs held in place by the President's stimulus legislation.
That's something that republicans regularly disregard when they complain about the President's spending. Romney laid it out just as he sees it. He doesn't believe the money spent on propping up these state and local concerns was worth it. He'd likely brush past the human element to 'balance the books.' He's harping about some irregular elements of the aid and assistance, but he's ignoring the lives affected.
They deserved the 'temporary' help and it turned out to be, as the president and economists predicted, fiscally successful in aiding the recovery of these local and state concerns; as well as add to the national economic progress. It wasn't a panacea, but it wasn't meant to be. Other important economic considerations have to be made going forward. I think President Obama has been clear about that.
= new reply since forum marked as read
