Obama Stimulus: More Than $600 Billion In Next 18 Months

Aides to Barack Obama said the president is likely to spend more than $600 billion in stimulus cash in the next year and a half alone.

The president's OMB Director, Peter Orzag, sent a letter to Senator Kent Conrad on Friday that stated the administration would pursue a 75 percent "spend-out rate" for the stimulus package "over the next year and a half (the rest of fiscal year 2009 and fiscal year 2010)."

Read the letter.

"We are committed to maintaining at least a 75 percent spend-out rate for the package as a whole as the legislation moves through the Senate and House and into conference."

If that number ends up staying true, it could mean an influx of massive amounts of money in a very short period of time. Estimates of a stimulus package have hovered around $850 billion. Seventy-five percent of that would equal $637.5 billion.

Orzag's letter was meant to address concerns raised in the form of a Congressional Budget Office report that the money in any recovery package would come too late to have a demonstrative effect.

"A report by the Congressional Budget Office found that only about $136 billion of the $355 billion that House leaders want to allocate to infrastructure and other so-called discretionary programs would be spent by Oct. 1, 2010. The rest would come in future years, long after the CBO and other economists predict the recession will have ended..."

Asked about the report on Friday, spokesman Robert Gibbs said the CBO was working off a antiquated analysis of the package, and hadn't taken into account tweaks and provisions already in discussion by the Obama economic team.

"We believe looking at the package that exists, that 75 percent of the money will be spent out during an 18-month period of time to great stimulative affect. The CBO looked at only a portion of that legislation... a snapshot in time that has now passed," he said. "There are tweaks to be made and in some case have been made to ensure that three-fourths of the package will be spent in the first year and a half."

Comments

[babyboomerorig]

We gave Wall Street $350B for trips, aquisitions and bonuses.

What's wrong with adding $250B to that to give jobs to the citizens of this country?

[tangelan]

Please flag VikingQuest, the psuedo economist. He's thinks he's on the Fox News blog where insulting people is acceptable.

[SENATORCALLENBOWE]

AND THE CLASS OF THE NEW GENERATION IS READY TO PARTY!!!!!!!!

[sueinmn]

Watching the networks, the GOP will block this until they get their way. Their way is simply more tax cuts for largeand jobs will be a waste of our monies. THEY CAN KEEP THEIR TAX CUTS!! We want jobs, real jobs. Tax cut does little for most of us. Dont raise the taxes please but save the cuts till later. WE NEED JOBS NOW PLEASE!!
The GOPS lost this election and Obama and the DEMs need to remind them its not their way anymore. They are a small voice and are why things got this fu#& up!! Please don't cave and let the whiners dictate more tax cuts for the rich. The trickle down doesnt work. We need to trickle up this time!

[VikingQuest]

I think massive tax cuts are a bad idea.

I think massive government spending is a worse idea.

Ask yourself this, who is going to pull us out of this economic situation? Is it Government or the people and keep in mind the 3 ways Government can get money to spend:

- Tax it (take from private sector)
- Print it (inflate our money making it worth less)
- Borrow it (put us in a bigger hole)

[WeTellTheTruth]

Good points

A groupthink is occuring in government and wallstreet.... borrow and spend to solve the problem of too much borrowing and spending..... thereby bankrupting the taxpayers.

If you look at history...... groupthink is NEVER a good thing.

[nomobull]

how

[Geraldine30]

Trickle UP, not Down - I agree! Jobs now would be great! After 40 years of working and paying all our taxes, we don't need our tax money given to the rich, corporate officers, banks, etc. The money given to the banks did ZERO to help me. If they had given it directly to me, I would have paid the bank. That would have helped me financially and would have also given (traceable) money to the bank.. Instead the bank took the money and is raising rates even though card payments are on time. Why do banks want to make it so we can't pay our bills? My credit is great right now, but how long can this last? What is the gain to the banks when people can no longer pay?
As you stated, trickle down did not work - and we need it to trickle up.

[rollingdivision]

If the government would spend 3 trillion the whole world would become rich!

[TakingBackTheUSA]

As the old saying goes, "you have to spend money, to make money".

Too bad the NeoCons were only interested in spending our money to make money for themselves. The fruits of their labor unseated them from control thankfully.

[VikingQuest]

Government doesn't make money and never has, they also don't create wealth, they redistribute it.

FYI, there was no such thing as a Clinton surplus in the 90s.

Gov. Spending with Social Security:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gGgjU-h_xQw

Gov Spending with SS & Medicare:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-FSoXKapKQs

[rollingdivision]

Viking, you understand you're talking honesty to the buccaneers? Most here believe in their right to take wealth.

[sueinmn]

VikingQuest, you offer many opinions condemning but you never offer anything towards the positive. How about your opinion on what you feel should be implemented? Come on big guy, lets have some input how you would suggest it be done.

[DugFmJamul]

The Liberals have shown they have no integrity when it comes to this phony "Stimulus Plan" , they are willing to give tax payer money to illegal aliens and allow these non-citizens to vote in our elections. How may non-citizens voted for Al Franken?

"The $800 billion-plus economic stimulus measure making its way through Congress could steer government checks to illegal immigrants, a top Republican congressional official asserted Thursday.
The legislation, which would send tax credits of $500 per worker and $1,000 per couple, expressly disqualifies nonresident aliens, but it would allow people who don't have Social Security numbers to be eligible for the checks.

Undocumented immigrants who are not eligible for a Social Security number can file tax returns with an alternative number. A House-passed version of the economic recovery bill and one making its way through the Senate would allow anyone with such a number, called an individual taxpayer identification number, to qualify for the tax credits. "

The end of our Republic in here and Liberalism has help destroyed this Republic. When "The Fairness Doctrine" is enforced and US Citizens finally realize that our Republic has fallen, then maybe Conservatives will meet and fight the Liberal's in the streets of America to regain our Republic!

I doubt the guardians of Liberal Speech at "The Huffington Post" will allow this post, since they believe in "Liberal Speech Only" and not "Free Speech" or "Open Debate"!

[Goodberry]

The package also contains plenty of provisions that have absolutely nothing to do with stimulating the economy. Such as 3 billion over the next three years to re-fund the controversial Byrne Justice Assistance Grant program, which funds multi-agency drug task forces across the country. What does funding the drug war have to do with creating jobs? Nothing.
I say if the administration wants to pass a stimulus package, thats fine. But spend the money on projects that actually will have some impact on job creation, instead of throwing money at every conceivable political agenda some congressperson or senator might have.

[LeighAnnes]

I disagree. It's ok with me if additional projects that are good for the country are included.

[VikingQuest]

Like a snow making machine for Duluth Minnesota where there is a bunch of snow and it was -20 last week?

[drock973]

And his experience in making and executing budgets is what again?

[LeighAnnes]

Did you miss the 17 person expert economic team he had? No president would be qualified to tackle this problem on his own. President Obama is smart enough to get expert help. Do you seriously think McCain "the basics of our economy are strong" would do a better job?

[VikingQuest]

I don't think any of them do, there are a handful of people in Washington that have a clue about the economy and they could never win because they talk over people's head's.

I like to refer back to the 2nd debate when the question was asked: With the $700 billion dollar bailout do you think the economy will get worse before it gets better?

Obama: No, government spending will fix it.

McCain: No, government spending will fit it.

[TakingBackTheUSA]

Better than the last guys, to be certain....

[VikingQuest]

So we can assume that Obama deficits will be less than Bush's?

[psychmaj323]

lol, try his campaign.

[VikingQuest]

Why not, we are running the printing presses 24/7 and Washington doesn't give a crap.

What until that inflation starts coming, some people are estimating we have increased our money supply 70% since October.

[harriscrl3]

Since the economy and unemployment is getting worse as time goes by spending the money fast seems like a good idea to me.

Carol

[VikingQuest]

You aren't very bright are you?

There are 3 ways the Government can spend money:

- Borrow it (hurts us)
- Raise Taxes (hurts us)
- Print it (hurts us)

We could have full employment right now by paying people to dig ditches and others to fil them up but it does nothing for the economy.

When questioned on an estimate of jobs this would create, they said they had no idea.

[LeighAnnes]

What exactly are your economic qualifications and experience? Since you are so bright...

[harriscrl3]

I'm a economics minor so dont insult me if disagree fine but do so with intelligence instead of stu pidity.

I stand by what I said unemployment is heading into the DOUBLE DIGITS. Its not going to magically fix itself its going to get worse and we DIG a DEEPER HOLE that means if we do nothing it could rise to 25% and it would take LONGER to get out of the depression than if we do something to jumpstart the economy again. We are not going to STOP the job loss but we can make it moderate instead of sharp and thats a difference between being in recession for 10 years Vs being in recession for 25.

If we are not bringing in money and we have to keep paying Unemployment WHERE IS THE MONEY GOING TO COME FROM? Its going to come from running up the deficit.

So either way its going to INCREASE the deficit. The difference is one increase the deficit and let the economy STAGNATE or the other increase the defiict and get the economy to STABLIZE and start growing again.

Carol

[Icantbelieveher]

So where do we come up with the money to pay unemployment benefits to the millions of people who will lose their job in the coming months if the government does nothing? Or would you have them starve in the street? That sounds very republican!!!

[bygollymissmolly]

So you would rather sit there and do nothing allowing more and more American's to lose their jobs. If we can't get people working again, and thereby spending again, we will be in a Depression in no time.

You seem to think you are smart on the economy, so what is your solution? I suppose you think we should just cut taxes and that will take care of everything. Unfortunately the millions of citizens who have lost their job are not going to benefit from a tax cut.