Did Delay in Stimulus Signing Cost Economy More Jobs?

Signing it made this country go even deeper in debt. Not with just the cost of the stimulus, but why did Obama have to go to Colorado to sign it? That sure cost the tax payers a lot of money. The cost of flying air force one, the cost of security and the cost to the local goverment to keep the area secure. Why couldn't he just sign it from the oval office, there was no need to go to colorado for this. Another waste of tax payers money. I have been thinking, once I start getting my extra $13 in tax breaks per pay, I think I will write Obama a check and send it back to him, to help pay back the huge debt he just created

Yes!

As massive as the problem is and as massive as the remedy is, there is something for everyone to b***h about! And b***h they do!

I think folks need to read the article in the above-noted link a little more carefully. You misunderstand if you think that this is about "someone that is just pathetically desperate to have something to complain about."

The article addresses the current administration's inconsistencies and contradictions concerning the monstrous "stimulus bill". The bill was rammed through the House and the Senate in record time - the most massive, earmark- laden, expensive bill in history. Pelosi and Obama, especially, spoke out constantly about how crucial it was to get this thing signed - it could not wait. No one, including the president, read the entire bill. They didn't read it because they weren't given the time. It didn't seem to matter that lawmakers didn't know what the heck was in it, just vote for it, get it signed, we need it now, America will self-destruct without this bill.

When Republicans started combing through the bill as they and the Dems for that matter, were supposed to do, they found some startling things in it. But never mind, there's no time for debate, no time for negotiation. As Pelosi said, 500 million (!) Americans were losing their jobs each month and there was no time to delay!!! Remember Obama proclaiming in grim tones "The worst economy since the depression" and using words like "catastrophe"?

So perhaps you'll understand how ironic it is to some observers that once the Senate sealed the deal on the bill on Friday, the 13th (how appropriate), suddenly the "fire" was out. Smug Princess Pelosi could board her plane and jaunt off to Europe on the peasants', er, taxpayers dime, seemingly unconcerned about those thousands of people who were losing their jobs as she jetted across the Atlantic. And Obama had better things to do than worry about "catastrophes". A whirlwind long weekend in Chicago - what better way to unwind after a long couple of weeks of panicking the populace and castigating those wicked Republicans who actually wanted to know what was in the bill.

The article is all about the irony. Surprised more folks didn't see that.

Sorry Mike, but I have to agree with KTLynn here. I read the article, and what I got from it was basically this:

If we were in such dire straights that every hour the bill was debated, another 1000 Americans lost their jobs, and each day it was postponed there were another ~9000 homes foreclosed, then why was it that once it was pushed through with such speed that no one could actually see what was in it that it took the back burner to a 3-day weekend trip (he needed a vacation after 3 weeks on the job...) and a jaunt to Denver to sign it? Like the media wouldn't be at the White House for the photo op? It was proclaimed to be the most urgent thing ever, even an hour was too long to postpone it(!), but then the rush to get it signed into law just wasn't there.

So did the Democrats just use the same fear-mongering and scare tactics that they promised would change after Bush was gone? Doesn't the threat of "terror attacks" and "economic depression" have the same fear inducing qualities that would allow them to pass anything they wanted?

It was a Chicken Little "the sky is falling but we can stop it" deal.

I believe the thing had to be passed quickly before anyone really had a chance to go over the details. We already have a thread about the LIES they told about the public having a chance to see legislation. Many people went over the first release of it, and from what I can tell from the blogs I read, many phone calls, emails, and faxes were sent as a result.

I agree, folks need to read the article a little closer:

So the bill wasn't ready to sign until sometime Monday, not Friday.

You begrudge Obama for taking a 3 day weekend in Chicago, when Bush holds the record for the most vacation days of a sitting president. Were you as equally outraged about that?

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/...n3927378.shtml

The shoe is on the other foot now.

Your position on this is clear in that you don't have a horse in the race since your financial situation is apparently better than most. There are millions of people affected by this bill (and will be by others) so I really don't see the humor in it. ALL Americans should be interested enough in the workings of our government to read the legislation and contact their representatives. Making fun of those that do is pretty un-American IMO.

Bush didn't spend half a million dollars of taxpayer money flying back and forth to his hometown for a weekend away during 9-11, did he?

Apples and oranges.

But Amy, we're not talking about Bush here, nor the fact that he took a 3-day weekend. That's really immaterial to the topic.

It was a big rush and urgent that the bill get passed immediately. They used the numbers and the rhetoric to make it seem like it had to get done right now, and every moment without action was moving us closer to disaster!

Even if Obama couldn't have gotten the bill until yesterday at noon (possible, since government workers don't work weekends, but apparently they do work holidays ), why didn't he rush to sign it? If the economy were in that precarious of a situation that every hour cost 1000 people their jobs, why did he leave Washington when he knew it was coming to his desk?

This isn't just about Obama. It's about the scare tactics and fear-inciting language they (Obama, Pelosi, Reid, the Governors, the other Senators) used to push it through so quickly. Wasn't it the same type of rhetoric that Bush used to pass the Patriot Act (for instance) that they rallied against and promised to change?

But he did fly to Florida on the day that New Orleans drowned.

How could you compare 9-11, a crisis at a specific point in time, to signing an economic stimulus bill, which was been discussed prior to Obama being elected?

I don't think its apples and oranges. It's apples and zebras.

Oh yes, the obligatory Katrina reference. Did you know they just got another extension to live in the trailers? Please, are we not over that GWB didn't cause that disaster?

If you truly don't think 9-11 wasn't as devastating to our Nation as this economic crisis, I don't know what to say.

We'll be lucky to see anything created from this stimulus package besides more government jobs. Heck, the Governor of NC has already said she's appointing someone to figure out what to do with our share. That's one job!

I was only responding to another post about a 3 day weekend. I agree it was immaterial but I felt obligated to address that comment.

The article claims that every hour of delay costs 1000 jobs. Signing the bill 12 hours earlier wasn't going to hault the job loss already in progress. Once the bill is signed, it will take time to start stimulating jobs again. Anyone who thinks that a signature is going to cause the want ads to be filled with job openings immediately doesn't get it. Delaying it thru long winded negotiations where a full compromise would never have been reached was the risk here.

I took too long to post, and I bet this one is taking too long too. I can agree with all of this too. It doesn't matter that he signed the bill in Denver, or if he had signed it in Washington or Chicago. That's not the point. It's not about where he signed it, or that he took the weekend with his family.

I don't know how many of you saw the spectacle that was the bill signing today. I did. I happened to be home for lunch for the whole darn thing, and since I usually watch the news that's what was on. It was a big photo-op thing, and frankly they could have done the same thing (except for having the guy from Namaste Solar talking, since he's local) in D.C. or Chicago as soon as the bill was ready to sign. I'm sure there's other small green companies that are (were) doing well in D.C. and Chicago too; they aren't exclusive to Colorado. The only difference would have been that it may not have been in the press quite as much if he had actually done it on a holiday. That's the only reason I can think of to delay it.

I've seen his new style of governing referred to as "poli-marketing" (not in a bad way) - combining politics and marketing to the people. Seems to me that pushing it off for a day was a good marketing move. But it does make me, at least, question whether it really was that urgent to get it passed so quickly that no one could actually read the bill if the signing into law could be postponed for a good marketing opportunity.

Is anything I'm saying making sense to anyone but me?

I listened to it online... it was like deja vu all over again, just like a campaign speech.

USAToday's headline subtitle was "Obama hopes this plan will stimulate the economy" or something to that effect. Hopes. There's that word again... can we not do anything that actually "does" something?

I agree with that as well, but would convening a special session on Monday (possibly delaying the signing by one business day, two max) so they could maintain their own standards of 48 hours to allow them to read the bill before they voted on it (and allow that one last Democratic Senator to not have to rush back from his mother's funeral for the final vote to make 60) have derailed the whole economy any more? That would have messed up Pelosi's planned trip to Italy, but it's supposed to be diplomatic anyway.

Unfortunately, Amy, there are quite a few people in this country who believe that his signing the bill means the end of the economic problems. No matter that he said in his remarks that the work isn't over, the atmosphere was a complete 180 from all of the briefings, interviews, etc. since he took office. If you only went by the feel and tone of the words and not the words themselves, the crisis is over. The saddest thing is that there is a large segment of society who are either uneducated or lacking in knowledge of English that will base their feelings on the economy on just that.

Oh thank you! I'm having one of those blonde-from-the-roots-in kind of afternoons!

There seems to be a lot of that going around.

Canada is a bit worried about this stimulus bill as well so we'll just have to wait and see just like everyone else.

The only, " monetary fanaticism" I see is by the greedy, CEO's, Wall Street and Politicians that are robbing the American taxpayers.

So, we shouldn't care? We shouldn't complain? We should just roll over and suck it up?

I don't worship money, far from it, but it is my money, I do work for it and my charitable donations are ten times that of our illustrious Vice President. I want to help who I want to help and it sure isn't people that wouldn't work for a living if you handed them a job on a silver platter, and there are hundreds of thousands of those dead beats living on the dole in America and no, I don't want my money going to them and I am not ashamed to say that.

The reality is that unemployment will continue to rise until the economy begins to recover. Governments can cause recession but that doesn't mean government interference can turn things around. The actions of a government could very well make things worse. I hope I'm wrong but we'll see what happens.

And there are millions that are applying for the same job as 500 other applicants who can't get work right now. There are deadbeats in the country, but those are a very small percentage of the unemployed people who really want a job and can't find one.

In my neck of the woods, McDonalds isn't even hiring right now. I know people who lost a 6 figure salary job who can't find a replacement job at minimum wage. And they'd take it so that they can do things like feed themselves.

I am assuming that I will lose my job this year. I know what the job market is like right now and I will be one of those "on the dole". Am I a deadbeat? I had my first job when I was 10 years old.