July 5th, 2009
07:06 PM ET
13 years ago

Stimulus money needs to be spent faster, Dems say

[cnn-photo-caption image= http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2009/images/07/05/art.steny0705.gi.jpg caption="House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer said Sunday that the president's $787 billion dollar stimulus plan was taking too long to create jobs in the struggling economy."]
(CNN) - A leading congressional Democrat and Republican both expressed disappointment Sunday with the pace of the government's economic stimulus program, but offered differing views on whether it was a good idea.

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer said allocating the $787 billion in the stimulus package pushed by President Barack Obama to create jobs was taking too long.

"We're disappointed," Hoyer, D-Maryland, told "FOX News Sunday." "We're looking at ways to get the money out more quickly."

Hoyer's Republican counterpart, Rep. John Boehner, said on the same program that the stimulus bill passed by Congress in February was flawed.

"You can't spend $800 billion of taxpayer money and not create jobs, when you say that's what the bill was for," Boehner, of Ohio, complained. Boehner said the bill only funds more government, rather than creating private sector jobs.

Democrats, led by Vice President Joe Biden, contend the stimulus money will begin launching more construction projects and other job-creating programs now that necessary mechanisms have been established and contracts signed.

"This was set up to spend out over 18 months," Biden said in an interview with ABC's "This Week" program. "There are going to be major programs that are going to take effect in September - $7.5 billion for broadband, new money for high-speed rail, the implementation of ... the new electric grid. And so this is just starting."

Neither Biden nor Hoyer would comment on whether an additional economic stimulus package is necessary to help pull the U.S. economy out of recession. The latest unemployment figures issued last week showed a 9.5 percent jobless rate, the highest in more than two decades.

Boehner, however, warned against more government spending to heal the economic problems.

"I don't believe it will create jobs," he said, calling instead for reduced taxes to let small business and consumers spend their money as they choose.

Boehner called the scope and speed of Obama's domestic agenda - which so far includes the stimulus package, a health care overhaul now working its way through Congress and an energy bill to combat global warming passed by the House - "nothing short of breathtaking."

The end result, he said, would be "bigger government, higher taxes, less freedom for the American people."

Filed under: economic stimulus • Extra • Joe Biden • John Boehner • Popular Posts • Steny Hoyer
soundoff (196 Responses)
  1. Still Waiting for a liberal answer

    Who is going to repay all of this reckless spending? As an Independent middle income family, I am going to be left with the responsibility of bailing out YOUR IRRESONSIBILITY. 11.4 trillion deficiit. All of you briliant college students who voted for Obama will enjoy being slaves the rest of your life.

    July 5, 2009 10:58 pm at 10:58 pm |
  2. Steve

    Obama is the master of lies. He pushed this bill through saying we needed it right then and the bill was passed based on that. Once the bill was passed, the urgency he lead congress to believe was so vital never materialized.

    July 5, 2009 10:58 pm at 10:58 pm |
  3. Curious George

    News Flash, genius, without the infusion it would have been much worse. Look at a chart of the creeping unemployment rate, how it is in a very straight trajectory up, and it is decisively knocked off-course after Obama had been in Office. It made a very clear and pronounced shift in direction. Granted, unemployment is still going up, there can be no question about that. However, had it not been for changes that Obama made, and plans that he implemented, it would be well over 10 percent umemployment rate, easily. If Bush had continued to be in Office, and if the trend that he had in place when he was in Office was allowed to continue, the unemployment rate would be up over 12 percent right now. That's a fact. This coming from a die-hard Republican. I can't believe I'm sticking up for Obama, much less ever advocating balooning debt, one thing I have always been strongly opposed to. But, there is no question that Obama's policies helped soften the blow of the hard landing that we were in on a collision course during the Bush Administration.

    July 5, 2009 11:00 pm at 11:00 pm |
  4. miker

    after reading the dem responses,everything is bush'e fault,boy are we in trouble.I would take 14000 in the staock market and bush over this
    mess any day.good bye good ol day,its sad to see obama ruin the country this way and see the kool aid drinker follow, get you cups filled dem.

    July 5, 2009 11:05 pm at 11:05 pm |
  5. Jason

    Obama should have rescind Bush's tax cut this year instead of letting it expire next year. I want to see the same Obama supporters what they will say. I had to pay AMT during Clinton years when I was making middle income. I want to see the same Obama middle income earners pay the AMT as well. Maybe they would not whine about Bush's tax cut.

    July 5, 2009 11:09 pm at 11:09 pm |
  6. CJ

    I actually agree with Boehner this time. Not something I can usually say. The stimulus plan needs to create more private sector jobs, and it needs to happen soon. Both Congressmen have a valid point, in my opinion. This comes from someone who doesn't like the leaders of Congress very much.

    July 5, 2009 11:12 pm at 11:12 pm |
  7. IMan

    "Unemployment is RISING which it shouldn't be if this stupid stimulus program were working….

    Obama says we will have 10% unemployment like it's a good thing….
    why isn't he taking steps to ensure that it doesn't reach 10%?????

    Because he has no clue how to fix the economy…..Obama is ONE and DONE…."

    Oh the ignorance!

    The economy has gotten better under Obama. Where is was going into free fall in late 2008 it is now much more stable currently. Everthing from the housing market, manufacturering and GDP is preforming better now than it was prior. Even the job market is doing better. The first quarter of 09 we averaged around 600,000 to 700,000 jobs lost per month but in the 2nd it was down to around 400,000 or so per month. The economy is going to take to turn around.

    July 5, 2009 11:13 pm at 11:13 pm |
  8. IMan

    "You need to stop thinking the ghost of Reagan is going to fix things. Trickle down is what has put us where we are. As the rich got richer, they created jobs—-in India, Malaysia, Vietnam, and China. Now, we need adults to fix the problem. Whine all you want right wingers, your ideas are bankrupt."

    The funny thing is it took Reagan a good 3 years to fix the economy. Unemployment reached almost 11 percent before things turned around.

    July 5, 2009 11:16 pm at 11:16 pm |
  9. Charles from Atlanta

    Just want to remind everyone, our nation debt is 11.5 TRILLIONS.. Last administration contributed more than 5 trillions to our debt.

    July 5, 2009 11:21 pm at 11:21 pm |
  10. Tef

    The only country built overnight was biblical Jericho. This is not biblical Jericho. This real country and its economy were destroyed way before Obama come to office. I happen to be one of the millions whose job is saved if not created. So democrats stand up for your principal and defend your President. Stand by him so you can see progress and change. He never promises that he will do it alone. He promised that together "WE" not "I" can bring change. Don’t under estimate the public intelligence.

    July 5, 2009 11:21 pm at 11:21 pm |
  11. T Mckinley

    One of the main reasons why there is no money to create the private sector jobs that Republicans say they want, is because their greedy executive friends are using company profite to make themselves filthy rich.

    If Republicans like John Boehner really want to see private sector jobs created, they need to convince their multi-millionare executive friends to take serious reductions in their compensation packages in order to free up the money necesary to create those private sector jobs.

    July 5, 2009 11:26 pm at 11:26 pm |
  12. See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil

    How do I get one of those lucrative ACORN franchises? Money in them thar hills!

    July 5, 2009 11:28 pm at 11:28 pm |
  13. Anonymous

    Some of you people are such idiots. If you have even 1/2 a brain you would know that nothing moves fast and that being in office 5 + months is not enough time to solve problems that took 8 years to create. Also, knock off the crap about how tired you are of President Obama and the Democrats always blaming President Bush for the mess we are in. No matter how you try to spin it, it is his fault and nothing will ever change that. Btw–the country is not against President Obama. It is just the same people who will never accept him as President and they just want the rest of us to believe that their few numbers add up to many. Grow up and try to help instead of always preaching your doom and gloom.

    July 5, 2009 11:31 pm at 11:31 pm |
  14. InlandEmperor

    Mr President...continue on. These two clowns were a part of the DC scene as this whole debacle developed.

    July 5, 2009 11:32 pm at 11:32 pm |
  15. ron

    I don't think there is any way for the stimulus money to go any faser. To quote Obama the idea was to put out big chunks of money and let it trickle down to main street. I thought that he sounded like a hypocrite by using the term trickle down when he has been so critical of trickle down economics. My point is that by using the thousand layers of government to filter the money on its way down, there is no way for it to move faster, nor will any be left at the end because government beurocracies and lots of layers of them cost a fortune. It will be all absorbed for nothing but piles of statistical reports stacked in a government wharehouse.

    July 5, 2009 11:33 pm at 11:33 pm |
  16. Steve (the real one)

    Karen – Missouri July 5th, 2009 4:12 pm ET
    How funny. First the whiny Republicans tried to block the stimulus now they're crying it's not spent fast enough. What planet do the Republicans come from anyway? The more any of them open their mouths the sillier they sound!
    No Karen, what's funny is you forgetting the dems are disappointed as well! That is unless you intentionally left that part out!!

    July 5, 2009 11:34 pm at 11:34 pm |
  17. Plainview

    Are the insane liberals done slobbering all over Satan Obama yet? When the world ends because we elected the devil as our leader, I hope you tree huggers will be happy. Commie scum.

    July 5, 2009 11:34 pm at 11:34 pm |
  18. Jack Harkness

    Both sides of this argument are idiots. You revere your party as if it were a religion and can do no wrong. This is how wars start!

    We vote for buying things (ie, bullet train system) without a way written to pay for it. At the same time, we vote down any taxes (ie. its revenue).

    You wonder why we are bankrupt, so there you go. You want to eat your cake, and get a tax break for it too.

    I dare you to give me an alternative to raise money for these projects aside from taxes. I also dare you to claim government interventions are bad, all the meanwhile, the past 30 years the governments backs off the financial district and allowing the sleazy people to put us in the situation we are in today.

    July 5, 2009 11:37 pm at 11:37 pm |
  19. Anonymous

    pvel July 5th, 2009 5:59 pm ET

    I would rather have the Democrats in charge than the Republicans. Remember, this economic mess was caused by Bush for 8 years with a Republican Congress and Senate for 6 of the 8 years. Th Democrats are trying to fix the mess. I would give them a chance. It has been just 6 short months.

    How do you figure? You're not very educated are you?

    George W. Bush's for 6 years in office showed a tremendous GDP, low unemployment, low taxes and a great overall economy. That was with the Republican in control.

    George W. Bush's last 2 years showed a decline in all areas. That was with the Democrats in control.

    Same president, different folks in the majority for making/passing bills. So, who is the problem exactly?

    July 5, 2009 11:44 pm at 11:44 pm |
  20. eric in texas

    pvel July 5th, 2009 5:59 pm ET

    I would rather have the Democrats in charge than the Republicans. Remember, this economic mess was caused by Bush for 8 years with a Republican Congress and Senate for 6 of the 8 years. Th Democrats are trying to fix the mess. I would give them a chance. It has been just 6 short months.


    George W. Bush had a high GDP, low taxes and low unemployment for his first 6 years. That was when the Repubs were in the majority.

    Enter the Dems for the last 2 years and everything went down the toilet.

    So, you have the same president, but different majorities. One majority did well, the other did poor. How is George the problem?

    Oh yeah, sorry. That is the democratic answer to cover for Obama's stupidity. It goes "uhhhhh, uhhhh (helps when you use a teleprompter), George did it."

    July 5, 2009 11:47 pm at 11:47 pm |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8