Talk:American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions about American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

The listing in the economics section gives the impression that the balance of economists were against the bill, some in general and some in particular. Is this an accurate portrayal of mainstream economic thought? SDY (talk) 16:54, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe there has been a "poll of economists" to determine whether or not a majority support or are against the bill. The list of those that are "against" the bill is mostly related to the Cato Institutes ad, while those that are "for" the bill are mostly collected from individual comments by the economists. The Cato ad just makes it easier to list off those that are against the bill, so I'd imagine that's why the "against" list is longer than the "for" list. If it is an issue, add a few more names to the "for" list or remove a few from the "against" list... --Bobblehead ^(rants) 18:18, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree, the opinion sections should be equal instead of slanted.TomCat4680 (talk) 21:34, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

We can't use numerical tallying to determine who is notable and who is not. I don't really like the name listing used now, as it fails to make note of these economist's positions and qualifications. Summers, for instance, is an Obama appointee, and as such one would think he would have a vested interest in promoting the bailout. I think each one of these economists should be individually cited along with a brief overview (1 sentence or so) of their opinion on the issue. »S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 21:54, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good.TomCat4680 (talk) 22:12, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

However, we need to be mindful of a neutral point of view, and cannot just keep "equal numbers" if opinion truly slants one way (I have no idea if it does... I'm just reminding). If a vast majority of economists agree one way or the other, we shouldn't limit the majority side in favor of keeping the numbers of examples even. Mahalo. --Ali'i 22:22, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Unless and until we can find some sort of reliable source that indicates a proper weight, I think we should make some attempt to keep it equal. SDY (talk) 02:59, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

No mention of the stock market tanking the day Obama signs this spending bill. Perhaps someone could write a paragraph analyzing this. Not opinionizing, but actually analyzing, unlike most "experts" are doing these days. 68.177.12.38 (talk) 20:18, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

So? The stock market goes up and down on a daily basis. Obama has nothing to do with it.TomCat4680 (talk) 20:55, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

TomCat4680 - The stock market does react to federal legislation. You asked me some questions on my talk page about why I was against this bill, but when I answered you on your talk page, you said in the comment section that my answers were a "schizophrenic rant" when you erased my answers in this edit. If you go back and actually read what I wrote in response to your questions, you will be able to understand that the economy, and thus the stock market, is influenced by federal legislation. Grundle2600 (talk) 12:13, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I already responded on your talk page to why I said that. If you want to discuss it further send me another private message. No need to continue a one on one coversation on a public page.TomCat4680 (talk) 13:33, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Problem is, the stock market didn't drop as a result of Obama signing the bill. Investors were freaking out of Geithner's TARP2 plans, the plan to add a "stress test" on who gets the money and under what conditions and fear that their investments in "troubled" banks would be wiped out if the government seizes banks that fail the stress test. They were also freaking out over all the bad news coming out as a result of GM and Chrysler having to turn in their recovery plans. If the signing of the bill acted in a vaccuum, then we might be able to say the drop in stock prices were related to the signing, but considering all the bad news that was coming out the end of last week and over the weekend (remember, three day weekend for the stock market), it's not surprising stocks dropped. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 20:16, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you that those other factors are also relevant. This article, titled "Stock Market Gives Obama’s First Month An 'F'", is interesting. Also, the CBO study, which is cited in this wikipedia article, says that the stimulus package would crowd out private investment. The government is borrowing almost a trillion dollars, which means there's that much less money available for private investment. Grundle2600 (talk) 20:40, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Obama hasn't been in office long enough to have any real impact upon the market. It's still plummeting due to the economic policies/failures of the last administration. Obama just signed the ARRA, announced the home-owner plan and TARP2, etc. The market isn't going to go "Thank God, it's over!!" just because legislation is passed. They are going to continue to run around like a chicken with their heads cut off until financial institutions stop putting out scary numbers, foreclosures start to decline, and unemployment stabilizes.. None of this is going to happen overnight. As far as "crowding out" goes, it doesn't mean what you think it means. Crowding out is an economics term that basically means things become more expensive due to increased demand caused by the government spending, or by higher interest rates as the demand for money increases. According to the CBO, this isn't an issue right now because companies are pulling back private investment now, so all the government is doing is replacing the private investment that is leaving the system. It isn't until 2014 comes around that crowding out because a real concern because, according to the CBO, full employment will have been reached and the end result is that private industry will have to compete with the limited commodity of workers, which means higher wages, etc. There also isn't a 1 for 1 relationship between the amount of money pumped in by the government and the amount of private industry dollars crowded out. Yet again, according to the CBO, for every dollar of deficit spending, there is 1/3 a dollar of private industry dollars crowded out. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 21:43, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Obama has repeatedly said that he wanted to raise taxes on the rich and on capital gains. Whatever you tax, you get less of. The stock market is forward looking, and it has been tanking ever since it became apparent that Obama would probably be the next President. How did you think the stock market would react to Obama's proposals? Do think investors are happy with Obama's plan to raise the capital gains tax? Countries in western Euorope have raised their gasoline tax in order to discourage people from using gasoline - so why would Obama's promise to raise the captial gains tax not cause investors to flee the stock market? Personally, I think we should tax carbon dioxide emissions, gasoline, coal emissions, and other forms of pollution, instead of taxing income and jobs. Income and jobs are good - pollution and global warming are bad. We should tax the bad stuff, not the good stuff. Grundle2600 (talk) 14:24, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Please stop "debating" with Grundle. He's nothing but a racist. Hey Grundle don't you have a Klan meeting to get to?TomCat4680 (talk) 14:59, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Whoa, TomCat... that's way over the line. You need to calm down and not personally attack people. However, this discussion isn't really relevant to improving the article, so it shouldn't really be taking place anyway, in my opinion. Mahalo. --Ali'i 15:10, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

He called President Obama a monkey, thats racist.TomCat4680 (talk) 15:38, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Wrong. It's Congress, not the President, that writes all spending bills - it's in the Constitution. Secondly, I was referenceng the idea of an infininte number of monkeys typing at an infinite number of typrewriters for an infinite number of times. Third, liberals compared Bush to a chimp for 8 years. Fourth, I would love to have a black libertarian like Walter E. Williams as President. Grundle2600 (talk) 16:14, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Calling W a chimp is an insult to monkies.TomCat4680 (talk) 17:43, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Um, TomCat—you "always assume good faith and like to spread WikiLove", as your userpage says? You've got to be kidding. Jchthys _{u.p. / cont.}

I did at first, then he proved to be a racist so the love was lost.TomCat4680 (talk) 20:27, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

TomCat, if you can't interact with Grundle in a civil manner, then perhaps you should avoid him. If you can't avoid him, then I suggest you be civil and avoid making inflammatory comments like your Klan comment above. Your comments in this discussion have not been helpful and are rather disruptive. You've already been warned about your uncivil comments and it is likely that your continued incivility will result in you being blocked or topic banned. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 20:45, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Fine I'll stop. The article history proves that I've contributed plenty to this article, all with reliable sources. All he does is post conspiracy theories against President Obama and references them with unreliable right wing biased websites and blogs opposing the bill. He needs to learn what a reliable source is and the meaning of WP:NPOV, as well as weasel words. I support President Obama and the ARRA, he does neither. He's that one that deserves a topic ban as he clearly has a political agenda. TomCat4680 (talk) 20:49, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

You are wrong. I am the one who added the info about both petitions signed by hundreds of economists to the article. One petition was in favor of the bill, and one was against it. That's balance. I am also the one who added the information about the CBO report to the article. I'm also the one who added the info about the House breaking its promise to wait 48 hours to vote on the bill. My sources for those things are valid, and they are still in the article. None of those sources are "unreliable right wing biased websites and blogs opposing the bill." And I have never posted any "conspiracy theories against President Obama." Grundle2600 (talk) 12:44, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Grundle, I wouldn't be too "proud" of getting the CBO and the House not waiting 48 hours into the article. Your additions had to be completely rewritten by other editors in order for them to comply with NPOV and NOR. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 03:32, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad that other people rewrote it to make it better. That's what wikipedia is all about! Grundle2600 (talk) 14:07, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I added some info to the infobox. I'm not sure how to do the rest, I'm new to legislative article editing. But alot of info is missing, so if you know how, fill it in.TomCat4680 (talk) 21:29, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

The Senate Tally was actually 60 Yea votes, not 61. Please correct this —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.45.203.34 (talk) 22:18, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

It says 61 in the article.TomCat4680 (talk) 22:20, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

The Table has been corrected, the Senate final vote tally was 60-38. Sen Sherrod Brown came in from his mothers wake in Ohio to cast the 60th vote. Sources are cited as well. Terrancee (talk) 06:25, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

For no apparent reason some unnamed person from Germany decided to cut this whole section out. He clearly has no background or expertise. It needs more detail on the final provisions, but cutting everything out is crazy. You wanted an expert, and I'm it unless someone wants to compare credentials & experience. Richard Carlson, Chairman, Spectrum Economics, Harvard College 1960-64 Executive Office of the President, 1965-1969, Stanford University 1969-1975, Stanford Research Institute 1975-1983 --Rccarl (talk) 22:45, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Someone's a self promoter.TomCat4680 (talk) 10:48, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

There's no such thing as a Nobel Prize in Economics, can someone with editing rights please replace references such as "Nobel Prize-winner" by a more acurate wording ? See Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.13.36.9 (talk) 09:45, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, I changed it to the correct info.TomCat4680 (talk) 10:54, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Should we devote a section of this article to the major criticism of this bill by republican senators and congressmen? It only really gives a small bit on how they opposed it. --Montaced (talk) 21:49, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Wherever possible, criticism should be worked into the existing prose and sections of an article rather than placed into a special section of its own. Criticism is, of course, welcome within the article, but by grouping it into a special section the propensity is for that section to become a catch-all bin for every criticism regardless of how minor that criticism is, while criticism that is already worked into the article is removed from their current location and put into the "Criticism" section so that all that remains in the article outside the criticism section is the praises for the subject. A criticism is generally discouraged because it can create situations where the article structure itself becomes a NPOV violation. The best course of action is for you to either add any criticisms people have of the stimulus bill into the existing section that seems most appropriate or to identify specific criticisms that you feel are missing from the article on this discussion page. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 23:41, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I understand your point. However, I didn't exactly mean what your example stated. Maybe I haven't spent enough time on Wikipedia, but my view of the way sections are incorporated into an article is such: The first paragraph gives a summary of the subject, and then moves on to give a small statement on each of the sections. A good example is the John Lennon article. It states who he is, mentions his careers (Beatles and solo), and talks about his family (exception: it does not mention his death, however, the information below the picture does). That pretty much follows the exact format I stated. Therefore, I don't see why we can't have a section on the bill's criticism without mentioning it in other places.--Montaced (talk) 20:33, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I think there should be a separate section for this, but maybe not called 'criticism'. What about 'opposition'? --Osndok (talk) 22:28, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

The "Assessments by economists" seems to refer to the act as "President Obama's Plan", but it is my understanding that the congress (some members more than others) wrote the legislation. Are they refering to something else or is this an error or is this just precedence for referring to particular bills under different presidents? The original article uses the same language but does not clarify. 24.34.99.152 (talk) 06:35, 20 February 2009 (UTC)Jon

According to the Constitution, all spending bills must originate in the House. The President can sign it or vero it, but he can't write it. The reason those sources and this article refer to "Obama's plan" is because the bill that Congress wrote was based on Obama's suggestions. Grundle2600 (talk) 20:34, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

• And it is typical for House members to file an administration proposal, or for administration drafters to collaborate intensively with House sponsors before filing a bill, so it can be quite correct to state that a bill is an administration's draft. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 02:32, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

We seem to be at an impasse between the builders & destroyers. The final bill provision discussion covers less than a 1/3 of the bill and there is little detail like: who really gets that new COBRA coverage. I and I'm sure others are willing to do that work, but not if all our work is going to be destroyed.

We need some kind of deal to complete the work. This is a really important law and readers will be checking this wiki for years to come. --Rccarl (talk) 16:09, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

If others are willing to do the work, they are yet to come forward. Nothing is stopping anyone from updating the article to a more complete picture. There are a lot of things I'd like to add to this article, but I just haven't got around to actually doing it. More laziness than fear of destruction. So, go ahead and give updating a crack. If your work is deleted, come back to the talk page and work it out. Mahalo. --Ali'i 16:42, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Only an idiot would invest the many hours it would take to complete this thing after others have established a pattern of destruction of whole sections. --Rccarl (talk) 22:40, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

On nostimulus.com there was an electronic petition to prevent the bill from passing. The petition was signed by over 465 630 persons. Because of the sheer number of people who signed it, is this notable enough to include in the article? Thanks, Jchthys _{u.p. / cont.}

Was it signed by 465,630 people, or were there that many signatures? Online petitions are notorious for the subtle distinction between the two. SDY (talk) 19:55, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Protestors do petitions all the time. Do they ever make a difference? Usually not. Therefore the petition is irrelevant.TomCat4680 (talk) 13:17, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

If the petition was cited by a reliable source it would be relevant. Grundle2600 (talk) 16:57, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

It made inclusion in U.S. News and The Wall Street Journal. Jchthys _{u.p. / cont.}

These are blogs, not articles, and therefore are highly unlikely to meet WP:RS. The USNews one isn't really about the petition, it's some thoughts on the phrase "burdensome regulations" and how that might be acted on. That the petition existed is not really a contested fact, the "burdensome regulations" from Wikipedia that would keep this petition out of the article are WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV. If you can demonstrate that this petition is important in some material fashion (e.g. notable members of congress, particularly democrats, explicitly stated that they changed their votes because of it, or the bill was modified because of the petition) then it becomes relevant to the article. SDY (talk) 01:16, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I tried to restructure the long section on what the final bill includes. I used various sources (I put them at the beginning of the section). It now sums up to 780 billion, which is still short 7 billion of the total. I guess this is money that would go to oversight and some minor things that I might have forgotten to add (a couple of millions of agriculture e.g.). Please feel free to increase the readability. Maybe we make a table or outsource the whole content to another article and only describe the key measures in this article? Some graphics to show the composition or the proportion of main funding measures would also add the quality of the article.Themanwithoutapast (talk) 12:18, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

What about the proposal by Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal to forsake the use of certain sections of this bill? Should that be included? I think it goes beyond criticism of the bill, but is an actual act taken in response to the bill. As it relates directly with the subject matter, and since more governors have pledged to do the same, it seems appropriate to include. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Exile714 (talk • contribs)

Yes, I believe there have been reports of several governers' responses; not all negative. --Osndok (talk) 22:30, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Whoever keeps putting "poor people" please stop. As a low income individual I find it very offensive. The politically correct term is "low income workers".TomCat4680 (talk) 21:59, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Someone should fix the mis-spelling of "military" in this line:

$150 million for an increase of claims processing miliatary staff

under the "Other" category. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.219.235.182 (talk) 21:52, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Good eye. Typo fixed.TomCat4680 (talk) 22:02, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

President Obama and the Transportation Secretary Hood released $26.66 billion for transportation infrastructure improvements today, and there's a good distribution bar chart on Recovery.gov. I think it'd be good in this article. Its all in the public domain since its a government site. TomCat4680 (talk) 01:19, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

The Pub. L. 111–5 (text) (PDF) template link seems to be broken. Clicking on it yields a No Doc Found error on the gpo.gov page. If you modify the link to pull 111-4, 111-6, or any other law, they all work. I wonder if its just a bug on their site or if they pulled it for another reason... ConstRepublic (talk) 17:57, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Must be a technical error. There's a bunch of other sites with the full text of the bill in the External links section though so just replace it with one of those.TomCat4680 (talk) 18:20, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

When are we supposed to get our stimulus checks? I need a Blu-ray player.TomCat4680 (talk) 23:22, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

There isn't a stimulus check going directly to taxpayers in this Stimulus.. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 23:38, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Not true. The article clearly states with reliable sources "New payroll tax credit of $400 per worker and $800 per couple in 2009 and 2010.", as well as "SSI and SSDI recipients will get $250".TomCat4680 (talk) 23:44, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Please read tax cut vs. tax refund for the difference between a stimulus check vs. a decrease in your income tax. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 23:46, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm unemployed and I'm on SSDI. The New York Times said I'm supposed to get a check for $250. So when's it coming?TomCat4680 (talk) 23:47, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Suggest you ask the NY Times then.;) Everything I've seen are tax credits, not tax refunds. There is an extension of unemployment benefits and an increase of $25 per week that is supposed to start mid-March, but this the first I've seen of a $250 check being sent out. Do you have a link to the NY Times article? --Bobblehead ^(rants) 02:43, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Its the very first reference on this article.TomCat4680 (talk) 02:47, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Huh. So it does. I wouldn't hold my breath if I were you. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 03:17, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

The 250 dollar tax refund will be paid automatically as far as I understand. [1]. Apparently the government aims to get the payments out to the 55 million people eligible at the end of May. No action by the eligible people is necessary as far as I know. Eligible is anyone on Supplemental Security Income (SSI), Social Security benefits or vets and disabled receiving federal benefits. Themanwithoutapast (talk) 10:28, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Do those who won't become eligible for Social Security until June (or later) get the $250 as well or was it only for those already on Social Security as of some earlier date? Jon (talk) 23:12, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

The $400 payroll tax cut will come from reducing the Social Security withholding tax, so your take home pay will be bigger. Grundle2600 (talk) 14:10, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

But keep in mind that if you have two (or more) jobs from different employers you might need to adjust your witholdings since every one of your jobs is going to include it. Also, the next two years Tax Forms are going to be a bit more complicated for everyone. (For the checks from 2001 & 2008 only those that didn't get the full amount but now qualified for it had to fill out extra lines.) Jon (talk) 23:08, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I know it's been discussed earlier, but we need to reëxamine the separate article, Detailed comparison of House and Senate versions of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 . It makes no sense on its own. Perhaps a more concise version of it could be reincorporated back into THIS article? I've proposed a merger.—Markles 19:24, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

The information in the separate article was separted from this article for a reason. It is redundant to the content of the section on the final bill. It may be of some use from a historical point of view (that's the reason why there is a link to it in this article), but a reader of this article will not want to read about information that is not current any more, rather about what the final bill is about, not any interim version. Themanwithoutapast (talk) 19:51, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Keep and expand I agree, its better to keep only the current info in this article and the outdated stuff in separate articles for historical reference. The subarticle is a stub though and should be expanded.TomCat4680 (talk) 21:20, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

• MERGE as a content fork. Per WP:NOT, we should not cover line by line of this bill. Grsz¹¹ 22:52, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
• Merge - Not necessary to be a seperate article. Gage (talk) 22:15, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
• Delete sub article - Not notable as it's own article and we don't need that level of description of the differences on this article either. (This article focus should be on the final version that was signed into law.) Jon (talk) 23:04, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
• Keep the history article is good work and of interest to those who care about the politics behind the stimulus bill. While important to some people, it's not important to the more general audience that wants to find information on the stimulus bill, so it should not be merged.--Bkwillwm (talk) 05:11, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't the amount of money (about $787,000,000,000) be mentioned somewhere in the first paragraph? I would think that is a rather basic fact, but I had to search to find it. (it is mentioned once in a little sidebar, once in the middle of the "Comparison of the House, Senate and Conference versions" section, and once at the very end.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.48.166.32 (talk) 22:41, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I read the unsourced essay someone wrote. Besides being completely POV pushing original research, it was mostly the opinions of Rush Limbaugh. Keep the criticisms to those of economists only (and if notable, politicians), not talk radio show hosts. Rush is NOT the leader of the Republicans, he's never even held an elected office. Mitch McConnell is technically the most powerful Republican right now, being the Senate Minority Leader. TomCat4680 (talk) 21:27, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

It was also a school project, given the username. ENGL(ish) 102. Grsz¹¹ 21:46, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I thought it looked like something written by a high school kid. I've said it before and I'll say it again, it should be a rule that anyone under 18 should NOT be allowed on Wikipedia. TomCat4680 (talk) 21:48, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I removed part of the section "Assessments by economists" that referenced a March 11 Wall Street Journal article on a survey of economists. Another editor reverted my edit, so I reverted and started this discussion. The article covers a WSJ survey of economists on the economic policy of the Obama administration. The article has the headline "Obama, Geithner Get Low Grades From Economists," and the edit in question focuses on this assessment. I don't think the "failing" grades deserve a place in this Wikipedia article. The survey covers all of the Obama administration's economic policies, so the failing grade includes TARP and other activities as well as the stimulus. There is no way to separate out the grade the economists gave for the stimulus from the rest of the economic policies. Also, we can't determine the reasons for the bad grade. The WSJ article states that 43% of the survey respondents thought the stimulus should have been larger. We don't know how many respondents graded Obama down for not having enough stimulus compared to those who marked him down for having too much. Considering we don't know how much of the "grade" applies to the subject of the article and can't determine the reasons for the grade, the survey results from the WSJ are meaningless when it comes to ARRA and don't have any place in this article. The only part of the WSJ article that directly refers to the stimulus is the fact that 43% of economists thought the stimulus was too small. If any part of the WSJ article applies it is the 43% fact, but we might as well cut the section entirely.--Bkwillwm (talk) 03:53, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Just state the 43% statistic and use the article as a reference. Keep the name of the article intact in your citation though. TomCat4680 (talk) 03:57, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. The stimulus plan is the central element of discussion, and most of the critiquing is aimed at that bill. Dismissing the study based on the fact that Obama's economic policy contains other notable qualities is hardly a valid reason. We can include some tid-bit if it makes you feel better, like: "Economists were surveyed on Obama's handling of the economic crisis. They reviewed the stimulus package, tarp, etc..etc..." The source is not so vague and off-topic as you make it seem, thus I'm reinstating pending a consensus. Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:52, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

You didn't really address any of points, and take another look at the WSJ article. The stimulus isn't discussed much, and the article even states "economists' main criticism of the Obama team centered on delays in enacting key parts of plans to rescue banks." Since the failing grade is mainly related to banking issues, mentioning it in this article is not appropriate. There are plenty of other sources that evaluate the stimulus directly. There is no reason to include the WSJ article.--Bkwillwm (talk) 12:52, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

That is your POV. By virtue of mentioning the stimulus package, we can include it. As I said, if it makes you feel better, we can be more explicit and say economists were surveyed on x, x and the stimulus package. It doesn't need to be a 10 page exposure to warrant inclusion. Please, do not remove cited material without a consensus. We don't want edit warring. Can you kindly self-revert? Wikifan12345 (talk) 19:15, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Because we can include something in an article doesn't mean that we should. The survey provided no useful information on the stimulus. Basically it tells us that a group of economists aren't happy about the handling of the banking crisis and may or may not also not approve of the handling of the stimulus for some reason--possibly because it was too small or too large. You haven't given any reason why this poll should be included or what it adds to the article. I'm not going to put this text back into the article. There's no policy that says that text must stay in until there is a consensus to remove. The current wording of the text is also inaccurate and misleading since it says the survey was "about the bill's impact," which it was not; the survey was on overall economic policy. The wording only reinforces the perception that the failing grades were directly related to the stimulus, which is contradicted by the section in the WSJ article itself that says most of criticism had to do with banking recovery policy.--Bkwillwm (talk) 22:44, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Your requirements for inclusion are a reflection of a common POV but not wikipedia. You're right, economists aren't happy with the stimulus package and survey reveals that. What's the problem? Your resistance to the inclusion is suspect, if not bewildering. As far as I'm concerned, the WSJ is as simple as simple goes, and it doesn't need to be a 100 page report to qualify for the article. If you really want to make this such big deal I will gladly plug in the dozens of notable research surveys that are far more explicit and critical than the WSJ findings. Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:23, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I've only said that when we say something is about the stimulus, it should actually be about the stimulus. I don't see what's so controversial about that. I haven't said anything about length as a requirement for inclusion. If want to cite a notable source that actually explicitly says something about the stimulus, have at it.--Bkwillwm (talk) 00:07, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

But it does cite the stimulus. I'm trying to gauge your criticisms but I can't seem to figure out what is specifically lacking notability. Can you clarify? Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:54, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I think it's pretty clear what my problem with using the WSJ survey is. I'll try to sum up one more time. The "grade" was not on the stimulus, it was on the Obama's economic policy. The WSJ article specifically said that criticisms relating to the grade were focused on the Obama administration's handling of banking problems, so little or none of the "failing grade" applies to the stimulus. It's kind of like if your friend got a bad grade in a class, and you knew he had a bad grade on his final exam (banking), you can't assume he also failed his term paper (stimulus). You simply can't make that deduction.--Bkwillwm (talk) 02:47, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

The "grade" was in reference to the stimulus plan and his economic policy, though the stimulus practically defines his overall domestic fiscal policy. Notice the timing of the bill's signing and the article, less than a month. Economists were reviewing its effects, or lack thereof. I don't deal with misrepresented analogies. Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:16, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

You have summarily dismissed all of my points. I don't see the point in more back and forth with you so I am moving on to a RfC.--Bkwillwm (talk) 04:02, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Uh, no. I responded to all of them. Your false analogy technically wasn't a point. Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:11, 20 April 2009 (UTC)