Universidad Tecnológica de El Salvador
Money Well Spent?
Book

Money Well Spent?

The Truth Behind the Trillion-Dollar Stimulus, the Biggest Economic Recovery Plan in History

Michael Grabell
Public Affairs, 2012
Buy book or audiobook

Read or listen offline

Amazon Kindle
  • 0.5×
  • 0.75×
  • 1×
  • 1.25×
  • 1.5×
  • 1.75×
1×

Editorial Rating

8

Qualities

  • Well Structured
  • Overview

Recommendation

The economy is improving, but the recovery is not as robust as it could and should have been, contends journalist Michael Grabell. The biggest economic recovery act in history – with an estimated cost of more than a trillion dollars – brought various economic solutions into collision with Washington, DC’s tough political realities, producing middling results. Grabell argues that taxpayers got their money’s worth because the act saved millions of jobs and forestalled another Great Depression. But political miscalculations and poor management hobbled what could have been an even stronger recovery. Whether you’re a Republican or a Democrat, a fan of Barack Obama, a member of the Tea Party or an overseas onlooker marveling at the swirl of American politics, this detailed, intelligent overview can help you understand exactly what the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act accomplished and failed to accomplish. getAbstract recommends Grabell’s reporting to anyone who participates in America’s slowly reinvigorating economy or has felt the impact of its ups and downs.

Summary

An Economy on the Brink

America suffered greatly in the 2008-2009 economic downturn. Towns like Elkhart, Indiana, were typical: The area’s economic mainstay – a plant that manufactured recreational vehicles – closed, and unemployment hit record highs. The incoming administration of President Barack Obama held Elkhart up as an example of a community that could benefit greatly from the president’s proposed stimulus package – the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA).

The country desperately needed a stimulus. More than two million people across the US were out of work. The housing market had crashed due to the mortgage crisis, and financial markets were crashing with it. Initially, the administration argued that ARRA should be “timely,” “targeted” and “temporary.” It pushed for billions in spending to rescue a “cratering” economy. The Obama administration, the George W. Bush administration and even many economists had misunderstood the gravity of the economy’s condition, an underestimation which forced the new administration to change its goals. It sought to “rebuild” the economy in a “speedy, substantial and sustained” way. Anticipating cooperation from a Congress...

About the Author

Michael Grabell is a reporter for ProPublica, a nonprofit investigative journalism site. His work has appeared in USA Today, The Dallas Morning News and Salon.

Comment on this summary or Diskussion beginnen

  • Avatar
    Sign in to share your opinion
  • Avatar
    M. F. 7 years ago
    The authors of money well spent are giving the Obama administration credit for the stimulus preventing a collapse of the economy .It was the Bush tarp monies that prevented the financial system from imploding not the stimulus .The jobless recovery left people with fewer jobs and lower wages with most new jobs were part time making many college graduates underemployed No mention is made of the doubling of the federal debt during the 8 years obama was president.Throwing money at the problem resulted in slow growth even after the recession ended but mid 2009.The billion dollar deficits under the Keynesian economics failed and most of the shovel ready jobs never materialised .The only ones that benefited were teachers and unemployed Who received 99 weeks of benefits.Very little was used for infrastructure The long term impact of the 20 Trillion dollar debt has contributed to a slow growth economy to the present day and into the foreseeable future The Fed show get credit for keeping rates low and making debt payments manageable and restoring the Housing market to near normalcy.The implication that throwing even more money at the Great Recession is not supported by any facts and is just a liberal justification for their failure.