There's been talk lately of a second stimulus bill since the first one didn't actually stimulate the economy or create jobs. Most recently super investor Warren Buffett has said a second stimulus package might be needed. But he also likened the first $787 billion stimulus package to "half a tablet of Viagra and then having also a bunch of candy mixed in - it doesn't have really quite the wallop." (source) So here's my question: would a second stimulus replace the one that's not working? There's not a lot of talk about that yet.

Continued...

The Obama administration has admitted to spending less than 10% of the $787 billion in the first stimulus bill (no exact figures yet as we're still waiting for the promised transparency). So why not simply cancel the approximately $700 billion in unspent, ineffective ideas and replace it with a real bill that has a real chance of stimulating the economy? Leave out the funding of liberal pet projects and put in some serious tax relief for small businesses; the companies which actually provide jobs. Leave out the creation of more bureaucratic red tape and put in real "shovel-ready" projects that will put people to work and improve the nation's infrastructure.

If a second stimulus package was a do-over, a chance to get it right this time, it would be a great idea. But the Obama administration says it does not see a need for a second stimulus yet. (source) And Congressional Democrats like House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Maryland) claim it's not yet clear whether the $787 billion stimulus has been successful. He added, however, that "I think we need to be open to whether we need further action.” (source)

Are they in "wait and see" mode because, contrary to all indications, they believe the first stimulus bill will suddenly become effective? Or are they just waiting until it's too late to repeal the first one so they can spend hundreds of billions more?