It's Official: The Stimulus Isn't a Waste of Money

[Dick Tuck]

I wonder if, instead of using cars, the left will try clicking their heels together three times, closing their eyes and repeating 'there's no place like home'.

It is about as valid as most of their talking points of late.

Is that why Obama helped keep our auto industry alive?

 

[The Rabbi]

I'm not the one who points to some ignorant Heritage Foundation spin job, and claim it debunks the CBO report. Without looking through all the proposals, they have no idea how much goes to things like capital equipment or schedule. They're also boneheaded thinking that creating a job only affects one person's economic situation. They show a complete cluelessness of macroeconomics.

No, that would be you. It looks like cluelessness to you because you are clueless about economics.

I didn't point to a set of Heritage Foundation talking points, and claim that it "debunked" the nonpartisan CBO report. You do know what happens to Richard Mellon Scaife supported foundations when they cross him, don't you? Remember him defunding the American Spectator when they mocked his star reporter, Chris Ruddy, on his tin foil theories about Vince Foster?

You asked who debunked it.
I answered the question.
You failed to refute Heritage.org. You merely made unsubstantiated statements. Now you continue to do so, dragging in irrelevant items.

And yes, so far no one is buying the shit of the OP.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

It's Official: The Stimulus Isn't a Waste of Money

People of good faith...

you obviously are in the wrong place

 

[asterism]

CBO is reporting that unemployment would be 1.5-2% higher, had it not been for the stimulus. But the fact remains that all required benchmarks were met, proposals for projects came in under estimate, the howls on waste and fraud turned out to be false, and there was enough money left over to fund 3,000 additional infrastructure projects.

You mean like that Bench Mark that unemployment would not go above 8% if we passed it?

Yeah that worked out GREAT!

No, but that benchmark was based on expert opinion that by doing nothing unemployment would reach 10%,

Except that your mistaken in your terms. 8% wasn't a benchmark, it was an estimate based on consensus view that doing nothing would cause unemployment to reach 10%. The estimates turned out to be too conservative.

Not true.

Page 5

That's the actual prediction from the Council of Economic Advisors.

 

[FactFinder]

Actually the only thing the stimulus stimulated was government.

A breakdown of the spending can be found here:

The Stimulus Plan: A Detailed List of Spending - ProPublica

Looks like it mostly achieved propping up large government and growing it. Not exactly what is needed IMHO.

 

[Dick Tuck]

You mean like that Bench Mark that unemployment would not go above 8% if we passed it?

Yeah that worked out GREAT!

No, but that benchmark was based on expert opinion that by doing nothing unemployment would reach 10%,

Except that your mistaken in your terms. 8% wasn't a benchmark, it was an estimate based on consensus view that doing nothing would cause unemployment to reach 10%. The estimates turned out to be too conservative.

Not true.

Page 5

That's the actual prediction from the Council of Economic Advisors.

You're agreeing with me. It was an estimate, not a benchmark. The estimate fell well short of understanding how deep shit we were in at that point of time. People like Paul Krugman's darker scenario was closer to hitting the mark, as it turned out.

You can't claim that something that is predicted, but has not yet happened, is a benchmark. It's an estimate. The bottom line remains that most economists, who don't have a political ax to grind, have concluded that unemployment would have been 1.5%-2.0% higher, had the stimulus package not been enacted.

 

[Trajan]

No, but that benchmark was based on expert opinion that by doing nothing unemployment would reach 10%,

Except that your mistaken in your terms. 8% wasn't a benchmark, it was an estimate based on consensus view that doing nothing would cause unemployment to reach 10%. The estimates turned out to be too conservative.

Not true.

Page 5

That's the actual prediction from the Council of Economic Advisors.

You're agreeing with me. It was an estimate, not a benchmark. The estimate fell well short of understanding how deep shit we were in at that point of time. People like Paul Krugman's darker scenario was closer to hitting the mark, as it turned out.

You can't claim that something that is predicted, but has not yet happened, is a benchmark. It's an estimate. The bottom line remains that most economists, who don't have a political ax to grind, have concluded that unemployment would have been 1.5%-2.0% higher, had the stimulus package not been enacted.

Paul Krugman? Oh the guy that said 600 billion would be a good number for the stimulus and now whines we didn't spend enough? That Paul Krugman? For god sakes.

 

[Trajan]

Wow, you speak for "everyone". You're one important dude.

But if you're interested in a non-partisan analysis, here's the CBO report:

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/117xx/doc11706/08-24-ARRA.pdf

Save it. No one is buying your bullshit.
The CBO's methodology has already been debunked.

Who exactly debunked it? Did the CBO make corrections to their report?

go read post # 28 "dick"...this is the second time you have been provided with direct feedback on that.......

 

[Titanic Sailor]

Maybe the Democrats can test STDs on you without penicillin like the Guatemalans. Nice people those Democrats.

 

[Dick Tuck]

Not true.

Page 5

That's the actual prediction from the Council of Economic Advisors.

You're agreeing with me. It was an estimate, not a benchmark. The estimate fell well short of understanding how deep shit we were in at that point of time. People like Paul Krugman's darker scenario was closer to hitting the mark, as it turned out.

You can't claim that something that is predicted, but has not yet happened, is a benchmark. It's an estimate. The bottom line remains that most economists, who don't have a political ax to grind, have concluded that unemployment would have been 1.5%-2.0% higher, had the stimulus package not been enacted.

Paul Krugman? Oh the guy that said 600 billion would be a good number for the stimulus and now whines we didn't spend enough? That Paul Krugman? For god sakes.

No, the Paul Krugman who said that the 700+ number wasn't going to be enough. He turned out to be closer to being correct than anyone else.

 

[Dick Tuck]

Exit question there "Dick"...lets suppose for a moment that's true, what happens when the stimulus runs out over the next quarter?

Well lets see. Contracts were funded and awarded, and since they came in under budget, and on time, 3,000 more projects were able to be funded, including some day care centers on military bases. Your premise is bogus. If you fund a 2 or 3 year contract, it doesn't run out next quarter. People will have jobs when the contract is complete, not when it's awarded.

 

[Dick Tuck]

Save it. No one is buying your bullshit.
The CBO's methodology has already been debunked.

Who exactly debunked it? Did the CBO make corrections to their report?

go read post # 28 "dick"...this is the second time you have been provided with direct feedback on that.......

http://www.usmessageboard.com/2808096-post51.html

 

[Oddball]

You're agreeing with me. It was an estimate, not a benchmark. The estimate fell well short of understanding how deep shit we were in at that point of time. People like Paul Krugman's darker scenario was closer to hitting the mark, as it turned out.

You can't claim that something that is predicted, but has not yet happened, is a benchmark. It's an estimate. The bottom line remains that most economists, who don't have a political ax to grind, have concluded that unemployment would have been 1.5%-2.0% higher, had the stimulus package not been enacted.

Paul Krugman? Oh the guy that said 600 billion would be a good number for the stimulus and now whines we didn't spend enough? That Paul Krugman? For god sakes.

No, the Paul Krugman who said that the 700+ number wasn't going to be enough. He turned out to be closer to being correct than anyone else.

That's how the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy works.

1) Print up and spend a boatload of money to "stimulate" the economy.

2) If things get better, claim all the credit.

3) If things don't get better, claim that you didn't spend enough soon enough.

4) Lather, rinse, repeat.

 

[loosecannon]

what he said.

Pretending that our unemployment would be 7% if we had wasted twice as much of our kids money is exactly the kind of "stealing tommorrow's wealth today" mentality that got us into this mess.

Those who won't live within their means deserve to be excluded from all positions of responsibility, including the rights to vote or hold office.

 

[daveman]

I wonder if, instead of using cars, the left will try clicking their heels together three times, closing their eyes and repeating 'there's no place like home'.

It is about as valid as most of their talking points of late.

The left excels at magical thinking.

 

[The Rabbi]

You're agreeing with me. It was an estimate, not a benchmark. The estimate fell well short of understanding how deep shit we were in at that point of time. People like Paul Krugman's darker scenario was closer to hitting the mark, as it turned out.

You can't claim that something that is predicted, but has not yet happened, is a benchmark. It's an estimate. The bottom line remains that most economists, who don't have a political ax to grind, have concluded that unemployment would have been 1.5%-2.0% higher, had the stimulus package not been enacted.

Paul Krugman? Oh the guy that said 600 billion would be a good number for the stimulus and now whines we didn't spend enough? That Paul Krugman? For god sakes.

No, the Paul Krugman who said that the 700+ number wasn't going to be enough. He turned out to be closer to being correct than anyone else.

Link?

Krugman had said it was going to be huge, like $500B.

 

[Dick Tuck]

Paul Krugman? Oh the guy that said 600 billion would be a good number for the stimulus and now whines we didn't spend enough? That Paul Krugman? For god sakes.

No, the Paul Krugman who said that the 700+ number wasn't going to be enough. He turned out to be closer to being correct than anyone else.

Link?

Krugman had said it was going to be huge, like $500B.

January 10, 2009, 7:25 am

The key thing if you want to do comparisons is to note that I made estimates of the average effect over 2009-2010, while they do estimates of effect in the fourth quarter of 2010, which is roughly when the plan is estimated to have its maximum effect. So they say the plan would lower unemployment by about 2 percentage points, I said 1.7, but their estimate may actually be a bit more pessimistic than mine. They have the plan raising GDP by 3.7 percent, but that’s at peak; I thought 2.5 percent or so average over 2 years, again not much difference.

So this looks like an estimate from the Obama team itself saying — as best as I can figure it out — that the plan would close only around a third of the output gap over the next two years.

One more point: the estimate of what would happen to the economy in the absence of a stimulus plan seems kind of optimistic. The chart above has unemployment ex-stimulus peaking at 9 percent in the first quarter of 2010 and coming down through the year; the CBO estimates an average unemployment rate of 9 percent for 2010, so the Obama people are more optimistic than the CBO, and a lot more optimistic than I am.​

 

[The Rabbi]

No, the Paul Krugman who said that the 700+ number wasn't going to be enough. He turned out to be closer to being correct than anyone else.

Link?

Krugman had said it was going to be huge, like $500B.

January 10, 2009, 7:25 am

The key thing if you want to do comparisons is to note that I made estimates of the average effect over 2009-2010, while they do estimates of effect in the fourth quarter of 2010, which is roughly when the plan is estimated to have its maximum effect. So they say the plan would lower unemployment by about 2 percentage points, I said 1.7, but their estimate may actually be a bit more pessimistic than mine. They have the plan raising GDP by 3.7 percent, but that’s at peak; I thought 2.5 percent or so average over 2 years, again not much difference.

So this looks like an estimate from the Obama team itself saying — as best as I can figure it out — that the plan would close only around a third of the output gap over the next two years.

One more point: the estimate of what would happen to the economy in the absence of a stimulus plan seems kind of optimistic. The chart above has unemployment ex-stimulus peaking at 9 percent in the first quarter of 2010 and coming down through the year; the CBO estimates an average unemployment rate of 9 percent for 2010, so the Obama people are more optimistic than the CBO, and a lot more optimistic than I am.​

He was wrong on every single point. Amazing.

 

[Dick Tuck]

Link?

Krugman had said it was going to be huge, like $500B.

January 10, 2009, 7:25 am

The key thing if you want to do comparisons is to note that I made estimates of the average effect over 2009-2010, while they do estimates of effect in the fourth quarter of 2010, which is roughly when the plan is estimated to have its maximum effect. So they say the plan would lower unemployment by about 2 percentage points, I said 1.7, but their estimate may actually be a bit more pessimistic than mine. They have the plan raising GDP by 3.7 percent, but that’s at peak; I thought 2.5 percent or so average over 2 years, again not much difference.

So this looks like an estimate from the Obama team itself saying — as best as I can figure it out — that the plan would close only around a third of the output gap over the next two years.

One more point: the estimate of what would happen to the economy in the absence of a stimulus plan seems kind of optimistic. The chart above has unemployment ex-stimulus peaking at 9 percent in the first quarter of 2010 and coming down through the year; the CBO estimates an average unemployment rate of 9 percent for 2010, so the Obama people are more optimistic than the CBO, and a lot more optimistic than I am.​

He was wrong on every single point. Amazing.

This was about 2 weeks before Obama even took office. His prediction was still more correct than anyone else. Obama and CBO were more conservative in their estimates, and even Krugman's more pessimistic estimate was rosier than the abyss Bush put us in.

 

[Trajan]

You're agreeing with me. It was an estimate, not a benchmark. The estimate fell well short of understanding how deep shit we were in at that point of time. People like Paul Krugman's darker scenario was closer to hitting the mark, as it turned out.

You can't claim that something that is predicted, but has not yet happened, is a benchmark. It's an estimate. The bottom line remains that most economists, who don't have a political ax to grind, have concluded that unemployment would have been 1.5%-2.0% higher, had the stimulus package not been enacted.

Paul Krugman? Oh the guy that said 600 billion would be a good number for the stimulus and now whines we didn't spend enough? That Paul Krugman? For god sakes.

No, the Paul Krugman who said that the 700+ number wasn't going to be enough. He turned out to be closer to being correct than anyone else.

sorry dick, thats a no go.... ...

Krugman-
Nov 10 2008

When I put all this together, I conclude that the stimulus package should be at least 4% of GDP, or $600 billion.


Stimulus math (wonkish) - NYTimes.com

oh and his excuse here $600 Billion - NYTimes.com, doesn't hold water he also says" by jan when, I wrote the piece it became apparent", well the piece was dated nov 10th, he made the same errors etc. they did, only sooner and they still added another what (?) 35% to the total over his projection and if it was apparent the "slump was going to be deeper " they would have added more right? Well they did as I said another 250 Billion worth.......not including all of the add ons since...and the 410 Billion omni bus spending bill too. Epic fail.

Bullshit, hes a weasel.....please... and a back slider.......