Obama Stimulus had zero impact

[Flopper]

Column in the WSJ today by two prominent economists examined the Keynesian idea of gov't spending filling the gap in private demand in regards to the stimulus. What they found was government grants to states and localities merely substituted for local borrowing. IOW, there was no stimulus achieved at all. Aggregate demand was the same as before. The Obama stimulus was, again, proof that Keynesianism is simply wrong.
John F. Cogan and John B. Taylor: The Obama Stimulus Impact? Zero - WSJ.com

Most of the stimulus to the states and local government was used to pay worker salaries. Without the stimulus there would have been massive layoffs of both both government employees and contractors. Borrowing money to pay workers is not an option in most states.

The stimulus saved jobs and created jobs, but it was not large enough to overcome the number jobs being lost. The stimulus would have had to be in the order of 1.5 trillion to have the impact that the Democrats projected. Congress would not have approved a stimulus of this size.

 

[The Rabbi]

Column in the WSJ today by two prominent economists examined the Keynesian idea of gov't spending filling the gap in private demand in regards to the stimulus. What they found was government grants to states and localities merely substituted for local borrowing. IOW, there was no stimulus achieved at all. Aggregate demand was the same as before. The Obama stimulus was, again, proof that Keynesianism is simply wrong.
John F. Cogan and John B. Taylor: The Obama Stimulus Impact? Zero - WSJ.com

Most of the stimulus to the states and local government was used to pay worker salaries. Without the stimulus there would have been massive layoffs of both both government employees and contractors. Borrowing money to pay workers is not an option in most states.

The stimulus saved jobs and created jobs, but it was not large enough to overcome the number jobs being lost. The stimulus would have had to be in the order of 1.5 trillion to have the impact that the Democrats projected. Congress would not have approved a stimulus of this size.

Go read the article, dumbass.
And how many jobs were lost because of anticipated higher taxes and debt to pay for the "stimulus"?

 

[Common Sense]

Column in the WSJ today by two prominent economists examined the Keynesian idea of gov't spending filling the gap in private demand in regards to the stimulus. What they found was government grants to states and localities merely substituted for local borrowing. IOW, there was no stimulus achieved at all. Aggregate demand was the same as before. The Obama stimulus was, again, proof that Keynesianism is simply wrong.
John F. Cogan and John B. Taylor: The Obama Stimulus Impact? Zero - WSJ.com

Most of the stimulus to the states and local government was used to pay worker salaries. Without the stimulus there would have been massive layoffs of both both government employees and contractors. Borrowing money to pay workers is not an option in most states.

The stimulus saved jobs and created jobs, but it was not large enough to overcome the number jobs being lost. The stimulus would have had to be in the order of 1.5 trillion to have the impact that the Democrats projected. Congress would not have approved a stimulus of this size.

Go read the article, dumbass.
And how many jobs were lost because of anticipated higher taxes and debt to pay for the "stimulus"?

so then tell us what the affect would have been had the stimulus not been enacted? how many more jobs would have been lost? how much higher would unemployment have been? no one analyzes this side of the argument. they simply blame the stimulus. and dont forget Bush set up the first stimulus which just have everyone cash in hand.

 

[Common Sense]

heres an article to refute the WSJ claim:

Political Economy - CBO says stimulus may have added 3.3 million jobs

so who is more reliable? the WSJ or the CBO and Washington Post?

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

If the WSJ is claiming that the 300 billion in tax cuts in the 2009 Obama stimulus bill had no impact,

do they thus predict that this pending tax cut won't either?

There's a pending tax cut? When did this happen? I know a tax increase was shot down, but a tax cut? Can you send me a link on the pending tax cuts?

 

[The Rabbi]

Most of the stimulus to the states and local government was used to pay worker salaries. Without the stimulus there would have been massive layoffs of both both government employees and contractors. Borrowing money to pay workers is not an option in most states.

The stimulus saved jobs and created jobs, but it was not large enough to overcome the number jobs being lost. The stimulus would have had to be in the order of 1.5 trillion to have the impact that the Democrats projected. Congress would not have approved a stimulus of this size.

Go read the article, dumbass.
And how many jobs were lost because of anticipated higher taxes and debt to pay for the "stimulus"?

so then tell us what the affect would have been had the stimulus not been enacted? how many more jobs would have been lost? how much higher would unemployment have been? no one analyzes this side of the argument. they simply blame the stimulus. and dont forget Bush set up the first stimulus which just have everyone cash in hand.

the stimulus created no jobs. Unemployment would be the exact same as it is today. The big difference would be we would not be an extra $850B in debt.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Column in the WSJ today by two prominent economists examined the Keynesian idea of gov't spending filling the gap in private demand in regards to the stimulus. What they found was government grants to states and localities merely substituted for local borrowing. IOW, there was no stimulus achieved at all. Aggregate demand was the same as before. The Obama stimulus was, again, proof that Keynesianism is simply wrong.
John F. Cogan and John B. Taylor: The Obama Stimulus Impact? Zero - WSJ.com

Why do you "conservatives" insist on repeatedly beating this same pile o' horseshit....while you....at the same time.....take credit, for it??

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w894xqReOdo[/ame]

*

Maybe someone needs to contact those journalists, at the Murdoch Street Journal, and let 'em know.

​

As long as Madcow doesn't expose herself....

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Rachel Madcow looks oddly enough like Shia Lebouff.

 

[boedicca]

heres an article to refute the WSJ claim:

Political Economy - CBO says stimulus may have added 3.3 million jobs

so who is more reliable? the WSJ or the CBO and Washington Post?

The CBO only scores things the way they are instructed to score them by Congress.

 

[The Rabbi]

heres an article to refute the WSJ claim:

Political Economy - CBO says stimulus may have added 3.3 million jobs

so who is more reliable? the WSJ or the CBO and Washington Post?

Can you read?
CBO says stimulus MAY have added 3.3M jobs. Then again it may not. CBO's methodology has already been discussed. They began by assuming that every dollar spent by the gov't produced a definite increase in GDP and simply figured from there. But the assumption and method is flawed.
And it wasn't the WSJ, it was two economists who have done research on this question. They simply published a popular version of the research.

 

[cutter]

Column in the WSJ today by two prominent economists examined the Keynesian idea of gov't spending filling the gap in private demand in regards to the stimulus. What they found was government grants to states and localities merely substituted for local borrowing. IOW, there was no stimulus achieved at all. Aggregate demand was the same as before. The Obama stimulus was, again, proof that Keynesianism is simply wrong.
John F. Cogan and John B. Taylor: The Obama Stimulus Impact? Zero - WSJ.com

Most of the stimulus to the states and local government was used to pay worker salaries. Without the stimulus there would have been massive layoffs of both both government employees and contractors. Borrowing money to pay workers is not an option in most states.

The stimulus saved jobs and created jobs, but it was not large enough to overcome the number jobs being lost. The stimulus would have had to be in the order of 1.5 trillion to have the impact that the Democrats projected. Congress would not have approved a stimulus of this size.

Government jobs are nothing but a drag on our economy. Until you tax a government worker enough to pay his own salary it will be a drag.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Nope. I won't subscribe, once Murdoch get's your e-mail address spam and propaganda fills the mail box.

 

[The Rabbi]

Nope. I won't subscribe, once Murdoch get's your e-mail address spam and propaganda fills the mail box.

Fine. The full article will probably be available tomorrow or later today somewhere. It was too good not to be.

 

[Common Sense]

Go read the article, dumbass.
And how many jobs were lost because of anticipated higher taxes and debt to pay for the "stimulus"?

so then tell us what the affect would have been had the stimulus not been enacted? how many more jobs would have been lost? how much higher would unemployment have been? no one analyzes this side of the argument. they simply blame the stimulus. and dont forget Bush set up the first stimulus which just have everyone cash in hand.

the stimulus created no jobs. Unemployment would be the exact same as it is today. The big difference would be we would not be an extra $850B in debt.

so you have any proof or economist theory to back this claim?

 

[Common Sense]

heres an article to refute the WSJ claim:

Political Economy - CBO says stimulus may have added 3.3 million jobs

so who is more reliable? the WSJ or the CBO and Washington Post?

Can you read?
CBO says stimulus MAY have added 3.3M jobs. Then again it may not. CBO's methodology has already been discussed. They began by assuming that every dollar spent by the gov't produced a definite increase in GDP and simply figured from there. But the assumption and method is flawed.
And it wasn't the WSJ, it was two economists who have done research on this question. They simply published a popular version of the research.

Factcheck.org:

"The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, more commonly known as the stimulus bill, has been featured in more than 130 TV ads this year, according to a database maintained by Kantar Media’s Campaign Media Analysis Group. In many of those ads, Republicans claim the bill has "failed" (a matter of opinion) or state (correctly) that unemployment has gone up since President Barack Obama signed the bill into law on Feb. 17, 2009. The national unemployment rate was 8.2 percent in February 2009, and it now stands at 9.6 percent, having peaked at 10.1 percent in October 2009.
But it’s just false to say that the stimulus created "no jobs" or "failed to save and create jobs" or "has done nothing to reduce unemployment" – or similar claims that the stimulus did not produce any jobs.
As we have written before, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office released a report in August that said the stimulus bill has "[l]owered the unemployment rate by between 0.7 percentage points and 1.8 percentage points" and "ncreased the number of people employed by between 1.4 million and 3.3 million."
Simply put, more people would be unemployed if not for the stimulus bill. The exact number of jobs created and saved is difficult to estimate, but nonpartisan economists say there’s no doubt that the number is positive."

Did the Stimulus Create Jobs? | FactCheck.org


"To date, there has been more than $200 billion of tax relief and income support provided to households by the ARRA. These funds have had a disproportionately large impact on the incomes of middle- and lower-income families.
CEA estimates that without these provisions, household real disposable income would have fallen substantially in 2009. Figure 6 from the report (reproduced below) shows actual after-tax family income alongside income without the tax relief and income support provisions of the Recovery Act. Without the tax cuts and income support provisions of the ARRA, consumer spending would not have rebounded as it did and, indeed, would likely have continued to fall.
As of 2010:Q1, the tax relief and income support provisions of the Recovery Act have saved or created between 1.1 and 1.4 million jobs, or roughly one-half of the total number of jobs saved or created by the Act."

http://www.businessinsider.com/obama-administration-stimulus-2010-4

 

[Common Sense]

I can just keep adding them...

"In a report released on Jan. 13, 2010, the president's Council of Economic Advisers estimated that between 1.77 million jobs and 2.07 million jobs were created or saved by the stimulus through the fourth quarter of 2009.

Separately, the council's report cited four independent analyses of the same question. These estimates were by the Congressional Budget Office, Congress' nonpartisan number-crunching arm, as well by three private-sector economic-analysis firms. Here's what those groups found:
• CBO: Between 800,000 jobs (low estimate) and 2.4 million jobs (high estimate) saved or created.
• IHS/Global Insight: 1.25 million jobs saved or created.
• Macroeconomic Advisers: 1.06 million jobs saved or created.
• Moody's economy.com: 1.59 million jobs saved or created.

.....With the notable exception of conservatives, the independent economists who have produced studies agree that the stimulus has saved or created upwards of 1 million jobs, and that the bill will likely create another million or so jobs in 2010. These numbers are based on a "counterfactual" study that is an estimate subject to some professional disagreement...."

PolitiFact | Obama says stimulus is responsible for 2 million jobs saved or created

 

[The Rabbi]

so then tell us what the affect would have been had the stimulus not been enacted? how many more jobs would have been lost? how much higher would unemployment have been? no one analyzes this side of the argument. they simply blame the stimulus. and dont forget Bush set up the first stimulus which just have everyone cash in hand.

the stimulus created no jobs. Unemployment would be the exact same as it is today. The big difference would be we would not be an extra $850B in debt.

so you have any proof or economist theory to back this claim?

Read the article.
Read the article
Read the article.

This will be my response to any of your posts until you've demonstrated that you've read the article.

 

[The Rabbi]

I can just keep adding them...

"In a report released on Jan. 13, 2010, the president's Council of Economic Advisers estimated that between 1.77 million jobs and 2.07 million jobs were created or saved by the stimulus through the fourth quarter of 2009.

Separately, the council's report cited four independent analyses of the same question. These estimates were by the Congressional Budget Office, Congress' nonpartisan number-crunching arm, as well by three private-sector economic-analysis firms. Here's what those groups found:
• CBO: Between 800,000 jobs (low estimate) and 2.4 million jobs (high estimate) saved or created.
• IHS/Global Insight: 1.25 million jobs saved or created.
• Macroeconomic Advisers: 1.06 million jobs saved or created.
• Moody's economy.com: 1.59 million jobs saved or created.

.....With the notable exception of conservatives, the independent economists who have produced studies agree that the stimulus has saved or created upwards of 1 million jobs, and that the bill will likely create another million or so jobs in 2010. These numbers are based on a "counterfactual" study that is an estimate subject to some professional disagreement...."

PolitiFact | Obama says stimulus is responsible for 2 million jobs saved or created

Three times zero is still zero. You can keep posting the adminsitration's crappy "created or saved" estimates but you cannot deny the original research in the article. Which you haven't read.

 

[Common Sense]

if youre not even willing to examine the possibility of someone elses opinion you are just ignorant. youre putting on blinders an willing to listen to only 2 guys? yeah that smart.

thats all im trying to prove here. economist dont agree across the board on anything. but youre unwilling to look outside this one "opinion". thus you are ignorant.

 

[shintao]

Column in the WSJ today by two prominent economists examined the Keynesian idea of gov't spending filling the gap in private demand in regards to the stimulus. What they found was government grants to states and localities merely substituted for local borrowing. IOW, there was no stimulus achieved at all. Aggregate demand was the same as before. The Obama stimulus was, again, proof that Keynesianism is simply wrong.
John F. Cogan and John B. Taylor: The Obama Stimulus Impact? Zero - WSJ.com

Ohh, you finally figured that out Rabbi. Seems when I brought up giving the voters the stimulus money the retards here were so greedy they didn't want the poor in poverty to have any money to put into the economy, so instead, you got nothing dude. How's that working out for you. Learn any lessons?