Results In: Demand Stimulus is a Failure

[The Rabbi]

How about addressing what I actually said this time.

Because it's irrelevant.
There has never been a recession that did not end. Period.
This one ended after massive government spending and stimulus. ANd the results were no better-actually worse--than recessions that ended when the government did much less or nothing.

Glad to know that the verge of financial disaster is irrelevant.

No problem. Any other fallacies or misconceptions you have, PM me and I'll set you straight on it.

 

[The Rabbi]

They should have taken the TARP and Stimulus monies and sent me a check, well all US citizens a check, we would have put it to better use....

How about not borrowing/taxing the money in the first place?

 

[jknowgood]

So let's see. As you've pointed out.

"The Recession Ended"

"Job growth improved"

That doesn't sound like failure. But if you keep moving the goal posts, you'll never be satisfied. Is your memory so short that you can't remember how close we were to a MUCH greater disaster at the end of 2007?

Bush's recession would have ended much sooner if infrastructure, training and job stimuli proposed had been approved.


But Congress was too concerned with making Obama look like a failure than passing bills.

Congrress was completely controlled by Democrats for the first 2years. There was not a spending bill that was not approved.
Fail.

Dang it, you beat me to it, he also doesn't get it they were in control for several years in the end of the bush era. I would call him numb nuts, buf i'm sure he would get exited.

 

[jillian]

Simple thinking is so ... well, simple.

Nowhere in the 'thinking' of those above [RDD excepted] are all variables considered or even conceived of, yet they are so cocksure of themselves. Pitiful, but very typical of concrete thinkers and those of lesser wit (yeah, a bit ad 'hominel' but true and honest comments).

Projects completed and still in progress have and will have a long term positive effect on economic growth, much as the interstate highway system, the building of airports and light rail systems did in the 19th and 20th Centuries.

Austerity is not equivalent to fiscal responsibility, as the proverb, "for want of a nail", reminds those of us who actually think.

randian idiots have no clue.

 

[Moonglow]

They should have taken the TARP and Stimulus monies and sent me a check, well all US citizens a check, we would have put it to better use....

How about not borrowing/taxing the money in the first place?

That would work also....

 

[Moonglow]

Bush's recession would have ended much sooner if infrastructure, training and job stimuli proposed had been approved.


But Congress was too concerned with making Obama look like a failure than passing bills.

Congrress was completely controlled by Democrats for the first 2years. There was not a spending bill that was not approved.
Fail.

Dang it, you beat me to it, he also doesn't get it they were in control for several years in the end of the bush era. I would call him numb nuts, buf i'm sure he would get exited.

Bush did approve of TARP..

 

[The Rabbi]

Congrress was completely controlled by Democrats for the first 2years. There was not a spending bill that was not approved.
Fail.

Dang it, you beat me to it, he also doesn't get it they were in control for several years in the end of the bush era. I would call him numb nuts, buf i'm sure he would get exited.

Bush did approve of TARP..

Yes he did. He also extended it to the automakers over Congressional objections. A low for his administration.
What was your point?

 

[Shrimpbox]

What I keep getting confused about is f you go to the Atlantic mobile article the graph clearly shows the results would have been just as good without the stimulus. And stop kidding yourself about projects that have just not come on line yet, the stimulus went to public sector unions to funnel money into dem coffers just as the green energy scams do, even Obama had to say his shovel ready projects were not really shovel ready, which translated means he had no clue about the economic effects but only the political ones. I also believe that all the stimulus has not been spent as Obama holds it back to reward more political cronies.

Face it , he is going to throw one govt program after another up against the wall til one sticks and he can claim that govt does it best. Obama never follows up on the results of any of his programs because they are failures, and his strategy is to capitalize on Americans short attention span and keeps getting America to look at this hand so they can't see what the other hand is doing

 

[Billy000]

LA Times

The Stimulus Absolutely, Positively Worked, No Doubt About It, Probably - Atlantic Mobile

CBO updates its economic projections, confirms earlier assessment that the Recovery Act created jobs | New Republic

http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/08-23-2012-RecoveryAct.pdf

https://nonprofitquarterly.org/poli...he-obama-stimulus-a-success-or-a-failure.html

You throw the results of a Google search and think that somehow constitutes an argument?
/fail.

like you have any room to talk!

 

[Billy000]

Writiing in today's WSJ, Alan Reynolds shows pretty conclusively that all the "demand side" stimulus of the Obama era failed. The recession ended. Job growth edged up. But based on all the money thrown at it, growth should have been in excess of other recoveries. It wasn't. It was worse. Over a trillion dollars wasted.
Alan Reynolds: Demand-Side Policy Gave Us the Big Economic Fizzle - WSJ.com


more at the source.

Man you are pathetic. A child who throws a tantrum when he can't win an argument.

I'm failing to see how this article explains why the stimulus failed. It only brings light the issue of federal spending in general. Not specific economic stimulators. It makes no mention of the actual gains cited by the CBO. The article is so obviously partisan it's laughable.


Obama's stimulus had two flaws:

1) it was not big enough. The economy lost 8 million jobs. The stimulus only created 2.5 million. That is why GDP did not budge much. It had a very little long term effect. However, it saved us from a Great Depression. We just need more bills like it.

2) it included huge tax cuts for the wealthy. Tax cuts across the board do not stimulate growth. Every dollar lost in revenue only creates .57 cents in growth. This made it less effective.


Extending EU which was a provision of the stimulus creates 1.71 in economic demand. Thus the dollar lost is replaced by growth.

19000 jobs per billion dollar stimulus is what resulted from the stimulus.

You failed to refute the article, which was very clear. Look at the unprecedented level of stimulus and compare that to actual results. The level was higher than ever before. The results were worse than ever before.
You cannot refute both those facts.

You clearly have no idea what the crap you post means. Tell me why is it that so many unbiased sources confirm that the stimulus created 2.5 million jobs if demand side stimulus didn't work?

 

[1776]

Uneducated liberals will just call you a liar, a racist, etc for not believing their hero lying about the economy.

They run bogus stories in the media that Obama "saved" jobs and that the recovery is around the corner.....every 6 months.

They are just full of shit.

 

[Stephanie]

Obama stole 800 billion dollars that he said he needed for the economy and then turned around and signed to BUILD A MONSTER government PROGRAM that cost, 1.5TRILLION dollars to hang on us that we get to PAY FOR, millions spent on advertixing, while raising 21 new taxes just in OScamCare, raised the highest cigarette taxes of any President before him, 1000 or new regulations, etc...we now been waiting six summers for some sign of a recovery...please

SNIP:



Reagan and Obama: A Tale of Two Recoveries

How these two presidents responded to a deep recession reveals polar extremes in policy. And in results.



By Phil Gramm


Aug. 29, 2012 6:38 p.m. ET


Only twice since World War II has the U.S. unemployment rate reached 10%: It was 10.8% in 1982 and 10% in 2009. The different responses of Presidents Ronald Reagan and Barack Obama—Reagan lowering taxes and lifting regulatory and other barriers to economic growth, Mr. Obama increasing the size and reach of the government—represent polar extremes in policy. And in results.

Fifty-five months after the recession started in July 1981, the Reagan recovery had created 7.8 million more jobs than when the recession started, and real per capita gross domestic product was up by $3,091. Fifty-five months after the recession that began in December 2007, there were four million fewer Americans working than when the recession started, and real per capita GDP was down $803.

The trajectory of household income is even more telling. According to Sentier Research analysis of monthly U.S. Census data, during the current recovery American households have lost more income than they lost during the recession. In December 2007, real median household income was $54,916. It had fallen to $53,508 when the recession ended 18 months later. But by June 2012, real median family income had fallen to $50,964.

During the Reagan recovery from 1981 to 1986, real median household income on an annualized basis rose by $3,380 or 7.7%.

There are other, deeply troubling differences between the Reagan and Obama recoveries.

In July, most Americans were shocked to discover that 246,000 new people had qualified for disability benefits during the previous three months, while only 225,000 people had found new jobs. A total of 471,000 Americans left the unemployment rolls—but the difference between qualifying for disability benefits and getting a job is profound for the economy and for the people involved. Fifty-five months after the 1981 recession began, the number of Americans drawing disability benefits had actually dropped by 655,000—or 14.3%.

The explosion of disability payments is only the tip of the iceberg. Fifty-five months after the 1981 recession began, the number of people on food stamps had fallen by three million, or 13.4%. The number of food-stamp recipients since the recession that began in December 2007 has grown to more than 46 million, from 26 million—a mind-boggling 71% increase.

While part of this growth is attributable to the failed recovery, a significant amount has been created by the administration's effort to expand the food-stamp rolls. In a pamphlet on its website, the U.S. Department of Agriculture recommends that its employees provide "games, food and entertainment. . . . [P]utting SNAP [food stamp] information in a game format like bingo, crossword puzzles, or even a 'true/false' quiz . . . helps get your message across." The department is now trying to turn food stamps into an economic development program, asserting on its website that $1.00 in new food stamps generates $1.92 in "new economic activity."

The number of beneficiaries of the Aid to Families With Dependent Children program had declined by 1%, or 42,000 people, 55 months after the Reagan recession began. During the Obama recovery, the number of beneficiaries in AFDC's successor program, the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families program, has increased by 467,000, or 12%. This number can be expected to grow dramatically as a result of the administration's recent decision to waive work requirements for these welfare recipients.

Fifty-five months into the Reagan recovery, the number of Americans drawing unemployment insurance had dropped by 357,000, or 11.9%. Today there are 500,000 more Americans drawing unemployment insurance than when the 2007 recession started, an increase of 19.2%. Historical data and Congressional Budget Office projections for 2012 also indicate that in the Reagan recovery, Medicaid enrollment grew by 535,000, or 2.4%. In the Obama recovery, Medicaid enrollment has grown by more than 11 million, or 19.7%.

In summary, the Obama administration not only has failed to bring back the American economy, it has ushered in a frightening growth in dependence. A review of the data from the 126 programs that today make up America's $1 trillion welfare system shows the same basic pattern over and over again. Expenditures on means-tested welfare programs have grown 2.5 times faster during the Obama administration than in any similar time period in American history. In those welfare programs that existed during the Reagan era, the recovery resulted in either a decline in beneficiaries or a slower rate of growth. These same programs have ballooned during this administration.

When Americans voted for Barack Obama in 2008, they knew or should have known that they were choosing a bigger federal government, higher taxes and an expansion in the role that government would play in their lives and businesses. They voted for it and they got it.

ALL of it here
Phil Gramm: Reagan and Obama: A Tale of Two Recoveries - WSJ.com