Stimulus Bill Supported by Economists

[rayboyusmc]

They aren't the CATO Institute, but they are economists. Maybe they never read about the Trojan Donkey.

Tax cuts alone will not work. They haven't for the last 8 years. If you continue to do what you've always done, you only get what you've already got.

Economists' Letter to Congress in Support of a New Economic Stimulus Package

November 19, 2008

This letter, signed by 387 economists, including Nobel Laureates Joseph Stiglitz, Robert Solow, and George Akerlof, urges Congress to move quickly and decisively to pass an effective new economic stimulus package. The economists state that a stimulus package should be in the range of $300 to $400 billion per year and should be geared toward targets that inject capital into the nation's economic system immediately.

CEPR - Economists' Letter to Congress in Support of a New Economic Stimulus Package

 

[dilloduck]

They aren't the CATO Institute, but they are economists. Maybe they never read about the Trojan Donkey.

Tax cuts alone will not work. They haven't for the last 8 years. If you continue to do what you've always done, you only get what you've already got.

Economists' Letter to Congress in Support of a New Economic Stimulus Package

November 19, 2008

This letter, signed by 387 economists, including Nobel Laureates Joseph Stiglitz, Robert Solow, and George Akerlof, urges Congress to move quickly and decisively to pass an effective new economic stimulus package. The economists state that a stimulus package should be in the range of $300 to $400 billion per year and should be geared toward targets that inject capital into the nation's economic system immediately.

CEPR - Economists' Letter to Congress in Support of a New Economic Stimulus Package

If this is the best they can come up with then I recommend they just send us all a check.

 

[rayboyusmc]

It's more than the right has come up with.

 

[del]

It's more than the right has come up with.

oh, well then, why didn't you say so?
that's an excellent reason to piss away almost a trillion dollars.

 

[rayboyusmc]

So you are saying all these economists are wrong and you are right?

My comment about the right comes from all the repub polls on TV saying that we have to have more tax cuts when we see today they didn't work.

 

[del]

So you are saying all these economists are wrong and you are right?

My comment about the right comes from all the repub polls on TV saying that we have to have more tax cuts when we see today they didn't work.

they don't work unless you simultaneously reduce spending.
that means at the same time.
i used the smallest words i could to help you understand.
you're welcome.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Cut taxes and cut government spending. The private sector is where wealth is created.

You could listen to 387 Keynesians, but Keynesian economics is what got us into this mess in the first place. We're certainly not in this recession for a lack of government spending.

 

[oreo]

They aren't the CATO Institute, but they are economists. Maybe they never read about the Trojan Donkey.

Tax cuts alone will not work. They haven't for the last 8 years. If you continue to do what you've always done, you only get what you've already got.

Economists' Letter to Congress in Support of a New Economic Stimulus Package

November 19, 2008

This letter, signed by 387 economists, including Nobel Laureates Joseph Stiglitz, Robert Solow, and George Akerlof, urges Congress to move quickly and decisively to pass an effective new economic stimulus package. The economists state that a stimulus package should be in the range of $300 to $400 billion per year and should be geared toward targets that inject capital into the nation's economic system immediately.

CEPR - Economists' Letter to Congress in Support of a New Economic Stimulus Package

What got us into trouble was not 8 years of tax cuts--but big out of control government spending. Add to that the government working their sticky fingers into Freddie/Fannie, specifically in 1999--pressuring banks into lending to people who were buying homes they could have never afforded in a fixed rate mortgage. It wasn't that there was no government regulation, there was. The government basically lowered the standards for loaning out money.

All roads in this economic disaster lead right back to Fannie/Freddie. Fannie/Freddie is GROUND ZERO! Therefore, it is our government fault that we're where we're at today. The irony--the same people that got us into this mess are the ones claiming they can get us out.

As many economists who agree with this new stimulus bill -- there are just as many that disagree. In fact, over the 750 billion banking bail-out--over 400 economists, professors in economics, private economists, etc. The best in the nation wrote our congress & told them whatever you do do not do this. Well, they did anyway, because it was an election year.

And look where it has taken us. Unemployment a slow drip beginning last year has now gone to faucet open full troddle.

 

[jreeves]

They aren't the CATO Institute, but they are economists. Maybe they never read about the Trojan Donkey.

Tax cuts alone will not work. They haven't for the last 8 years. If you continue to do what you've always done, you only get what you've already got.

Economists' Letter to Congress in Support of a New Economic Stimulus Package

November 19, 2008

This letter, signed by 387 economists, including Nobel Laureates Joseph Stiglitz, Robert Solow, and George Akerlof, urges Congress to move quickly and decisively to pass an effective new economic stimulus package. The economists state that a stimulus package should be in the range of $300 to $400 billion per year and should be geared toward targets that inject capital into the nation's economic system immediately.

CEPR - Economists' Letter to Congress in Support of a New Economic Stimulus Package

From the non-partisan CBO economists....

Washington Times - CBO: Obama stimulus harmful over long haul
President Obama's economic recovery package will actually hurt the economy more in the long run than if he were to do nothing, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said Wednesday.

CBO, the official scorekeepers for legislation, said the House and Senate bills will help in the short term but result in so much government debt that within a few years they would crowd out private investment, actually leading to a lower Gross Domestic Product over the next 10 years than if the government had done nothing.

 

[rayboyusmc]

i used the smallest words i could to help you understand.
you're welcome.

Thank you. You're so kind.

When the recovery bill has succeeded in starting US back on a recovery, I will be a sarcastic smartass like you and use smal wrds also. But I am glad thay you know more than the 300 plus economists.

Hate to hurt your feelings, but the right doesn't have all the answers either, they just think they do.

 

[rayboyusmc]

My Dearest Del,

Your position on this is no more sound than mine.

Please, if people on both sides would discuss these issues which are important to our country without the sarcasm and godlike certitude, we might actually be able to work out a solution.

A lot of readers have asked us to sort through the various arguments about whether or not the stimulus bill (which, at the moment, is actually two different bills, one in the House and one in the Senate) will actually work. But we just don’t know the answer to this one. For that matter, even the experts don’t know. On one side, Nobel laureates Paul Krugman and Joseph Stiglitz argue that the only problem with the stimulus bill is that it needs more spending and fewer tax cuts. Those opposing the stimulus have their share of Nobel winners, too. Gary Becker warns that government spending will “crowd out” private spending much more than stimulus supporters believe, while James Buchanan, Edward Prescott and Vernon Smith signed a full-page New York Times ad saying that they don’t believe that more government spending will improve the economy.

Why all the uncertainty among first-rate economists? Well, for one thing, economists have very little data with which to work. There are plenty of theoretical models out there, but those models are largely untested. See, economics is a relatively new discipline, with much of its most important work having been done just within the last 50 years. Fortunately for most of us, the world hasn’t seen many serious, worldwide economic crises during that time. Unfortunately for us, our long period of relative prosperity means that economists haven’t been able to plug a lot of real-world situations into their models to see how well those models hold up. Indeed, there are basically just two modern depressions: the Great Depression and the so-called “lost decade” in Japan during the 1990s.

Will the Stimulus Work? | The FactCheck Wire

 

[toomuchtime_]

My Dearest Del,

Your position on this is no more sound than mine.

Please, if people on both sides would discuss these issues which are important to our country without the sarcasm and godlike certitude, we might actually be able to work out a solution.

A lot of readers have asked us to sort through the various arguments about whether or not the stimulus bill (which, at the moment, is actually two different bills, one in the House and one in the Senate) will actually work. But we just don’t know the answer to this one. For that matter, even the experts don’t know. On one side, Nobel laureates Paul Krugman and Joseph Stiglitz argue that the only problem with the stimulus bill is that it needs more spending and fewer tax cuts. Those opposing the stimulus have their share of Nobel winners, too. Gary Becker warns that government spending will “crowd out” private spending much more than stimulus supporters believe, while James Buchanan, Edward Prescott and Vernon Smith signed a full-page New York Times ad saying that they don’t believe that more government spending will improve the economy.

Why all the uncertainty among first-rate economists? Well, for one thing, economists have very little data with which to work. There are plenty of theoretical models out there, but those models are largely untested. See, economics is a relatively new discipline, with much of its most important work having been done just within the last 50 years. Fortunately for most of us, the world hasn’t seen many serious, worldwide economic crises during that time. Unfortunately for us, our long period of relative prosperity means that economists haven’t been able to plug a lot of real-world situations into their models to see how well those models hold up. Indeed, there are basically just two modern depressions: the Great Depression and the so-called “lost decade” in Japan during the 1990s.

Will the Stimulus Work? | The FactCheck Wire

It makes no sense to ask if the stimulus bill will work unless you specify what you expect it to do. In his press conference, Obama made very modest claims about what he expects it to do. He said it will slow down the rate of job loss, pay for some very worthwhile programs and provide some aid to people who are hurting, but he acknowledged it will do nothing to turn around the private sector economy, that only fixing the financial system will do that, and Geithner said, in effect, that beyond spending the remaining $350 billion of the TARP money, the administration does not have a worked out plan for how to fix the financial system. So putting together what Obama said and what Geithner said, the administration does not have a worked out plan for how to end the recession.

 

[Skull Pilot]

So your 300 or 400 billion per year over three years becomes a one time 2 trillion dollar shotgun blast that no one really knows will work.

that's what our noble tax cheat of a treasury secretary thinks after all he's only been on the job for two weeks and despite having been a player in the Fed for years, he still doesn't know if this bill will work.

the only thing we do know for sure is that we'll all die if the money is not spent.

And I will agree that tax cuts and spending increases never work but it is a little contradictory for Dims to say we tried "their" way when they are doing the same thing.

Here's a novel idea: Have the government spend less money and give that back to us in the form of tax cuts. i know it's tough to understand but at least the idea is not self contradictory.

 

[rayboyusmc]

So how will these tax cuts creat jobs?

If I don't have a job, what good is a tax cut?

 

[Skull Pilot]

So how will these tax cuts creat jobs?

If I don't have a job, what good is a tax cut?

the tax cuts don't "create' jobs

the tax cuts give the public more money to use as they see fit. The exchange of this money in the economy will create jobs in areas the people care to spend their money.

the type of jobs resulting from this kind of spending will be more sustainable than those of a temporary government contract to insulate a few houses.

 

[rayboyusmc]

"a few houses?"

Yet while job creation is arguably the most important goal of the stimulus package, other parts of the bill will have a much more immediate and visible impact. Food stamp increases and extensions of unemployment benefits will be among the first noticeable effects of the package. Tax credit payments for individuals and families would follow, along with other tax breaks and incentives. Rising consumer confidence and lower unemployment will be far more gradual, and aren't likely to surface until late 2009 at the earliest.

There's an understanding among many economists that the sooner a government intervenes in an economic crisis, the more effective it tends to be in getting the economy back on track. That doesn't mean that precise measurement of success is easy, however. "The problem is, we don't know what trajectory the economy would take without the stimulus package," says J. Bradford DeLong, an economics professor at the University of California-Berkeley. "We can't enter a Star Trek-like divided universe in which we compare what's happening with the stimulus versus without it. It's hard to precisely judge its impact."

DeLong says that looking at interest rates will provide a clearer idea of whether the stimulus plan is working. "If interest rates stay extremely low, the plan is definitely working," he says. "If Treasury interest rates do start to rise by more than normal levels, then we worry that (the spending) is crowding out private economic activity and discouraging investment." Specifically, he says that if medium- to long-term Treasury bond interest rates climb two or three percentage points higher in the next year and inflation sets in, the stimulus package is not having its intended effect.

Stimulus: How to Know If It's Working - Yahoo! News

 

[Andrew2382]

Washington Times - CBO: Obama stimulus harmful over long haul

President Obama's economic recovery package will actually hurt the economy more in the long run than if he were to do nothing, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said Wednesday.

CBO, the official scorekeepers for legislation, said the House and Senate bills will help in the short term but result in so much government debt that within a few years they would crowd out private investment, actually leading to a lower Gross Domestic Product over the next 10 years than if the government had done nothing.

 

[editec]

So how will these tax cuts creat jobs?

If I don't have a job, what good is a tax cut?

the tax cuts don't "create' jobs

the tax cuts give the public more money to use as they see fit. The exchange of this money in the economy will create jobs in areas the people care to spend their money.

the type of jobs resulting from this kind of spending will be more sustainable than those of a temporary government contract to insulate a few houses.

Something like $360,000,000,000 of this proposed package IS tax cuts, folks.

It is money that we aren't borrowing immediately, but instead will have to borrow when those revenues aren't forthcoming because of the tax cuts.

 

[rayboyusmc]

6 of these, a half dozen of the others.

No one really fucking knows because we haven't faced anything like this in our time..

WASHINGTON — The $825 billion stimulus proposal that Democrats unveiled last week may encounter stiff opposition from conservatives on Capitol Hill. But it isn't meeting significant resistance from conservative economists.

While economists might quibble with specifics, the vast majority agree that some kind of massive government spending plan is necessary.

"Most conservative economists are all for it," said Mark Zandi, a founder of Moody's Economy.com who advised GOP presidential candidate John McCain.

The reason is fairly straightforward. With economic uncertainty higher than at any time since the Great Depression, consumers and businesses are more reluctant to resume spending than in previous downturns.....

Republican lawmakers are uncomfortable with government spending programs, usually preferring tax cuts. But so far, Republicans have not demanded new tax cuts. One reason is that while permanent tax cuts can foster long-term growth, in the short term most economists agree they create less economic demand than direct government spending.

Economists explain the debate this way: When the government spends $1 to buy an item or a service, economic output (or gross domestic product) automatically goes up by $1. And then it goes up a bit more, because whoever gets that $1 spends at least part of it buying supplies or paying workers, who in turn use it to buy food, gas or medical care. So $1 of direct government spending becomes roughly $1.57 of GDP, according to projections by economic advisers to President-elect Barack Obama.

Conservative economists back stimulus plan -- chicagotribune.com

 

[Bern80]

They aren't the CATO Institute, but they are economists. Maybe they never read about the Trojan Donkey.

Tax cuts alone will not work. They haven't for the last 8 years. If you continue to do what you've always done, you only get what you've already got.

Economists' Letter to Congress in Support of a New Economic Stimulus Package

November 19, 2008

This letter, signed by 387 economists, including Nobel Laureates Joseph Stiglitz, Robert Solow, and George Akerlof, urges Congress to move quickly and decisively to pass an effective new economic stimulus package. The economists state that a stimulus package should be in the range of $300 to $400 billion per year and should be geared toward targets that inject capital into the nation's economic system immediately.

CEPR - Economists' Letter to Congress in Support of a New Economic Stimulus Package

What got us into trouble was not 8 years of tax cuts--but big out of control government spending. Add to that the government working their sticky fingers into Freddie/Fannie, specifically in 1999--pressuring banks into lending to people who were buying homes they could have never afforded in a fixed rate mortgage. It wasn't that there was no government regulation, there was. The government basically lowered the standards for loaning out money.

All roads in this economic disaster lead right back to Fannie/Freddie. Fannie/Freddie is GROUND ZERO! Therefore, it is our government fault that we're where we're at today. The irony--the same people that got us into this mess are the ones claiming they can get us out.

As many economists who agree with this new stimulus bill -- there are just as many that disagree. In fact, over the 750 billion banking bail-out--over 400 economists, professors in economics, private economists, etc. The best in the nation wrote our congress & told them whatever you do do not do this. Well, they did anyway, because it was an election year.

And look where it has taken us. Unemployment a slow drip beginning last year has now gone to faucet open full troddle.

And even then these economists aren't saying they agree with Obama's bill. Basically all they're saying is some type of stimulus package needs to be passed. I think it should be quite clear this letter is not an endoresement of Obama's specific plan.