Why we want stimulus now and worry about deficits later

[hortysir]

Stop playing an idiot. When you are driving at 100 mph and start to brake, do you expect to stop instantly? Well you better not, 'cause you will be traveling another 1000 ft before the brakes can stop you.

Same with the economy -- the stimulus could not turn it around overnight. But it did it in just 3 months.

You said stopped the layoffs, idiot.
You didn't say slowed the layoffs.

Human language is inherently imprecise, you moron, so stop nit-picking.

You know stopped has a different meaning than slowed, don't you?

What I meant that there has to be a few months lag between the moment the ink dried on Obama's signature and the moment the unemployment level started to level off. That is what supposed to happen and in no way this could be a signature of the stimulus failing.

So back to my original question, how much had been spent in those first 3 months?

Back to my original answer -- the employers saw the revenues picking up in the near future so they slowed down the layoffs even before a the bulk of the stimulus money were spent.

Starting to see a pattern, aren't we?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Which employers saw revenue picking up from the "stimulus"?

Every single one of them could expect some improvement from the stimulus. Only some will get the government contracts, but the rest would benefit indirectly. For example, if a government contractor hire a worker, then a local restaurant can expect a new customer.

That is how the multiplier works -- each increase in the government spending results in the private sector spending more than it would otherwise.

With a $1.5 trillion deficit, why didn't the multiplier bring us to 3% unemployment?

 

[saveliberty]

Yes, stopped. You are deliberately misrepresenting facts by ignoring how the unemployment rate was changing before ARRA was enacted and after.

The economy was losing around 800,000 jobs each month since May 2008. After ARRA was signed the bleeding slowed down dramatically, then stopped:

Databases, Tables & Calculators by Subject

You keep avoiding those facts because you are either a moron, or a liar.

Stopped would show a level graph, not an ever increasing one. Your own chart shows you're lying.

Just if you are wondering why I'm leaving most of you comments w/o an answer -- most of the times I am simply at a loss. You are looking at a graph that clearly levels off at some point and you see an "ever increasing one". What should I do -- call you a moron, or suggest that you should talk to an eye doctor? I honestly don't know, but I'm pretty sure that neither would add to the discussion.

Doesn't do what you said at three months. Overall the chart shows an upward trend.

 

[ilia25]

Which employers saw revenue picking up from the "stimulus"?

Every single one of them could expect some improvement from the stimulus. Only some will get the government contracts, but the rest would benefit indirectly. For example, if a government contractor hire a worker, then a local restaurant can expect a new customer.

That is how the multiplier works -- each increase in the government spending results in the private sector spending more than it would otherwise.

With a $1.5 trillion deficit, why didn't the multiplier bring us to 3% unemployment?

Because it is the increase in spending that stimulates the economy, not the increase in deficit.

 

[Full-Auto]

Every single one of them could expect some improvement from the stimulus. Only some will get the government contracts, but the rest would benefit indirectly. For example, if a government contractor hire a worker, then a local restaurant can expect a new customer.

That is how the multiplier works -- each increase in the government spending results in the private sector spending more than it would otherwise.

With a $1.5 trillion deficit, why didn't the multiplier bring us to 3% unemployment?

Because it is the increase in spending that stimulates the economy, not the increase in deficit.

It did not stimulate, it only maintained the status quo for a moment.

 

[hortysir]

Every single one of them could expect some improvement from the stimulus. Only some will get the government contracts, but the rest would benefit indirectly. For example, if a government contractor hire a worker, then a local restaurant can expect a new customer.

That is how the multiplier works -- each increase in the government spending results in the private sector spending more than it would otherwise.

With a $1.5 trillion deficit, why didn't the multiplier bring us to 3% unemployment?

Because it is the increase in spending that stimulates the economy, not the increase in deficit.

And spending doesn't increase the deficit???

 

[saveliberty]

Which employers saw revenue picking up from the "stimulus"?

Every single one of them could expect some improvement from the stimulus. Only some will get the government contracts, but the rest would benefit indirectly. For example, if a government contractor hire a worker, then a local restaurant can expect a new customer.
That is how the multiplier works -- each increase in the government spending results in the private sector spending more than it would otherwise.

Sounds like trickle down economics.

Please go on.

 

[ilia25]

With a $1.5 trillion deficit, why didn't the multiplier bring us to 3% unemployment?

Because it is the increase in spending that stimulates the economy, not the increase in deficit.

And spending doesn't increase the deficit???

Yes, horty, it does.

 

[ilia25]

Which employers saw revenue picking up from the "stimulus"?

Every single one of them could expect some improvement from the stimulus. Only some will get the government contracts, but the rest would benefit indirectly. For example, if a government contractor hire a worker, then a local restaurant can expect a new customer.
That is how the multiplier works -- each increase in the government spending results in the private sector spending more than it would otherwise.

Sounds like trickle down economics.

Please go on.

It trickles allright, just not down.

 

[saveliberty]

Every single one of them could expect some improvement from the stimulus. Only some will get the government contracts, but the rest would benefit indirectly. For example, if a government contractor hire a worker, then a local restaurant can expect a new customer.
That is how the multiplier works -- each increase in the government spending results in the private sector spending more than it would otherwise.

Sounds like trickle down economics.

Please go on.

It trickles allright, just not down.

You realize that means you agree with Obama's stimulus as a failure?

 

[thereisnospoon]

What questions?

So, the unemployment rate did not rise from 7.8% before the Porkulus to 9.3% after?

Is that your claim?

No, this was not my claim. You are putting words in my mouth.



Your numbers are bad, but the unemployment did rise after the stimulus was signed.



Bullshit.

By the time ARRA was signed by Obama the US economy had been losing jobs fast for 5 straight months. And just 3 months later the bleeding stopped.

Stopped? We were above 9% UE through November 2011.

Yes, stopped. You are deliberately misrepresenting facts by ignoring how the unemployment rate was changing before ARRA was enacted and after.

The economy was losing around 800,000 jobs each month since May 2008. After ARRA was signed the bleeding slowed down dramatically, then stopped:

Databases, Tables & Calculators by Subject

You keep avoiding those facts because you are either a moron, or a liar.

The only unemployment stat that matters ( the one the Obama admin runs away from) is U-6. That counts ALL eligible workers not employed or are working part time and collecting unemployment bennies.
That 8.3% number is used to make people feel better.

 

[Papageorgio]

Japan never had high unemployment. So maybe their stimulus wasn't really a failure?

Quoting you:

The only reason for having a stimulus is reducing a high unemployment.



What was the reason for Japan's stimulus plan, then?

You should ask Japanese -- but my guess they wanted stimulus to prevent the unemployment from rising too high. And it didn't.

So Japanese stimuli could have helped -- and they sure didn't make it worse.

So ten years it took Japan come out of a small recession, with nine stimulus programs? How long would it have lasted if not for the stimulus? We have had recessions, worse than Japan's and recovered faster, without a stimulus. Most economist believe we would have recovered from the Great Depression earlier had we not had so much stimulus. It is a temporary fix and we pass the problem to the next generation.

 

[sealybobo]

If you cut taxes, revenues will fall and deficits will increase. If you change the CBO's scoring process to hide this fact -- as is under consideration by leading Republicans -- you are engaging in exactly the same sort of deception that brought down Greece.

 

[ilia25]

If you cut taxes, revenues will fall and deficits will increase. If you change the CBO's scoring process to hide this fact -- as is under consideration by leading Republicans -- you are engaging in exactly the same sort of deception that brought down Greece.

Hear, hear!

Primary Numbers: The GOP Candidates and the National Debt | Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget
http://crfb.org/sites/default/files/analysis_president_fy2013_budget.pdf

 

[ilia25]

Quoting you:

The only reason for having a stimulus is reducing a high unemployment.



What was the reason for Japan's stimulus plan, then?

You should ask Japanese -- but my guess they wanted stimulus to prevent the unemployment from rising too high. And it didn't.

So Japanese stimuli could have helped -- and they sure didn't make it worse.

So ten years it took Japan come out of a small recession, with nine stimulus programs? How long would it have lasted if not for the stimulus?

Obviously, it could have been worse.

We have had recessions, worse than Japan's and recovered faster, without a stimulus.

In 1981 the recession was deliberately created by the Fed rising the rates. Hence the Fed could stop the recession at will by easing its policy.

Sometimes, however, the Fed lowering rates to near zero is not enough to pull the economy out of the slump. Then the fiscal stimulus becomes the only remaining option.

Most economist believe we would have recovered from the Great Depression earlier had we not had so much stimulus.

There sure are idiots among economists, but not most of them.

 

[hortysir]

If you cut taxes, revenues will fall and deficits will increase. If you change the CBO's scoring process to hide this fact -- as is under consideration by leading Republicans -- you are engaging in exactly the same sort of deception that brought down Greece.

Which taxes are you referring to?

Income taxes?
I thought I heard your party tell me that they're at record lows.


Don't worry, though.....Our local, state, and Fed governments are picking up the slack with increased fees and fines on everything.

 

[saveliberty]

If you cut taxes, revenues will fall and deficits will increase. If you change the CBO's scoring process to hide this fact -- as is under consideration by leading Republicans -- you are engaging in exactly the same sort of deception that brought down Greece.

Yes, deficits will increase, that is why you cut spending.

 

[Too Tall]

You are just making things up.

You don't know that there was a depression in the 20's. The government did nothing and it was over in a year.

fdr was a tyrant that made things worse to keep himself in power. It was our entrance into the war that brought us out of the GD

If WWII brought us out of the great depression, as you claim, then it was an unprecedented government spending program (for the war) financed with borrowed money that did it.

That, by definition, is what a stimulus is.

WWII put many of the unemployed men to work by drafting them and sending them to war. Using your logic, when the war ended, we should have gone back into the depression.

 

[thereisnospoon]

You don't know that there was a depression in the 20's. The government did nothing and it was over in a year.

fdr was a tyrant that made things worse to keep himself in power. It was our entrance into the war that brought us out of the GD

If WWII brought us out of the great depression, as you claim, then it was an unprecedented government spending program (for the war) financed with borrowed money that did it.

That, by definition, is what a stimulus is.

WWII put many of the unemployed men to work by drafting them and sending them to war. Using your logic, when the war ended, we should have gone back into the depression.

Actually, many of the factory workers hired for the war effort were women.
After the war most of the factories which made stuff for the military shut down or scaled back operations. The men ended their military careers and took jobs at these places. The women were laid off.
The depression continued on into the early 50's. It was only then the country saw significant economic growth.

 

[AlabamaTrojan]

.