A no BS, non partisan examination of the success of Obama's stimulus package

[Kosh]

If you knew how the stimulus worked you would know the money generated demand. A ripple effect. It wasn't zero sum.

No it was a legal money laundering scheme designed to line the pockets of the far left donors, especially the unions.

And yet there is zero evidence that is true.

Yes I know the far left will never tell you that is the case.

 

[Kosh]

The right doesn't know shit about the economy. Doesn't understand that we're a hybrid system that needs both sectors to function.

The far left is strong in this one.

 

[Stephanie]

The right doesn't know shit about the economy. Doesn't understand that we're a hybrid system that needs both sectors to function.

well as we know you are the expert in all things..be it the economy, radical environmentalism, etc etc

 

[Listening]

When the money is paid back with interest, you will have the total equation. It is only then that you can debate it's merits.

Bush's tax cuts were more expensive than the Recovery Act. When will see that money back?

How does that have any bearing on your argument ?

 

[Faun]

Oh my the far left is reaching these days, yes then senator Obama said it.

Next you will want a link to Pelosi's infamous quote of "We must pass the bill to find out what's in it."

Perhaps he did, but I'm certainly not going to take your word for it. You could be wrong, or worse, you could be lying. That you wouldn't just quote him leads me to believe it's for one of those reasons.

Just like how you posted links to prove all your far left propaganda?

So you want others to do what you refuse to do.

Typical far left.

Flaming imbecile, I asked you for a quote , not a link. Are you too stupid to know the difference? That you're making such a fuss about it rather than quoting Obama lends to the belief that you're making that up.

And as far as your fallacious claim that I don't post links, I did so in a post I made in this thread earlier this morning. So as usual, you are proven to be reduced to spouting childish nonsense.

 

[Listening]

Just because republicans told you tax cuts dont cost anything doesnt mean they were telling you the truth

I'm my own, man, Billy; unlike you, I don't need talking points. Tax cuts don't cost anything because the money doesn't belong to the government in the first place, therefore you can't expense what isn't yours. Spending more than they take in is what costs us.

You people crack me up lol. I bet I could explain this to a random 6 year old on the street and they would understand the logic in it.

I am sure you'd communicate quite well with six-year-olds. You talk their language.

 

[Listening]

Many of you believe The Recovery Act was a failure simply because it fell short of expectations, but that does not mean it was a failure - not by a long shot. Here is a non partisan article that examines the pros and cons of the stimulus and why, for the most part, it was a success. A success that indisputably saved our economy.

Articles debating the successes or failures of President Obama’s stimulus package should be of interest to NPQ Newswire readers, given that nonprofits were among the most important intermediaries for and deliverers of stimulus programs. In the upcoming issue of Foreign Policy, TIME Magazine’s Michael Grunwald suggests that the stimulus was “certainly a political failure,” but “there is voluminous evidence that the stimulus did provide real stimulus, helping to stop a terrifying free-fall, avert a second Depression, and end a brutal recession.” Grunwald’s long article addresses the pros and cons of the stimulus, some of which is presented below.

PROS:

According to the Moody’s website Economy.com, JPMorgan Chase, and the Congressional Budget Office, the stimulus “increased GDP at least 2 percentage points, the difference between contraction and growth, and saved or created about 2.5 million jobs.”

“[Solyndra is]… supposedly a case study in ineptitude, cronyism, and the failure of green industrial policy. Republicans investigated for a year, held more than a dozen hearings, and subpoenaed hundreds of thousands of documents, but they uncovered no evidence of wrongdoing….Solyndra was a start-up that failed. It happens.”

CONS:

The jobless rate is still over eight percent, the longest run of unemployment over eight percent since the Depression.

Was the Obama Stimulus a Success or a Failure? - NPQ - Nonprofit Quarterly

So essentially what this article is saying that even though the stimulus fell short of expectations, it was still a success. Why? Because it turned our economy free fall (that began with Bush) into JOB GROWTH within months. It is the reason we are even in a recovery. What was the biggest flaw in it? IT WAS TOO SMALL which is actually just more proof that government can and does create jobs. It is also further proof Republicanism is ruining our country. They are reason it was too small!

Is the unemployment rate still high? Of course, how do we fix it? More DEMAND side economic policies like The Recovery Act. Supply side has proven to be a failure. Tax cuts do more harm than good.

The whole notion of a free-fall and a depression and all that crap is just a manufactured talking point.

The truth is that nobody really knows what would have happened had there been no so-called stimulus.

Academia likes to justify themselves by putting out all kinds of theories and models. But just like the AGW crowd, they can't produce a model that can predict the temperature of the hair on their butts, much less a model for hurricanes (does anyone recall how the global warmers warned how Katrina "was just the start".....and it was....the start of a very calm several years). The academics in economics can't do any better.

Why ?

Because they can't model a very complex system like ours (or they won't) because of the number of variables involved.

 

[DiamondDave]

This is simply a rehash of the standard right and left talking points tax cuts bad spending good or if your from the right tax cuts good spending bad.

Tax cutting is spending.

No.. it is not... earning less is not spending more... (not that the government earns its income)

The problem came with cutting taxes and spending more or the same...

But then again.. I am all for raising taxes.. on the 45+% that pay no federal income taxes and on those paying any lesser rate than any other citizen... and I am for slashing and gutting federal spending, eliminating things where the government has no business spending in the first place

 

[Stephanie]

I'm my own, man, Billy; unlike you, I don't need talking points. Tax cuts don't cost anything because the money doesn't belong to the government in the first place, therefore you can't expense what isn't yours. Spending more than they take in is what costs us.

You people crack me up lol. I bet I could explain this to a random 6 year old on the street and they would understand the logic in it.

I am sure you'd communicated quite well with six-year olds. You talk their language.

poor billy, he post a couple links that agrees with his thinking and acts like we are all suppose to take it as the GOSPEL truth.. then gets all whiny when people don't fall down and bow to it
reminds of this

 

[The Rabbi]

If you knew how the stimulus worked you would know the money generated demand. A ripple effect. It wasn't zero sum.

Another idiot whoi believes in the multiplier effect.

You apparently don't understand how our economy works. Consumer spending creates economic stimulus.

Uh no it doesnt. The most disproven theory of all time. We suffered a Great Depression precisely because the recession was diagnosed incorrectly as lack of consumer demand,

 

[Billy000]

Many of you believe The Recovery Act was a failure simply because it fell short of expectations, but that does not mean it was a failure - not by a long shot. Here is a non partisan article that examines the pros and cons of the stimulus and why, for the most part, it was a success. A success that indisputably saved our economy.

Articles debating the successes or failures of President Obama’s stimulus package should be of interest to NPQ Newswire readers, given that nonprofits were among the most important intermediaries for and deliverers of stimulus programs. In the upcoming issue of Foreign Policy, TIME Magazine’s Michael Grunwald suggests that the stimulus was “certainly a political failure,” but “there is voluminous evidence that the stimulus did provide real stimulus, helping to stop a terrifying free-fall, avert a second Depression, and end a brutal recession.” Grunwald’s long article addresses the pros and cons of the stimulus, some of which is presented below.

PROS:











CONS:

The jobless rate is still over eight percent, the longest run of unemployment over eight percent since the Depression.

Was the Obama Stimulus a Success or a Failure? - NPQ - Nonprofit Quarterly

So essentially what this article is saying that even though the stimulus fell short of expectations, it was still a success. Why? Because it turned our economy free fall (that began with Bush) into JOB GROWTH within months. It is the reason we are even in a recovery. What was the biggest flaw in it? IT WAS TOO SMALL which is actually just more proof that government can and does create jobs. It is also further proof Republicanism is ruining our country. They are reason it was too small!

Is the unemployment rate still high? Of course, how do we fix it? More DEMAND side economic policies like The Recovery Act. Supply side has proven to be a failure. Tax cuts do more harm than good.

The whole notion of a free-fall and a depression and all that crap is just a manufactured talking point.

The truth is that nobody really knows what would have happened had there been no so-called stimulus.

Academia likes to justify themselves by putting out all kinds of theories and models. But just like the AGW crowd, they can't produce a model that can predict the temperature of the hair on their butts, much less a model for hurricanes (does anyone recall how the global warmers warned how Katrina "was just the start".....and it was....the start of a very calm several years). The academics in economics can't do any better.

Why ?

Because they can't model a very complex system like ours (or they won't) because of the number of variables involved.

This isn't hard to figure out. The economy was in a free fall starting in Bush's final months. We were losing 100,000s jobs a month. We knew where the economy was headed. The stimulus took the economy from a free fall to growth within the course of 5 months. That's how we know it worked.

 

[Stephanie]

so when does the DEAR LEADER give back that 800 Billion TO US TAXPAYERS he stole from us that supposedly stopped all this free falling?

And another lie from him how this theft of almost a trillion dollars would bring UNEMPLOYMENT below 7%

OVER 7% now for five frikken years

sheeesh, another joke he played on us

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

The right doesn't know shit about the economy. Doesn't understand that we're a hybrid system that needs both sectors to function.

Who said we don't need a public sector, dumb ass? Shut the **** up you blabbering retard.

 

[Listening]

This isn't hard to figure out. The economy was in a free fall starting in Bush's final months. We were losing 100,000s jobs a month. We knew where the economy was headed. The stimulus took the economy from a free fall to growth within the course of 5 months. That's how we know it worked.

Yes,

Let's take a complicated system like the economy that no one can control or predict and make this kind of "it isn't hard to figure out" statement.

We knew where the economy was at. We don't know what the end looked like if we did nothing.

The economy may have recovered by itself (and may very well have)...part of the stimulus never showed up.

Also, there is no telling what would have long term if the economy had gone further down (and the government had stayed out of GM). We might be better off now.

NO WAY TO KNOW.....figure that out.

 

[Faun]

so when does the DEAR LEADER give back that 800 Billion TO US TAXPAYERS he stole from us that supposedly stopped all this free falling?

And another lie from him how this theft of almost a trillion dollars would bring UNEMPLOYMENT below 7%

OVER 7% now for five frikken years

sheeesh, another joke he played on us

Funny how the unemployment rate was over 7% during Reagan's first five frikken years and he was a god to Conservatives.

 

[jasonnfree]

When the money is paid back with interest, you will have the total equation. It is only then that you can debate it's merits.

Bush's tax cuts were more expensive than the Recovery Act. When will see that money back?

That money did not belong to us - it belonged to the tax payer

So you're basically saying that the goverrnment shouldn't be able to tax?

 

[bendog]

I don't/didn't have an issue with the stimulus, even though the waste factor was appalling and the actual benefit conveyed in lasting stuff like infrastructure a bad joke. It did as the OP states. Most importantly its direct aid to state govt kept not just govt workers but also doc and nurses working.

But that does not support more spending now. The real estate bubble was caused by too much demand for debt, and the result was too much debt. Some was written off, and the value of trading houses took a tumble. But instead of the taxpayer getting the the depressed asset that underlay the debt, we just propped up the traders, and they kept the assets. Spending more now on stimulus just creates more TBills, which was what got us in the mess to begin with.

Arguably, however, I think there's a good faith argument, that even conservatives can accept, that we are reducing govt spending/gnp too rapidly, and modestly boosting revenues to allow us to prop up demand for goods that are consumed by workers who permanently lost jobs and who now will have to take much lower paying jobs as unemployment insurance runs out.

 

[Toro]

GDP is basically a measure of monetary asset growth. If you print money is your monetary assets increasing or decreasing? Increasing. Thus, to return to the original point, bragging that the so-called recovery act increased GDP is stupid.

All too many laymen (and hack pretend economists (like [MENTION=2926]Toro[/MENTION])) think that GDP is an absolute function of economic progression. If that were true, then we would have had more than two negative GDP years since 1935.

Umm no....

GDP is not a measure of the amount of US dollars printed.

I didn't say it was a measure of dollars printed, chowder head.

It's not a measure of monetary asset growth either, Mr.-I-Don't-Read-Books-Unless-I-Have-To genius.

 

[DiamondDave]

so when does the DEAR LEADER give back that 800 Billion TO US TAXPAYERS he stole from us that supposedly stopped all this free falling?

And another lie from him how this theft of almost a trillion dollars would bring UNEMPLOYMENT below 7%

OVER 7% now for five frikken years

sheeesh, another joke he played on us

Funny how the unemployment rate was over 7% during Reagan's first five frikken years and he was a god to Conservatives.

Funny how Reagan was also dealing with inflation, interest rates thru the roof, a military that was gutted, outrageous taxation that hindered business, etc... and slowly but surely helped implement policies that helped (not just in the short term) but in the long term as well.. Look, Reagan was no god, just a much better president than we have had recently and thru most of the 20th century.. he made mistakes, as every president does.. just not to the outrageous levels of an Obamalama, Bush II, Carter, etc

 

[Avorysuds]

Lol "everything I have been saying is true, if not otherwise factual"

I oughta put that in my signature.

It wouldn't be funny if you were smart enough to understand the subtle differences between the words 'true' and 'fact.' Something can be true without being a fact, moron.

Why is the far left (progressives) so anti logic?

You guys got your way on everything, and near the whole world economy is crap. You guys are on the wrong side of history and it's funny to watch.

The rest of the world laughs at republicans.

First off I'm not a Republican and have never voted Republican.

Secondly Bush was a Progressive, as many/most Republicans (elected) are.

You believe Bush screwed the economy, the question then is how. You will point at the housing bubble.... That was created by a progressive Government policy stimulus. Clinton Deregulated the housing market not to make it free, he took away the restraints on Government involvement.

I laugh at Republicans as well, but most the world is in a recession/depression with policies like Clinton/Obama/Bush, so I laugh at them too.