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

[Faun]

right, because everyone else heard it BUT YOU and that other idiot itsfizzbrain...if you don't have Obama saying it he evidently didn't say it



too frikken hilarious..poor dears

go play with your new bud, two peas in a pod

I can't help that you're such a rightard, you can't see how stupid you are, quoting everybody But Obama, since Obama never actually made the promise you idiotically think he made.



Face reality ... had Obama made that promise, you'd be quoting him, not a bunch of fellow nuts who share your hallucinations.

hey, Obama didn't say it, promise it, he was never even elected President
we got it, you're are the most brilliant ever and everyone else who heard him say it, is a retard

Aww, poor, baby. What an adorable way for you to tacitly admit you can't quote Obama making the promise your demented rightie brain thinks he made.



Again, if he promised his stimulus plan would keep unemployment under 7% by now, you'd be quoting him.

Face reality ... you can't quote because he never made that promise. It's as simple as that.

 

[Billy000]

right, because everyone else heard it BUT YOU and that other idiot itsfizzbrain...if you don't have Obama saying it he evidently didn't say it



too frikken hilarious..poor dears

go play with your new bud, two peas in a pod

I can't help that you're such a rightard, you can't see how stupid you are, quoting everybody But Obama, since Obama never actually made the promise you idiotically think he made.



Face reality ... had Obama made that promise, you'd be quoting him, not a bunch of fellow nuts who share your hallucinations.

hey, Obama didn't say it, promise it, he was never even elected President
we got it, you're are the most brilliant ever and everyone else who heard him say it, is a retard

Who says what really does matter, Steph...

 

[TemplarKormac]

I can't help that you're such a rightard, you can't see how stupid you are, quoting everybody But Obama, since Obama never actually made the promise you idiotically think he made.



Face reality ... had Obama made that promise, you'd be quoting him, not a bunch of fellow nuts who share your hallucinations.

hey, Obama didn't say it, promise it, he was never even elected President
we got it, you're are the most brilliant ever and everyone else who heard him say it, is a retard

Who says what really does matter, Steph...

Who says that really made any sense, Billy?

 

[Londoner]

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 an interesting point.

Most people don't know what economic stimulus is (at the practical or theoretical level) - nor do they know how it is designed to protect against the demand shortfalls that lead to spiraling job loss.

Let's construct a hypothetical universe so we can see spiraling job loss in action:
Let's imagine the elderly parents of middle class consumers get sick. Let's further imagine that because of this sickness those aforementioned middle consumers have to help mom and dad with medical expenses, which means that they can no longer afford to eat at the local restaurant, which means the local restaurant owner has to layoff waiters and cooks, which means that the waiters and cooks can no longer afford to go to the shoe store, which means the shoe store owner has to layoff his workers, which means those workers can no longer afford to go to the movie theater, which means the movie theater owner has to layoff his employees, which means his employees can't afford to go to the ice cream parlor, which means the ice cream parlor owner has to layoff his employees who now can't afford to buy new clothes, which means that the owner of the clothing store has to lay off his workers, etc., etc. job loss ad infinitum . . .

In this imaginary world we are allowed to go back in time. So we go back to the point where middle-class consumers are having trouble paying for their parent's healthcare and we create a "demand-side" stimulus program to helps old people with some of their health costs. Call it MedicaSecurity. As a result of MedicaSecurity, middle class families are less burdened with the high cost of parental health care, and, as a result, they now have more spending money. This means they can go the restaurant, which means the restaurant owner doesn't have to layoff restaurant workers, which means the restaurant workers can still afford to go out to the movie theater, which means the movie theater owner doesn't have to layoff his movie theater workers, which means the movie theater workers can still afford to go to the bakery, which means the bakery owner doesn't have to layoff his bakery workers, which means the bakery workers can still afford to go to the clothing store, and on and until the economy grows ever upward on the heals of glorious spending . . . which jump starts the economy . . . and leads to increased revenue . . . which allows us pay for MedicaSecurity... and then some.

Problem solved.

 

[OODA_Loop]

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 an interesting point.

Most people don't know what economic stimulus is (at the practical or theoretical level) - nor do they know how it is designed to protect against the demand shortfalls that lead to spiraling job loss.

Let's construct a hypothetical universe so we can see spiraling job loss in action:
Let's imagine the elderly parents of middle class consumers get sick. Let's further imagine that because of this sickness those aforementioned middle consumers have to help mom and dad with medical expenses, which means that they can no longer afford to eat at the local restaurant, which means the local restaurant owner has to layoff waiters and cooks, which means that the waiters and cooks can no longer afford to go to the shoe store, which means the shoe store owner has to layoff his workers, which means those workers can no longer afford to go to the movie theater, which means the movie theater owner has to layoff his employees, which means his employees can't afford to go to the ice cream parlor, which means the ice cream parlor owner has to layoff his employees who now can't afford to buy new clothes, which means that the owner of the clothing store has to lay off his workers, etc., etc. job loss ad infinitum . . .

In this imaginary world we are allowed to go back in time. So we go back to the point where middle-class consumers are having trouble paying for their parent's healthcare and we create a "demand-side" stimulus program to helps old people with some of their health costs. Call it MedicaSecurity. As a result of MedicaSecurity, middle class families are less burdened with the high cost of parental health care, and, as a result, they now have more spending money. This means they can go the restaurant, which means the restaurant owner doesn't have to layoff restaurant workers, which means the restaurant workers can still afford to go out to the movie theater, which means the movie theater owner doesn't have to layoff his movie theater workers, which means the movie theater workers can still afford to go to the bakery, which means the bakery owner doesn't have to layoff his bakery workers, which means the bakery workers can still afford to go to the clothing store, and on and until the economy grows ever upward on the heals of glorious spending . . . which jump starts the economy . . . and leads to increased revenue . . . which allows us pay for MedicaSecurity... and then some.

Problem solved.

Wait if people keep more of their own money in their pockets they create jobs ?

 

[The T]

Federal Gubmint has NO business in stimulus of ANY KIND. ONLY stimulus we need are lower taxes, and LESS regulation...BOOTS off our necks.

LIBERTY is the best stimulus of ALL.

Yeah, you should go back and get your GED before you try tackling things like macro economics.

" LIBERTY is the best stimulus of ALL."

You are really stupid. Somebody's gotta tell you.

I'll give you this, yeah my liberty is best of all. Not your's though. Your's just infringess on everyone elses pursuit of happiness.

Liberty is indiscriminate. It cannot be defined or molded by soft minds like yours. Liberty knows neither tolerance nor intolerance; nor does it infringe on anyone's happiness, it is the source of happiness. Meaning that anyone can do anything which brings them happiness, Liberty is not prone to interpretation. Liberty is God given, not man made.

Shame they think it comes from government...they know nothing of the Founding...

 

[The T]

Arguing unmployment rates, as either a measure of full employment or a specific mark of the econ's health at a specfic pt in time, is either to avoid serious discussion of the benefits of the stimulus or a trip down a rabbit hole

Federal Gubmint has NO business in stimulus of ANY KIND. ONLY stimulus we need are lower taxes, and LESS regulation...BOOTS off our necks.

LIBERTY is the best stimulus of ALL.

Yeah, you should go back and get your GED before you try tackling things like macro economics.

" LIBERTY is the best stimulus of ALL."

You are really stupid. Somebody's gotta tell you.

I'll give you this, yeah my liberty is best of all. Not your's though. Your's just infringess on everyone elses pursuit of happiness.

Son? Get over yourself before you hurt yourself. YOU know zero of liberty except how to advocate it's destruction.

 

[Toro]

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.

I am not clear as to how he gets to GDP as a measure of asset growth.

Of course it's not clear.

Unless you read some of gasbag's posts. Then it becomes really clear, clear that he doesn't read books "unless he has to."

 

[Billy000]

I really don't understand why the cons here would be so against demand side economics like The Recovery Act. It is the most effective use of stimulus. Let's put the idea of tax cuts for the wealthy a rest. It doesn't work. Trickle down economics is the biggest political lie there is.

 

[Faun]

Team Obama said in ’09 stimulus would have unemployment below 6% by 2012

Obamanomics 101 – The Stimulus Package Will Keep Unemployment Under 8%

That's pretty fuckin' stupid, even for a rightard.

You're quoting Sean Higgins, not Barack Obama. Which, of course, you have to do since Obama never made the promise you attributed to him.

Okay, on January 10, 2009, Obama's top economic advisers released a report saying that the unemployment rate would remain below 8 percent throughout the year should the $787 billion stimulus package win congressional approval. By May of 2009, the unemployment rate was at 9.4%, indicating that the package failed to remedy a worsening economic situation. Obama touted support of this supposed finding in this video (which was also released 10 days before his inauguration):

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6DFFoQBO-Zg]Obama Touts Report That Stimulus Will Keep Unemployment Below 8 Percent - YouTube[/ame]

By such video, and by touting this report, he acknowledges the supposition that the plan would keep the unemployment rate below 8%. He remained tacit in his statements but the promise was made.

Yes, Obama endorsed the plan his team came up with. And what does it say about the impact of his plan on the unemployment numbers ... ?

It should be understood that all of the estimates presented in this memo are subject to significant margins of error. There is the obvious uncertainty that comes from modeling a hypothetical package rather than the final legislation passed by the Congress. But, there is the more fundamental uncertainty that comes with any estimate of the effects of a program. Our estimates of economic relationships and rules of thumb are derived from historical experience and so will not apply exactly in any given episode. Furthermore, the uncertainty is surely higher than normal now because the current recession is unusual both in its fundamental causes and its severity.​

Estimates are not promises.

Savvy?

 

[Listening]

I really don't understand why the cons here would be so against demand side economics like The Recovery Act. It is the most effective use of stimulus. Let's put the idea of tax cuts for the wealthy a rest. It doesn't work. Trickle down economics is the biggest political lie there is.

More matter of fact statements from the one-variable economist ?

 

[Billy000]

I really don't understand why the cons here would be so against demand side economics like The Recovery Act. It is the most effective use of stimulus. Let's put the idea of tax cuts for the wealthy a rest. It doesn't work. Trickle down economics is the biggest political lie there is.

More matter of fact statements from the one-variable economist ?

Okay, let's put the tax cut issue aside for now. How about you tell me why demand side economic policies shouldn't be utilized?

 

[Listening]

I really don't understand why the cons here would be so against demand side economics like The Recovery Act. It is the most effective use of stimulus. Let's put the idea of tax cuts for the wealthy a rest. It doesn't work. Trickle down economics is the biggest political lie there is.

More matter of fact statements from the one-variable economist ?

Okay, let's put the tax cut issue aside for now. How about you tell me why demand side economic policies shouldn't be utilized?

Why don't you go over to the Clean Debate Zone and start a new thread. I'd love to have a less cluttered discussion away from the flames and crap.

 

[oreo]

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.

Today--Obama is going to stand in front of the Senate with people who have already received 99 weeks of unemployment insurance--asking for another extension for unemployment benefits.

Obama--therefore is admitting that his policies over the last 5 years have been an abject FAILURE as far as job creation. This while just a couple of months ago he was touting the "economic recovery"--that doesn't exist for middle class Americans that are still unemployed and or underemployed.--Which represents a whopping 25 million people in this country.

Unemployment stats have dropped simply because many Americans have just given up on even looking for jobs--therefore they're not counted in the statistics which drives the unemployment numbers down. --and Obama brags about that unemployment number--because Americans are basically stupid to what he is doing.

His stimulus for green energy was a total flop with about everything he did going bankrupt after we paid billions of taxpayer dollars into it. Then to find out that many of these green firms where giving millions in donations to Obama and democrats.

The problem with this administration and democrats is they're adding 40,000 new regulations just this year. When employers have to pay more to meet all of the regulations--new jobs get put on the back burner. Democrats still haven't figured that out. They continue this onslaught of killing job growth in this country through new regulations. The worst is going to be when the employer mandate Obamacare--aka ACA mandate hits employers right between the eyes. Of course Democrats wisely postponed this after the mid-term elections. When employers can't afford something the first thing they do is cut employees and or their hours--in order to keep their business open. LAW OF ECONOMIC REALITY.

The worst unemployment is with the youth in this country--that go to college and cannot find work after they graduate.

Welcome to your hope and change!

 

[bendog]

I really don't understand why the cons here would be so against demand side economics like The Recovery Act. It is the most effective use of stimulus. Let's put the idea of tax cuts for the wealthy a rest. It doesn't work. Trickle down economics is the biggest political lie there is.

More matter of fact statements from the one-variable economist ?

Okay, let's put the tax cut issue aside for now. How about you tell me why demand side economic policies shouldn't be utilized?

First, they are being used in the form of quanative easing. Second, the effect of the bursting of W's real estate bubble is everyone is still deleveraging from all the debt. So, creating more debt to fund a demand stimulus has a longterm negative for growth.

 

[asterism]

I really don't understand why the cons here would be so against demand side economics like The Recovery Act. It is the most effective use of stimulus. Let's put the idea of tax cuts for the wealthy a rest. It doesn't work. Trickle down economics is the biggest political lie there is.

Well the "demand side economics like the Recovery Act" didn't work out. After the failure to meet the goals as communicated by the Administration the talking points changed to claim that without the program there would not be a recovery at all.

Also, the "most effective use of stimulus" is a moving target. First it was going to create high levels jobs and growth, then it "created or saved" millions of jobs and kept us from the brink, and now it's used to both justify more government welfare while at the same time saying it's necessary or there won't be a recovery - except we're being told how great the economy is.

So forgive me if I'm skeptical.

 

[asterism]

I really don't understand why the cons here would be so against demand side economics like The Recovery Act. It is the most effective use of stimulus. Let's put the idea of tax cuts for the wealthy a rest. It doesn't work. Trickle down economics is the biggest political lie there is.

More matter of fact statements from the one-variable economist ?

Okay, let's put the tax cut issue aside for now. How about you tell me why demand side economic policies shouldn't be utilized?

Artificially bolstering demand through debt is unsustainable. If it's short and targeted then it can be effective. 5 years of paying someone to not work is neither short nor targeted.

 

[kaz]

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?

Yes Comrade, any money government does not take is government spending because all money is the people's money.

Also, you're contradicting the field of economics which says tax cuts grow revenue.

You're not exactly on a roll, Billy Boy...

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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 an interesting point.

Most people don't know what economic stimulus is (at the practical or theoretical level) - nor do they know how it is designed to protect against the demand shortfalls that lead to spiraling job loss.

Let's construct a hypothetical universe so we can see spiraling job loss in action:
Let's imagine the elderly parents of middle class consumers get sick. Let's further imagine that because of this sickness those aforementioned middle consumers have to help mom and dad with medical expenses, which means that they can no longer afford to eat at the local restaurant, which means the local restaurant owner has to layoff waiters and cooks, which means that the waiters and cooks can no longer afford to go to the shoe store, which means the shoe store owner has to layoff his workers, which means those workers can no longer afford to go to the movie theater, which means the movie theater owner has to layoff his employees, which means his employees can't afford to go to the ice cream parlor, which means the ice cream parlor owner has to layoff his employees who now can't afford to buy new clothes, which means that the owner of the clothing store has to lay off his workers, etc., etc. job loss ad infinitum . . .

In this imaginary world we are allowed to go back in time. So we go back to the point where middle-class consumers are having trouble paying for their parent's healthcare and we create a "demand-side" stimulus program to helps old people with some of their health costs. Call it MedicaSecurity. As a result of MedicaSecurity, middle class families are less burdened with the high cost of parental health care, and, as a result, they now have more spending money. This means they can go the restaurant, which means the restaurant owner doesn't have to layoff restaurant workers, which means the restaurant workers can still afford to go out to the movie theater, which means the movie theater owner doesn't have to layoff his movie theater workers, which means the movie theater workers can still afford to go to the bakery, which means the bakery owner doesn't have to layoff his bakery workers, which means the bakery workers can still afford to go to the clothing store, and on and until the economy grows ever upward on the heals of glorious spending . . . which jump starts the economy . . . and leads to increased revenue . . . which allows us pay for MedicaSecurity... and then some.

Problem solved.

In other words, stimulus packages don't work the way theoreticians say they do.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I really don't understand why the cons here would be so against demand side economics like The Recovery Act. It is the most effective use of stimulus. Let's put the idea of tax cuts for the wealthy a rest. It doesn't work. Trickle down economics is the biggest political lie there is.

According to Klein, the ultimate, self appointed, flip flopping, guru of government spending, the best part of the recovery act was the direct aid to states. The theory was that by allowing states to continue to spend at the same level they did before the crash the economy would receive a jolt and the recovery would be both faster and shorter term than it was without it. Unfortunately for the idiots that bought into that narrative, the reality is that states set their budgets before the stimulus was passed, and they didn't actually factor it into their spending. In other words, it didn't actually work that way, yet you are still insisting it did exactly what it was supposed to. That probably explains why you are now trying to claim that the entire stimulus act, even the parts that Klein said were useless, was the best way to stimulate demand, even though it didn't actually kick in until after you insist it worked.