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

[Listening]

Youre so consumed with the political side of this issue. What really matters at this point is what the stimulus actually did. What it actually did was save us from an economic collapse and put us in a recovery. A slow one yes, but it is still a recovery.

Again, the reason why the stimulus didn't do all that was promised is because it was too small. Blame republicans for that. End of story.

I don't believe that the stimulus saved us from economic collapse because no economic collapse was forecast as a result of not passing the law and never in history has a stimulus program prevented economic collapse.

You're just making things up. We were losing 500,000+ jobs a month. There was no recovery on sight. And even if there was a recovery in sight, obviously it was going to take a long time to start.

Things were never left alone long enough to find out. It's the same tired worn out argument you've been using all along.

 

[Faun]

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...

I think he's on to something though. reagan cut taxes and the debt increased so reagan the great had to increase taxes. Maybe you don't remember?

Reagan cut taxes and under his administration tax receipts doubled. Government spending went unchecked, and before you blame that on Reagan, far more of it was domestic. I remember fine, I just don't have the selective, self serving memory that liberals do.

Complete hallucination.

Federal revenue in nominal figures (76%):

1980: 517b
1988: 909b

Federal revenue in 2005 dollars (25%):

1980: 1083b
1988: 1357b

Government Tax and Revenue Chart: United States 1980-1990 - Federal State Local Data

 

[Billy000]

I don't believe that the stimulus saved us from economic collapse because no economic collapse was forecast as a result of not passing the law and never in history has a stimulus program prevented economic collapse.

You're just making things up. We were losing 500,000+ jobs a month. There was no recovery on sight. And even if there was a recovery in sight, obviously it was going to take a long time to start.

Things were never left alone long enough to find out. It's the same tired worn out argument you've been using all along.

That doesn't make any sense. Why would we just wait for the market to fix itself? Within months the economy went from a massive job loss rate to a recovery with growth. Hmm how do you explain that if it wasn't the stimulus that did it? You really think that happened naturally? You're in a fantasy land.

 

[Listening]

You're just making things up. We were losing 500,000+ jobs a month. There was no recovery on sight. And even if there was a recovery in sight, obviously it was going to take a long time to start.

Things were never left alone long enough to find out. It's the same tired worn out argument you've been using all along.

That doesn't make any sense. Why would we just wait for the market to fix itself? Within months the economy went from a massive job loss rate to a recovery with growth. Hmm how do you explain that if it wasn't the stimulus that did it? You really think that happened naturally? You're in a fantasy land.

I am afraid it is you that lives in the world of mind-warping drugs.

Economies often are self correcting. But since we didn't leave it alone, neither of us will ever know for sure.

Beyond that, your constant carping of this meme does little for your case. It is nothing but a single variable argument that is meaningless in this complex world (yeah...I live in a fantasy land....where all the variables are at work).

 

[The T]

Things were never left alone long enough to find out. It's the same tired worn out argument you've been using all along.

That doesn't make any sense. Why would we just wait for the market to fix itself? Within months the economy went from a massive job loss rate to a recovery with growth. Hmm how do you explain that if it wasn't the stimulus that did it? You really think that happened naturally? You're in a fantasy land.

I am afraid it is you that lives in the world of mind-warping drugs.

Economies often are self correcting. But since we didn't leave it alone, neither of us will ever know for sure.

Beyond that, your constant carping of this meme does little for your case. It is nothing but a single variable argument that is meaningless in this complex world (yeah...I live in a fantasy land....where all the variables are at work).

And lest WE forget?

The title of his failure of a thread that is all BUT what Billy-Bub Claimed?

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

Uhmm? Billy? YOU FAIL.

 

[Kosh]

I think he's on to something though. reagan cut taxes and the debt increased so reagan the great had to increase taxes. Maybe you don't remember?

Reagan cut taxes and under his administration tax receipts doubled. Government spending went unchecked, and before you blame that on Reagan, far more of it was domestic. I remember fine, I just don't have the selective, self serving memory that liberals do.

Complete hallucination.

Federal revenue in nominal figures (76%):

1980: 517b
1988: 909b

Federal revenue in 2005 dollars (25%):

1980: 1083b
1988: 1357b

Government Tax and Revenue Chart: United States 1980-1990 - Federal State Local Data

I see the far left must have found this via the Daily Kos:

Recently I stumbled on a rather vocal, and extremely articulate conservative by the name of Christopher Chantrill.

Christopher Chantrill - Writer, conservative, government spending taxes debt deficit

At his site he has compiled a lot of economic data easily searchable at

Federal State Local Government Tax Revenue in United States for 2014 - Charts Tables...

I don't know what to make of him. He is a follower of Ludwig von Mises, F.A. Hayek, Leo Strauss, and Eric Voegelin, a supporter of Sarah Palin, a climate skeptic but numbers are numbers and his charts are not easily dismissible. My question for all you Kossacks out there is, who is this Chantrill, and how reliablle are his data?

Daily Kos: Who is Christopher Chantrill?

 

[Faun]

Reagan cut taxes and under his administration tax receipts doubled. Government spending went unchecked, and before you blame that on Reagan, far more of it was domestic. I remember fine, I just don't have the selective, self serving memory that liberals do.

Complete hallucination.

Federal revenue in nominal figures (76%):

1980: 517b
1988: 909b

Federal revenue in 2005 dollars (25%):

1980: 1083b
1988: 1357b

Government Tax and Revenue Chart: United States 1980-1990 - Federal State Local Data

I see the far left must have found this via the Daily Kos:

Recently I stumbled on a rather vocal, and extremely articulate conservative by the name of Christopher Chantrill.

Christopher Chantrill - Writer, conservative, government spending taxes debt deficit

At his site he has compiled a lot of economic data easily searchable at

Federal State Local Government Tax Revenue in United States for 2014 - Charts Tables...

I don't know what to make of him. He is a follower of Ludwig von Mises, F.A. Hayek, Leo Strauss, and Eric Voegelin, a supporter of Sarah Palin, a climate skeptic but numbers are numbers and his charts are not easily dismissible. My question for all you Kossacks out there is, who is this Chantrill, and how reliablle are his data?

Daily Kos: Who is Christopher Chantrill?

Why do you persist in showing the forum how demented you are? You're posting a webpage from a Conservative who provides links to the same website I used to show the data.

Are you saying that Conservative is using bullshit data?

At any rate, your dementia aside ... the website I used sites Fed. Budget: Hist. Tables 2.1, 2.4, 2.5, 7.1 as their source.

But in typical rightard fashion, you can't dispute the numbers, so you attack the messenger.

Regardless of your insanity, the numbers prove that Reagan did not "double tax receipts."

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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 ?

If your middle class doesn't make sufficient wages to consume what the capitalist produces, the economy will eventually die (because consumers will be unable to buy in sufficient volume to justify Capital investment and job growth). The American Economy Depends on Robust Consumption. But you can't fuel robust consumption by trying to cut labor costs to compete with Chinese, Taiwanese and Vietnamese sweatshops. Why? Because workers are also consumers, and American consumers could not perform the necessary consumption with sweatshop wages. (this has always been a very tricky problem for capitalism. Its desire for ultra cheap labor costs ends up undermining the consumer demand it requires to sustain job growth)

This is why need to balance supply side policies with demand-side - which we did in the postwar years, which is why we saw such spectacular growth. What are demand side policies and why does the Conservative Movement never mention them? (Hint: they are owned by the suppliers)

The Demand-Side policies of the postwar years (high wages/benefits, solid entitlements, government programs that stimulate demand) put tons of money in middle class wallets. As a result, Capital had an incentive to invest hugely, even with Eisenhower's tax rates over 90% on the 1%. [FYI: Capital will always find a way to innovate and add jobs if consumers have a lot of spendin' mony.

In 1980, because of the stagflation that started in 1973, Reagan convinced us to abandon the postwar Demand-Side policies that accompanied wild growth in the 50s-60s. So we waged war against the expensive American wage/benefit system by destroying unions and shipping jobs to ultra cheap and profitable labor markets in freedom-hating dictatorships like Communist China. (This delivered massive profits to big business, including Walmart, which gets its products manufactured by workers making under $3/day. FYI: no amount of tax cuts and deregulation could enable an American workforce to compete for those jobs, unless they were willing to accept $2/day and living under a bridge, eating dog food. Don't take my word for it about where out biggest retailer gets its products made, go into any Walmart and read the labels on the clothing)

In addition to moving production to country's that talk radio ironically teaches us to hate, the Reagan Revolution cut the majority of "Demand" centered programs. Meaning: the Gipper destroyed programs that, during the postwar years, effectively reduced middle class cost of living so that consumers had more purchasing power (which lead to spectacular economic growth. Again: capitalists will do anything to capture the disposable income in middle class wallets. They will innovate and add jobs as long as people are robustly buying their products. This is why demand centered policies are so effective - because if there is more money in the wallets of consumers, Capital will always pour into the system to get that money).

In the pre-Reagan era, the postwar consumer was protected partly through the enforcement of antitrust laws, which made it harder for companies to form no-compete zones where they could hold consumers hostage to ever rising prices. Reagan, funded heavily by big business, replaced the antitrust era with an era of mega-mergers, thus awarding most major sectors of the American economy to highly centralized and politically connected monopolies. This made a narrow class of Americans ultra wealthy while cannibalizing average consumers inside a poorly hidden network of big business monopolies. Additionally, we slowly weakened the safety net so that recessionary cycles claimed more victims, and thus pulled more consumers out of the economy. Finally, we changed the role of the Federal Reserve from its postwar focus on full employment to it's post-Carter focus on fighting inflation through the imposition of austerity on the middle and lower classes. As a result of all the Reagan-era policies, the middle and lower class had far less spending money. This meant they couldn't buy what the capitalist was selling, a fact which severely dampened economic growth. In response to this, the Reagan Revolution greatly expanded credit to the consumption classes, effectively replacing wage-based consumption with debt based consumption. This created strong economic growth in the 80s & 90s, but it eventually crashed when the consumer debt levels finally reached a tipping point under Bush. Americans finally ran out of the ability to borrow. It got so bad that they leveraged the last thing with any value, their homes.

We were sold a pack of poisonous lies in 1980. We were told that we only had to worry about suppliers (through tax cuts, deregulation, subsidies and bailouts), and that demand would take care of itself. We bought into it hook line and sinker. And then we watched the suppliers take their historic Reagan Tax Cuts and slowly start shifting their production to Communist China... leaving the middle class having to borrow money they used to get in wages. Reagan's great credit boom certainly did fuel economic growth . . . but the middle class eventually bumped into its borrowed-against future. And now the game is over. The great American Consumer is Dead. His job is in China, and his country is owned by a very small group of corporations (and their investors) who fund elections, staff government and control Washington.

Can the resident expert, AKA idiot, explain to me why he claims that demand side economics has been in use since WWII when no government on the planet actually uses it?

 

[Billy000]

Things were never left alone long enough to find out. It's the same tired worn out argument you've been using all along.

That doesn't make any sense. Why would we just wait for the market to fix itself? Within months the economy went from a massive job loss rate to a recovery with growth. Hmm how do you explain that if it wasn't the stimulus that did it? You really think that happened naturally? You're in a fantasy land.

I am afraid it is you that lives in the world of mind-warping drugs.

Economies often are self correcting. But since we didn't leave it alone, neither of us will ever know for sure.

Beyond that, your constant carping of this meme does little for your case. It is nothing but a single variable argument that is meaningless in this complex world (yeah...I live in a fantasy land....where all the variables are at work).

Um okay what variables? What forces were at work that turned the economy exactly? Explain it.

 

[Billy000]

That doesn't make any sense. Why would we just wait for the market to fix itself? Within months the economy went from a massive job loss rate to a recovery with growth. Hmm how do you explain that if it wasn't the stimulus that did it? You really think that happened naturally? You're in a fantasy land.

I am afraid it is you that lives in the world of mind-warping drugs.

Economies often are self correcting. But since we didn't leave it alone, neither of us will ever know for sure.

Beyond that, your constant carping of this meme does little for your case. It is nothing but a single variable argument that is meaningless in this complex world (yeah...I live in a fantasy land....where all the variables are at work).

And lest WE forget?

The title of his failure of a thread that is all BUT what Billy-Bub Claimed?

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

Uhmm? Billy? YOU FAIL.

Yeah and it still is non partisan. The author of the article doesn't change.

 

[Listening]

That doesn't make any sense. Why would we just wait for the market to fix itself? Within months the economy went from a massive job loss rate to a recovery with growth. Hmm how do you explain that if it wasn't the stimulus that did it? You really think that happened naturally? You're in a fantasy land.

I am afraid it is you that lives in the world of mind-warping drugs.

Economies often are self correcting. But since we didn't leave it alone, neither of us will ever know for sure.

Beyond that, your constant carping of this meme does little for your case. It is nothing but a single variable argument that is meaningless in this complex world (yeah...I live in a fantasy land....where all the variables are at work).

Um okay what variables? What forces were at work that turned the economy exactly? Explain it.

Let's see....

We can start with the fact that there are several "economies" within an economy.

Next, if I tried to answer that question I'd be guilty of the same thing you are...trying to say what caused the economy to come out of a freefall. I've maintained all along, no one knows and saying the stimulus "did it" is bogus. Nobody really knows.

Why don't you start by looking at the fact that one of the reasons the economy was in freefall was the lack of credit and that our efforts to stop that were relatively unsuccessful.

Government takeover of banks hurt the speed at which things could have recovered (again, we'll never know just how much or how little).

There are about six dozen other key factors that also have an impact.

 

[Billy000]

I am afraid it is you that lives in the world of mind-warping drugs.

Economies often are self correcting. But since we didn't leave it alone, neither of us will ever know for sure.

Beyond that, your constant carping of this meme does little for your case. It is nothing but a single variable argument that is meaningless in this complex world (yeah...I live in a fantasy land....where all the variables are at work).

Um okay what variables? What forces were at work that turned the economy exactly? Explain it.

Let's see....

We can start with the fact that there are several "economies" within an economy.

Next, if I tried to answer that question I'd be guilty of the same thing you are...trying to say what caused the economy to come out of a freefall. I've maintained all along, no one knows and saying the stimulus "did it" is bogus. Nobody really knows.

Why don't you start by looking at the fact that one of the reasons the economy was in freefall was the lack of credit and that our efforts to stop that were relatively unsuccessful.

Government takeover of banks hurt the speed at which things could have recovered (again, we'll never know just how much or how little).

There are about six dozen other key factors that also have an impact.

So stimulus added to our GDP by two percentage points and saved or created 2.5 million jobs but it has nothing to do with the recovery?

This "no one knows" crap you are spewing is ridiculous. This is economics we're talking about, not theoretical physics.

 

[Billy000]

I am afraid it is you that lives in the world of mind-warping drugs.

Economies often are self correcting. But since we didn't leave it alone, neither of us will ever know for sure.

Beyond that, your constant carping of this meme does little for your case. It is nothing but a single variable argument that is meaningless in this complex world (yeah...I live in a fantasy land....where all the variables are at work).

Um okay what variables? What forces were at work that turned the economy exactly? Explain it.

Let's see....

We can start with the fact that there are several "economies" within an economy.

Next, if I tried to answer that question I'd be guilty of the same thing you are...trying to say what caused the economy to come out of a freefall. I've maintained all along, no one knows and saying the stimulus "did it" is bogus. Nobody really knows.

Why don't you start by looking at the fact that one of the reasons the economy was in freefall was the lack of credit and that our efforts to stop that were relatively unsuccessful.

Government takeover of banks hurt the speed at which things could have recovered (again, we'll never know just how much or how little).

There are about six dozen other key factors that also have an impact.

So stimulus added to our GDP by two percentage points and saved or created 2.5 million jobs but it has nothing to do with the recovery?

This "no one knows" crap you are spewing is ridiculous. This is economics we're talking about, not theoretical physics.

How about you have some humility and admit an economist would know more about the economy than you?

 

[Truthmatters]

93% of economists say the stim worked.

conversation over

 

[Listening]

Um okay what variables? What forces were at work that turned the economy exactly? Explain it.

Let's see....

We can start with the fact that there are several "economies" within an economy.

Next, if I tried to answer that question I'd be guilty of the same thing you are...trying to say what caused the economy to come out of a freefall. I've maintained all along, no one knows and saying the stimulus "did it" is bogus. Nobody really knows.

Why don't you start by looking at the fact that one of the reasons the economy was in freefall was the lack of credit and that our efforts to stop that were relatively unsuccessful.

Government takeover of banks hurt the speed at which things could have recovered (again, we'll never know just how much or how little).

There are about six dozen other key factors that also have an impact.

So stimulus added to our GDP by two percentage points and saved or created 2.5 million jobs but it has nothing to do with the recovery?

This "no one knows" crap you are spewing is ridiculous. This is economics we're talking about, not theoretical physics.

How about you have some humility and admit an economist would know more about the economy than you?

There is no way to prove that causation. You simply don't have it.

You are starting to sound like the people in the book I am reading "Just How Stupid Are We" who somehow think that presidents have an effect on the economy (like they can run it).

No one knows. If they did they could prove and everyone would agree. You can't and we don't.

Sorry, but you are the one who needs the humility.

Just make your claim. There is a casual inference of relation and for that reason you stand up and say this has to be so......

Then we can laugh at you and start this thread over again in six months.

 

[kaz]

I think he's on to something though. reagan cut taxes and the debt increased so reagan the great had to increase taxes. Maybe you don't remember?

Reagan cut taxes and under his administration tax receipts doubled. Government spending went unchecked, and before you blame that on Reagan, far more of it was domestic. I remember fine, I just don't have the selective, self serving memory that liberals do.

Complete hallucination.

Federal revenue in nominal figures (76%):

1980: 517b
1988: 909b

Federal revenue in 2005 dollars (25%):

1980: 1083b
1988: 1357b

Government Tax and Revenue Chart: United States 1980-1990 - Federal State Local Data

So you're arguing that when Reagan cut taxes, receipts only went up 76%, they didn't double. Since the point of this was to disprove the liberal lie that tax cuts reduce revenue, I'm willing to stipulate to your numbers. Thanks for obliterating that lie.

 

[Claudette]

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.

What success??

The economy still sucks and UE is at 7.9%.

That might look successfull to you, an Obamabot, but to me, a real person, it sucks.

 

[Faun]

Reagan cut taxes and under his administration tax receipts doubled. Government spending went unchecked, and before you blame that on Reagan, far more of it was domestic. I remember fine, I just don't have the selective, self serving memory that liberals do.

Complete hallucination.

Federal revenue in nominal figures (76%):

1980: 517b
1988: 909b

Federal revenue in 2005 dollars (25%):

1980: 1083b
1988: 1357b

Government Tax and Revenue Chart: United States 1980-1990 - Federal State Local Data

So you're arguing that when Reagan cut taxes, receipts only went up 76%, they didn't double. Since the point of this was to disprove the liberal lie that tax cuts reduce revenue, I'm willing to stipulate to your numbers. Thanks for obliterating that lie.

Your apology for contributing bullshit is accepted.

And sure, in nominal figures, it increased 76%. That's less than Clinton"s 86% and more than Bush41's 20%, Bush43's 25% and Obama’s 10%

But of course, nominal figures are meaningless when comparing across a timespan. So yes, a 76% increase is rather meaningless. What is meaningful are the real figures. Factor in inflation and tax receipts under Reagan increased just 25%. That's less than Clinton's 60% but more than Bush41's 5%, Bush43's 2% and Obama’s 1%.

As far as the cause of the increase, you cannot prove it was a result of the tax cuts. Since Reagan also raised taxes, it can also be argued that it was the tax increases which contributed to the increased revenue.

 

[kaz]

And sure, in nominal figures, it increased 76%. That's less than Clinton"s 86% and more than Bush41's 20%, Bush43's 25% and Obama’s 10%

Note that in your data that those who had tax cuts tended to have higher revenue growth and the ones who didn't had the lowest. Obama has had the highest tax increases and is at the bottom of revenue growth. And he even started at the bottom of a depression.

Dude, you're obliterating the left's lie that tax cuts reduce revenue and tax increases raise revenue, well done!

 

[Truthmatters]

anyone who thinks tax cuts ALWAYS bring in more revenue if insane