CBO: Stimulus "a net drag on the economy"

[blastoff]

What I love about TM is that she's been posting here since 2007 and made the effort to thank someone else for their post a grand total of one time lol

Accidents happen.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Odd no mention of democrats emptying SS as having any drag. Strange!

SS funds have been borrowed by every administration since SS was formed.

DEMOCRATS MADE IT LAW. Any action after that has been automatic.

FAIL!!

You don't understand how Social Security works. The Trust Fund is INVESTED in order to generate INTEREST INCOME. That is how it makes its money grow. And it always has been that way.

 

[paulitician]

Costing $250,000 per Job is a monumental Taxpayer calamity. THe CBO is vastly understating the mess we're in. They've actually made things much worse with their "Stimulus." These Jobs will be paid for by Taxpayers for several decades to come. What a bleak future they've left for American kids.

 

[Listening]

even if so it kept us out of a depression.

100% bullcrap.

This line was invented as a smoke screen to cover for the fact that the administration didin't figure out, until it was way to late, that they had seriously miscalculated on this one (and probably became suspicious when they figured out they were batting zero on everything else).

And like a good little bobblehead you just keep repeating the mantra.

I am surprised you morons don't put it to music and make a rap song out of it.

 

[Listening]

they have accepted that the stim saved jobs.

funny that one.

another right wing lie dead

TruthSplatters strikes again.

Saving jobs does not mean it would not be a drag on the economy.

Can you pull your head out of David Axelrod's ass long enough to understand that ?

 

[jillian]

Well imagine that.

The Congressional Budget Office on Tuesday downgraded its estimate of the benefits of President Obama’s 2009 stimulus package, saying it may have sustained as few as 700,000 jobs at its peak last year and that over the long run it will actually be a net drag on the economy.

CBO said that while the Recovery Act boosted the economy in the short run, the extra debt that the stimulus piled up “crowds out” private investment and “will reduce output slightly in the long run — by between 0 and 0.2 percent after 2016.”

The analysis confirms what CBO predicted before the stimulus passed in February 2009, though the top-end decline of two tenths of a percent is actually deeper than the agency predicted back then.

All told, the stimulus did boost jobs and the economy in the short run, according to CBO’s models. At the peak of spending from July through September 2010 it sustained anywhere from 700,000 to 3.6 million, which lowered the unemployment rate by between four-tenths of a percent to 2 percent.

The Obama administration had promised 3.5 million jobs would be produced at the peak of spending.

For this current quarter CBO said the stimulus is sustaining between 600,000 and 1.8 million jobs, which has improved the unemployment rate by as much as 1 percent versus what it otherwise would have been.

The White House did not return a message seeking comment Tuesday afternoon, but the president has defended the stimulus package as a bulwark against an even weaker economy.

Earlier this fall he proposed another round of spending, calling for $447 billion in expanded tax breaks, additional aid to states to hire teachers and emergency workers, and more infrastructure spending.

That broad effort has stalled, though on Monday Mr. Obama signed a slim portion of the package that offers tax breaks to businesses that hire veterans, and that repeals a 3 percent contract withholding requirement for government contractors.

CBO has re-evaluated the stimulus every three months, and its estimates for the total cost of varied. Initially the package was pegged at $787 billion, rose as high as $862 billion at one point, and it now projected to be $825 billion once all the money is paid out.

The non-partisan agency also has changed its model for the spending’s impact on the economy, and the new calculations show the Recovery Act did less than originally projected.

CBO said it has concluded there is less of an indirect multiplier effect of federal spending.

Those changes caused it to drop its estimates for total employment sustained by the spending in 2011 from between 1.2 million and 3.7 million down to between 600,000 and 3.6 million.

As for the long-term situation, CBO said its basic assumption is that each dollar of additional federal debt crowds out about a third of a dollar’s worth of private domestic capital.

CBO does not calculate crowding out in the short term, which is why the Recovery Act boosts the economy in the near term.

CBO: Stimulus hurts economy in the long run - Washington Times

wow.. lies from the rev moon... imagine that.

 

[Listening]

Well imagine that.

wow.. lies from the rev moon... imagine that.

When there is no retort......you have to wonder.

 

[Foxfyre]

Okay you guys who won't accept a link from the Washington Times, regardless of who actually wrote it, would you accept Harvard Business School as a source?

. . . .The (Recovery Act) law may not have worked, but could other stimulus spending work? One could say that under the best case scenario, the existence of large multiplier, a perfect implementation, and an absence of massive debt accumulation, there is a chance that stimulus may deliver some results. That level of optimism requires a heavy dose of wishful thinking, however, and should be taken with a grain of salt. Research from Harvard Business School shows that federal spending in states causes local businesses to cut back rather than to grow. In other words, more government spending causes the private sector to shrink, the exact opposite of the intended result. . . .
Government Spending Shrinks the Private Sector | Debate Club | US News Opinion

Oh and here's the link to that Harvard Study:
http://www.people.hbs.edu/cmalloy/pdffiles/envaloy.pdf

 

[The T]

Okay you guys who won't accept a link from the Washington Times, regardless of who actually wrote it, would you accept Harvard Business School as a source?

. . . .The (Recovery Act) law may not have worked, but could other stimulus spending work? One could say that under the best case scenario, the existence of large multiplier, a perfect implementation, and an absence of massive debt accumulation, there is a chance that stimulus may deliver some results. That level of optimism requires a heavy dose of wishful thinking, however, and should be taken with a grain of salt. Research from Harvard Business School shows that federal spending in states causes local businesses to cut back rather than to grow. In other words, more government spending causes the private sector to shrink, the exact opposite of the intended result. . . .
Government Spending Shrinks the Private Sector | Debate Club | US News Opinion

Oh and here's the link to that Harvard Study:
http://www.people.hbs.edu/cmalloy/pdffiles/envaloy.pdf

All I see is Government choosing winners and losers for political expediency...for thier own power.

 

[NYcarbineer]

If the Democrats' stimulus plan was such a bad idea because it was going to add debt that would eventually cause a drag on the economy...

...why did the Republicans offer their own alternative 713 billion dollar stimulus plan?

Senate GOP Offers Alternative Stimulus Plan - Political Hotsheet - CBS News

 

[Full-Auto]

Okay you guys who won't accept a link from the Washington Times, regardless of who actually wrote it, would you accept Harvard Business School as a source?

. . . .The (Recovery Act) law may not have worked, but could other stimulus spending work? One could say that under the best case scenario, the existence of large multiplier, a perfect implementation, and an absence of massive debt accumulation, there is a chance that stimulus may deliver some results. That level of optimism requires a heavy dose of wishful thinking, however, and should be taken with a grain of salt. Research from Harvard Business School shows that federal spending in states causes local businesses to cut back rather than to grow. In other words, more government spending causes the private sector to shrink, the exact opposite of the intended result. . . .
Government Spending Shrinks the Private Sector | Debate Club | US News Opinion

Oh and here's the link to that Harvard Study:
http://www.people.hbs.edu/cmalloy/pdffiles/envaloy.pdf

Here is a novel idea, Why dont we judge it on the meaning of stimulate. Funding the status quo is in no way stimulation.

 

[Trajan]

Well imagine that.

The Congressional Budget Office on Tuesday downgraded its estimate of the benefits of President Obama’s 2009 stimulus package, saying it may have sustained as few as 700,000 jobs at its peak last year and that over the long run it will actually be a net drag on the economy.

CBO said that while the Recovery Act boosted the economy in the short run, the extra debt that the stimulus piled up “crowds out” private investment and “will reduce output slightly in the long run — by between 0 and 0.2 percent after 2016.”

The analysis confirms what CBO predicted before the stimulus passed in February 2009, though the top-end decline of two tenths of a percent is actually deeper than the agency predicted back then.

All told, the stimulus did boost jobs and the economy in the short run, according to CBO’s models. At the peak of spending from July through September 2010 it sustained anywhere from 700,000 to 3.6 million, which lowered the unemployment rate by between four-tenths of a percent to 2 percent.

The Obama administration had promised 3.5 million jobs would be produced at the peak of spending.

For this current quarter CBO said the stimulus is sustaining between 600,000 and 1.8 million jobs, which has improved the unemployment rate by as much as 1 percent versus what it otherwise would have been.

The White House did not return a message seeking comment Tuesday afternoon, but the president has defended the stimulus package as a bulwark against an even weaker economy.

Earlier this fall he proposed another round of spending, calling for $447 billion in expanded tax breaks, additional aid to states to hire teachers and emergency workers, and more infrastructure spending.

That broad effort has stalled, though on Monday Mr. Obama signed a slim portion of the package that offers tax breaks to businesses that hire veterans, and that repeals a 3 percent contract withholding requirement for government contractors.

CBO has re-evaluated the stimulus every three months, and its estimates for the total cost of varied. Initially the package was pegged at $787 billion, rose as high as $862 billion at one point, and it now projected to be $825 billion once all the money is paid out.

The non-partisan agency also has changed its model for the spending’s impact on the economy, and the new calculations show the Recovery Act did less than originally projected.

CBO said it has concluded there is less of an indirect multiplier effect of federal spending.

Those changes caused it to drop its estimates for total employment sustained by the spending in 2011 from between 1.2 million and 3.7 million down to between 600,000 and 3.6 million.

As for the long-term situation, CBO said its basic assumption is that each dollar of additional federal debt crowds out about a third of a dollar’s worth of private domestic capital.

CBO does not calculate crowding out in the short term, which is why the Recovery Act boosts the economy in the near term.

CBO: Stimulus hurts economy in the long run - Washington Times

I never put much faith in the CBO anyway. They are calculators, nothing more.


and for what its worth Keynes was never an advocate of 'consumer' stimulus btw

 

[Trajan]

Well imagine that.

wow.. lies from the rev moon... imagine that.

When there is no retort......you have to wonder.

retort to what? the usual drivel?

 

[Trajan]

SS funds have been borrowed by every administration since SS was formed.

DEMOCRATS MADE IT LAW. Any action after that has been automatic.

FAIL!!

You don't understand how Social Security works. The Trust Fund is INVESTED in order to generate INTEREST INCOME. That is how it makes its money grow. And it always has been that way.

 

[Foxfyre]

DEMOCRATS MADE IT LAW. Any action after that has been automatic.

FAIL!!

You don't understand how Social Security works. The Trust Fund is INVESTED in order to generate INTEREST INCOME. That is how it makes its money grow. And it always has been that way.

Is he serious? Please tell me he is not serious.

 

[NYcarbineer]

You don't understand how Social Security works. The Trust Fund is INVESTED in order to generate INTEREST INCOME. That is how it makes its money grow. And it always has been that way.

Is he serious? Please tell me he is not serious.

Social security surpluses, i.e. the Trust Fund, have been invested in US treasury securities since Social Security began.

Prove me wrong.

 

[Trajan]

You don't understand how Social Security works. The Trust Fund is INVESTED in order to generate INTEREST INCOME. That is how it makes its money grow. And it always has been that way.

Is he serious? Please tell me he is not serious.

knowing him? he is.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Okay you guys who won't accept a link from the Washington Times, regardless of who actually wrote it, would you accept Harvard Business School as a source?

. . . .The (Recovery Act) law may not have worked, but could other stimulus spending work? One could say that under the best case scenario, the existence of large multiplier, a perfect implementation, and an absence of massive debt accumulation, there is a chance that stimulus may deliver some results. That level of optimism requires a heavy dose of wishful thinking, however, and should be taken with a grain of salt. Research from Harvard Business School shows that federal spending in states causes local businesses to cut back rather than to grow. In other words, more government spending causes the private sector to shrink, the exact opposite of the intended result. . . .
Government Spending Shrinks the Private Sector | Debate Club | US News Opinion

Oh and here's the link to that Harvard Study:
http://www.people.hbs.edu/cmalloy/pdffiles/envaloy.pdf

So I guess if you have a few thousand people in your locale working in the defense industry, and we make a dramatic cut in defense spending that puts them all out of work,

everyone there will be better off because the private sector will step up and make things better?

 

[Londoner]

Why don't we ever hear what the CBO says about the Bush tax cuts?
CBO: Bush Tax Cuts Responsible For Almost A Third Of Deficit In Last 10 Years | Political Correction

"The Bush tax cuts cost about four times more than President Obama's oft-demonized Recovery Act"


The Bush tax cuts are the single largest driver of the deficit.

The Clinton era tax rates left us with budget surpluses and the greatest economic growth since the 50s and 60s.
RVC--Graphs

When will people learn? The Bush tax cuts sent this country into the worst deficit crisis in this nation's history.

Republican attempted to "starve the beast" by depriving government of the money to function. They have long admitted that the only thing that will kill medicare and social security is a fiscal emergency so deep that there will be no choice but to cut government spending.

"Starve the beast" has worked. Meaning: state's across the country have been forced to enact programs of austerity. Problem is: government spending since the postwar years has played a major role in lower and middle class consumption. Progressive taxation was used to redistribute wealth to the consumption classes. Now that we have weakened those policies, consumption is dead.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Why don't we ever hear what the CBO says about the Bush tax cuts?
CBO: Bush Tax Cuts Responsible For Almost A Third Of Deficit In Last 10 Years | Political Correction

"The Bush tax cuts cost about four times more than President Obama's oft-demonized Recovery Act"


The Bush tax cuts are the single largest driver of the deficit.

The Clinton era tax rates left us with budget surpluses and the greatest economic growth since the 50s and 60s.
RVC--Graphs

When will people learn? The Bush tax cuts sent this country into the worst deficit crisis in this nation's history.

Republican attempted to "starve the beast" by depriving government of the money to function. They have long admitted that the only thing that will kill medicare and social security is a fiscal emergency so deep that there will be no choice but to cut government spending.

"Starve the beast" has worked. Meaning: state's across the country have been forced to enact programs of austerity. Problem is: government spending since the postwar years has played a major role in lower and middle class consumption. Progressive taxation was used to redistribute wealth to the consumption classes. Now that we have weakened those policies, consumption is dead.

I posted somewhere that the CBO says that extending the Bush tax cuts will be a long term drag on the economy -

the same exact thing they say about the stimulus.