Few Economists Favor More Stimulus

[Toro]

Most economists believe the U.S. doesn't need another round of stimulus now despite expectations of continued severe job losses.

Just eight of 51 economists in The Wall Street Journal's latest forecasting survey said more stimulus is necessary, suggesting an average of about $600 billion in additional spending. On average, the economists forecast an unemployment rate of at least 10% through next June, with a decline to 9.5% by December 2010.

"The mother of all jobless recoveries is coming down the pike," said Allen Sinai of Decision Economics. But he doesn't favor more stimulus now, saying "lags in monetary and fiscal policy actions" should be allowed to "work through the system."

Like most respondents, Mr. Sinai said the bulk of the stimulus wouldn't be felt until 2010. When asked how much the stimulus has helped the economy, 53% of respondents said it has provided somewhat of a boost but that the larger effect is still to come.

That sentiment echoes what the Obama administration has said about the stimulus. While some top Democrats, such as Rep. Steny Hoyer, have said they are open to another round of stimulus, Rob Nabors, deputy director of the White House's budget office, said Wednesday that the administration isn't discussing a new package. ...

Most economists appear content to take the wait-and-see approach, as on average they are expecting the just-ended second quarter to be the last in which gross domestic product contracts. They forecast growth rising more than 2% on a seasonally adjusted annualized basis in the first half of 2010. Meanwhile, the median forecast sees the end of the recession next month.

Some economists had other reasons for opposing the stimulus. More than one-third of respondents said the government package would have only a small effect on the economy, while 6% said the stimulus has hurt the economy. ...

The administration's performance continues to divide economists. President Barack Obama and Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner both got a median 70 out of 100 for their handling of the financial crisis, but those grades varied widely. Former President George W. Bush and ex-Treasury chief Henry Paulson got median grades of 50 and 60, respectively, when economists were asked how they handled the crisis while in office.

By contrast, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke remains at the head of the class with a median grade of 85; 93% of respondents said he should be reappointed by Mr. Obama early next year.

WSJ.com Economic Forecasting Survey Shows Stimulus Opposition - WSJ.com

 

[toomuchtime_]

Most economists believe the U.S. doesn't need another round of stimulus now despite expectations of continued severe job losses.

Just eight of 51 economists in The Wall Street Journal's latest forecasting survey said more stimulus is necessary, suggesting an average of about $600 billion in additional spending. On average, the economists forecast an unemployment rate of at least 10% through next June, with a decline to 9.5% by December 2010.

"The mother of all jobless recoveries is coming down the pike," said Allen Sinai of Decision Economics. But he doesn't favor more stimulus now, saying "lags in monetary and fiscal policy actions" should be allowed to "work through the system."

Like most respondents, Mr. Sinai said the bulk of the stimulus wouldn't be felt until 2010. When asked how much the stimulus has helped the economy, 53% of respondents said it has provided somewhat of a boost but that the larger effect is still to come.

That sentiment echoes what the Obama administration has said about the stimulus. While some top Democrats, such as Rep. Steny Hoyer, have said they are open to another round of stimulus, Rob Nabors, deputy director of the White House's budget office, said Wednesday that the administration isn't discussing a new package. ...

Most economists appear content to take the wait-and-see approach, as on average they are expecting the just-ended second quarter to be the last in which gross domestic product contracts. They forecast growth rising more than 2% on a seasonally adjusted annualized basis in the first half of 2010. Meanwhile, the median forecast sees the end of the recession next month.

Some economists had other reasons for opposing the stimulus. More than one-third of respondents said the government package would have only a small effect on the economy, while 6% said the stimulus has hurt the economy. ...

The administration's performance continues to divide economists. President Barack Obama and Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner both got a median 70 out of 100 for their handling of the financial crisis, but those grades varied widely. Former President George W. Bush and ex-Treasury chief Henry Paulson got median grades of 50 and 60, respectively, when economists were asked how they handled the crisis while in office.

By contrast, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke remains at the head of the class with a median grade of 85; 93% of respondents said he should be reappointed by Mr. Obama early next year.

WSJ.com Economic Forecasting Survey Shows Stimulus Opposition - WSJ.com

There is no question but that eventually the stimulus will boost GDP and ease unemployment, but as its critics stated while Obama was preaching to us about how it would prevent the catastrophe of 8% unemployment, it will not happen in time to help end the recession, and as the Japanese learned the gains in GDP and employment created by stimulus spending will disappear as soon as the stimulus money runs out.

If instead of the stimulus boondoggle, the administration had made that $787 billion available to credit worthy consumers and businesses, it would have had an immediate and dramatic effect on the private sector economy and instead of government handouts that run up the debt, people would have been able to keep their jobs and these jobs would have generated tax revenues so that states could pay their bills, and all of this at no expense to taxpayers.

 

[Oddball]

You want to ease the recession, quit trying to pass massive new taxes, sweeping new regulations, and fascistic takeovers of businesses.

I don't know of too many businessmen who want to invest in increased production, if a substantial portion of it is going to be taken away in the end.

 

[Paulie]

You want to ease the recession, quit trying to pass massive new taxes, sweeping new regulations, and fascistic takeovers of businesses.

I don't know of too many businessmen who want to invest in increased production, if a substantial portion of it is going to be taken away in the end.

It's going to be really hard to get people on board with fiscal conservatism, because of the way it was portrayed via the Bush administration.

That's about as far back as most people are willing to remember, and we all know how his version of fiscal conservatism worked out.

All according to plan, in my opinion.

 

[Oddball]

 

[wimpy77]

Most economists believe the U.S. doesn't need another round of stimulus now despite expectations of continued severe job losses.

Just eight of 51 economists in The Wall Street Journal's latest forecasting survey said more stimulus is necessary, suggesting an average of about $600 billion in additional spending. On average, the economists forecast an unemployment rate of at least 10% through next June, with a decline to 9.5% by December 2010.

"The mother of all jobless recoveries is coming down the pike," said Allen Sinai of Decision Economics. But he doesn't favor more stimulus now, saying "lags in monetary and fiscal policy actions" should be allowed to "work through the system."

Like most respondents, Mr. Sinai said the bulk of the stimulus wouldn't be felt until 2010. When asked how much the stimulus has helped the economy, 53% of respondents said it has provided somewhat of a boost but that the larger effect is still to come.

That sentiment echoes what the Obama administration has said about the stimulus. While some top Democrats, such as Rep. Steny Hoyer, have said they are open to another round of stimulus, Rob Nabors, deputy director of the White House's budget office, said Wednesday that the administration isn't discussing a new package. ...

Most economists appear content to take the wait-and-see approach, as on average they are expecting the just-ended second quarter to be the last in which gross domestic product contracts. They forecast growth rising more than 2% on a seasonally adjusted annualized basis in the first half of 2010. Meanwhile, the median forecast sees the end of the recession next month.

Some economists had other reasons for opposing the stimulus. More than one-third of respondents said the government package would have only a small effect on the economy, while 6% said the stimulus has hurt the economy. ...

The administration's performance continues to divide economists. President Barack Obama and Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner both got a median 70 out of 100 for their handling of the financial crisis, but those grades varied widely. Former President George W. Bush and ex-Treasury chief Henry Paulson got median grades of 50 and 60, respectively, when economists were asked how they handled the crisis while in office.

By contrast, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke remains at the head of the class with a median grade of 85; 93% of respondents said he should be reappointed by Mr. Obama early next year.

WSJ.com Economic Forecasting Survey Shows Stimulus Opposition - WSJ.com

There is no question but that eventually the stimulus will boost GDP and ease unemployment, but as its critics stated while Obama was preaching to us about how it would prevent the catastrophe of 8% unemployment, it will not happen in time to help end the recession, and as the Japanese learned the gains in GDP and employment created by stimulus spending will disappear as soon as the stimulus money runs out.

If instead of the stimulus boondoggle, the administration had made that $787 billion available to credit worthy consumers and businesses, it would have had an immediate and dramatic effect on the private sector economy and instead of government handouts that run up the debt, people would have been able to keep their jobs and these jobs would have generated tax revenues so that states could pay their bills, and all of this at no expense to taxpayers.

i read an article i cant remember where but they were talking about the administration taking what money was left of tarp and doing that.