It’s not hard to make the case that Obama’s $840 billion stimulus was a failure

[Conservative]

How Stimulus Fails - Reason Magazine

It’s not hard to make the case that President Barack Obama’s $840 billion stimulus was a failure. The economy, which was supposed to recover as a result of the massive spending, has largely remained in the doldrums.

The ground rules for stimulus dollars, as laid out by Obama’s top economic adviser at the time, Larry Summers, were based on the insights of legendary 20th-century economist John Maynard Keynes. The funds were to be “targeted” at resources idled by the recession, and the interventions were to be “temporary” and “timely,” injected quickly into the economy.

None of that turned out to be true. “Even if you were to believe that government spending can trigger economic growth,” says reason columnist Veronique de Rugy, a senior research fellow at George Mason University’s Mercatus Center, “the money is never spent in a way that’s consistent with the conditions laid out by the Keynesians for it to be efficient.”

Obama said the stimulus would put nearly 400,000 people back to work rebuilding America. But in the year after the stimulus was passed, the U.S. construction industry shed about 900,000 jobs, or 14 percent of its work force. The industry still hadn’t recovered two-and-a-half years later.

In Maryland, the “specialty trades,” a subset of the construction industry that handles big infrastructure projects, have lost an estimated 8 percent of their work force since the stimulus was passed, amounting to 8,000 jobs.

Or consider Palladian Partners, a communications firm in Silver Spring that has received $98 million in government contracts during the last 12 years. The National Institutes of Health (NIH), Palladian’s biggest client, tacked $363,760 in stimulus dollars onto an existing contract, then followed that up with two more awards totaling $431,333. Palladian was to spend the money collecting and disseminating information about…how the NIH was spending stimulus money.

The stimulus bill set aside $500 million for a program to train and recruit people for the new green economy. The program promised to place 80,000 people in so-called green jobs. The grant period is more than half over, and the program has placed only 8,000 people in jobs, according to a report by the Department of Labor’s inspector general.

“We’re going to weatherize homes,” Obama said in an interview with CBS on February 4, 2009. “That immediately puts people back to work.…What would be a more effective stimulus package than that?”

According to Keynesian theory, stimulus funds must be spent quickly to be effective. By the president’s own account, one of the most “shovel-ready” programs in the package was supposed to be a $5 billion initiative to weatherize 590,000 homes around the country. But according to a February 2010 report by the Department of Energy’s inspector general, only 8 percent of the weatherization money was tapped in the program’s first year.

“The main lesson of the stimulus is that creating jobs is a very complex process,” says De Rugy. “And certainly it can’t be directed by a top-down institution that pretty much fails at everything it does.”

 

[Dragon]

That's right, it isn't hard. All you have to do is assign to it a mission, and hence a criterion for success, that it never had. Presto, change-o! Instant failure.

It's not only hard, but impossible, to be HONEST while making that case. But making the case, if one is sufficiently dishonest to do so, is indeed easy.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

It’s not hard to make the case that Obama’s $840 billion stimulus was a failure

.....Until, of course, REPUBLICANS put THEIR names on those checks.....


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w894xqReOdo]Rachel Maddow Exposes Republican Hypocrisy For What It Is......BS.flv - YouTube[/ame]

You Teabaggers make this toooooooooooooo easy!!​

 

[NYcarbineer]

The GOP alternative was a 700+ billion stimulus plan that only differed marginally by its percentage of tax cuts vs. spending -

so you were going to get one no matter who was president.

 

[NYcarbineer]

How Stimulus Fails - Reason Magazine

It’s not hard to make the case that President Barack Obama’s $840 billion stimulus was a failure. The economy, which was supposed to recover as a result of the massive spending, has largely remained in the doldrums.

The ground rules for stimulus dollars, as laid out by Obama’s top economic adviser at the time, Larry Summers, were based on the insights of legendary 20th-century economist John Maynard Keynes. The funds were to be “targeted” at resources idled by the recession, and the interventions were to be “temporary” and “timely,” injected quickly into the economy.

None of that turned out to be true. “Even if you were to believe that government spending can trigger economic growth,” says reason columnist Veronique de Rugy, a senior research fellow at George Mason University’s Mercatus Center, “the money is never spent in a way that’s consistent with the conditions laid out by the Keynesians for it to be efficient.”

“We’re going to weatherize homes,” Obama said in an interview with CBS on February 4, 2009. “That immediately puts people back to work.…What would be a more effective stimulus package than that?”

According to Keynesian theory, stimulus funds must be spent quickly to be effective. By the president’s own account, one of the most “shovel-ready” programs in the package was supposed to be a $5 billion initiative to weatherize 590,000 homes around the country. But according to a February 2010 report by the Department of Energy’s inspector general, only 8 percent of the weatherization money was tapped in the program’s first year.

“The main lesson of the stimulus is that creating jobs is a very complex process,” says De Rugy. “And certainly it can’t be directed by a top-down institution that pretty much fails at everything it does.”

Most of those premises and arguments are ridiculously fallacious.

If a stimulus puts 100 construction workers to work on an infrastructure project in a certain area, but in the meantime 200 construction workers in the same area are laid off because of the private sector housing bust,

are you going to claim that the stimulus failed because the area lost 100 jobs?

 

[NYcarbineer]

A proper stimulus plan would work as follows:

1. As the economy slows down, UE goes up and workers become available

2. The government borrows money to hire people and buy goods for projects such as infrastructure that need to be done anyway. That accomplishes 2 positive things - keeps people working and gets some worthwhile things done.

3. As the economy recovers, the government must pay back the money it borrowed with tax revenues, to clean up the balance sheet for the next time a stimulus would be appropriate.

 

[blastoff]

Yeah but I'm pretty sure unemployed voters will remember that when Barry & Co. eventually laughed about all the shovel-ready jobs that really didn't exist they weren't overly loud and obnoxious about it. You know, kind of how folks usually laugh about an inside joke.

 

[Oldstyle]

That's right, it isn't hard. All you have to do is assign to it a mission, and hence a criterion for success, that it never had. Presto, change-o! Instant failure.

It's not only hard, but impossible, to be HONEST while making that case. But making the case, if one is sufficiently dishonest to do so, is indeed easy.

Ok, Dragon...since you've made the charge...what was the "mission" of the stimulus...other than to stimulate the economy and create jobs?

What's happened SINCE the stimulus was approved is an attempt by progressives to change the criteria from stimulating the economy to "saving" jobs because the stimulus really didn't create many jobs...it just kept an awful lot of public sector union people from getting laid off while it ignored the plight of those in the private sector (other than extending their jobless benefits). Instead of simply looking at whether or not the Obama stimulus created jobs and grew the economy...you progressives have taken a "fall back" position that the stimulus saved us from going into a second Great Depression and saved millions of jobs. Two things that are almost impossible to prove or disprove...in contrast to whether or not it created more jobs. Saying the stimulus prevented a second Great Depression is a stretch...TARP had a much bigger effect on staving off a depression than the Obama stimulus ever did. Now you CAN say that the stimulus "saved" jobs. Perhaps it would have been more aptly named the "Save Public Sector Union Jobs Bill" because those, for the main part are the jobs that it saved. What it DIDN'T do...and why it ultimately has to be seen as a failure of epic proportions...is to create jobs...especially jobs that lasted.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

When you really look at where the money went ie failed solar projects, unions, etc., you can see why it didn't work. Its time for new ideas other than more stimuli.

 

[Oldstyle]

How Stimulus Fails - Reason Magazine

It’s not hard to make the case that President Barack Obama’s $840 billion stimulus was a failure. The economy, which was supposed to recover as a result of the massive spending, has largely remained in the doldrums.

“The main lesson of the stimulus is that creating jobs is a very complex process,” says De Rugy. “And certainly it can’t be directed by a top-down institution that pretty much fails at everything it does.”

Most of those premises and arguments are ridiculously fallacious.

If a stimulus puts 100 construction workers to work on an infrastructure project in a certain area, but in the meantime 200 construction workers in the same area are laid off because of the private sector housing bust,

are you going to claim that the stimulus failed because the area lost 100 jobs?

I'm going to make that claim if the project that was "supposed" to put the 100 contruction workers to work was abandoned because it wasn't shovel ready and instead the money that was supposed to be spent on that was used to prop up State and local government payrolls or spent on green energy programs like Solyndra's that resulted in a further LOSS of jobs.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Obama admits it failed. He thinks its funny too that he pissed away $850 Billion

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4p4-vPrcDBo]Obama: Shovel Ready jobs not shovel ready - YouTube[/ame]

 

[whitehall]

What does it take for moderate democrats to come to their senses? When Barry appointed a communist former leader of an arson and looting rampage to his "green jobs board" he was sending a message to the radical left that it wasn't about "green jobs", it was about social revolution. How can anyone believe the president when he says an alternate for oil energy is right around the corner while we are mortgaging our grand kids future to buy oil? How much money do you think we should spend on junk factories like Solyndra that pretend to make alternate energy and go under as soon as they spend the taxpayer money. Who could trust a president who bases a campaign on free condoms? The dirty little secret is that the liberal media is keeping Barry from being laughed out of Washington.

 

[NYcarbineer]

How Stimulus Fails - Reason Magazine

Most of those premises and arguments are ridiculously fallacious.

If a stimulus puts 100 construction workers to work on an infrastructure project in a certain area, but in the meantime 200 construction workers in the same area are laid off because of the private sector housing bust,

are you going to claim that the stimulus failed because the area lost 100 jobs?

I'm going to make that claim if the project that was "supposed" to put the 100 contruction workers to work was abandoned because it wasn't shovel ready and instead the money that was supposed to be spent on that was used to prop up State and local government payrolls or spent on green energy programs like Solyndra's that resulted in a further LOSS of jobs.

Your basing your opinion on the falsehood that there weren't any infrastructure projects done.

You've bought the rightwing myth lock stock and barrel.

 

[Oldstyle]

Most of those premises and arguments are ridiculously fallacious.

If a stimulus puts 100 construction workers to work on an infrastructure project in a certain area, but in the meantime 200 construction workers in the same area are laid off because of the private sector housing bust,

are you going to claim that the stimulus failed because the area lost 100 jobs?

I'm going to make that claim if the project that was "supposed" to put the 100 contruction workers to work was abandoned because it wasn't shovel ready and instead the money that was supposed to be spent on that was used to prop up State and local government payrolls or spent on green energy programs like Solyndra's that resulted in a further LOSS of jobs.

Your basing your opinion on the falsehood that there weren't any infrastructure projects done.

You've bought the rightwing myth lock stock and barrel.

No, I'm basing my opinion on the FACT that most of the so called "shovel ready" projects were anything but shovel ready and were abandoned when the Obama Administration came under heat because of how little of the stimulus money had hit Main Street. The "myth" was that WERE shovel ready jobs. Instead of fixing infrastructure like bridges and schools they ended up repaving lots of roads because the White House panicked and told them to spend the money on anything they could do right away. That's the reason why a year later they were back asking for more money to fix...you guessed it!...INFRASTRUCTURE!!!

What the Obama Stimulus proved, Carbineer...is that this Administration doesn't have the faintest idea what they're doing when it comes to fixing either the economy or unemployment. Both are slowly improving but it's DESPITE Barry and not because of him.

Take the price of gasoline. As high as it is now? Think about how much higher it would be if Barry had gotten his way with Cap & Trade legislation.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

How Stimulus Fails - Reason Magazine

It’s not hard to make the case that President Barack Obama’s $840 billion stimulus was a failure. The economy, which was supposed to recover as a result of the massive spending, has largely remained in the doldrums.

The ground rules for stimulus dollars, as laid out by Obama’s top economic adviser at the time, Larry Summers, were based on the insights of legendary 20th-century economist John Maynard Keynes. The funds were to be “targeted” at resources idled by the recession, and the interventions were to be “temporary” and “timely,” injected quickly into the economy.

None of that turned out to be true. “Even if you were to believe that government spending can trigger economic growth,” says reason columnist Veronique de Rugy, a senior research fellow at George Mason University’s Mercatus Center, “the money is never spent in a way that’s consistent with the conditions laid out by the Keynesians for it to be efficient.”

“We’re going to weatherize homes,” Obama said in an interview with CBS on February 4, 2009. “That immediately puts people back to work.…What would be a more effective stimulus package than that?”

According to Keynesian theory, stimulus funds must be spent quickly to be effective. By the president’s own account, one of the most “shovel-ready” programs in the package was supposed to be a $5 billion initiative to weatherize 590,000 homes around the country. But according to a February 2010 report by the Department of Energy’s inspector general, only 8 percent of the weatherization money was tapped in the program’s first year.

“The main lesson of the stimulus is that creating jobs is a very complex process,” says De Rugy. “And certainly it can’t be directed by a top-down institution that pretty much fails at everything it does.”

Historical evidence suggests that no-stimulus would have been far worse.

Just look at the Great Depression.

When it started the government did very little. It got worse

Then government started to spend a bit. It got worse then started to get slowly better

Then government spent a gargantuan amount of money, practically giving jobs to all that needed them, and the economy recovered in a few years.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

How Stimulus Fails - Reason Magazine

It’s not hard to make the case that President Barack Obama’s $840 billion stimulus was a failure. The economy, which was supposed to recover as a result of the massive spending, has largely remained in the doldrums.

“The main lesson of the stimulus is that creating jobs is a very complex process,” says De Rugy. “And certainly it can’t be directed by a top-down institution that pretty much fails at everything it does.”

Historical evidence suggests that no-stimulus would have been far worse.

Just look at the Great Depression.

When it started the government did very little. It got worse

Then government started to spend a bit. It got worse then started to get slowly better

Then government spent a gargantuan amount of money, practically giving jobs to all that needed them, and the economy recovered in a few years.

Unemployment average 19% and never dipped below 14% from FDR's inauguration until Hitler conquered France 7 years later, when exactly did this government stimulus work?

 

[BlindBoo]

Wait, Did the Stimulus Work? - NYTimes.com

Based on its economic models, the Congressional Budget Office recently estimated that between 1.4 million and 3.4 million workers who have jobs would be unemployed if the stimulus hadn’t been enacted. Three of the best-known private economic research firms — IHS Global Insight, Macroeconomic Advisers and Moody’s Economy.com — have come up with similar estimates. The average estimated effect on employment is about 2.5 million jobs.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Wait, Did the Stimulus Work? - NYTimes.com

Based on its economic models, the Congressional Budget Office recently estimated that between 1.4 million and 3.4 million workers who have jobs would be unemployed if the stimulus hadn’t been enacted. Three of the best-known private economic research firms — IHS Global Insight, Macroeconomic Advisers and Moody’s Economy.com — have come up with similar estimates. The average estimated effect on employment is about 2.5 million jobs.

I might be one of them.

 

[Avatar4321]

Of course it's not difficult. Unless of course you are trying to convince people in the Obama cult of personality.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

How Stimulus Fails - Reason Magazine

Historical evidence suggests that no-stimulus would have been far worse.

Just look at the Great Depression.

When it started the government did very little. It got worse

Then government started to spend a bit. It got worse then started to get slowly better

Then government spent a gargantuan amount of money, practically giving jobs to all that needed them, and the economy recovered in a few years.

Unemployment average 19% and never dipped below 14% from FDR's inauguration until Hitler conquered France 7 years later, when exactly did this government stimulus work?

It didn't work that well. The government stimulus before Hitler conquered France wasn't big enough. It was the one that happened after Pearl Harbor that was big enough to give everyone jobs and result in lasting growth within a few years.