Obama's stimulus was a massive failure and it didn't work

[OldDog]

It was not only a short-term failure, but a long-term screwing of the taxpayer.

"According to analysis by CBO, the total cost of the Democrats’ failed “stimulus,” when interest on the money borrowed is included, totaled more than $1.1 trillion. CBO estimates the cost of the bill will reach $831 billion and interest on the debt for the bill will be at least $347 billion. And what did the American people get from more than $1 trillion in new borrowing for the stimulus? 42 consecutive months of unemployment above 8 percent."

It's worth recalling the promises made about the "stimulus."

[Riot]

Originally Posted by OldDog

It was not only a short-term failure, but a long-term screwing of the taxpayer.

You've not shown that that stimulus was a short term failure.

Can you do so, or not?

Can you provide one economist that in 2012 says he/she disputes the CBO's figures on the effect of the stimulus, and uses data to show "it was a failure"?

Yes or no?

[Clip-Clop]

So what you are saying is, you do not actually have the name of one economist aside from Bernanke that will say the stimulus was a good investment. The CBO is not exactly a respected panel of economic geniuses. 999 out of 1000 it should be pretty easy to find some that will back up your claims. I found 3 in 5 minutes that disputed them.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Clip-Clop

The CBO is not exactly a respected panel of economic geniuses.

You don't even know what the CBO is, do you? Yeah - the CBO is very well respected. Geeshus cripes.

You haven't posted one economist that disputes the CBO's data on jobs and GDP growth from the stimulus.

List one economist that says the stimulus didn't create that number of jobs, or didn't raise the GDP as it said it did.

You posted comments from 2010 - the stimulus effects were not even measurable at that time.

[Clip-Clop]

Originally Posted by Riot

You don't even know what the CBO is, do you? Yeah - the CBO is very well respected. Geeshus cripes.

You haven't posted one economist that disputes the CBO's data on jobs and GDP growth from the stimulus.

List one economist that says the stimulus didn't create that number of jobs, or didn't raise the GDP as it said it did.

You posted comments from 2010 - the stimulus effects were not even measurable at that time.

Got it, no.

You can not post the name of one single respected economist that supports the results of the stimulus as being a good thing.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Clip-Clop

Got it, no.

You can not post the name of one single respected economist that supports the results of the stimulus as being a good thing.

Sorry - nice straw man, kinda desperate, but nobody is buying it.

Your challenge:

The CBO report of late 2011 measures the stimulus being a success via number of jobs created and GDP rise.

We're still waiting for you to post one economist saying, after that CBO report, that the CBO data was wrong and the stimulus was not a success - and provide any data to show why. You've posted zero.

Post one.

[Clip-Clop]

Originally Posted by Riot

Sorry - nice straw man, kinda desperate, but nobody is buying it.

Your challenge:

The CBO report of late 2011 measures the stimulus being a success via number of jobs created and GDP rise.

We're still waiting for you to post one economist saying, after that CBO report, that the CBO data was wrong and the stimulus was not a success - and provide any data to show why. You've posted zero.

Post one.

"Things like that oft-repeated canard, "the stimulus was an epic fail". Nope. 99.9% of economists around the world say, not at all, it worked. Yes, suck on that, Obama-haters. You may not "believe" in stimulus. But the stimulus worked, and that's a measurable and proven economic fact, verified by virtually every single independent economist."

Your words, not one mention of the CBO.
Please share which of the worlds independent economists you are referencing, 999 out of 1000 is a bold claim and should be easy to back up. It is time for you to actually defend one of your statements, or continue to just move the argument away from your actual words to some other made up version inside your head. Either way it is great theater for the rest of us.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Clip-Clop

"Things like that oft-repeated canard, "the stimulus was an epic fail". Nope. 99.9% of economists around the world say, not at all, it worked. Yes, suck on that, Obama-haters. You may not "believe" in stimulus. But the stimulus worked, and that's a measurable and proven economic fact, verified by virtually every single independent economist."

Your words, not one mention of the CBO.
Please share which of the worlds independent economists you are referencing, 999 out of 1000 is a bold claim and should be easy to back up. It is time for you to actually defend one of your statements, or continue to just move the argument away from your actual words to some other made up version inside your head. Either way it is great theater for the rest of us.

You haven't posted one economist that, in 2012, disagrees that the stimulus worked, by arguing against the measurable facts of job creation and GDP growth.

Not one.

Okay - I'll be as shallow and superficial as you:

Did the stimulus work? A review of the nine best studies on the subject
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...bibJ_blog.html

The Impact of the Recovery Act, In a Few Easy Charts
http://jaredbernsteinblog.com/the-re...w-easy-charts/

Hate It or Love It, the Stimulus Worked
http://prospect.org/article/hate-it-...timulus-worked

Don't Tell Anyone, but the Stimulus Worked
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/16/op...rked.html?_r=0

Why Obama's Stimulus Worked
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/...timulus-worked

Case closed: the stimulus worked
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1111/68965.html


Economists saying the stimulus worked, with supporting data via published studies.

Feyrer and Sacerdote.

Chodorow-Reich, Feiveson, Liscow, and Woolston.

Wilson.

Congressional Budget Office.

Council of Economic Advisors.

Zandi and Blinder.

Oh and Reis.

[Cannon Shell]

All economic stimulus "work" because it is an artificial effect. To what degree is the question.

For example if Doc ICU hit the lottery and his head and decided he wanted me to train for him. I go to the sale and spend 10 million for him on yearlings. Well that 10 million will certainly stimulate the short term sales economy, the economy of my barn and all those with whom I do business with. But if they all turn out to be bums and the spending turns out to be an unwise investment in the end nothing is really acomplished because he wont spend that money again. In a perfect world the breeders who benefited from the extra 10 million in sales would reinvest in their programs, my barn would expand based on the success on the horses bought and Doc ICU would become a longtime owner/investor in the business. Most likely the breeders would pocket the money, my barn would get a small bump and in a few years the entire "stimulus" effect would be minimal.

[Clip-Clop]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

All economic stimulus "work" because it is an artificial effect. To what degree is the question.

For example if Doc ICU hit the lottery and his head and decided he wanted me to train for him. I go to the sale and spend 10 million for him on yearlings. Well that 10 million will certainly stimulate the short term sales economy, the economy of my barn and all those with whom I do business with. But if they all turn out to be bums and the spending turns out to be an unwise investment in the end nothing is really acomplished because he wont spend that money again. In a perfect world the breeders who benefited from the extra 10 million in sales would reinvest in their programs, my barn would expand based on the success on the horses bought and Doc ICU would become a longtime owner/investor in the business. Most likely the breeders would pocket the money, my barn would get a small bump and in a few years the entire "stimulus" effect would be minimal.

Theoretical math is even less welcome than ordinary math here as that requires thought, logic and projection when it is more fun to post pie charts...

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Clip-Clop

Theoretical math is even less welcome than ordinary math here as that requires thought, logic and projection when it is more fun to post pie charts...

Yes, who would think that posting actual numbers to support their contention would be ridiculed by those that don't like "pie charts"?

But, when you can't list one economist in 2012 that disputes the success of the stimulus data, I guess trying to ridicule facts is all you have?

[Riot]

Is there anybody out there who can find one economist in 2012 disputing the data in the CBO's report on the stimulus working via creating X jobs and raising GDP X amount?

Anybody?

Clip Clop?

Old Dog?

Here again is the data given by the CBO for reference. Still waiting for one of you to come up with one economist that in 2012 that says CBO data is wrong.

Jay Bookman
CBO reports stimulus package was a major economic success
7:58 am November 23, 2011,

The Congressional Budget Office has released its latest assessment of the 2009 stimulus package and the economic impact of its various components.

According to the CBO analysis of stimulus provisions:

– They raised real (inflation-adjusted) gross domestic product (GDP) by between 0.3 percent and 1.9 percent (see Table 1),
– They lowered the unemployment rate by between 0.2 percentage points and 1.3 percentage points,
– They increased the number of people employed by between 0.4 million and 2.4 million, and
– They increased the number of full-time-equivalent jobs by 0.5 million to 3.3 million. (Increases in FTE jobs include shifts from part-time to full-time work or overtime and are thus generally larger than increases in the number of employed workers.)



Two other points:

– The CBO estimates that the impact of the stimulus will continue to be felt over the next year, increasing GDP by up to 0.8 percent next year and creating up to 1.1 million jobs over what it would have been.

– The longterm economic impacts of increased borrowing to fund the stimulus will be minimal or nonexistent. “In contrast to its positive near-term macroeconomic effects, ARRA will reduce output slightly in the long run, CBO estimates—by between zero and 0.2 percent after 2016,” its economists predict.

[OldDog]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

All economic stimulus "work" because it is an artificial effect. To what degree is the question.

For example if Doc ICU hit the lottery and his head and decided he wanted me to train for him. I go to the sale and spend 10 million for him on yearlings. Well that 10 million will certainly stimulate the short term sales economy, the economy of my barn and all those with whom I do business with. But if they all turn out to be bums and the spending turns out to be an unwise investment in the end nothing is really acomplished because he wont spend that money again. In a perfect world the breeders who benefited from the extra 10 million in sales would reinvest in their programs, my barn would expand based on the success on the horses bought and Doc ICU would become a longtime owner/investor in the business. Most likely the breeders would pocket the money, my barn would get a small bump and in a few years the entire "stimulus" effect would be minimal.

Exactly. Now imagine your scenario if Doc borrowed that $10 million for you to spend on yearlings.

[Clip-Clop]

http://www.cbo.gov/publication/43552

Are you talking about this report? Or some news outlets interpretation of this report?

This is not a raving success based on the numbers provided by the CBO. The value just isnt there.

[Clip-Clop]

It worked (econometric):

Feyrer and Sacerdote.

Chodorow-Reich, Feiveson, Liscow, and Woolston.

Wilson.

It worked (modeling):

Congressional Budget Office.

Council of Economic Advisors.

Zandi and Blinder.

It worked a little bit (modeling):
Oh and Reis.

It didn’t work (econometric):
Conley and Dupor.

Taylor

This is the complete list from your article and post, not just the ones that support the outcome. It worked a little bit is OK to include in the overwhelming support group?
There are three listed in your defense that are clearly saying it didn't work. 11 say it did, based on this you need 2986 more to prove your metric.

[OldDog]

So now we've gone from "success" to merely "short-term success." I suppose if "creating or saving" 1.3 million to 3.5 million jobs at a cost of between $228,000 and $586,000 per job is "success," then yes, the stimulus was a smashing short-term success. Does the Ezra Klein operative Dylan Matthews get into that? Does the leftist, Soros-funded Center on Budget and Policy Priorities talk about that, or discuss the CBO’s take on the long-run impact of the stimulus:

In contrast to its positive near-term macroeconomic effects, ARRA will reduce output slightly in the long run, CBO estimates—by between zero and 0.2 percent after 2016. But CBO expects that the legislation will have no long-term effects on employment because the U.S. economy will have a high rate of use of its labor resources in the long run. ARRA’s long-run impact on the economy will stem primarily from the resulting increase in government debt.

To the extent that people hold their wealth in government securities rather than in a form that can be used to finance private investment, the increased debt tends to reduce the stock of productive private capital. In the long run, each dollar of additional debt crowds out about a third of a dollar’s worth of private domestic capital, CBO estimates.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2h_rDrd97sY
"a drag on the level of GDP..." because the stimulus was put, as the President likes to say about the war, "on a credit card."

Per the CBO report:

The rate of unemployment in the United States has exceeded 8 percent since February 2009, making the past three years the longest stretch of high unemployment in this country since the Great Depression. Moreover, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projects that the unemployment rate will remain above 8 percent until 2014. The official unemployment rate excludes those individuals who would like to work but have not searched for a job in the past four weeks as well as those who are working part-time but would prefer full-time work; if those people were counted among the unemployed, the unemployment rate in January 2012 would have been about 15 percent. Compounding the problem of high unemployment, the share of unemployed people looking for work for more than six months—referred to as the long-term unemployed—topped 40 percent in December 2009 for the first time since 1948, when such data began to be collected; it has remained above that level ever since.

Back to Cannonshell's point,
"Last summer, Dylan Matthews reviewed the research on the stimulus for the Washington Post and dug up six studies that found a positive effect. Three of them were based on models that assume the stimulus worked. Three of them were supposedly empirical confirmations of this effect. These three all found that states (or counties) that got more stimulus money had stronger economic performances than places that received less.

But nobody denies that the federal government can shift the distribution of economic activity. If Congress were to give me $50 billion, I am sure car dealerships and liquor stores in my area would see an uptick in sales. That doesn’t mean the nation as a whole would come out ahead. (I am willing to go along with the experiment if Congress doubts this.)"
Obama’s Stimulus Helped Grow Debt, Not Economy
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-0...h-ponnuru.html

[Danzig]

and as something i linked said, less than half of the economists surveyed said it would turn out to be worth it in the long run.
they don't know for sure. over half didn't even want to guess that it would. i doubt it turns out to have a good ROI long term.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Danzig

and as something i linked said, less than half of the economists surveyed said it would turn out to be worth it in the long run.
they don't know for sure. over half didn't even want to guess that it would. i doubt it turns out to have a good ROI long term.

The stimulus is over. It's effect on the economy is over, and retroactively measurable and done.

Of course, if you quote stuff from 2 years ago ,- yeah, the end results "wait to be seen."

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by OldDog

Exactly. Now imagine your scenario if Doc borrowed that $10 million for you to spend on yearlings.

Dont give him any ideas