Jump to content

Of course the Stimulus bill is a complete DISASTER


Recommended Posts

Intelligent reply Heck? or just silence or denial? This is for YOU to read for a change:




CBO Stays Stimulus Bill Worse that Doing Nothing

The Congressional Budget Office, hardly a Republican bastion, has reported that the stimulus bill

will lead to a lower GDP 5 to 10 years out than if Congress did nothing. The bill will crowd out private

investment that has a higher chance of increasing GDP than the spending in the stimulus bill.


Correction: Here is the cite to the letter. http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/99xx/doc9987/Gr...ar_Stimulus.pdf








Skye at Midnight Blue:


By The Numbers -– The Stimulus Failed

13 Trillion in Debt: We are rapidly approaching 100% of GDP, by 2012 our debt level will surpass our Gross Domestic Product. In simple words, we will owe more than we make as a nation. We will be bankrupt.


CBO weighs in:


The federal public debt, which was $6.3 trillion ($56,000 per household) when Mr. Obama entered office amid an economic crisis, totals $8.2 trillion ($72,000 per household) today, and it’s headed toward $20.3 trillion (more than $170,000 per household) in 2020, according to CBO’s deficit estimates.


9.7% U.S. unemployment


2.2 million jobs lost:


In total the U.S. economy has now lost a net of 2.2 million jobs since President Barack Obama signed his stimulus bill, and his administration is now 7.2 million jobs short of what he promised his $862 billion stimulus would help create by 2010.


It is no wonder that Democrats are refusing to host public townhall meetings.



Link to comment
Share on other sites

Read the CBO report, Cal. What does it say about the effects of the stimulus?


You're reading headlines from right-wing news sites. Read the actual report that you posted. Everyone knows deficit spending crowds out private sector growth in the long-term. This is news to you? A stunning revelation? You don't need the CBO to tell you that.


These are the discussions about stimulus that adults have. It's designed to stimulate demand in the short term, but has long-term consequences because nothing is free. The question is whether or not it's worth running up deficits in the short term in order to shallow out the recession. Virtually every economist agrees that we needed to run deficits in the short term to make sure we didn't slide into a depression. And luckily, that didn't happen. It now seems pretty certain it would have had we not acted.


The stimulus did what it was supposed to do, but in the end probably wasn't big enough. And if certain Republicans had their way, and we had no stimulus, and no bailouts, we'd be much worse off. If you thnk 10% unemployment is rough, think about 16%, or 20%.


We've got to do more to spur demand. That means more tax cuts and more infrastructure spending. And we have to pay attention to the deficit, which means you're going to have to control long-term spending on entitlements, and raise taxes on the wealthy.


That's your dose of reality for today.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So the CBO didn't say the stimulus was "a disaster", like you claimed. You have that all wrong. Here's what it said:


Taking all of the short- and long-run effects into account, CBO estimates that the legislation implies an increase in GDP relative to the agency’s baseline forecast of between 1.4 percent and 3.8 percent by the fourth quarter of 2009, between 1.1 percent and 3.3 percent by the fourth quarter of 2010, between 0.4 percent and 1.3 percent by the fourth quarter of 2011, and declining amounts in later years (see Table 1). Beyond 2014, the legislation is estimated to reduce GDP by between zero and 0.2 percent. This long-run effect is slightly smaller than CBO estimated in its preliminary analysis of the Senate stimulus legislation last week due to refinements in our methodology.

Correspondingly, the legislation would increase employment by 0.8 million to 2.3 million by the fourth quarter of 2009, by 1.2 million to 3.6 million by the fourth quarter of 2010, by 0.6 million to 1.9 million by the fourth quarter of 2011, and by declining numbers in later years. The effect on employment is never estimated to be negative, despite lower GDP in later years, because CBO expects that the U.S. labor market will be at nearly full employment in the long run.



It's funny. Democrats loved this CBO report, because it countered claims like yours - that "the stimulus did nothing." So thanks for posting a CBO report that runs completely counter to what you're claiming.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, baloney. You blather more about put downs?




"The Congressional Budget Office, hardly a Republican bastion, has reported that the stimulus bill

will lead to a lower GDP 5 to 10 years out than if Congress did nothing. The bill will crowd out private

investment that has a higher chance of increasing GDP than the spending in the stimulus bill."


So, you think what this Obamao huge spending, in crowding out investment, and lowering our GDP,


and doing absolutely nothing about overall unemployment... is a wonderful thing because Obamao is responsible?


That's just plain corrupt, Heck. Grow up a little. You don't read and comprehend, you read and twist into


supporting your liberal agenda. That isn't intelligent discussion, it's "community-organizing-manipulate em with bs any way

you can"


I gather, you do it professionally. Weird. I'm glad you have a job, but so much of the stimulus bill was WASTED


and DID NOTHING. I simply summerized "worse than doing nothing" and "lowering our GDP" as a disaster.

They didn't SAY "disaster".


THEY DESCRIBED DISASTER. When you wake up, and grow up enough to admit Obamao is badly, badly failing our country,

and that you shouldn't have voted for him...


THEN we will be able to talk intelligently. Until then, you are a loser trying to "discuss" being sold out to progressivism, methinks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cal, you're quoting a selective, right-wing interpretation of the report. I'm quoting the actual report.


You say it's "doing absolutely nothing about overall unemployment."


That's not what the CBO says. Here's what it says, from the link you posted: "Correspondingly, the legislation would increase employment by 0.8 million to 2.3 million by the fourth quarter of 2009, by 1.2 million to 3.6 million by the fourth quarter of 2010, by 0.6 million to 1.9 million by the fourth quarter of 2011, and by declining numbers in later years."


You're wrong.


I can't waste any more time on you. But perhaps someone else will see this.



Link to comment
Share on other sites

But it didn't say it would reduce unemployment in the private sector.


It said it would reduce investment, and you agreed.


But you think that's good, for some asinine reason.


You are wasting your time with me, Heck, I won't play your games,


and you refuse to be honest about discussing issues.


Say, go find a secret blogger as your "expert" again... ROF,L !!!!!!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Those figures include private sector employment, Cal. So yes, it is saying it reduced private sector unemployment.


Each one of your posts is wrong, and then I correct it, and then you accuse me of not being able to honest. It's funny, but it's also really old.


Maybe I am jumping the gun here and things will get better. Obviously not based on what lifeboat Obama is patching, but on natural market fluxuation.


My question to you is will you come back in 2 years and admit you are wrong if you are? If so then let the games begin.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Admit I'm wrong about what, John?


I can't even argue anything in here. It's just enough to get the basic facts straight.


You want my opinion on the stimulus? Yes, we needed one. In fact, it seems clear now that we needed a bigger one. If they hadn't done what they did, we'd be in a much deeper hole, and it'd take a long time to get out of. And I'm including the Bush administration in the list of people who did the big picture things right. As it stands, seems the consensus is that the economy is going to tread water, with around 8%-10% employment for a long time. Years. And the economy would have gone in the tank had we left it to "normal market fluctuations." We'd be screwed right now.


You guys seem to imagine that Obama has some sort of cost-free policy measure at his disposal and he just won't use it. But he doesn't. He's got a series of options with sizable costs associated with them. The stimulus bill cost a lot of money. The bailouts cost a lot of money, though not nearly what Americans imagine they cost. (We got a lot of that money back, with interest.)


And yet with everything they've thrown at the economy - the stimulus, the tax cuts, the bailouts, the Fed policies - we're barely hanging on, and may be slipping back down. The housing market is still declining. Consumer spending hasn't returned because the jobs aren't there. There's nothing on the horizon that's going to lift us out of this.


So what do you suggest he do about it? If you cut taxes more, you're going to blow a hole in the deficit again. If you spend more, you're going to blow a hole in the deficit again. All of these things have costs. So what do you do? How much can you borrow to stimulate demand now without making things that much worse in the long run? And what can you get through Congress with a Republican Party that will say no to absolutely everything you do?


You guys act as if there's some magic elixir out there. There isn't. And if Obama acts, you'll complain. If he doesn't act, you'll complain.


So what do you suggest that he do?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What about forgiving student loans? People get bootstrapped and spend 5-10 years after college paying it all on that and putting very little into other markets. In your opinion, would that possibly help? That's a shit ton of money that other people aside from the ripoff private banks that own these loans (federal included) could use. I just saw a graphic of the student loan bubble, and it looked huge compared to the housing bubble. What's your opinion on that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They did student loan reform, which we discussed a while ago. That was an underreported, but significant accomplishment that will save people money. But I don't know how you simply forgive people's loans. Those are dangerous precedents to set. And you'd also be helping a class of people who are far less affected by this recession than lower income workers, or people without a college degree. There are probably better ways to get money into the system. A payroll tax holiday, for instance, would instantly get money into the hands of every worker in America. It's also how we fund entitlements, so you'd pay the price there. No free solutions.


What I wanted out of Obama was a bold, large-scale tax reform package. What we got today was a permanent extension of the research and development tax credits for businesses, and increased them from 14 to 17 percent. And another $50 billion in infrastructure spending. I don't think he wins him anything, and it's probably too small to have any real effect on the economy at large. So I didn't think it was bold enough, either politically or economically. But they also know a lot of things we don't.


Basically what's happening is that they understand the political limitations, but everyone on the economy team thinks the economy needs more stimulus. So you're getting it piecemeal - a jobs bill, which is mostly tax breaks/credits, this infrastructure spending bill. They're simply not going to get anything big, especially before the midterms. Obama could print out the Republican Party platform as a bill and the Republicans would still say no right now. It's working for them, so why change? Instead of another $200 billion bill, which freaks people out, you'll get it broken up into chunks - some tax breaks for businesses here, money for states there, money for bridges there.


I don't know. Just about everyone who knows this stuff that I talk to thinks we're about to be stuck like Japan was. Lost decade.





Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, Heck, seems that the ONLY time you're around, is when you can catch us in a mistake


in all our discourse.


I was wrong about that unemployment.


What IS TRUE, is that the next phony jobs bill is for construction.


That's UNIONS who will vote Dem.


What IS true, is that teacher funding is ...


for UNIONS. They always go DEM.


And the auto industry bailout? UNIONS. THEY GO DEM TOO.


The only hope is, is that the PEOPLE in those UNIONS


realize that enough phoney college marxist change is any of that,


and the ship gets put back ON COURSE.


What I keep thinking, is that all the millions? of consultants in education and

tech jobs and financial jobs, all the self employed.....


are not counted in this unemployment statistic at all. We don't get unemployment, at least


not here in Ohio.


And the stim did NOT WORK. That is the message here.


And not all the stimulus was spent.


Why, HecK? Why say it worked when it didn't, it wasn't all spent and you ignore that,


and they want ANOTHER stim bill? ANOTHER? And you ignore that?


Perhaps you would learn more, if you TRIED and quit just lurking around until you


can jump in and try to make a point.


Yet, when we are most certainly right, you run and hide like a frightened mosquito.



Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, and the American people are tired of freebies.


"forgive student loans" ???


We never asked for our FARM loan to be "forgiven".




Nor our BARN LOAN.


We work hard and pay them off.


I believe student loan payments don't have to be paid back until they get a job.


I could be wrong.


But say, how about forgiving student loans for THOSE who ALSO tend to vote Democratic?




if you can't afford to pay it back, don't get one.


It's called personal responsibility. I know, progressives CAN'T STAND "Personal responsibility".


Too bad. Wait til November.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Any of you guys have an idea? Hating Obama isn't an idea.


What would you like to see him do? Extend unemployment benefits? Did that. Cut taxes? Did that. Send money to the states so they can keep teachers and firefighters and policemen on? Did that. Infrastructure spending? Did that.


What else would you like to see tried? Let's hear it, geniuses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd like to see Obamao kick your butt for constantly being a hyporcrite.


Where was this "well, what do you expect the president to do, he's only just one man" thing


when Bush was pres.


Back then, it was the opposite.


No principle. Just political opportunism.


In answer to your question, Heck - I want Obamao to stop being a marxist, stop being beholden to

leftist special interests, I want him to tell his wife to just shut the hell up, I want him to start acting

like an AMERICAN instead of an IMAM, I want him to let very poorly run businesses go bankrupt

if they won't stop failing...

I want him to STOP giving billions and billions and billions to UNIONS for their VOTES.


I want him to STOP playing the victim like most all? liberal progressive marxists do.


I want him to start being an AMERICAN PRESIDENT instead of a corrupt, back room United Nations

"redistribute the wealth to me" somebeech.


I want him to genuinely respect our military, our Constitution and our FREEDOMs.






I want him to have Chavez bombed.


I want him to take out the Iranian government now.


I want him to STOP treating Israel like he thinks Jews are dirt. Hell, Even the SOVIET UNION has

now been working to have a military alliance with Israel, Obamao has been so biased against them,





I want him to admit he is just a marxist street organizer who a radical paid his college entry and fees.


I could go on, you now. :angry:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seriously Heck....... are you attempting to discuss basic logic on economic theory.....


Cal wants to shout about Marxism....... its not a discussion that has any chance of finding a mutual understanding.


Obama in less than 2 years has accomplished amazing things in the face of an unbelievable amount of problems all over the board...... even though the party of NO keeps being obstructionist and keeps fooling the simple with more of their starving the beast tactics.


Heck.... Why are you trying to be reasonable with unreasonable people?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Obama in less than 2 years has accomplished amazing things (ROF,LMAO !!!!!!!!!!!!!) in the face of an unbelievable amount of problems all over the board...... even though the party of NO (ROF,LMAO !!!!!!!!!!!!!) keeps being obstructionist and keeps fooling the simple with more of their starving the beast tactics.


Heck.... Why are you trying to be UNreasonable with reasonable people?



ROF,LMAO !!!!!!!!!!!!!



Sev, you HAVE to be kidding. PLEASE tell me you are being sarcastic.... PLEASE... ROF,LMAO !!!!!!!!!!


(if you aren't, you are a disaster, and there isn't too much humor about that. I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt here)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

cal...... calling names, using hyperbole, loose concept associations, parroting right wing PR talking points, never digging deeper into actual political schema's like starving the beast........


none of these things represent the willingness to discuss topics, rather just shouting from one corner over the other.


Is Obama the be all end all? No..... but he is nowhere near a disaster.... he inherited 2 wars, a almost depression, banks collapsing, the big three automakers collapsing (manufacturing in general), massive nuclear issues with Iran, North Korea, souring relationships with China and Russia........ crazy deregulation........ mortgage crisis....


the list goes on and on..... guess what..... really look at that very short list..... he is knocking quite of few them into a much better trajectory.... and any simpleton who thinks that STABILIZING our massively over extended consumption/credit based economic system was easy and that simple low skill jobs are going to come back after a major market and industry correction is well unbalanced and quite frankly does not understand basic economic concepts.


seriously..... the big three and millions of jobs let alone the banking industry needed the bailouts the REPUBLICANS started to stabilize and stay functional for the CHANCE to correct the ship.


get a grip, its not a massive government takeover... not to mention how many bank takeovers have now been sold back into private hands and money actually made from the interest being paid back into the TARP funds..... good god nothing is going to be perfect from the total debacle the right wing led the country in.


anyways cal the dems also were hand in hand with the republicans on globalization as well as many other things that are going to make it difficult to recover...... listen the jobs that were shed are GONE..... the low educated, low skill set stuff is overseas... the other type of jobs take more skill and education............. meaning more time and less openings.




Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, Heck GETS his butt kicked. Don't worry.


And Sev, I have had a lot of conversation with no name calling.


It's Heck that starts in with the personal insults, so I let fly. Let me know


when you can get a bit non-linear and criticize Heck for the insults, too, yah?


And, Bush inherited Clinton's cutting the intel budget, his admin putting up walls between


intel services, Bush inherited Clinton's refusal to go after al qaida (he was getting serviced by Lewinski at the time),


and don't keep on with the Obmao fairy tale.


Obamao did inherit Iraq and Afghanistan. And Obamao did exactly what Bush was going to do, except Obamao

stupidly set a date for the "end". And right after Obamao's phoney "end"... soldiers kept dying in combat in Iraq.


BUSH INHERITED N. Korea too. And neither Bush nor Obamao is fixing that problem.


BUSH INHERITED Iran, too. Iran is WORSE now, very, very, very much WORSE. And our relationship with Israel

went from solid with Bush, to very bad with Obamao. yeah, that's Obamao alright.


Do you know who was in charge of Freddie and Fannie? DEMOCRATS. DEMOCRATS ran the entire Congress.


The big three? Why make stuff up? Ford REFUSED Obamao's stupid bailout. They are doing fine.


GM and Chrysler had problems... so has Sweden's only auto co. and Sweden didn't bail them out.


There has always been problems with China and Russia. you think China is happy with Obamao's


putting our country into permanent, debilitating DEBT? you can't be serious if you say yes.


Do you know, that Obamao has been so unsupportive of Israel, and so PRO MUSLIM.... that Israel


now has a military coop deal with RUSSIA? That's pretty bad, Obamao fans.


Obamao has either done nothing to fix problems, or made them WORSE.


UNEMPLOYMENT is now a huge, gigantic disaster of Obamao's own making.


Your savior Obamao is just a college marxist who talks a good dishonest talk.


But that is not leadership. I'm tired of you talking about Bush. Bush was not my ideal


pres, either. But our country has hit the warning track, and disaster is pending.


You can put lipstick on a skunk, but Obamao and his regime still stink.


Disagree all you want. But come back and we'll talk again, after Nov.


BTW, it's funny you libs don't bring out the polls anymore. Ya used to do it all the time.


NOW? We get silence on that.


Obamao inherited some major problems that were caused by... the Dems in Congress.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Create New...