I’ve been right here, pointing out that Bush’s big problem was his lack of restraint in spending. Now that Obama is making the problem much, much worse, I am here pointing out that the effects are going to be much, much worse.
See how it works? A $455 billion deficit is bad, even from a Republican. A $1.56 trillion deficit is much worse, even from a moron.
Did you happen to read my post? Because that was the point of it.
[ul][li]Obama is claiming that his stimulus fixed the economy.[]The first two things he mentions are the tax cuts.[]The CBO claims that those tax cuts did not fix the economy.[*]Ergo, the tax cuts were a wasteful and unnecessary part of the package.[/ul][/li]
This is a rather poor analogy.
We would not need to consider water damage in such a scenario. We would need to consider the consequences of using a fire hose vs. using a thousand gallons of vintage Scotch. Unless you are arguing that nobody had any idea that Scotch was not the best choice to put out fires.
No, we would need to consider putting out the fire, using whatever was at hand, right fucking now. Not sitting back and criticizing those who do act for not having sat back themselves to think about it and find ways to avoid acting.
Let’s be clear. Just because you don’t understand how basic economics works doesn’t mean Obama is a moron. It means that you are ignorant and ideological and lashing out at the hand trying to help you. Obama’s deficit are the result of:
Bush’s programs, including the wars, Medicare Part D and tax cuts for the wealthy. Bush’s deficits would have been much, much higher if they had included the wars (but he was a liar, so they didn’t) and Medicare Part D didn’t start to be paid for until Obama’s turn.
And the Stimulus.
Bush’s programs are not Obama’s fault. And the stimulus was necessary to ward off a Depression. Not a recession, a Depression, complete with deflationary spiral and loss of capacity.
Do you think you can try to inform yourself before arguing this again. I’ve told you this at least twice before and your usual response is to not post again in that thread.
[quote]
Did you happen to read my post? Because that was the point of it.
[ul][li]Obama is claiming that his stimulus fixed the economy.[]The first two things he mentions are the tax cuts.[]The CBO claims that those tax cuts did not fix the economy.[*]Ergo, the tax cuts were a wasteful and unnecessary part of the package.[/ul][/li][/quote]
Not wasteful. Less efficient. And an olive branch to the morons on the right who would rather let ideology shape their view of reality instead of settled fact.
And a recommendation to take advice on fighting the fire from the arsonists who started it. Conservative advice on the economy is my new favorite example of chutzbah.
I really like how tax cuts proposed by people you agree with are “tax cuts,” and tax cuts by people you don’t like is “spending.”
In any case, three Republicans in the Senate (two are still Republicans) supplied the necessary votes to invoke cloture and pass the bill. Without concessions to Republicans who wanted tax cuts, the bill could not pass the Senate until (a) Specter switched parties and (b) Franken was seated months later.
In any case, you keep glossing over the point that conservatives wanted MORE TAX CUTS of the exact type which the CBO says is least effective in creating jobs. So again, your comments reinforce that CBO is a trusted authority on these matters, CBO says the stimulus is creating jobs, and that conservative proposals on job creation are judged not very effective per CBO comments.
We can look at the level of job creation not affected by the package, and project that, unless you have a reason that the package suppressed job creation. Private job creation, which is the real solution, is just now starting to increase, so I doubt we’d be in good shape. Back when this was being debated Sam claimed that construction stimulus would not be affected because of a shortage of construction workers. That could have suppressed job creation, but if it has been the case it sure hasn’t been reported in any of the papers I get.
But what caused that deficit, hmmm? You’re aware that the deficit is revenue minus outlays, right? And that revenue has collapsed? Once again, here are the CBO numbers on the causes of our long term deficit in graph form. If you chalk the entire stimulus up to Obama, and it’s basically money he spent to deal with the disaster caused by George W, it’s still only a tiny sliver of the long term deficit problem which is entirely down to George W Bush. What part of this graph don’t you understand? Can you let me know please?
No, Bush’s big problem was tax cuts based on voodoo economics, that revenue would grow faster with them than without them, and with just wishing and hoping that spending would all of a sudden be cut. That’s like outlawing all birth control and saying there would be no problem if people would just stop having sex. A sane policy would be to cut spending first and taxes later, but we all know that with this scenario taxes would never get cut.
The Bush deficit was in a time of relative prosperity, when the deficit should be shrinking or be eliminated. The Obama deficit is in a time of recession when it is required. This is Econ 101.
Cite that Obama has claimed that the economy if fixed? The first thing he says after mentioning job creation is that there are way too many people still out of work. I’d thank you to not distort his words.
What was the remedy that the Republicans suggested? Right, tax cuts. So they were put in in the vain hope that Republicans would care more for the country than for politics and support the package once something was in it again. But the scum were going to vote no no matter what. I’m sure that if Obama had removed the tax cuts the Republicans would run to Fox News to support his fiscal responsibility, right? (I crack myself up.) Do something for the Republicans, we’re wrong, ignore them we’re wrong.
I haven’t noticed a lot of (or just about any) stories about stimulus money being spent on bridges to nowhere or any other boondoggles. Anyone see any significant waste? This might be an amazingly effective use of government money, at least so far.
I could have sworn the point of your post was not to support your own position, but trying to point out contradictions in Obama’s and the CBO’s statements on the effectiveness of tax cuts. As far as I can tell, you are trying to be clever by using the words of other people in ways they did not intend, begging the conclusion, and then painting the whole stimulus as waste. And then agreeing with yourself.
Your post suggests waste is everything but the most effective spending. That’s fine from a definitional standpoint, but not very pragmatic in the real world. Never mind your tacit admission that tax cuts are wasteful (let me guess- that was the CBO, and not you talking?).
I’ve seen this article in many, many places. Now, I do believe that there are different economic tools for different areas of the economy, timing also matters. I’m am reluctant to agree that bailouts worked. They “worked” in a sense that it saved people from jumping off buildings. I do believe, from my studies of economic history, that the banking systems need to be saved, so I’ll give a pass on that one.
However, everything else needs to fail, the cycle must run its course. The more I think about it, the more I believe that there will always be cycles. The government shouldn’t be meddling in the business cycle. I’m all for safety nets, as long as they don’t distort the market or create lazy people. I think stimulous money would have been better spent giving it to the unemployed (create a somewhat larger stratification of employment benefits, and longer too). They should also make it easier for the survivors to turn over what’s left. I would also make it easier for people/organizations to declare bankruptcy or seek similar protection. If tax cuts are needed, limit the amount of debt forgiveness to declared as income, or allow more of a write-off.
Including tax cuts in the bill (and thereby reducing the spending portion) was an attempt at compromise: the Republicans are the ones who argued most strongly, and proposed the most tax cuts.
Saying “the Republicans wouldn’t fall for it” doesn’t make sense, because “it” consists of Republican plans and proposals.
That article didn’t mention what would have happened to the construction workers involved in the stimulus projects if they hadn’t existed. I agree that the stimulus was too small. But some of the people quoted seem to want it to restore every job lost, which is absurd. (I doubt they’d want to pay for it.) The stimulus package was intended to put money into the economy while doing needed projects. And, the article did not mention one project which was not needed, which is what I was asking about.
Some of the stimulus money went to unemployment, which is good. Some countries in Europe are paying a significant amount of at-risk workers salaries so long as they stay employed. That might be another good solution, but there is the issue of how to ease out of it.
As for business cycles, letting them run unchecked led to the Panics of the 19th and early 20th centuries. I don’t think we want to go back to that.
There is a major scale problem as well. The stimulus bill was $787,000,000,000.00. If the 2.4 million jobs is accurate (and this is the number listed as the upper limit, even by those who have a political interest in having this number be seen as being as large as possible) and my math is correct, that is $327,916.66 per job - that would make it the least efficient jobs program ever.
The truth is, the stimulus bill had job creation as only one (relatively minor on the face of the bill) purpose. The bill was much more about bank bailouts, unemployment extension (for the left side of the aisle) and tax cuts (for the right side). Now that the only thing everyone agrees on is that job creation is key, thats all either side wants to talk about - and diminish or emphasize depending on the politics.
WWII effectively ended the Great Depression. It seems to me that the war was a giant stimulus program…except that we kept unemployment low by making a huge number of young men soldiers and sailors. So why not do the same thing? Except just keep them on military bases…no war actually.
Could we recreate the same conditions that ended the Depression?
Factual (well…sort of) correction that assumes kingbighair’s numbers are correct:
Using the $197B and 2.4M jobs numbers, you get a cost/per job of just over $82,000. Using $57B instead, you get $23,750. I didn’t see a lower quote for jobs numbers here, but that number is, of course, in contention and would yield higher cost/job numbers.
Not posted as support either for or against, just making use of numbers that already appeared in this thread…
If the plan is a vast expansion of government jobs, why make them military? Why not train them to do something useful, whether it be in healthcare, energy, construction, whatever.
Whatever the number, this would be valid if the stimulus money was paid for people to stand around and do nothing. However a lot of the money went for materials, depreciation on construction equipment, gas, and, of course, profit. I suspect if you compute the cost of a road project and divide by the number of people working on it, you’d be even more outraged.
