CBO: Stimulus Plan Working As Advertised

[AZGrizFan]

Yeah. Ol' Bushy never caught a SINGLE terrorist, did he?

Is it "necessary" for me to drink my own urine? No...but I do it anyway because it's sterile and I like the taste.

Not the one his family has a business relationship with, anyway.

Dead or Alive.

As opposed to the AMERICAN terrorists Obama has had likelong friendships with....

[kalm]

I'm trying to decide if this red herring is as stupid as your Haiti analogy.

Take a step, chew the gum...take a step, chew the gum...take a step, chew the gum...

There now you've got it! Good boy.

Your condescending posts are priceless given your inability to back up your wild claims (not to mention your horrible grammar).

That condescension was directed at Cluck and was a response in kind.

Just because my grammar sucks doesn't change the fact that you and I both know that Republican party is chuck full of hypocritical cut tax and spenders. It would be easier if you came up with a few who are not. Perhaps you can start with Ron Paul who I have complimented many times and would probably vote for in the next election despite his socially conservative ideology.

[houndawg]

I'm trying to decide if this red herring is as stupid as your Haiti analogy.

Take a step, chew the gum...take a step, chew the gum...take a step, chew the gum...

There now you've got it! Good boy.

Your condescending posts are priceless given your inability to back up your wild claims (not to mention your horrible grammar).

Uh-oh, once grammar comes in to it comparisons to Hitler can't be far behind.

[kalm]

Your condescending posts are priceless given your inability to back up your wild claims (not to mention your horrible grammar).

Uh-oh, once grammar comes in to it comparisons to Hitler can't be far behind.

Houndawg on his game this morning.



BTW, we should all thank Hitler for the WWII stimulus.

[houndawg]

Not the one his family has a business relationship with, anyway.

Dead or Alive.

As opposed to the AMERICAN terrorists Obama has had likelong friendships with....

He hasn't had a "likelong" relationship with "American terrorists".


Hell, he wasn't even born here. Right?

[89Hen]

This is so funny to watch houndawg and kalm blow smoke up each other's arses.

[89Hen]

Uh-oh, once grammar comes in to it comparisons to Hitler can't be far behind.

Only happens when somebody calls somebody else stoopid using goodly grammer.

[AZGrizFan]

As opposed to the AMERICAN terrorists Obama has had likelong friendships with....

He hasn't had a "likelong" relationship with "American terrorists".


Hell, he wasn't even born here. Right?

Didn't you just make a reference to grammar police?

[YoUDeeMan]

Your condescending posts are priceless given your inability to back up your wild claims (not to mention your horrible grammar).

That condescension was directed at Cluck and was a response in kind.

Just because my grammar sucks doesn't change the fact that you and I both know that Republican party is chuck full of hypocritical cut tax and spenders. It would be easier if you came up with a few who are not. Perhaps you can start with Ron Paul who I have complimented many times and would probably vote for in the next election despite his socially conservative ideology.

You brought up an article that blew wind and nothing else. And then you toss in a red herring line?

C'mon...you keep using "bubble economy" as your favorite trick and yet you can't understand that WWII was the biggest "bubble" of them all?

[Grizalltheway]

This is so funny to watch houndawg and kalm blow smoke up each other's arses.

Yep, sounds like any conversation around here involving two or more conks.

[89Hen]

Yep, sounds like any conversation around here involving two or more conks.

Look who chimed in a day late.

[kalm]

That condescension was directed at Cluck and was a response in kind.

Just because my grammar sucks doesn't change the fact that you and I both know that Republican party is chuck full of hypocritical cut tax and spenders. It would be easier if you came up with a few who are not. Perhaps you can start with Ron Paul who I have complimented many times and would probably vote for in the next election despite his socially conservative ideology.

You brought up an article that blew wind and nothing else. And then you toss in a red herring line?

C'mon...you keep using "bubble economy" as your favorite trick and yet you can't understand that WWII was the biggest "bubble" of them all?

I'm sorry Cluck, but you are not getting extra credit for reading the whole article. The part I posted nailed the fact that even neo-con ideologues like Cheney realize that deficit spending is a debateable problem.

WWII spending had many economic affects like increasing industrial capacity and r&d for things like nuclear power while also reducing unemployment which stimulates the economy. Continued spending after the war on the G.I. Bill and the Interstate Highways Program further improved growth through infrastructure and a more educated and thereby productive workforce.

That's not exactly the kind of bubble I've been referring to, and it lasted without a deep recession until the the late 70's.

There are times when deficit spending is a neccessary evil - world wars, as a lender and employer of last resort during severe economic downturns, or in the case of Bush Cheney, tax cuts on the wealthiest americans to - you know - increase tax revenue.

[houndawg]

That condescension was directed at Cluck and was a response in kind.

Just because my grammar sucks doesn't change the fact that you and I both know that Republican party is chuck full of hypocritical cut tax and spenders. It would be easier if you came up with a few who are not. Perhaps you can start with Ron Paul who I have complimented many times and would probably vote for in the next election despite his socially conservative ideology.

You brought up an article that blew wind and nothing else. And then you toss in a red herring line?

C'mon...you keep using "bubble economy" as your favorite trick and yet you can't understand that WWII was the biggest "bubble" of them all?

The thirty years after WW2 were the highest standard of living the country has ever had, Clark, and the GI Bill and manufacturing jobs were a huge part of it.

[CitadelGrad]

I will further clarify my earlier post. Looks like $400b in stimulus didn't increase the GDP at all. If it grew 1.5% of the GDP that is growth of $200 billion on $300 to $400 spent.

In other words, the economic multiplier of the stimulus package is about .5. That ain't good.

[CitadelGrad]

Uh-oh, once grammar comes in to it comparisons to Hitler can't be far behind.

Houndawg on his game this morning.



BTW, we should all thank Hitler for the WWII stimulus.

Don't forget Tojo and Mussolini. They also deserve some credit.

[houndawg]

Uh-oh, once grammar comes in to it comparisons to Hitler can't be far behind.

Houndawg on his game this morning.



BTW, we should all thank Hitler for the WWII stimulus.

He couldn't have done it without the financial backing of folk like Prescott Bush.

[YoUDeeMan]

I'm sorry Cluck, but you are not getting extra credit for reading the whole article. The part I posted nailed the fact that even neo-con ideologues like Cheney realize that deficit spending is a debateable problem.

WWII spending had many economic affects like increasing industrial capacity and r&d for things like nuclear power while also reducing unemployment which stimulates the economy. Continued spending after the war on the G.I. Bill and the Interstate Highways Program further improved growth through infrastructure and a more educated and thereby productive workforce.

That's not exactly the kind of bubble I've been referring to, and it lasted without a deep recession until the the late 70's.

There are times when deficit spending is a neccessary evil - world wars, as a lender and employer of last resort during severe economic downturns, or in the case of Bush Cheney, tax cuts on the wealthiest americans to - you know - increase tax revenue.

That's the problem with most folks. They post an article to support their position, and want people to focus on only one snippet while conveniently forgetting the bigger picture.

If anyone cites Cheney as an expert on the economic impacts of deficit spending, then any point is lost already. And furthermore, Chaney was noting his opinion of the deficit's impact on elections, not the economy.

[OL FU]

Don't know this guy but he seems to have the real answer.

http://reason.com/archives/2010/03/03/c ... -estimated" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

That still leaves us with a question: How many jobs did the stimulus actually create? The best answer to that question is not 1 million or 2.1 million or any of the other figures that have been batted around in recent months by the administration and its defenders. It's not even a figure at all; instead it's another question: Who knows?

But don't take my word for it; take the CBO's

Last month's CBO report cautioned that "considerable uncertainty exists about many of these economic relationships that are important in the modeling," which is why many of its estimates come in rather wide ranges. And its December report noted that "it is impossible to determine how many of the reported jobs would have existed in the absence of the stimulus package."

and as I said. and now I will say it a different way, they are measuring the amount spent and applying a multiplier. Garbage in, Garbage out.

The CBO's multipliers are estimated from sources similar to those used by the Council of Economic Advisers when it first projected what the stimulus' effects on job creation would be. So for all practical purposes, the same multipliers that were used to predict how many jobs would be created are being used to estimate how many jobs have been created.

[GannonFan]

Although I think the CBO tries really hard and they really want to be truthful and accurate, at times having the CBO is just a flat out waste. OL FU is absolutely right, you can rig the numbers you put into the CBO to be exactly what you want to see come out of the CBO, so in the end the only thing the CBO really ends up being is a rubberstamp. But of course, how anyone thinks an organization managed by politicans could ever truly be completely reliable is a whole other question.

[AZGrizFan]

Although I think the CBO tries really hard and they really want to be truthful and accurate, at times having the CBO is just a flat out waste. OL FU is absolutely right, you can rig the numbers you put into the CBO to be exactly what you want to see come out of the CBO, so in the end the only thing the CBO really ends up being is a rubberstamp. But of course, how anyone thinks an organization managed by politicans could ever truly be completely reliable is a whole other question.

CONGRESSIONAL Budget Office.

Talk about "garbage in, garbage out".

[JohnStOnge]

The thing about deficit spending, I think, is that it can't be sustained indefinitely. Sooner or later, you hit the wall. This is a young country. And the era of massive, "we will take care of everything" federal government is particularly young in historical terms.

To me, the fact that we even think of government as directly responsible for what the economy is doing is a problem.

[kalm]

I'm sorry Cluck, but you are not getting extra credit for reading the whole article. The part I posted nailed the fact that even neo-con ideologues like Cheney realize that deficit spending is a debateable problem.

WWII spending had many economic affects like increasing industrial capacity and r&d for things like nuclear power while also reducing unemployment which stimulates the economy. Continued spending after the war on the G.I. Bill and the Interstate Highways Program further improved growth through infrastructure and a more educated and thereby productive workforce.

That's not exactly the kind of bubble I've been referring to, and it lasted without a deep recession until the the late 70's.

There are times when deficit spending is a neccessary evil - world wars, as a lender and employer of last resort during severe economic downturns, or in the case of Bush Cheney, tax cuts on the wealthiest americans to - you know - increase tax revenue.

That's the problem with most folks. They post an article to support their position, and want people to focus on only one snippet while conveniently forgetting the bigger picture.

If anyone cites Cheney as an expert on the economic impacts of deficit spending, then any point is lost already. And furthermore, Chaney was noting his opinion of the deficit's impact on elections, not the economy.

I post articles in their entirety all of the time but in this case, I posted the snippet to prove a very narrow point I was making. But I'm glad you further educated yourself by reading the entire article - that's why I posted the link.

As for Cheney you're right, we should probably avoid the opinions of Republican Party leaders when it comes to deficit spending as they lack the stones to pay for what they spend. Thanks for proving my point.

[kalm]

The thing about deficit spending, I think, is that it can't be sustained indefinitely. Sooner or later, you hit the wall. This is a young country. And the era of massive, "we will take care of everything" federal government is particularly young in historical terms.

To me, the fact that we even think of government as directly responsible for what the economy is doing is a problem.

But nations have spent their way out of bad economies before so it can be a temporary thing.

Government has to be responsible for the economy - if nothing else than to enforce contracts, resolve disputes, and prevent monopolies. Theoretically government is the people and the market only exists at their pleasure.

[youngterrier]

The thing about deficit spending, I think, is that it can't be sustained indefinitely. Sooner or later, you hit the wall. This is a young country. And the era of massive, "we will take care of everything" federal government is particularly young in historical terms.

To me, the fact that we even think of government as directly responsible for what the economy is doing is a problem.

But nations have spent their way out of bad economies before so it can be a temporary thing.

Government has to be responsible for the economy - if nothing else than to enforce contracts, resolve disputes, and prevent monopolies. Theoretically government is the people and the market only exists at their pleasure.

it's temporary until the bubble bursts and then we just spend more.

I would say government only exists to protect the people

[AZGrizFan]

The thing about deficit spending, I think, is that it can't be sustained indefinitely. Sooner or later, you hit the wall. This is a young country. And the era of massive, "we will take care of everything" federal government is particularly young in historical terms.

To me, the fact that we even think of government as directly responsible for what the economy is doing is a problem.

But nations have spent their way out of bad economies before so it can be a temporary thing.

Government has to be responsible for the economy - if nothing else than to enforce contracts, resolve disputes, and prevent monopolies. Theoretically government is the people and the market only exists at their pleasure.

There is a HUGE gulf between being responsible for "the economy" and "enforcing contracts, resolving disputes and preventing monoplies".

HUGE.