Proof the stimulus was a big mistake

http://blog.american.com/2012/05/cbo-oba...ion-a-job/

Because clearly the only options were 'stay at the current level of unemployment' or 'lower unemployment', so therefore this measurement is absolutely an accurate and intellectually honest way to measure the stimulus's effect.

(06-01-2012 03:59 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  Because clearly the only options were 'stay at the current level of unemployment' or 'lower unemployment', so therefore this measurement is absolutely an accurate and intellectually honest way to measure the stimulus's effect.

What is intellectually dishonest about it?

Do you consider 4 MM per job a wise investment of tax dollars?

(06-01-2012 04:04 PM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  

(06-01-2012 03:59 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  Because clearly the only options were 'stay at the current level of unemployment' or 'lower unemployment', so therefore this measurement is absolutely an accurate and intellectually honest way to measure the stimulus's effect.

What is intellectually dishonest about it?

Do you consider 4 MM per job a wise investment of tax dollars?

It's intellectually dishonest to make the argument that the baseline was the unemployment rate when it was passed. Anyone with any sense will admit there was a significant likelihood that the United States could have had a higher unemployment than the level it did, and using that level as the baseline is idiotic.

(06-01-2012 04:26 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  It's intellectually dishonest to make the argument that the baseline was the unemployment rate when it was passed. Anyone with any sense will admit there was a significant likelihood that the United States could have had a higher unemployment than the level it did, and using that level as the baseline is idiotic.

So why don't we use what the administration said would be the results? Unemployment won't top 8% (did). GDP would be growing at 6% this year (very much not). etc.

What do you feel is the correct baseline to use for determining it? Or is your point there is no accurate baseline, ergo no way to determine how much it helped?

(06-01-2012 04:32 PM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  

(06-01-2012 04:26 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  It's intellectually dishonest to make the argument that the baseline was the unemployment rate when it was passed. Anyone with any sense will admit there was a significant likelihood that the United States could have had a higher unemployment than the level it did, and using that level as the baseline is idiotic.

So why don't we use what the administration said would be the results? Unemployment won't top 8% (did). GDP would be growing at 6% this year (very much not). etc.

What do you feel is the correct baseline to use for determining it? Or is your point there is no accurate baseline, ergo no way to determine how much it helped?

It's closer to this, than any other option listed so far. It's an obscenely complex issue without an easy answer, and looking for easy answers like this is just lazy and used almost exclusively in a partisan fashion.

(06-01-2012 04:41 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  It's closer to this, than any other option listed so far. It's an obscenely complex issue without an easy answer, and looking for easy answers like this is just lazy and used almost exclusively in a partisan fashion.

I would agree with this.

I think it's more in response to partisan hacks like Max who like to claim the stimulus created 4.3 million jobs and then post graphs that show "after the stimulus." If you accept that the stimulus did that then it's fair to ask what those jobs cost relative to what was spent.

(06-01-2012 06:34 PM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  

(06-01-2012 04:41 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  It's closer to this, than any other option listed so far. It's an obscenely complex issue without an easy answer, and looking for easy answers like this is just lazy and used almost exclusively in a partisan fashion.

I would agree with this.

I think it's more in response to partisan hacks like Max who like to claim the stimulus created 4.3 million jobs and then post graphs that show "after the stimulus." If you accept that the stimulus did that then it's fair to ask what those jobs cost relative to what was spent.

If that's all he's going to claim the stimulus did, yeah I can see it that way. Personally I think that claim is selling the stimulus short, I'm not aware of many people who think the stimulus didn't at the very least cause a short-term decrease in unemployment, and all signs pointed to it being far worse than it could have been.

Before you all skewer me for being a 'liberal patsy' or whathaveyou, don't think the above statement anyway negates the arguments that the government shouldn't be in the business of bailing companies out, that this is only kicking the can down the road, or that it was an inefficient way to stimulate the economy, I'm just speaking in regards to it's short term effect. It seems to be fairly well accepted (at least from what I've seen), that it at least momentarily stopped the downward trend (which would imply a great than 4.3 million difference between the two).

Wrong metric. You are supposed to measure dollars per vote.

It's pretty hard to spend a trillion dollars and not create SOME jobs. I think most economists agree that the stimulus didn't do as much as it should have/was expected to. At least part if this is/was because of the uncertainties regarding obamacare and future tax rates necessary to cover this massive spending. Certainly that isn't all of the answer, but it is part.. And a part Obama could have impacted by having a clearly articulated plan to pay for spending. Remember, his campaign promise was to not raise taxes on anyone making less than 250k, which means we need to suck an additional 10-15 trillion dollars from a relatively small number of people/companies.

I believe had Obama focused in the economy rather than obamacare, he would have had a vastly different result, and passed healthcare reform with bipartisan support... Maybe not what was passed, but the important parts (universal care etc)

(06-02-2012 03:40 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  It's pretty hard to spend a trillion dollars and not create SOME jobs. I think most economists agree that the stimulus didn't do as much as it should have/was expected to. At least part if this is/was because of the uncertainties regarding obamacare and future tax rates necessary to cover this massive spending. Certainly that isn't all of the answer, but it is part.. And a part Obama could have impacted by having a clearly articulated plan to pay for spending. Remember, his campaign promise was to not raise taxes on anyone making less than 250k, which means we need to suck an additional 10-15 trillion dollars from a relatively small number of people/companies.
I believe had Obama focused in the economy rather than obamacare, he would have had a vastly different result, and passed healthcare reform with bipartisan support... Maybe not what was passed, but the important parts (universal care etc)

I would agree in general but I would posit your last somewhat differently. Had Obama made a genuine effort to work with republicans and include republican ideas (and not bastardizations of them that he could lie and claim to be including republican ideas), he would have been able to get a lot more done. But what would have gotten done would have been more centrist than socialist, and that was not what he had in mind.

If he had focused on ensuring the recovery, he probably could have passed whatever he wanted in re obamacare. If growth was 6% as he projected and needed to make his promises work, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

(06-02-2012 11:06 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  If he had focused on ensuring the recovery, he probably could have passed whatever he wanted in re obamacare. If growth was 6% as he projected and needed to make his promises work, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Agree, but when you've never actually done anything, it's sometimes hard to know how to do things. Thank God.

That's sortnofthe problem with theorists vs practicum...

He passed stimulus that his advisors told him would solve the problem, and then he dropped it and moved on... Because his models (those of his advisors) old him it was finished. It didn't help that pelosi er al were more interested in passing certain legislation...their hate for Bush. Their laundry list of to dos... And took their eye off of the ball.

Quote:So why don't we use what the administration said would be the results? Unemployment won't top 8% (did).

Another common lie from a common liar. Cite the source where the administration cited this 8% unemployment. It's been debunked on Politifact many times.

Quote:or almost three years, going back to mid-2009, a top talking point for Republicans has been that President Obama "promised" that the stimulus bill -- the two-year spending package he championed to revive the economy -- would keep unemployment below 8 percent.

PolitiFact has examined the claim numerous times, and each time rated it Mostly False.

Quote:Also from the Politifact
But what we saw from the administration in January 2009, before Obama took office, was a projection, not a promise. We could find no instance of anyone in the administration directly making a public promise. And the projection came with heavy disclaimers.

http://www.politifact.com/ohio/statement...an-would-/

(06-03-2012 10:12 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  That's sortnofthe problem with theorists vs practicum...

He passed stimulus that his advisors told him would solve the problem, and then he dropped it and moved on... Because his models (those of his advisors) old him it was finished. It didn't help that pelosi er al were more interested in passing certain legislation...their hate for Bush. Their laundry list of to dos... And took their eye off of the ball.

There were a lot of different wings off the democratic party tugging at him. Sometimes I wish the moderates of both parties would form a new party. I think he and Boehner could get a lot done but Boehner can't control the wings of his party.

(06-03-2012 11:09 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Another common lie from a common liar. Cite the source where the administration cited this 8% unemployment. It's been debunked on Politifact many times.

Cute comment coming from a little b!tch like you with the history you have.

This from The Job Impact of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan as authored by Christina Romer (Chair - Council of Economic Advisers) and Jared Bernstein (Office of the Vice President)

Quote:First, the likely scale of employment loss is extremely large. The U.S. economy has already lost nearly 2.6 million jobs since the business cycle peak in December 2007. In the absence of stimulus, the economy could lose another 3 to 4 million more. Thus, we are working to counter a potential total job loss of at least 5 million. As Figure 1 shows, even with the large prototypical package, the unemployment rate in 2010Q4 is predicted to be approximately 7.0%, which is well below the approximately 8.8% that would result in the absence of a plan.

You can read the entire Obama Administration report here. You will find the graph on page 4 particularly displeasing as it validates what I said.

Here you can listen to Bernstein explain why they made the prediction you claim they never made.





Or how bout this story from that bastion of conservatism the NYTimes

Quote:For the White House, the improved forecast since November recalls the Obama economic team’s opposite experience four years ago — a miscalculation then that has haunted the administration politically ever since. When Mr. Obama took office in January 2009, his advisers did not update the projections they made the previous November — when few economists knew how severe the recession actually was becoming.

The administration said then that unemployment would peak at 8 percent if Congress passed Mr. Obama’s two-year stimulus package. Congress did, but — as Republicans often recall — unemployment peaked at 10 percent and has inched down slowly.

Oh, and then there's this speech Obama gave in February of 2009 where he said:

Quote:Because each day we wait to begin the work of turning our economy around, more people lose their jobs, their savings and their homes. And if nothing is done, this recession might linger for years. Our economy will lose 5 million more jobs. Unemployment will approach double digits. Our nation will sink deeper into a crisis that, at some point, we may not be able to reverse.

That's why I feel such a sense of urgency about the recovery plan before Congress. With it, we will create or save more than 3 million jobs over the next two years, provide immediate tax relief to 95 percent of American workers, ignite spending by businesses and consumers alike, and take steps to strengthen our country for years to come.

No he doesn't say 8% explicitly, but he says double digits without the stimulus, where we got with it.

I don't lie you little b!tch. That's strictly your purview cause you're crazy as a sh!t house rat.

If you were in my presence I would ***** slap you toothless you insolent dog. Nowhere in your drivel above do you cite a source where Obama said without the stimulus unemployment would top 8%. It should be real easy since you cite it enough.

Read this sentence again from the Pultizer prize winning Politifact:


We could find no instance of anyone in the administration directly making a public promise. And the projection came with heavy disclaimers.

Now scurry away. Children are meant to be seen not heard.

(06-03-2012 02:50 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  If you were in my presence I would ***** slap you toothless you insolent dog.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!! Yeah, you a bad man.

Quote:Nowhere in your drivel above do you cite a source where Obama said without the stimulus unemployment would top 8%. It should be real easy since you cite it enough.

Poor little b!tch. Let's review what I said, that you popped off about.

Quote:So why don't we use what the administration said would be the results? Unemployment won't top 8% (did).

I know you're stupid so I'll point out that Obama isn't the only person in his administration

Quote:Read this sentence again from the Pultizer prize winning Politifact:

We could find no instance of anyone in the administration directly making a public promise. And the projection came with heavy disclaimers.

Oops, let's review what I said again shall we fool?

Quote:So why don't we use what the administration said would be the results? Unemployment won't top 8% (did).

Sorry junior, said is not the same word as promise

See little girl I know you're stupid. I also know you have the emotional stability of a teenage girl. So I realize why you argue against things people don't say, but claim they say them anyway. You are getting all puffed up based on something here I didn't say.

If you were a man you'd say, oops, my bad, and move along. But we know you're not. We know you're not capable of it. Sort of like your inability to read a post and see when it was edited before going off half cocked like someone changed it to somehow foil your brilliant retort.

Idiot.

Oh, and let's also review your continued intellectual dishonesty shall we.

Your first stupid comment to me.

Quote:Cite the source where the administration cited this 8% unemployment.

So I did. And what did you, being the little b!tch you are do? You change the criteria to distort what I said.

Quote:Nowhere in your drivel above do you cite a source where Obama said without the stimulus unemployment would top 8%.

This is why I own you and live rent free in your pathetic little brain.