Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Just because no one knew the stimulus worked, doesn't mean it didn't.
Wow what logic unlike you it seems I think people are actually smart enough to know when something did or did not work.The fact is if the stimulus had worked the Democratic party would be in a much better place than it is right now deny if you wish it changes nothing.
I wonder what economists think.
Turns out 80% of economists agree the stimulus deflected unemployment by the end of 2010. Also in 2010, economists were insisting that the stimulus needed to be even bigger.
What makes more sense: that the vast majority of the community of experts that studies economics for a living is wrong, or that the public was misinformed about the situation during an ideological war on cable news?
Oh stop you're just running your mouth with anecdotal bullshit blah blah blah no one gives a shit.
What's the matter doofus. Can't stand that everything isn't constant ?
Sorry....
Anecdote this....jackass.
Companies sitting on cash pile of over $1 trillion
Why is this happening? They seem uncomfortable spending the money. Why? The commentary seems to indicate they don't have a lot of visibility or confidence in future growth.
Not near as significant as you think.
If you go back to Q4 2007, there was $142 billion in buybacks, Q3 2007 there was $172 billion...For the S&P 500, the payout ratio (the dollar amount companies are paying out as a percentage of earnings) is currently 36 percent; in Q3 2007 it was 45.8 percent.
It's not like those companies would have been sitting on zero dollars if we'd elected McCain in 2008. Real change in the economy won't come from increasing the profits of corporations, which Obama has done anyway. Real change in the economy will only come when the low and middle classes have spending money.
Look you fucking dick licking moron the report WAS from the CBO
Fucking moronic faggot, go fuck your self .....
No shit jackass. The CBO stated it created 2.5 million jobs. Obviously it would give it an F if the economy lost 8 million jobs in the first place. The fucking obvious point I am making is that the stimulus created jobs. It just didn't create enough because it was too small.
I feel like I am talking to children.
Actually, you're acting like a child.
There is no way to know what would have happened if there had been no stimulus. How the CBO pretends to know this has always been a mystery (the same way that Obamacare was supposed to save money but it isn't.....thanks CBO).
So your overt claims are simply nothing more than a temper tantrum. Maybe you consider scenarios based on historic performance and develop a probability/confidence curve for job creation. That might attract some attention.
Not your hissy fits.
Isn't it a little pathetic that the only economic solution republicans have for fixing the economy are tax cuts for the wealthy? Guess what? Tax cuts for the wealthy only help the wealthy. Why? Because stimulating supply side means dick if you don't stimulate demand side. Obama understood this. Republicans didn't. 4.6 jobs per million dollar cut is all Bush has to show for. That and the billions it added to our national debt. (Let's not forget the 10 trillion of our 17 trillion debt is from Bush's time as president).
According to the CBO, JP Morgan, and Moody, Obama's stimulus package created 2.5 million jobs. Why wasn't enough? Because republicans insisted it be smaller. But why? 280 billion of the 787 billion spent was TAX CUTS. Why did those tax cuts create jobs? Because it included the biggest tax cut for the middle class since Reagan. Not only that, but it included the extension of unemployment insurance. Unemployed people who would otherwise be not spending money were spending money. Those benefits were spent immediately on basic necessities like food, clothing and shelter. That extra demand created jobs. 19000 jobs per billion dollar unemployment benefits. This is an example of DEMAND side economics in action.
Why would more tax cuts for the wealthy be useless? Well obviously because corporate profits are at an all time high and 1% of the top earners own 40% of the nation's wealth. More tax cuts for the wealthy would do dick to create jobs. That is republican's ONLY economic solution. That makes them useless.
What is the solution? More DEMAND side economic policies like the stimulus that is proven to work. Bigger this time so it will make a difference. Does that mean more national debt? Of course, but tax cutting means more debt as well. The difference is that Obama's economic policies work. Unfortunately 2.5 million jobs wasn't enough to make a dent in the 8 million jobs we lost from the 2008 crisis. Like I said, BIGGER.
Here is a non partisan analysis that confirms everything that I have said here. Proof the stimulus worked.
https://nonprofitquarterly.org/poli...he-obama-stimulus-a-success-or-a-failure.html
Here is an article from Moody that explains why extending unemployment benefits creates jobs.
Why Extended Federal Unemployment Benefits Boost the Economy
umhmmm, how many time are they going post this..?
and as we see the Dear Leader is even worse at it...
thread fail
And yet you can't explain why it's wrong.
The proof is in the tasting. The economy is still bouncing along the bottom, after five years of liberal/socialist tinkering. The same dumbass ideas were tried by FDR, and he managed to keep the economy bouncing along the bottom for over a decade. And, FDR had a better chance of making it work, because our economy was still national during his attempts.
Our economy is now international and integrated world wide. Consumption in the United States builds the economies where those products are made, and not the economies where they are sold.
To stimulate our economy, we have to do things that benefit production here, not overseas. Wealth is built by adding value to products. That means we have to make it easier to add value here, than it is to add value somewhere else. When we make it easier to add value here, jobs are created here, and new wealth is created here. That benefits us all.
No shit jackass. The CBO stated it created 2.5 million jobs. Obviously it would give it an F if the economy lost 8 million jobs in the first place. The fucking obvious point I am making is that the stimulus created jobs. It just didn't create enough because it was too small.
I feel like I am talking to children.
Actually, you're acting like a child.
There is no way to know what would have happened if there had been no stimulus. How the CBO pretends to know this has always been a mystery (the same way that Obamacare was supposed to save money but it isn't.....thanks CBO).
So your overt claims are simply nothing more than a temper tantrum. Maybe you consider scenarios based on historic performance and develop a probability/confidence curve for job creation. That might attract some attention.
Not your hissy fits.
Just because you don't understand economics, it doesn't mean there aren't people who do.
CBO Director: Stimulus Spending Bad for Long-Term Growth
By Andrew Stiles
November 15, 2011 3:38 PM
Testifying before the Senate Budget Committee today, Congressional Budget Office director Douglas Elmendorf reiterated his initial assessment of President Obamas $800 billion stimulus package that while it may boost the countrys GDP in the short-term, in the long-term, the effect of such spending is a net negative on GDP growth. Here is Elmendorf responding to questions from Sen. Jeff Sessions (R., Ala.), the top Republican on the committee:
ELMENDORF: What we said was, [the stimulus bill] would be a big boost in the level of GDP in the first 3 or 4 years,*** and then, relative to what would have happened to GDP without that law the level of GDP would be a little lower at the end. That is, a net negative effect on the growth of GDP over 10 years.
SESSIONS: And in the next 10 years, since youre carrying that debt and paying interest on it and the stimulus value is long since gone, it would be a continual negative of some effect?
ELMENDORF: Yes, it would represent a drag on the level of GDP beyond that, if no other actions were taken.
Needless to say, Elmendorfs assessment would also apply to the presidents most recent jobs stimulus package, which would spend $450 billion over the next year, making it larger in annual terms than the first stimulus package, which spent $800 billion over two years.
*** Its worth noting that earlier this year, the CBO predicted economic growth of 3.1 percent for 2011. In the first two quarters of the year, the economy actually experienced growth of 0.4 percent and 1.3 percent, respectively. In order meet the CBOs target, the economy would need to grow by a fantastical 8.4 percent in the final quarter. (Not going to happen.) In other words, even the big boost to GDP growth Elmendorf predicted hasnt exactly panned out.
The economy is hitting on all cylinders.
Got it.
This is beyond hero-worship.
Don't be stupid about this. The economy lost 8 million jobs. The stimulus created 2.5 million jobs. Your article only makes mention about the political failure of the stimulus. The 2.5 million number comes from the CBO, Moody, and JP Morgan. Yes the stimulus did little to help the economy but, once again, it was because it was too small assclown. It had to be bigger.
How many fucking times do I need to explain this?
Look you fucking dick licking moron the report WAS from the CBO
Fucking moronic faggot, go fuck your self .....
No shit jackass. The CBO stated it created 2.5 million jobs. Obviously it would give it an F if the economy lost 8 million jobs in the first place. The fucking obvious point I am making is that the stimulus created jobs. It just didn't create enough because it was too small.
I feel like I am talking to children.
Isn't it a little pathetic that the only economic solution republicans have for fixing the economy are tax cuts for the wealthy? Guess what? Tax cuts for the wealthy only help the wealthy. Why? Because stimulating supply side means dick if you don't stimulate demand side. Obama understood this. Republicans didn't. 4.6 jobs per million dollar cut is all Bush has to show for. That and the billions it added to our national debt. (Let's not forget the 10 trillion of our 17 trillion debt is from Bush's time as president).
According to the CBO, JP Morgan, and Moody, Obama's stimulus package created 2.5 million jobs. Why wasn't enough? Because republicans insisted it be smaller. But why? 280 billion of the 787 billion spent was TAX CUTS. Why did those tax cuts create jobs? Because it included the biggest tax cut for the middle class since Reagan. Not only that, but it included the extension of unemployment insurance. Unemployed people who would otherwise be not spending money were spending money. Those benefits were spent immediately on basic necessities like food, clothing and shelter. That extra demand created jobs. 19000 jobs per billion dollar unemployment benefits. This is an example of DEMAND side economics in action.
Why would more tax cuts for the wealthy be useless? Well obviously because corporate profits are at an all time high and 1% of the top earners own 40% of the nation's wealth. More tax cuts for the wealthy would do dick to create jobs. That is republican's ONLY economic solution. That makes them useless.
What is the solution? More DEMAND side economic policies like the stimulus that is proven to work. Bigger this time so it will make a difference. Does that mean more national debt? Of course, but tax cutting means more debt as well. The difference is that Obama's economic policies work. Unfortunately 2.5 million jobs wasn't enough to make a dent in the 8 million jobs we lost from the 2008 crisis. Like I said, BIGGER.
Here is a non partisan analysis that confirms everything that I have said here. Proof the stimulus worked.
https://nonprofitquarterly.org/poli...he-obama-stimulus-a-success-or-a-failure.html
Here is an article from Moody that explains why extending unemployment benefits creates jobs.
Why Extended Federal Unemployment Benefits Boost the Economy
CBO Director: Stimulus Spending Bad for Long-Term Growth
By Andrew Stiles
November 15, 2011 3:38 PM
Testifying before the Senate Budget Committee today, Congressional Budget Office director Douglas Elmendorf reiterated his initial assessment of President Obamas $800 billion stimulus package that while it may boost the countrys GDP in the short-term, in the long-term, the effect of such spending is a net negative on GDP growth. Here is Elmendorf responding to questions from Sen. Jeff Sessions (R., Ala.), the top Republican on the committee:
ELMENDORF: What we said was, [the stimulus bill] would be a big boost in the level of GDP in the first 3 or 4 years,*** and then, relative to what would have happened to GDP without that law the level of GDP would be a little lower at the end. That is, a net negative effect on the growth of GDP over 10 years.
SESSIONS: And in the next 10 years, since youre carrying that debt and paying interest on it and the stimulus value is long since gone, it would be a continual negative of some effect?
ELMENDORF: Yes, it would represent a drag on the level of GDP beyond that, if no other actions were taken.
Needless to say, Elmendorfs assessment would also apply to the presidents most recent jobs stimulus package, which would spend $450 billion over the next year, making it larger in annual terms than the first stimulus package, which spent $800 billion over two years.
*** Its worth noting that earlier this year, the CBO predicted economic growth of 3.1 percent for 2011. In the first two quarters of the year, the economy actually experienced growth of 0.4 percent and 1.3 percent, respectively. In order meet the CBOs target, the economy would need to grow by a fantastical 8.4 percent in the final quarter. (Not going to happen.) In other words, even the big boost to GDP growth Elmendorf predicted hasnt exactly panned out.
CBO Director: 'Stimulus' Spending Bad for Long-Term Growth | National Review Online
Perhaps the head of the CBO has what you have missed ...
And yet you can't explain why it's wrong.
The proof is in the tasting. The economy is still bouncing along the bottom, after five years of liberal/socialist tinkering. The same dumbass ideas were tried by FDR, and he managed to keep the economy bouncing along the bottom for over a decade. And, FDR had a better chance of making it work, because our economy was still national during his attempts.
Our economy is now international and integrated world wide. Consumption in the United States builds the economies where those products are made, and not the economies where they are sold.
To stimulate our economy, we have to do things that benefit production here, not overseas. Wealth is built by adding value to products. That means we have to make it easier to add value here, than it is to add value somewhere else. When we make it easier to add value here, jobs are created here, and new wealth is created here. That benefits us all.
What a crock of bullshit that says absolutely nothing. Add value? WTF are you TALKING about? Easier to add blah blah blah.
You have absolutely no fucking clue.
CBO Director: ‘Stimulus’ Spending Bad for Long-Term Growth
By Andrew Stiles
November 15, 2011 3:38 PM
Testifying before the Senate Budget Committee today, Congressional Budget Office director Douglas Elmendorf reiterated his initial assessment of President Obama’s $800 billion “stimulus” package — that while it may boost the country’s GDP in the short-term, in the long-term, the effect of such spending is a net negative on GDP growth. Here is Elmendorf responding to questions from Sen. Jeff Sessions (R., Ala.), the top Republican on the committee:
ELMENDORF: What we said was, [the stimulus bill] would be a big boost in the level of GDP in the first 3 or 4 years,*** and then, relative to what would have happened to GDP without that law… the level of GDP would be a little lower at the end. That is, a net negative effect on the growth of GDP over 10 years.
SESSIONS: And in the next 10 years, since you’re carrying that debt and paying interest on it and the stimulus value is long since gone, it would be a continual negative of some effect?
ELMENDORF: Yes, it would represent a drag on the level of GDP beyond that, if no other actions were taken.
Needless to say, Elmendorf’s assessment would also apply to the president’s most recent jobs stimulus package, which would spend $450 billion over the next year, making it larger — in annual terms — than the first stimulus package, which spent $800 billion over two years.
*** It’s worth noting that earlier this year, the CBO predicted economic growth of 3.1 percent for 2011. In the first two quarters of the year, the economy actually experienced growth of 0.4 percent and 1.3 percent, respectively. In order meet the CBO’s target, the economy would need to grow by a fantastical 8.4 percent in the final quarter. (Not going to happen.) In other words, even the “big boost” to GDP growth Elmendorf predicted hasn’t exactly panned out.
CBO Director: 'Stimulus' Spending Bad for Long-Term Growth | National Review Online
Perhaps the head of the CBO has what you have missed ...
It is such a typical USMB tactic to do random googling just to win an argument.
What he is saying is that based on how little the stimulus did, it wasn't worth the added debt. However, it was because it was too small. Are you really this dumb?
Hey guess what? Bush's tax cuts have added more to our debt than the stimulus ever did.
What's the matter doofus. Can't stand that everything isn't constant ?
Sorry....
Anecdote this....jackass.
Companies sitting on cash pile of over $1 trillion
Why is this happening? They seem uncomfortable spending the money. Why? The commentary seems to indicate they don't have a lot of visibility or confidence in future growth.
Not near as significant as you think.
If you go back to Q4 2007, there was $142 billion in buybacks, Q3 2007 there was $172 billion...For the S&P 500, the payout ratio (the dollar amount companies are paying out as a percentage of earnings) is currently 36 percent; in Q3 2007 it was 45.8 percent.
It's not like those companies would have been sitting on zero dollars if we'd elected McCain in 2008. Real change in the economy won't come from increasing the profits of corporations, which Obama has done anyway. Real change in the economy will only come when the low and middle classes have spending money.
Yes, you've stated these articles of faith before. But, people also don't spend money when they are worried about the economy and when the gutless asshole we have in the white house provides no confidence....guess what.
RealClearMarkets - Why Has Consumer Confidence Been So Slow to Recover?
And stop with the "increase demand" crap. Everyone knows what demand does. But stimulus (had against the backdrop of O-care) is nothing if people are just sitting on money too. And they did.
Employment growth is actually not that much worse than after the previous recession (under President Bush). In March 2006, four years after that recession ended, employment growth peaked at 2.15 percent on a year-over-year basis. In contrast, we are currently seeing annual employment growth at about 1.8 percent, which is only slightly worse.
For further comparison, in the Clinton recovery employment growth peaked at 3.5 percent and averaged about 2.5 percent per year.
There are many more stories about the long term unemployed than about the more than 300,000 people hired every month.
CBO Director: 'Stimulus' Spending Bad for Long-Term Growth | National Review Online
Perhaps the head of the CBO has what you have missed ...
It is such a typical USMB tactic to do random googling just to win an argument.
What he is saying is that based on how little the stimulus did, it wasn't worth the added debt. However, it was because it was too small. Are you really this dumb?
Hey guess what? Bush's tax cuts have added more to our debt than the stimulus ever did.
Oh I am following quite closely headed right where I want to go ...
So what you are saying the $17.xxx trillion debt is JUST NOT ENOUGH, you will not be happy till you have indebted your future generations with no fore thought at all.
Wasn't a big enough failure for this administration?? I mean hell if you are going to have a catastrophic administration why not shoot for the Gold, right!!
I mean you folks need to collapse the whole economy before your will be happy, and who the fuck do you think will ride in on their black horses and save us??
So what you doing is a failure, but you want to double down on it, got it ....
[Wink, wink .....]
