talkpolitics | Stimulus? Still a failure.

The failure of the stimulus isn't exactly news, and hasn't been for some time. Thankfully, more and more people are getting on board.

For instance, it looks like we might not have needed it to begin with. Granted, since stimulus of this nature doesn't work, we never need it, but the justification for it isn't so strong anymore:

"We had to hit the ground running and do everything we could to prevent a second Great Depression," Obama told supporters last week.

...

IBD reviewed records of economic forecasts made just before Obama signed the stimulus bill into law, as well as economic data and monthly stimulus spending data from around that time, and reviews of the stimulus bill itself.

The conclusion is that in claiming to have staved off a Depression, the White House and its supporters seem to be engaging in a bit of historical revisionism.

...

The argument is often made that the recession turned out to be far worse than anyone knew at the time. But various indicators show that the economy had pretty much hit bottom at the end of 2008 — a month before President Obama took office.

Stanford's John Taylor showed us that tax credits and directed spending was fairly worthless:

Individuals and families largely saved the transfers and tax rebates. The federal government increased purchases, but by only an immaterial amount. State and local governments used the stimulus grants to reduce their net borrowing (largely by acquiring more financial assets) rather than to increase expenditures, and they shifted expenditures away from purchases toward transfers.

Some argue that the economy would have been worse off without these stimulus packages, but the results do not support that view.

Even Harvard's Robert Barro is on board to an extent. While he has yet to come around on the fact that stimulus has not ever been shown to work, he's at least noting that the merits of spending need to be more important than the stimulating impact:

"In the long run you have got to pay for it. The medium and long-run effect is definitely negative. You can't just keep borrowing forever. Eventually taxes are going to be higher, and that has a negative effect," he said.

"The lesson is you want government spending only if the programmes are really worth it in terms of the usual rate of return calculations. The usual kind of calculation, not some Keynesian thing. The fact that it really is worth it to have highways and education. Classic public finance, that's not macroeconomics."

With murmurings that we may need a second stimulus, the question remains as to why we'd pursue such a thing given the track record of the first. At this point, if you're still a proponent of Keynesian-style stimulus, why? What will it take to convince you that it will not succeed?

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

And since the spending was primarily infrastructure and capital projects, no wonder it failed.

Remember: there were no tax cuts.

So you've claimed for a year and half. But again that's another libertarian right wing talking point.

It also happens to be the truth.

Yes it's true that you've said this for a year and a half, and that it's a right wing talking-point.

The information behind it is also the truth as well.

So you keep claiming, but it's pretty fringe stuff, way out there, in la-la-libertarian land.

And your evidence to prove otherwise?

Re: Remember: there were no tax cuts.

telemann.livejournal.com - 2011-07-06 21:04 (UTC) - Expand

telemann.livejournal.com - 2011-07-06 21:05 (UTC) - Expand

badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com - 2011-07-06 21:14 (UTC) - Expand

telemann.livejournal.com - 2011-07-06 21:16 (UTC) - Expand

badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com - 2011-07-06 21:20 (UTC) - Expand

mrbogey.livejournal.com - 2011-07-06 21:28 (UTC) - Expand

underlankers.livejournal.com - 2011-07-06 21:30 (UTC) - Expand

badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com - 2011-07-06 21:33 (UTC) - Expand

underlankers.livejournal.com - 2011-07-06 21:34 (UTC) - Expand

mrbogey.livejournal.com - 2011-07-06 21:42 (UTC) - Expand

underlankers.livejournal.com - 2011-07-06 21:45 (UTC) - Expand

badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com - 2011-07-06 21:47 (UTC) - Expand

(deleted comment)

mrbogey.livejournal.com - 2011-07-07 00:02 (UTC) - Expand

mrbogey.livejournal.com - 2011-07-07 03:08 (UTC) - Expand

Also, all workers wery hoppy.

Refusing revenue is refusing revenue.

Unnecessary and wasteful growth of government (Department of Homeland Security) is unnecessary and wasteful growth of government.

Why do you say that, did someone use an inappropriate euphemism for the word "spending?" I sure didn't.

:psyduck:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2009-02-21-obama-saturday_N.htm

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/12/17/congress-passes-extend-tax-cuts-jobless-aid/

And there are five lights in my icon.

That the media consistently uses "cuts" in place of credits is not something I can solve.

I assume the 5th light is behind the alien.

That you repeatedly lie to claim that white is black and black is white is also your problem, it's not mine. That shit may fly in some other forum where nobody's willing to call a lie a lie, but if it's good enough for Representative Wilson it's good enough for me.

So, in your world, when tax rates do not decrease, tax rates decrease. Oooookay...

In my world, a tax cut is a fucking tax cut, as you've admitted that there was a tax cut for the payroll after claiming there were no tax cuts in a comment you seem to not realize you typed, I consider this a classic example of why you either read not what you type or alternately you've nothing to stand on in an actual argument beyond half-truths, lies, and smokescreens.

Was the tax extension last year part of the stimulus? Because this (http://talk-politics.livejournal.com/1074883.html?thread=85840835#t85840835) and this (http://talk-politics.livejournal.com/1074883.html?thread=85840067#t85840067) are the only comments I've made regarding tax cuts, and both were a discussion of the stimulus.

So practice what you preach and admit that you're wrong.

Re: Bullshit:

underlankers.livejournal.com - 2011-07-06 20:51 (UTC) - Expand

badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com - 2011-07-06 20:57 (UTC) - Expand

underlankers.livejournal.com - 2011-07-06 20:59 (UTC) - Expand

I'm afraid I'm going to have to ask you for more evidence here.

The Post accepts the spin that they're cuts, but they're credits (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/graphic/2009/02/01/GR2009020100154.html). Most of the bill was spending.

So, where's the spending on infrastructure and capital projects then? Chrysler was a bailout, specifically , and though it saved some jobs, I hardly think it qualifies as infrastructure.

So, where's the spending on infrastructure and capital projects then?

That's on the left hand side of the graph.

The Heritage Foundation disagrees. They say that they were unproductive tax cuts, but not that there were no tax cuts whatsoever:

http://blog.heritage.org/2009/02/12/when-a-tax-cut-isnt-a-tax-cut/

Unless the Heritage Foundation is now also an agent of Communist Agitprop.

Aren't you generally among the group that dismisses automatically anything that comes from the Heritage Foundation?

no subject

Remember: there were no tax cuts.

Re: Remember: there were no tax cuts.

Re: Remember: there were no tax cuts.

Re: Remember: there were no tax cuts.

Re: Remember: there were no tax cuts.

Re: Remember: there were no tax cuts.

Re: Remember: there were no tax cuts.

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

Bullshit:

Re: Bullshit:

Re: Bullshit:

Re: Bullshit:

Re: Bullshit:

Re: Bullshit:

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

Serious question (with snide undertone ;) )