Stimulus? Still a failure.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

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?

Comments

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Is it possible that you could once in your life admit you are in fact wrong about one thing?

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

I've admitted I've been wrong before. Can you answer the question, please? Are tax credits tax cuts?

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

No, there were tax credits in 2009, a payroll tax cut in 2010 (which was also accompanied, I believe, by an estate tax increase), and nothing so far in 2011.

Remember: there were no tax cuts.
And since the spending was primarily infrastructure and capital projects, no wonder it failed.

Remember: there were no tax cuts.

^Can you tell me which poster typed these two comments? If one of them was not you, why is the name Badlydrawnjeff after both?

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

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.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

In other words, no, it was not Badlydrawnjeff who wrote a comment noting that Badlydrawnjeff wrote it. Whatever, you lied and won't admit it. I've been wrong on things and in a thread down the page admitted Bogey was right and I was wrong. You can't do that much.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

The page referring to the community main page, not this specific OP and comment threads following.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

If you're going to pull things out of context, I'm going to call you out on it. Sorry. You're absolutely being dishonest right now.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

So are you, as you yourself claimed Obama never did anything with taxation, period, were shown evidence, and then claimed when you said X you meant Y. Which is established pattern on your part. Claiming you meant with the stimulus and then trying to claim that tax credits are not tax cuts is the classic pattern of lying and then covering your ass.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

So are you, as you yourself claimed Obama never did anything with taxation, period, were shown evidence, and then claimed when you said X you meant Y.

I never did that, sorry.

Claiming you meant with the stimulus and then trying to claim that tax credits are not tax cuts is the classic pattern of lying and then covering your ass.

Read the damn threads. If you can't follow a conversation, that's not my problem. Show me one thread where I claimed what you're saying and I'll eat my hat.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Yes, you did.

http://talk-politics.livejournal.com/1074883.html?thread=85851843#t85851843

You are explicitly trying to claim that War with Eastasia really meant War with Eurasia.

And that's fine, except when someone has a functional memory and bullshit detector. Tax credits are tax cuts, just as "fees" are taxes by those wary of the t-word.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Tax credits are tax cuts, just as "fees" are taxes by those wary of the t-word.

Oh, so you're changing your tune now. No, tax credits are not tax cuts - they do not actually cut the rate of taxation. They have to be sought after by the person or group getting them. Big difference.

At least now you've stopped with the dishonest statement from earlier.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

No, tax credits are tax cuts. The idea that seeking something out does not make it a cut is akin to saying that getting honey from a tree as opposed to a bee farmer makes the tree-honey not-honey.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

So what was the tax rate cut to in the stimulus?

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

http://www.american.com/archive/2009/why-obama2019s-2018tax-cuts2019-won2019t-work

http://theweek.com/article/index/208375/why-doesnt-obama-get-credit-for-cutting-taxes

http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/43343733/ns/today-today_news/t/obama-flexes-tax-cutting-muscle-face-gop-criticism/

http://hotair.com/archives/2010/12/08/obama-on-liberal-tax-cuts-critics-some-of-these-people-are-confused/

http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/12/07/defiant-obama-sharply-defends-tax-cut-compromise/

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-12-08/obama-s-business-critics-praise-compromise-extending-tax-cuts.html

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/dec/7/obama-whacks-liberal-critics-tax-cut-compromise/

Most crucially, there is this source, from that wretched hive of communism and supporting the social parasites who prevent the rich from leading us to utopia, the Heritage Foundation:

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

If they can call a spade a spade, why do you persist in calling it a stick?

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

ffs, underlankers. I said stimulus - don't give me a bunch of links on the tax cut extension to try and prove me wrong about the stimulus.

You have yet to demonstrate a cut from the stimulus. Why? There isn't one.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

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

^So did the Heritage Foundation end up missing this word game somehow?

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Because Heritage ain't that great.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

What makes them not that great?

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

They're not really as accurate as they should be generally, not just with buying into this "tax cut" language.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

How so? Specifics, man.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Well, this tax cut thing is a good starter.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

More than that. What *else* makes them not as accurate as they could be?