The Stimulus Seems to have failed

[BeAChooser]

Ah, so you're in the "the goal never was WMD" camp, eh?

Like I said, we don't really need to rehash that gross distortion here, do we, Piggy?

Would you instead, perhaps, like to post something proving that the stimulus worked?

 

[Piggy]

Like I said, we don't really need to rehash that gross distortion here, do we, Piggy?

Would you instead, perhaps, like to post something proving that the stimulus worked?

Well yu can always g back and read my earlier psts.

 

[Roboramma]

Oh, sure. But of course there's a curve and a sweet spot.

Yeah, you need capital, but you also need cash-flow, so it's a matter of figuring what the calculus is, so to speak, and balancing that against your current and projected needs.

In some cases, it makes good sense. In other cases, not so much.

Sounds like it has worked for you.

In our case, we would have been better off not to have fronted those revenue decisions.

And given where we are now, I'm wondering if the dealers are wishing they hadn't either.

Would be interesting to hear their opinions on the matter.

Cool, I agree with that, I was mainly suggesting that sometimes there's value in "borrowing against the future" as you put it. Personally I think that CfC is a case where it made sense, but I didn't even want to get into that argument, just to make the point that "borrowing against the future", while it seems zero sum, isn't, because that money can (sometimes) be used now more efficiently than later.

 

[BeAChooser]

Well yu can always g back and read my earlier psts.

You mean like this post?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6406121&postcount=1027

First, as I've noted previously, I haven't claimed that the stimulus created or saved "no jobs". So shall we just ignore "evaluations" #1 and #2 as the red herrings they are to avoid discussing the real situation?

Second, all the other estimates are meaningless when historical data shows higher economic growth following recession after recession where no or little stimulus was applied. And some of those recessions were just as deep as this one was at the time the stimulus was forced through Congress. This (http://www.advisorperspectives.com/commentaries/aci_051010.php ) has a figure that shows that the average GDP growth for the first 3 quarters after recession ends has been well above the GDP performance following this recession in every single period since 1953. The recession in 1981-82 saw an average of 7.5% growth, for example. And GDP growth should translate somehow in to jobs growth. Ordinarily.

Third, some of the claims for having created or saving jobs are non-falsifiable. The CBO, for example, cites a number for jobs saved or created that is the only result you could get out of the model they used. It's garbage in, garbage out. As Douglas Holtz-Eakin, former CBO director, said, "the models used are designed to spit out positive figures" and "the kinds of models that the CBO uses is one where the stimulus can't fail to work."

Fourth, do you really want to take credit for a government program that created or saved jobs that cost on average of between a quarter million and two million dollars each? Plus, many of those are temporary jobs that will disappear once the stimulus funding is gone. And include jobs that are basically minimum salaries jobs.

Fifth, politifact and factcheck are not exactly unbiased sources.

They have been known to be a bit disingenuous. For example:

So far this year government employment has declined slightly, while private sector employment has increased by 763,000 jobs.

That's about 95,000 jobs a month. But just to keep up with population growth, the US needs to add 125,000 positions each month. So the economy clearly is not even keeping it's head above water. It's sinking deeper. And to return to full employment in five years, the economy would need to add 300,000 jobs a month. And what percentage is government employment down from when the recession began, compared to the private sector? Hmmmm?

It says that “jobless claims continue to soar,” when in fact they are down eight percent from their worst levels.

But never the less, jobless claims once again seem to be going up:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/09/23/business/main6893324.shtml

Guess Recovery Summer is over.

It repeats a bogus assertion that the Internal Revenue Service may need to expand by 16,500 positions, an inflated estimate based on false assumptions and guesswork.

Nevertheless, the number is going to go up. Even the IRS admits that. Whether its 5000, or 16,000 is ANYBODY'S guess. It's certainly no worse a distortion than all the liberals who for years have called any reduction in the increase in government spending a "cut". And I don't recall factcheck every getting all hot and bothered about that.

It claims the stimulus bill is costing $1 trillion, considerably more than the $814 billion, 10-year price tag currently estimated by nonpartisan congressional budget experts.

Like the CBO? LOL!

Let's see … $814 billion to save 1.4 to 3.3 million jobs. That's $266,000 to $581,000 per job. Wow!

And it seems they forget the $410 billion dollar Omnibus Spending Bill that Congress passed just after the Stimulus. How much stimulus related pork did it contain? Hmmmmmm?

Not to mention a few other rush-rush programs that Obama insisted we needed *right now*.

 

[Piggy]

Let's see … $814 billion to save 1.4 to 3.3 million jobs. That's $266,000 to $581,000 per job. Wow!

Oh, c'mon, BAC, even you should know better than that. For the money, you don't just get the jobs, you get the jobs plus the products of those jobs.

 

[Piggy]

Fifth, politifact and factcheck are not exactly unbiased sources.

They have been known to be a bit disingenuous. For example:



That's about 95,000 jobs a month. But just to keep up with population growth, the US needs to add 125,000 positions each month. So the economy clearly is not even keeping it's head above water.

Ah, yes, the left-wing liberal media conspiracy. Oooh, those devils!

With respect to the question they were addressing, their assessment is correct. You're addressing a related but different question.

 

[BeAChooser]

Oh, c'mon, BAC, even you should know better than that. For the money, you don't just get the jobs, you get the jobs plus the products of those jobs.

And what are those products? A mowed lawn? A repaved street that probably didn't really need repaving? Pushing some papers from office to office in government? A toxic waste site cleaned up that would have been cleaned up anyway eventually? The same percentage of students failing high school as we had before because we *saved* the teachers and union that got us to where we are in the first place? A weatherized home (how much is that really worth)? Facilities to produce *alternative* energy that are so non-competitive that other countries, like Spain, are starting to abandon that industry because the cost of government subsidies is bankrupting them? Seriously Piggy, I really don't think you can sell the stimulus on this basis. There are just too many holes in that argument. Not the least of which is where does government get the money from in the first place? From people who would have spent it and created jobs. Who is it that you think actually creates real wealth? It's not the government.

http://spectator.org/archives/2009/02/06/unemployment-and-spending "Unemployment and Stimulus"

The chart below compares the unemployment rate back to 1960 with federal government spending as a share of GDP.

http://spectator.org/assets/mc/govspending.jpg (BAC - a chart plotting Government Spending vs Unemployment)

Clearly, the chart shows that more government spending does not create jobs. In fact, it is exactly the opposite. More government spending is correlated with higher levels of unemployment.

And don't forget the added debt being used to fund the current stimulus. According to
http://blog.heritage.org/2009/02/12/true-cost-of-stimulus-327-trillion/, the "Total bill for the Generational Theft Act: $3.27 trillion."

 

[Piggy]

And what are those products? A mowed lawn? A repaved street that probably didn't really need repaving? Pushing some papers from office to office in government? A toxic waste site cleaned up that would have been cleaned up anyway eventually? The same percentage of students failing high school as we had before because we *saved* the teachers and union that got us to where we are in the first place? A weatherized home (how much is that really worth)? Facilities to produce *alternative* energy that are so non-competitive that other countries, like Spain, are starting to abandon that industry because the cost of government subsidies is bankrupting them? Seriously Piggy, I really don't think you can sell the stimulus on this basis.

Why would I want to use your wild assumptions to discuss anything?

State property needs tending. Streets do need to be paved (have you seen any repaving of perfect streets lately?). Cleaning up toxic waste needs to be done, so why not do it when we need job creation the most? Keeping the failure rate the same in schools is better than letting it rise. Weatherizing homes is worth something to the folks who live there, and to utility companies. If we don't put money into developing alt energy -- which will eventually rule the world, one way or another -- then other countries will (Spain's bad decisions notwithstanding... and btw Spain is cutting investment hardcore because -- wait for it -- their unemployment rate is astronomical, about twice ours last I checked).

You seem to be pro-unemployment.

But if you really are opposed to any gov't-subsidization to create jobs, then you need to start getting on the case of private business and asking them why they don't start creating more jobs. If you really want an all market-based society, stop b******g about the government and take it to the businesses.

Of course, it's much easier to complain about DC than about the business community, and besides, in your heart you know they're not in a position to solve the problem. If they were, they would have done it.

 

[BeAChooser]

Why would I want to use your wild assumptions to discuss anything?

You think I made those jobs up or they are just "assumptions"?

State property needs tending.

But is mowing a lawn really a product? And perhaps the state shouldn't have as much "property" as it does in the first place? How's that for an "assumption"? By the way, did you know that at one point the government claimed the purchase of ONE lawnmower created 50 jobs. That claim was either dishonesty or the sort of mismanagement one can expect from government programs like this. I doubt you EVER find a private company making such a nonsensical claim. Because the person making it would soon find themselves on the street … having to mow lawns for living.

Streets do need to be paved.

Again, can you show the long term economic gain to doing this? Do you have any actual data on this? And what about the roads that didn't need repaving?

http://www.ajc.com/news/atlanta/stimulus-funds-repave-smooth-129571.html

The two-block stretch, a part of Ralph David Abernathy that falls between Lee Street and Joseph Lowery Boulevard, was completely re-paved “curb to curb” following sewer work that ended in 2007, said Janet Ward, a city spokeswoman. Since then, it seemed to have held up fine, Serna said.

This summer, state contractor crews tore it up again as part of a larger project. The two blocks happen to be included in a 1.1 mile project on Ralph David Abernathy that the Georgia Department of Transportation re-paved with $490,784 in federal stimulus money, between Cascade Avenue and West Whitehall Street.

I watched them do something similar near where I live.

A better question for you to focus on is why the states didn't repave roads that needed it before the stimulus? Why did the states let the condition of roads just deteriorate nation wide? Were democratic controlled states too busy adding $$$$ to already overbloated democrat-controlled union government worker pensions?

And I think given the debt being saddled on future generations to pay for these "improvements", this portion of the stimulus gives new meaning to that expression about the road to hell being paved with *good intentions*.

Cleaning up toxic waste needs to be done, so why not do it when we need job creation the most?

Because it's inherently inefficient to rush work through in the manner it was. And it is inherently unfair. Again, I would never advise my children to spend their unborn children's income to do something they want or feel they need. I'd tell them to save until they can afford it, and don't go in debt.

Keeping the failure rate the same in schools is better than letting it rise.

LOL!

Weatherizing homes is worth something to the folks who live there, and to utility companies.

But why is it the taxpayers job to help either of the two groups? This is just socialism, and income redistribution, one way or the other.

If we don't put money into developing alt energy -- which will eventually rule the world, one way or another -- then other countries will

Well gosh, perhaps we should really be investing in building fusion power plants … because government has been telling us that's the future for the last 50 years. Does it ever cross your mind that the reason Spain's massive effort at green energy needed to be subsidized so heavily is that alternative energy is not yet ready for prime time and needs more development? The government is throwing money away here, because you can be sure that our competitors overseas will be using the cheapest power available to build the products that take our manufacturing jobs away. Spanish economist Professor Gabriel Calzada estimated that each green job had cost the country $774,000 AND each green job had cost Spain 2.2 jobs that might otherwise have been created. Why don't we wait until the technologies improve somewhat before transitioning over to the alternatives? Hmmmmm?

But if you really are opposed to any gov't-subsidization to create jobs, then you need to start getting on the case of private business and asking them why they don't start creating more jobs.

LOL! The reason the private sector isn't creating jobs is because of the uncertainties that government interference has created since the very beginning of this recession. Haven't you grasp that by now, Piggy?

 

[Piggy]

The two-block stretch, a part of Ralph David Abernathy that falls between Lee Street and Joseph Lowery Boulevard, was completely re-paved “curb to curb” following sewer work that ended in 2007, said Janet Ward, a city spokeswoman. Since then, it seemed to have held up fine, Serna said.

This summer, state contractor crews tore it up again as part of a larger project. The two blocks happen to be included in a 1.1 mile project on Ralph David Abernathy that the Georgia Department of Transportation re-paved with $490,784 in federal stimulus money, between Cascade Avenue and West Whitehall Street.

So.... what you would prefer is that the road remain unusable between those two projects?

The Atlanta sewers are in horrible shape (it was the biggest issue in mayor Franklin's election -- current mayor is Reed) and there is an extended project to finally update them. In the process, roads need to be repaved once the new sewers are installed. So that's what happened in '07.

Apparently, there was, sometime later, an entirely different project which required getting under the road. When they were done, they of course repaved.

And this, to you, equates to paving a street that doesn't need paving.

Yu're utding yurself here, BAC.

 

[BeAChooser]

So.... what you would prefer is that the road remain unusable between those two projects?

Who said it was unusable? City officials said it was perfectly adequate. And one of the residents in the area quoted in the article who road her bike over the pre-stimulus road said it was already plenty smooth.

The Atlanta sewers are in horrible shape (it was the biggest issue in mayor Franklin's election -- current mayor is Reed) and there is an extended project to finally update them.

So let the citizens of Atlanta vote a bond issue ... like they should have done years ago ... and spend their money on improving them. Don't ask the people of Kansas or Montana to do it via stimulus money. Perhaps the real problem here is that government leaders in Atlanta prioritized their own salaries and the fat pensions of all their unionized government workers over sewer repair all those many years the sewers were falling apart. Well too bad. It's NOT the federal government's job to tax and spend money on the city of Atlanta's sewers or roads. That was not the role our founders saw for the federal government, Piggy.

Yu're utding yurself here, BAC.

Well it looks like I'm not the only one.

 

[BeAChooser]

House democrat Phil Hare from Illinois speaking about the debt and government spending:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U4Fo4ZgA0M4&feature=player_embedded

Every minute I have here is going to be spent trying to debunk the myth this country is in debt and we just can't spend.

Boy, talk about a democrat being Stuck On Stupid.

Bet he also thinks the Stimulus was a good idea, just like he thought Obamacare was such a good idea.

Well at least recent polling data suggests his constituents are starting to see the light.

 

[ServiceSoon]

House democrat Phil Hare from Illinois speaking about the debt and government spending:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U4Fo4ZgA0M4&feature=player_embedded



Boy, talk about a democrat being Stuck On Stupid.

Bet he also thinks the Stimulus was a good idea, just like he thought Obamacare was such a good idea.

Well at least recent polling data suggests his constituents are starting to see the light.

That's one democrat from a pool of ~180 democrat state reps.

 

[Piggy]

Who said it was unusable? City officials said it was perfectly adequate. And one of the residents in the area quoted in the article who road her bike over the pre-stimulus road said it was already plenty smooth.

How smooth was it after they had to tear it up for the second project?

 

[Piggy]

So let the citizens of Atlanta vote a bond issue ... like they should have done years ago ... and spend their money on improving them. Don't ask the people of Kansas or Montana to do it via stimulus money. Perhaps the real problem here is that government leaders in Atlanta prioritized their own salaries and the fat pensions of all their unionized government workers over sewer repair all those many years the sewers were falling apart. Well too bad. It's NOT the federal government's job to tax and spend money on the city of Atlanta's sewers or roads. That was not the role our founders saw for the federal government, Piggy.

Keep your eye on the ball, BAC, if you can.

Btw, the gov't of Atlanta is corrupt as all get-out. No doubt about that.

But as far as stimulus money, it was *intended* to go to projects all over the country that ordinarily would have been funded by state revenues (which have dried up) as well as for as-yet-unfunded research and other programs that were ready to go, in order to provide some cushion against the massive job loss created by the '08 financial crash.

As I've said, a lot of that money was no doubt wasted.

I've never argued that all the stimulus money was wisely spent. But that's not the question.

The question is whether or not it "failed". And the answer is "no". It did help to prevent an extended economic freeze, and has (by most independent accounts) kept unemployment down by a point or so -- which means unemployment would have been about 10% higher without it -- and in the meantime we're getting real value out of many of the projects despite the inevitable boondoggles.

 

[BeAChooser]

The question is whether or not it "failed". And the answer is "no". It did help to prevent an extended economic freeze

LOL! For you to claim that hasn't happened only proves how out of touch with reality you are, Piggy. But you go on digging that hole for your credibility.

and has (by most independent accounts) kept unemployment down by a point or so

LOL! Were these the same "independent" sources that assured everyone that with the Stimulus unemployment wouldn't go over 8%?

in the meantime we're getting real value out of many of the projects despite the inevitable boondoggles.

That's not the point and you know it. The point is that the money would have been better spent just letting the free market system handle the recession as it's successfully done dozens of times in the past. That history strongly suggests that had we done so, the economy would have recovered much faster, the GNP would now be growing much faster, and unemployment would now be much lower. Instead it looks like we are headed for a double dip and possibly what many independent accounts are calling a depression. Don't democrats EVER learn from history? :roll eyes:

 

[Piggy]

The point is that the money would have been better spent just letting the free market system handle the recession

When a recession is brought on by a financial crisis that cripples the free market, as this one did -- remember the Port of Shanghai and the frozen banks -- the market is incapable of handling it, so governments have to step in, unfortunately.

Not all recessions are created equal.

 

[joobz]

When a recession is brought on by a financial crisis that cripples the free market, as this one did -- remember the Port of Shanghai and the frozen banks -- the market is incapable of handling it, so governments have to step in, unfortunately.

Not all recessions are created equal.

Logic and reason will not work here.

BeaChooser blames the government for the banking crisis. He blames the government for the BP oilspill. He blames the government for well, about everything that the free market causes. There's a sad irony in the idea that free market is founded upon personal responsibility, but its proponents refuse to accept that responsibility when their ideology fails.

 

[BeAChooser]

To answer the question I asked: I guess not.

 

[Piggy]

Don't democrats EVER learn from history?

Why do you persist in the illusion that I'm a Democrat?

I guess your mental calculus must work something like this:

Doesn't agree with me on everything = must be Democrat.

Have you forgotten, for instance, that I'm a long-time McCain supporter and only bailed on him when he and Schmidt picked that loon Palin as a runningmate?