The Stimulus Seems to have failed

[mhaze]

Yes, that makes perfect sense. Except that the recession began before that particular intervention. Minor quibble, I suppose...

Except that there IS NOt "PARTICULAR INTERVENTION" MENtiONED...

Instead, a fairly exhaustive list of the actions taken over the last 2.5 years

 

[BobTheDonkey]

Except that there IS NOt "PARTICULAR INTERVENTION" MENtiONED...

Instead, a fairly exhaustive list of the actions taken over the last 2.5 years

Oh, fine. My mistake. Let me rephrase so you can discuss the problem with the assertion made on the blog rather than my phrasing.


"Yes, that makes perfect sense. Except that the recession began before the most extraordinary interventions in the economy in our nation's history.'


Better?

 

[BeAChooser]

"Yes, that makes perfect sense. Except that the recession began before the most extraordinary interventions in the economy in our nation's history.'

You do realize, don't you, that the charge has never been that Bush and Obama's stimulus approach caused the recession? Only that they turned what would have been a deep but rather ordinary recession into the makings of a depression. Just like Hoover and FDR did in 1929 with their "extraordinary interventions". You really need to keep up, BTD.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

You do realize, don't you, that the charge has never been that Bush and Obama's stimulus approach caused the recession? Only that they turned what would have been a deep but rather ordinary recession into the makings of a depression. Just like Hoover and FDR did in 1929 with their "extraordinary interventions". You really need to keep up, BTD.

Yeah, you haven't paid any attention to the posts showing just how wrong your conclusion there is, have you?

Don't answer, that's a rhetorical question. We all know the answer.

 

[lomiller]

You do realize, don't you, that the charge has never been that Bush and Obama's stimulus approach caused the recession? Only that they turned what would have been a deep but rather ordinary recession into the makings of a depression.

Repeating your lie doesn’t make it true. I’ve already shown that this recession was longer and deeper then any downturn since the great depression before Obama took office and that the stimulus immediately preceded the end to this decline.

 

[BeAChooser]

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2...-a-different-take-on-u-s-growth/?ref=business

The I.M.F. foresees a much less happy and prosperous future for the United States. The fund, in its annual report on the American economy, said growth will not top 3 percent through 2016:

2011: 2.5 percent

2012: 2.7 percent

2013: 2.7 percent

2014: 2.9 percent

2015: 2.9 percent

2016: 2.8 percent

Those are abysmal numbers that imply that the United States has no imminent prospect of recovering the losses sustained during the recession, and that the American economy has been shunted onto a path of lower growth.

Thank you, Obama.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2...-a-different-take-on-u-s-growth/?ref=business



Thank you, Obama.

Because Obama's responsible for the stimulus not being big enough or long enough?

 

[BeAChooser]

Because Obama's responsible for the stimulus not being big enough or long enough?

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/576880/201106291850/Never-Enough-For-Democrats.htm

Editorial: Stimulus: It's Never Enough For The Democrats

Federal Spending: With each passing day it becomes clearer how badly the Democrats' $838 billion-plus stimulus has failed. But look who's come to explain it away: a man known for his careless way with the facts.

With unemployment at 9.1% — well above the 8% the stimulus was supposed to prevent it from reaching — Bill Clinton told reporters on Tuesday that the problem with the massive Obama economic program was that "there just wasn't enough of it."

… snip …

The Obama stimulus didn't stimulate the U.S. economy. It feathered the nests of the powerful public-sector unions. The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, which spent at least $87.5 million to elect Democrats during the 2010 election cycle alone, got what it paid for.

Stimulus spending is a racket that's right up Clinton's alley.

No kidding.

 

[mhaze]

Oh, fine. My mistake. Let me rephrase so you can discuss the problem with the assertion made on the blog rather than my phrasing.


"Yes, that makes perfect sense. Except that the recession began before the most extraordinary interventions in the economy in our nation's history.'


Better?

No, I think we all understand that there was a recession that began in 2007. It was being talked about at that time. There was the Bush $600 tax credit.

Do you have a point? I mean, one that isn't one of the self evident premises that the entire discussion is based on?

 

[BeAChooser]

Isn't this more Stuck On Stupid *stimulus*?

http://finance.yahoo.com/loans/arti...ruggling-homeowners-smartmoney?mod=loans-home

June 29, 2011

… snip …

For the roughly four million homeowners who have fallen behind on their mortgage payments, the federal government is offering yet another remedy: free money to catch up on their loans.

The effort, called the Emergency Homeowners Loan Program, is the latest in the federal government's efforts to slow down the flood of foreclosures a necessary step to a meaningful recovery in the housing market, says a Department of Housing and Urban Development official. For people who have lost their jobs, the $1 billion program offers loans of up to $50,000 that don't actually need to be repaid, if applicants meet certain requirements.

… snip …

Rolled out by HUD and the nonprofit housing advocacy group NeighborWorks America, the program is making loans with far better terms than anything on offer at a local bank.

Now let's take a look at that group, NeighborWorks America.

It was formerly the Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation. Its head is Eileen Fitzgerald. Given her strong affiliation with unions, 10 to 1 she's a democrat (http://www.nw.org/network/aboutus/officers/eileenFitzgerald.asp ). And here was the goal of the Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation as stated by Bush in 2002 (to his discredit):

The Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation will dramatically expand financial and home buyer education efforts to 380,000 minority families.

In other words, this was one of the socialist inspired organization that got us into the housing crisis in the first place … by encouraging people who couldn't afford a house to get one and *encouraging* banks to make unsound loans to them that were sure to default at the first economic downturn. And now we are going to keep those people who couldn't really afford a home in the first place in their homes … by forcing those who can afford homes to pay for it? Sounds like socialism to me. Forced redistribution of wealth.

 

[mhaze]

Isn't this more Stuck On Stupid *stimulus*?

http://finance.yahoo.com/loans/arti...ruggling-homeowners-smartmoney?mod=loans-home




Now let's take a look at that group, NeighborWorks America.

It was formerly the Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation. Its head is Eileen Fitzgerald. Given her strong affiliation with unions, 10 to 1 she's a democrat (http://www.nw.org/network/aboutus/officers/eileenFitzgerald.asp ). And here was the goal of the Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation as stated by Bush in 2002 (to his discredit):


In other words, this was one of the socialist inspired organization that got us into the housing crisis in the first place … by encouraging people who couldn't afford a house to get one and *encouraging* banks to make unsound loans to them that were sure to default at the first economic downturn. And now we are going to keep those people who couldn't really afford a home in the first place in their homes … by forcing those who can afford homes to pay for it? Sounds like socialism to me. Forced redistribution of wealth.

Now look here, BAC, you just need to get with the program. Other people, darn it, all of us with some sense in our heads, are getting some of this free stuff and free money. You can get some, too, if you get your attitude right. You know you want to.

 

[bikerdruid]

the stimulus was a failure, because the money went to the wrong people.
the money should have gone to the working class, who would spend it on goods and services, actually stimulating the economy.
instead it was given to corporations that gave huge bonuses to the incompetent dolts that got them in trouble in the first place.

if the people have money and spend it, the economy works.

 

[mhaze]

the stimulus was a failure, because the money went to the wrong people.
the money should have gone to the working class, who would spend it on goods and services, actually stimulating the economy.
instead it was given to corporations that gave huge bonuses to the incompetent dolts that got them in trouble in the first place.

if the people have money and spend it, the economy works.

We're not in disagreement on this, however I'd qualify it by having made it a ONE YEAR LONG TAX HOLIDAY. I suspect that you'd prefer it be distributed from the "working class" to the "lazy non working class", but let us know.

We are certainly in agreement on the idiocy of the money going to the elite and connected crony capitalists.

BAC, what's your opinion about this?

 

[Tippit]

the stimulus was a failure, because the money went to the wrong people.
the money should have gone to the working class, who would spend it on goods and services, actually stimulating the economy.
instead it was given to corporations that gave huge bonuses to the incompetent dolts that got them in trouble in the first place.

if the people have money and spend it, the economy works.

If you allow a corrupt monetary system that enables bank insiders to loot savers and debase the currency, don't be surprised when bank insiders wind up with all of the free money. If you allow an all-encroaching government that enables government insiders to legally pillage the population via taxation and create massive dependency, don't be surprised when they pull the rug out from everyone.

 

[mhaze]

If you allow a corrupt monetary system that enables bank insiders to loot savers and debase the currency, don't be surprised when bank insiders wind up with all of the free money. If you allow an all-encroaching government that enables government insiders to legally pillage the population via taxation and create massive dependency, don't be surprised when they pull the rug out from everyone.

But the cause and result is not obvious during the process, which spans decades, and given that the enticements are free stuff, and free help, the pitch is made to a new and fresh group of suckers rather than those who learned their lesson the hard way the last time around.

 

[Muldur]

Some subsections of that economy would not survive

Those "subsections of the economy" are in fact human beings with human rights equal to your own.

Would there be dire consequences to stopping those transfers? Yep. But the existence of the problem today is because of the continuation of the problem...."kicking the can down the road"....

The solution to that isn't kicking the can down the road.

The solution isn't your "cut cut cut cut cut" one-size fits all program. There are programs that need to be cut, like industry subsidies, etc. There are also revenues that need to be RAISED (tax rates that need to be adjusted, loopholes closed, etc).

BOTH are needed, and they should be carefully targeted not only for economic affect, but social justice.

Asking the poor, the sick and the elderly to eat dog food to provide champange and caviar for CEOs and "investors" is a moral abomination, and unsustainable economics, as history has shown.

 

[Muldur]

Now, your claim about 50 years at 1/3 of current tax revenue is scary indeed...unless we acknowledge (as I've pointed out) that tax revenues are down due to, you guessed it, a struggling economy. Improve the economy, increase tax revenue. I realize this isn't one of your options, but then your options aren't all-inclusive (obviously).

He also excludes RAISING revenues.

Social Security, for example, can be put back in the black and KEPT there with a 5 cent on the dollar increase in FICA, only 2.5 cents of which would actually come out of the workers' paychecks directly (the other half being employer contribution).

Additional positive cash flow can be obtained by lifting the "cap" on FICA, making 100% of employment income FICA taxable, as opposed to the current ~$150-200,000.

But NOOOO...the "evil gub'ment" must not be allowed to "steal people's money"...never mind that taxes are an implicit element of the social contract, and those people b*tching about not wanting to pay them have no problem whatsoever about accepting all the things the government DOES with the money.

 

[Muldur]

Only that they turned what would have been a deep but rather ordinary recession into the makings of a depression.

Wrong. The entire global economy was on the verge of collapse thanks to CDOs and CDSes that were legalized by the CTMA in 2006. On Sept 18, 2008, we came within a few HOURS of a complete breakdown of ALL banking as a run started on US mutual funds that would have domino-chained around the world and destroyed the credit structure entirely.

http://www.bestsyndication.com/?q=2...ney_market_representative_kanjorski_cspan.htm

http://www.creditwritedowns.com/2009/02/frontline-inside-the-meltdown-of-sept-18-2008.html

 

[mhaze]

Those "subsections of the economy" are in fact human beings with human rights equal to your own.



The solution isn't your "cut cut cut cut cut" one-size fits all program. There are programs that need to be cut, like industry subsidies, etc. There are also revenues that need to be RAISED (tax rates that need to be adjusted, loopholes closed, etc).

BOTH are needed, and they should be carefully targeted not only for economic affect, but social justice.

Asking the poor, the sick and the elderly to eat dog food to provide champange and caviar for CEOs and "investors" is a moral abomination, and unsustainable economics, as history has shown.

What history has shown is that people will engage in mutually profitable transactions. History shows that when government gets too far off in it's attempts to control economics, black markets develop and people do what they are going to do irregardless of what governments, moralizers and propagandists say they should do.

Thus all your "shoulds" and "musts" and "are needed" and "for social justice" admonitions do not direct or orchestrate the economy; it is an organic thing comprised of billions of individual decisions. Rather, your sentiments illustrate the failure of top down control attempts of the past, which although doubtlessly well meaning, usually made things worse, not better.

How many examples of this would you like?

 

[JudeBrando]

That such looting has actually been successfully passed off as "stimulus" alone is astonishing.