The Stimulus Seems to have failed

Look, what I spend on my rent every month is the same, regardless of whether I work overtime or get a pay raise. It is not erroneous, nor obtuse, to refer to an increase or decrease in actual dollars spent as just that - an increase or decrease, regardless of my income.

Even going by actual dollars, his claim is wrong: In 1979, we spent $295 billion. In 1981 it "massively increased" to $317 billion.
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0904490.html

This is a lame argument. Lomiller was right on discretionary spending, wrong on military spending. I thought discretionary spending had been steadily increasing. In non-adjusted dollars, it has been, of course. I'm right! :rolleyes:
 
Even going by actual dollars, his claim is wrong: In 1979, we spent $295 billion. In 1981 it "massively increased" to $317 billion.
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0904490.html

This is a lame argument. Lomiller was right on discretionary spending, wrong on military spending. I thought discretionary spending had been steadily increasing. In non-adjusted dollars, it has been, of course. I'm right! :rolleyes:

And in 1988 it was $426.4B.

So, in the 80's, Military spending did indeed climb back to (almost) where it was during Vietnam (1968 was $449.3B). So, I suppose you've won this argument - you're right, 80's military spending didn't match that of Vietnam. It shot from $300B to $420B, but missed the top year of Vietnam by $20B :rolleyes:
 
Ok. Fine. So they didn't know it was a 6% contraction until just after Congress passed the stimulus bill (not that I actually believe for one moment that they didn't know internally what that number was going to be long before it was released).

Ok. Whatever.

But none of this changes the fact that in the first quarter of 1982, the economy contracted 6.4%, MUCH worse than what you claim they thought and worse than what they eventually said. And yet the country managed to recover from that even steeper contraction than this one without the aid of Obama's socialist help. Go figure.

Scroll up. Look at the graphs. I don't need to even argue anything here. The data do my arguing for me.
 
But you are still funded by the taxpayer.

And we all know there's an awful lot of waste in taxpayer funded jobs.

1. I've worked really hard on this project. I missed Skeptical-- after buying tickets!-- to get our product to the state on time. I've put in 10-12 hour days regularly for months at a time. I worked weekends.

2. I've volunteered huge amounts of time to this project to make sure this product is as useful to the tax payer as possible. As a fiscal conservative, I feel a moral obligation to not waste tax payer money.

3. Essentially all waste in this project has come from inefficient corporate meddling on the private side. I'm obviously not going to provide any detail, but multiple companies have goofed in huge ways costing the state big money, and they all should have known better.

4. Local governments are trying to reduce costs by keeping work in house, because private firms charge too much. If you were a client, and you were being billed for this 5-minute response, you'd receive a bill from my company for $65. Seriously.

Take off your blinders. The world is complex. The economy is complex. There are no easy answers, and there are no clear-cut good guys and bad guys.

And I guess you think of yourself as one of those "private sector" jobs that Obama claimed would constitute 90% of the new and saved stimulus jobs. :rolleyes:

I think of myself as employed. I think of myself as a hard worker with a real appreciation for the complexities of reality.

And I don't "think" of myself as a "private sector" employee; I am a private sector employee. I work long hours. I am not represented by a union.
 
Last edited:
What did Clinton do to balance the budget?


I don't have enough data or understanding to comment much on what Clinton did, but my hazy prediction would be that he sat in office as the tech market (and bubble) exploded into life and boosted tax revenue. Of course, given my admitted ignorance on this subject, there's obviously a good chance that I'm completely wrong.
 
1. I've worked really hard on this project. I missed Skeptical-- after buying tickets!-- to get our product to the state on time. I've put in 10-12 hour days regularly for months at a time. I worked weekends.

2. I've volunteered huge amounts of time to this project to make sure this product is as useful to the tax payer as possible. As a fiscal conservative, I feel a moral obligation to not waste tax payer money.

3. Essentially all waste in this project has come from inefficient corporate meddling on the private side. I'm obviously not going to provide any detail, but multiple companies have goofed in huge ways costing the state big money, and they all should have known better.

4. Local governments are trying to reduce costs by keeping work in house, because private firms charge too much. If you were a client, and you were being billed for this 5-minute response, you'd receive a bill from my company for $65. Seriously.

So you say. But all you really are proving is that the government is really, really bad at monitoring the way its (or should I say *our*) money is spent. Have any of these companies you say "goofed" taken any hit for non-performance or waste in this case? And is the government really so stupid as to fund a bunch of "levee assessors" to the tune of $780 per hour?

The bottom line is that were this not funded by government (or should I say taxpayer) money, those who mismanaged this badly would be punished ... they and their company would be out of jobs and out of business. You see, THAT is why private enterprise is superior. It's called accountability. All the Federal government can point to is one case of very costly mismanagement and failure to meet goals after another … be it public education, medicare, social security, this latest stimulus fiasco and a dozen other major programs. I don't see anyone in government losing any jobs over any of these things. In fact, the only people whose pensions seem to be secure and who don't seem to be suffering 9% unemployment are … well … government funded workers … even though a good case can be made that they put America into this recession in the first place. There is no accountability when it comes to government ... and especially it's *managers*.

Quote:
And I guess you think of yourself as one of those "private sector" jobs that Obama claimed would constitute 90% of the new and saved stimulus jobs.

I think of myself as employed.

Well, ten to one, someone in the Obama administration is counting you as private sector job. Just like they seem to be counting public school teachers as private sector jobs. Because otherwise there is no possible way that 90% of the new and save stimulus jobs are "private sector" as Obama has repeatedly and very recently claimed. :D
 
I generated the graphs with a tool available at the Bureau of Economic Analysis website

Well, do you agree that your chart shows a 6.4% rate of decline in the first quarter of 1982 (as numerous government and non-government sources state was the case)? If you agree, then how can you claim that the current recession was any worse because it saw a 6.3% rate of decline in the 4th quarter of 2008? And if you don't agree, then how would you explain such a discrepancy between your chart and the MANY other sources that report the 6.4% Q1 1982 decline?
 
I don't have enough data or understanding ...

I'm not sure either, but perhaps that's what we need to do.

Bush took Clinton's surplus and turned it into a deficit with this tax-cuts for the wealthy. Bush's reasoning was that government was "profitting" from these taxes too much.
 
I don't have enough data or understanding to comment much on what Clinton did, but my hazy prediction would be that he sat in office as the tech market (and bubble) exploded into life and boosted tax revenue. Of course, given my admitted ignorance on this subject, there's obviously a good chance that I'm completely wrong.

IMO there were really 5 pillars to the surpluses of the 1990’s.

The first was Bush 1 being forced to retreat on his “no new taxes” campaign pledge in the 1991 budget deal. Clinton doesn’t deserve much credit for this one, nor did the Republicans in congress who essentially threw Bush under the bus for what turned out to be a very good decision.

The Second was the pay-go principle which was largely coming from moderate democrats in Congress but was supported by Clinton.

The third was simply sound spending. For example Clinton refocused the US military to favor quality over quantity, and making effective use of existing weapons platforms instead of spending hundreds of billions developing new platform after new platform. Anyone who had the opportunity to see the quality of US forces in the first vs the second gulf war should be able to attest how much better the US military was in 2002 vs 1992 (a LOT) despite being smaller and less expensive.

The forth was to keep Greenspan as Fed chairman and he continued Paul Volker's approch to running the Fed. Clinton gets some credit here, but so does every President datign back to Carter who appointed Volker.

The final part, as you say was the tech boom, but that wasn’t something that happened on it’s own. The Clinton Administration, Al Gore in particular played a huge role in tech taking off like that.

he tech boom was driven by the growth of the internet, which is 1991 was a loosely connected academic network that couldn’t support business or public use. Basically the internet at this point was an ad-hoc assortment of T1 phone lines between universities, and while the protocols for e-mail, http, etc were in place none of the end user apps were.

Clinton/Gore drove the concept of “the information super highway”, which had two parts. The first was the development of tools aimed at the public, the major result being the Mosaic web browser which was developed under the sponsorship of the NCSA and who’s developer later developed Netscape. Both Internet Explorer and Firefox today descend directly from Mosaic.

The second part of the initiative was to replace the lose academic network with a public utility of the sort we have today. The US government created incentives for private business to build their own networks then create high speed connections between them and allow data to be transferred between them. This is basically how the internet works today, and it was this change that made it possible for companies like AOL to start large scale drives to build their own networks and get people on the internet.
 
So you say. But all you really are proving is that the government is really, really bad at monitoring the way its (or should I say *our*) money is spent. Have any of these companies you say "goofed" taken any hit for non-performance or waste in this case? And is the government really so stupid as to fund a bunch of "levee assessors" to the tune of $780 per hour?

It’s not at all uncommon for consultants to cost in excess of $5000 per day despite the fact they do the same job as employees being paid only a fraction of that. The frequent use of this type of private sector outsourcing is in my experience one of the biggest sources of government cost over-runs.

Unless it’s a relatively simple service with lots of bidders it would be far more cost effective for government to simply do things itself, but this goes against political dogma in many quarters so what we get is massive spending on private consultants. Private business will use these same consultants at the same prices but doesn’t face the same political opposition to doing things in house so they sometimes make better use of them.
 
Here is more evidence that the stimulus did not work:

http://money.cnn.com/2010/07/15/news/economy/jobless_claims/

Jobless claims plummet to near 2yr low.

Wow. Only 429,000 people filed initial jobless claims the week ending July 10. And the total number filing claims only went up 247,000, to 4,681,000, from the previous week (it was only expected to climb to 4,400,000). What a remarkable success that stimulus program has been, folks! :rolleyes:

But I wonder how many hundreds of thousands are still working for the census?

And I wonder how many people have simply stopped filing unemployment claims?

And don't forget that 2 years after the 1981 recession began … when there wasn't a massive stimulus and government takeover of banks, WallStreet, car companies, etc … unemployment had dropped from a high of 10.8% to under 9%, almost where it began before that recession started. How could that have happened without Obama's help? :D
 
It’s not at all uncommon for consultants to cost in excess of $5000 per day despite the fact they do the same job as employees being paid only a fraction of that.

To check levees? I imagine there are a lot of unemployed civil engineers that could do that just as well at a fraction of the cost. And remember ... this was stimulus money. At $5000 per day, it's not saving or creating many jobs.

The frequent use of this type of private sector outsourcing is in my experience one of the biggest sources of government cost over-runs.

LOL! Yeah, blame it on the "private sector". :rolleyes:

Unless it’s a relatively simple service with lots of bidders it would be far more cost effective for government to simply do things itself

There you go folks. The liberal rational for bigger and bigger and bigger government. Don't be surprised if soon you are a government employee, too. :D
 
Last edited:
Forgive me for being a newbie, but I'm having trouble tracking the argument here. Aside from the snark, I guess there is a claim that if the absolute numbers aren't going down today, then the stimulus has failed. Don't we have any other ways of measuring the effectiveness of the stimulus than a couple of numbers? Someone said claiming things could be worse is a quack's claim, but usually a quack doesn't have anything else to back him up.

I also was interested in the argument over the severity of this recession. I thought it was widely accepted that this was one of the worst postwar recessions. For example, a quick google found these:

http://research.stlouisfed.org/publications/es/09/ES0904.pdf

http://www.clevelandfed.org/research/trends/2009/0609/02ecoact.cfm

http://www.minneapolisfed.org/publications_papers/studies/recession_perspective/index.cfm

If there is significant evidence that this recession is in line with previous recessions, I would like to see it. Snark, not so much.
 
To check levees? I imagine there are a lot of unemployed civil engineers that could do that just as well at a fraction of the cost.

How much do you think engineering consulting firms charge per day? For that matter what makes you think the expertise in evaluating levies is trivial?
 

Back
Top Bottom