The Stimulus Seems to have failed

Skeptic

Banned
S
Joined
Jul 25, 2001
Messages
18,312
A year ago, Obama claimed the Stimulus would create 3 million jobs. Since then, 3 million jobs had been lost. That makes a 6 million difference between projection and reality.

Of course it is always possible to claim that things would have been even worse without the stimulus, but then again, that's the quack doctor's and faith-healer's constant "out", too.
 
The Federal Reserve's interest rate cuts have failed too, right? They started in August 07 and two and a half years later the unemployment rate is much higher.

Voting out the Republicans failed too.

Almost every other piece of monetary or fiscal policy relaxation in the developed and emerging world failed too. Jobless rates are higher than 2 years ago almost everywhere.

Probably all Obama's fault really though, right? Must be.
 
The depression is not Obama's fault. But spending $870 billion to try and stop it to no good purpose is.

My car can break down on the way to the grocery store. But if I spent two million on a top-flight super-car precisely in order for this not to happen and it still breaks down, shrugging one's shoulders and muttering, "ah well, cars break down all the time" is no excuse.
 
So again, every policy easing action taken anywhere in the world (perhaps except for Brazil, staunch conservative anti-spending anti-tax tight ship that Lula has run for 8 years . . .) has been a failure. Should never have been done. All wrong.

Right?

To be clear: I am not arguing "it was right" by appealing to universal popularity, so much as asking you to argue why it was wrong in spite of all that. So far all you got is "the jobless total is higher at T+12 months". Even the US recovery act is a three year program I think.
 
Last edited:
SEC. 3. PURPOSES AND PRINCIPLES.
(a) STATEMENT OF PURPOSES.—The purposes of this Act include
the following:
(1) To preserve and create jobs and promote economic
recovery.
(2) To assist those most impacted by the recession.
(3) To provide investments needed to increase economic
efficiency by spurring technological advances in science and
health.
(4) To invest in transportation, environmental protection,
and other infrastructure that will provide long-term economic
benefits.
(5) To stabilize State and local government budgets, in
order to minimize and avoid reductions in essential services
and counterproductive state and local tax increases.
Click to expand...

So after one year and about one quarter of the funds having been awarded, the Act is a failure because it has not yet seen fruition on one third of a single goal out of the five goals? I feel such a judgement comes more from a focus on political rhetoric than a critical eye towards substantive policy. I agree there is much to debate on the Recovery Act and that the effect has not been a stellar game changer after a year in practice.

Or are you complaining about the Economic Stimulus Act of 2008 Economic Stimulus Act of 2008WP or the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008WP that predate the Obama Administration plans for Stimulus?
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wicked_problem

Rittel and Webber's (1973) formulation of wicked problems[2] specifies ten characteristics, perhaps best considered in the context of social policy planning. According to Ritchey (2007)[3], the ten characteristics are:

1. There is no definitive formulation of a wicked problem.
2. Wicked problems have no stopping rule.
3. Solutions to wicked problems are not true-or-false, but better or worse.
4. There is no immediate and no ultimate test of a solution to a wicked problem.
5. Every solution to a wicked problem is a "one-shot operation"; because there is no opportunity to learn by trial-and-error, every attempt counts significantly.
6. Wicked problems do not have an enumerable (or an exhaustively describable) set of potential solutions, nor is there a well-described set of permissible operations that may be incorporated into the plan.
7. Every wicked problem is essentially unique.
8. Every wicked problem can be considered to be a symptom of another problem.
9. The existence of a discrepancy representing a wicked problem can be explained in numerous ways. The choice of explanation determines the nature of the problem's resolution.
10. The planner has no right to be wrong (planners are liable for the consequences of the actions they generate).
 
Yeah. I'd say it's failed. Perhaps here is why ...

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2010/02/obama-stimulus-weatherization.html

Who could forget the $5 billion in Obama administration stimulus money that was going to rapidly create nearly 90,000 green jobs across the country in these tough economic times and make so many thousands of homes all snuggy and warm and energy-efficient these very snowy days?

… snip ...

ABC News reports that the General Accountability Office will declare today that the Energy Department has fallen woefully behind -- about 98.5% behind -- the 593,000 homes it initially predicted would be weatherized in the Recovery Act's very first, very chilly year.

… snip …

The Energy folks did tell ABC they've so far spent 522-million Recovery Act dollars on the program. So, let's see, about 9,100 homes divided into that chunk of stimulation change to believe in is -- gee! -- about $57,362 worth of very expensive weatherstripping for each home fixed up so far.

Seems believable for a federal program.
Click to expand...

:D
 
Or perhaps this is the reason it's failed:

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=520923

Stimulating Green Jobs For China

… snip ...

According to the Investigative Reporting Workshop at American University, nearly $2 billion in money from the American Recovery and Investment Act has been spent on wind power. The goal was to further energy independence while creating American jobs. It has done neither.

Of the money spent, according to the report, nearly 80% has gone to foreign manufacturers of wind turbines.

"In all due respect, I remind (Energy Secretary Steven Chu) there is a four-letter word associated with the stimulus — J-O-B-S," Sen. Schumer, D-N.Y., told ABC News, which interviewed him for a report done in coordination with the workshop's investigation. "Very few jobs here, lots of jobs in China."

The only good thing one can say is that at least China is a real place, as opposed to the phantom ZIP codes and congressional districts in which the administration has claimed to have created jobs.
Click to expand...

:D
 
Dymanic said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wicked_problem

Rittel and Webber's (1973) formulation of wicked problems[2] specifies ten characteristics, perhaps best considered in the context of social policy planning. According to Ritchey (2007)[3], the ten characteristics are:

1. There is no definitive formulation of a wicked problem.
2. Wicked problems have no stopping rule.
3. Solutions to wicked problems are not true-or-false, but better or worse.
4. There is no immediate and no ultimate test of a solution to a wicked problem.
5. Every solution to a wicked problem is a "one-shot operation"; because there is no opportunity to learn by trial-and-error, every attempt counts significantly.
6. Wicked problems do not have an enumerable (or an exhaustively describable) set of potential solutions, nor is there a well-described set of permissible operations that may be incorporated into the plan.
7. Every wicked problem is essentially unique.
8. Every wicked problem can be considered to be a symptom of another problem.
9. The existence of a discrepancy representing a wicked problem can be explained in numerous ways. The choice of explanation determines the nature of the problem's resolution.
10. The planner has no right to be wrong (planners are liable for the consequences of the actions they generate).
Click to expand...

The current recession seems to fit that to a tee.

Here's one pundit's argument that it's working:
Happy Birthday, Dear Stimulus! Don't listen to those Republicans—you're a big success. :rub:
 
Skeptic said:
A year ago, Obama claimed the Stimulus would create 3 million jobs. Since then, 3 million jobs had been lost. That makes a 6 million difference between projection and reality.

Of course it is always possible to claim that things would have been even worse without the stimulus, but then again, that's the quack doctor's and faith-healer's constant "out", too.
Click to expand...

So let me try to understand your "thinking" here. Let's say I have a car that is leaking oil. Let's say it leaks one quart per month. Let's say it has five quarts of oil at the moment, but if it the total drops below 4 quarts, serious damage will ensue. What you're saying is that if I add a quart of oil over the course of 1.5 months, so that the total level of oil in the car is now 4.5 quarts, my "oil adding program" is a failure. Not merely a failure, but that it is to blame for the fact that the level has dropped by one half quart.

That about it?

Can you perhaps see the problem in your way of looking at this, or do I have to spell it out?
 
Yoink said:
So let me try to understand your "thinking" here. Let's say I have a car that is leaking oil. Let's say it leaks one quart per month. Let's say it has five quarts of oil at the moment, but if it the total drops below 4 quarts, serious damage will ensue. What you're saying is that if I add a quart of oil over the course of 1.5 months, so that the total level of oil in the car is now 4.5 quarts, my "oil adding program" is a failure. Not merely a failure, but that it is to blame for the fact that the level has dropped by one half quart.

That about it?

Can you perhaps see the problem in your way of looking at this, or do I have to spell it out?
Click to expand...

Yeah but did the government actually create 3 million jobs?

Or to put it in the context of your analogy, did you actually add any oil, regardless of the leak?
 
kevinquinnyo said:
Yeah but did the government actually create 3 million jobs?

Or to put it in the context of your analogy, did you actually add any oil, regardless of the leak?
Click to expand...

The nonpartisan CBO estimates that it created 1.6 million jobs in this Fall alone--and there's still a lot of the stimulus money left to spend. So, yeah, I'd say the 3 million's going to turn out to be a pretty good estimate.

It would be hard to imagine how you could spend that amount of money domestically without creating roughly that many jobs (directly and indirectly).
 
If I understand you right:
1) I take my car to the mechanic to replace the brakes. He tells me it will take awhile.
2) After he gets it up on the lift, I ask him if it's done. He gives me a dirty look and says "no".
3) At this point, I declare the brake replacement a failure.

Maybe instead of a new President, you need a new planet.
 
kevinquinnyo said:
Yeah but did the government actually create 3 million jobs?

Or to put it in the context of your analogy, did you actually add any oil, regardless of the leak?
Click to expand...

How about you look at where the money went, and figure it out:
recovery.gov
 
Skeptic said:
A year ago, Obama claimed the Stimulus would create 3 million jobs. Since then, 3 million jobs had been lost. That makes a 6 million difference between projection and reality.

Of course it is always possible to claim that things would have been even worse without the stimulus, but then again, that's the quack doctor's and faith-healer's constant "out", too.
Click to expand...

Of course, its always convenient to ignore the despicable condition of the economy that was handed down to Obama.

The problem with the Bush administration, and the people who desperately want to glorify it, is that Bush has no excuse for the his epic failure to manage our economy. He had unprecedented executive control; he had 6 years of a Republican-dominated legislature to boot. He steps down and hands a monumental mess to his successor, and the 29 percenters in this country blather on about Obama's failure to fix it in 1/8 the time it took Bush to ruin it.

This is not meant as a defense of Obama's policies. I'm just sick and tired of those who would like us to believe that U.S. history started on Jan 20th, 2009.
 
If the Stimulus is a failure, why have over 110 GOP representatives praised it?
 
BeAChooser said:
Who is claiming that GOP representatives are above hypocrisy? Let's just stick to the facts and get the politics out of it. The Stimulus has been a bust.
Click to expand...

That's an assertion, not a fact. The nonpartisan CBO examined the actual facts; they came to the opposite conclusion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom