The Stimulus Seems to have failed

Malerin said:
My point is the title of the thread: The stimulus seems to have failed. It was supposed to keep unemployment under 8%. It has failed to do that.
Click to expand...

So, anyone who doesn't score a 300 in a game of bowling failed to be successful at that game?
 
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/03/07/the_home_weatherization_lie_104663.html

Obama's Stimulus & the Home Weatherization Lie

… snip …

"If you allocate money to weatherize homes," Obama effused to an audience in Elkhart, Ind., "the homeowner gets the benefit of lower energy bills. You right away put people back to work, many of whom in the construction industry and in the housing industry are out of work right now." And it's a step to "a new energy future."

… snip …

Obama poured $5 billion into weatherization as part of last year's stimulus and wanted to spend billions more in a second stimulus. The Department of Energy managed to get the money to the states, where it has swelled the coffers for weatherization and done little else.

According to a Department of Energy inspector general report last month, "only 2 of the 10 highest funded recipients completed more than 2 percent of planned units." New York had completed 280 out of 45,400 planned units as of December, Texas had completed 0 of 33,908, and California 12 out of 43,400. That's 292 homes in three states with a total population of roughly 80 million.

So much for the 87,000 jobs the administration promised "right away." The inspector general report is unsparing: "The job creation impact of what was considered to be one of the Department's most ‘shovel ready' projects has not materialized," and neither have "the significant reductions in energy consumption." Besides that, weatherization has been a stimulative triumph.
Click to expand...

:rolleyes:

Meanwhile …

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iwpEQA_ideBIYIe_qXSCPspNE_OgD9E9Q6B00 "Obama's health care pitch to Democrats: Trust me"

What reason does anyone have to trust him after all the lies, deception, bad management, and false predictions we've seen come out of the Whitehouse?
 
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/economy-is-running-on-empty-2010-03-02

March 2, 2010

… snip ...

Just about all of the reports paint a picture of an economy slowing -- and sharply, at that.

Here are just a few:

- Both consumer confidence and sentiment have fallen unexpectedly.

- After-tax personal incomes adjusted for inflation have flattened.

- Sales of both new and existing homes took a surprising stumble.

- Orders for most durable goods are down.

- Manufacturing has slowed.

- Jobless claims are up.

- Fourth-quarter GDP growth came largely from a slower pace of inventory liquidation, not from an increase in consumer spending.

- And, as a matter of fact, consumer spending weakened last quarter.
Click to expand...

The Stimulus was a BUST. But what do democrats want to do? Throw more money on the fire. :rolleyes:
 
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/jun/4/obamas-voodoo-economics/

President Obama hyped Friday's job-report numbers, claiming a slight drop in the unemployment rate as evidence that things were "moving in the right direction." The numbers hardly represent good news as Mr. Obama continues to ignore the creeping indications that his debt-fueled economic policies are hurling the country toward a historic collapse.

Non-farm payrolls grew by 431,000 jobs, but more than 90 percent of the increase was from temporary Census Bureau hires; these people can expect to rejoin the ranks of the unemployed when the counting is finished. Private-sector job growth accounted for just 41,000 jobs, far below the expected 190,000. The drop in the unemployment rate from 9.9 percent to 9.7 percent looks good on the surface, but it occurred mainly because 322,000 people gave up their job search and exited the labor force.
Click to expand...

Why that must mean the stimulus was an "absolute success"! :rolleyes: :D
 
drkitten said:
It is indeed. Every time you make a false or irrelevant assertion, it gets more ridiculous.

Which is why everyone is ridiculing you.

They're not laughing with you, they're laughing at you....
Click to expand...

What do they say about having the last laugh?

75% of the stimulus has been spent. What have we gotten for that? Let's see...
More workers giving up in frustration
Another record for long-term unemployed
Record high mortage delinquency
Record deficits
Near 10% unemployment (stimulus was supposed to cap it at 8%)
Anemic private sector job growth
16.6% underemployment

I would like nothing more than to be laughing at BAC right now. My wife just got a teaching credential that might as well be a placemat. Maybe the local Home Depot will hire her. That's a swell investment of years of college. Unfortunately, BAC called this one correctly. The stimulus has been an abject failure.
 
Malerin said:
The stimulus has been an abject failure.
Click to expand...

If you are to ask Krugman, and many other economists, the failures stem from the stimulus package being too small.

Going all the way back to the first post, Obama was right about what the stimulus should have been designed to do: create 3 million jobs. However the stimulus bill that was delivered to his desk to sign had had its wings clipped and most we could expect was a million or two saved or created jobs.

PS. The stimulus wasn't supposed to "cap" unemployment, it was expected to reduce it by 1% point from where it would have been otherwise. The CBO reports confirm this took place.
 
daenku32 said:
If you are to ask Krugman, and many other economists, the failures stem from the stimulus package being too small.
Click to expand...

Yes, if only it had been a million bazillion instead of nearly a trillion, everything would be better. Unfortunately, we can't go back in time, so we have to evaulate the stimulus that did pass (which I believe Krugman supported anyway).

If you need a reminder of this, the title of the thread is "The Stimulus Seems to have failed". Not the imaginary stimulus that Krugman might have liked, but the one that actually passed. BAC and Skeptic took a lot of grief for asserting this back in February. Turns out they were right.

Going all the way back to the first post, Obama was right about what the stimulus should have been designed to do: create 3 million jobs. However the stimulus bill that was delivered to his desk to sign had had its wings clipped and most we could expect was a million or two saved or created jobs.
Click to expand...

We didn't create any jobs. We've lost over two million since the stimulus was passed. Unemployment has gone up two points since then.

We don't know if the stimulus saved 10 jobs or 10 million. Claims that it saved millions of jobs are like a snakeoil salesman telling a patient, "Sure you got sick, but if you hadn't taken my patented tonic, you'd have gotten even sicker!"

PS. The stimulus wasn't supposed to "cap" unemployment, it was expected to reduce it by 1% point from where it would have been otherwise. The CBO reports confirm this took place.
Click to expand...

Source for this?

"Back in early January, when Barack Obama was still President-elect, two of his chief economic advisers — leading proponents of a stimulus bill — predicted that the passage of a large economic-aid package would boost the economy and keep the unemployment rate below 8%.
http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1910208,00.html

As for the CBO, this exchange is illuminating:

The critics say: The most basic argument against the stimulus is the fact that the economy did worse than expected. As of January 2008, unemployment was forecast to hit 8% by the end of 2008 if the stimulus were approved. However, the jobless rate hit 10.2%. Ergo, the stimulus failed. This argument is often voiced by congressional Republicans, including House Republican Leader John Boehner.

The CBO replies: "Data on actual output and employment during the period since ARRA's enactment are not as helpful in determining ARRA's economic effects as might be supposed, because isolating the effects would require knowing what path the economy would have taken in the absence of the law." We cannot know for certain what path the economy would have taken without the stimulus.

The worse-than-expected growth in 2009 "reflects greater-than-projected weakness in the underlying economy rather than lower-than-expected effects" of the stimulus, said CBO Director Douglas Elmendorf. http://www.marketwatch.com/story/cbo-fights-back-at-stimulus-critics-2010-02-23

Of course. Who on Earth would want to use actual data to evaluate if a government program is working or not? Made up hypothetical data gives so much better resutls.

I wonder what the CBO would have said if unemployment had fallen to 7% by now. Think they'd still be hesitant about using actual data?:rolleyes:
 
BeAChooser said:
Yeah. I'd say it's failed. Perhaps here is why ...

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

:D
Click to expand...

Hrmmm...

(Energy GAO reaction: "The GAO report cites figures from September 2009 -- almost five months out of date. Since then, we have resolved Davis-Bacon wage issues in all 50 states, clarified how states should handle historic preservation and worked with states to resolve any remaining barriers. As a result, by the end of 2009, our programs had weatherized about 124,000 homes in total, and we are on track to weatherize more than 250,000 this year. In fact, since September 2009, we have tripled the pace of Recovery Act funded home weatherization. The report also erroneously implies that our goal was to weatherize 593,000 homes in 2009. That is wrong. The goal has been to weatherize that number by March 2012, and we are on track to meet that goal.")"
Click to expand...



BeAChooser said:
I've watched stimulus money at work in my own city repaving a road that was not in need of repaving. I call that "make work".
Click to expand...

Yes, and I'm sure you have the expertise to judge when a road needs re-paving.
 
Last edited:
Chaos said:
So I guess this means you enjoy the trouble the US is in, as long as it means you can blame Obama for it?
Click to expand...

I'm sure that someday you'll have some actual data that backs up your argument, which turns out to be correct, but for now let's allow BAC a little :D for having been correct.

The latimes article linked to gives us another clue as to why pumping money into the system can have the opposite effect of what is intended.

"Single mother Marie Li works 22 hours a week as a teacher of English as a second language. She said she barely has enough money to buy food after paying for rent and her course credits at Cal State L.A. Friends tell her she should stay home and collect unemployment benefits rather than work part-time."

In my experience people like Marie Li are the exception. Most will stick with unemployment benefits until they have been totally exhausted. Only then do they manage to find a job of some sort and only then do they start to contribute to the general recovery. I used the word "they" but I mean us all. Been there and done that myself. People respond to the incentives put in front of them.
 
YoPopa said:
I'm sure that someday you'll have some actual data that backs up your argument, which turns out to be correct, but for now let's allow BAC a little :D for having been correct.
Click to expand...

What "actual data" do I need, besides BAC posting a link to an article that claims the stimulus failed, accompanied by a :D which shows he is happy about that?
 
Chaos said:
What "actual data" do I need, besides BAC posting a link to an article that claims the stimulus failed, accompanied by a :D which shows he is happy about that?
Click to expand...

If all you want to do is malign a person by assuming the worst motive then you need no data, carry on.

It is equally or more more plausible to assume BAC is happy about being proven correct.

The sooner we realize what a dismal failure the stimulus was, the sooner we can get on a better track and start seeing some real improvement. Then we can all be happy.
 
YoPopa said:
That requires expertise? Thanks for the morning giggle.
Click to expand...

Um, yes. The goal is not to wait until the road is utterly destroyed. It's more expensive if you wait until it's obvious. As the road slowly breaks down, evaluations are needed to define the extent, type and severity of problems, so that the most cost effective fix can be applied.

Our infrastructure is not in good shape. Even with the stimulus package, the short fall in local government budgets has left countless maintenance projects neglected. Suggesting that road re-paving is "make work" is just stupid.
 
YoPopa said:
If all you want to do is malign a person by assuming the worst motive then you need no data, carry on.
Click to expand...

I´m not BAC. Nor am I you, for that matter.

It is equally or more more plausible to assume BAC is happy about being proven correct.
Click to expand...

Only if you ignore BAC´s entire posting history up to this point.

The sooner we realize what a dismal failure the stimulus was, the sooner we can get on a better track and start seeing some real improvement. Then we can all be happy.
Click to expand...

The sooner people like you realize that claiming the stimulus failed doesn´t make it so, and get off their "I´m so happy I can blame Obama for every problem" trip, the better.
 
Just a reality check for this thread, stimulus must be funded essentially by any of three things, government borrowing, direct taxation, or monetary inflation. All of these represent different forms of theft or looting, in my opinion. So there are two important aspects of the stimulus which should be understood, one is that it is simply a massive transfer of wealth. In order to have beneficiaries of the stimulus, you must have payers.

So the "stimulus" isn't really stimulative at all, it's just a masquerade for a transfer of wealth. The degree of progressivity or regressivity of this transfer depends on which of the three above methods are predominate. Number two, it may be presumed by some that this transfer of wealth will somehow result in a rising tide lifting all boats. This is indeed presumptuous, because it rests on the assumption that the government can allocate capital in a way that will be more productive and that will benefit more people than the private sector. Since the government can't possibly have enough information about my needs and wants, it can't possibly allocate capital to my benefit better than I can, in spite of it's "handling fee".

So in the absence of this, all we're left with is a naked and expropriative transfer of wealth, in which case it should be obvious that the "success" or "failure" of the stimulus merely depends on whether you're a beneficiary, or a payer.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom