Ah, I see. When the CBO agrees with you, it's a trustworthy source and you'll happily agree with its numbers and analysis. When it disagrees with you, it's to be ignored and disregarded. Got it.
No, I've been quite consistent in my treatment of CBO results.
When the CBO crunches numbers
without assumptions that are demonstrable nonsense supplied by politicians, you will find the CBO results tend to be rational and find that I agree with them.
But other times the CBO's results are influenced by politics … because the CBO is directed to use nonsensical assumptions in their analysis that are given to them by politicians who are manipulating the results. That is when you'll find me disagreeing with them. As in the instance you cited.
In your case, the CBO concluded that the Stimulus worked … that it "created or saved" between 1.4 million and 3.3 million jobs and boosted GDP between 1.7 percent and 4.5 percent. But did it?
The reason they got that result is simple. Their methodology is completely dependent on multipliers … multipliers that were supplied by the Obama administration. In order to get the stimulus passed, the Whitehouse asked the CBO to do analysis using multipliers they supplied. These multipliers were guaranteed to show the Stimulus saving jobs and boost GNP by x amount. Thus, allowing the Whitehouse to claim to the public that the CBO results justify Congress approving the stimulus. Republicans saw through that deception and voted overwhelmingly against the stimulus, but democrats had such a majority that they were able to pass it anyway. And of course the left-leaning mainstream media made sure not to educate the public about the deception.
After the Stimulus, with the Stimulus obviously failing, the Whitehouse requested that the CBO do another analysis to prove the Stimulus had worked. And told the CBO to use the exact same methodology and same multipliers. So tell us, Corsair, is it any surprise they ended up concluding that Stimulus saved the predicted number of jobs and resulted in the predicted GDP growth? Of course not. Garbage in, garbage out. As I noted the former CBO director saying earlier, "
the kinds of models that the CBO uses is one where the stimulus can't fail to work."
The actual economy could have seen any measurable amount of job loss/growth and GDP loss/growth and the CBO analyis would still have claimed the stimulus achieved what they expected, because the multipliers they used in that model did not change in any significant way based on what they actually saw. Which is indicative of a serious problem in their method.
The stimulus could have been (say) twice as large, and the CBO would have claimed the job and GDP growth as a result were also twice as large,
regardless of what actually occurred in the economy. Which is indicative of a problem. And which begs the question, why didn't Obama therefore propose a stimulus twice as large, since it would have *obviously* been twice as good for the economy and job situation? Hmmmmm?
The issue therefore becomes whether the multipliers are really valid. Whether the methodology of using them is really valid. Or is this just a case of witch doctors poking sticks at a fire and trying to look like they know what they are doing, and of politicians deliberately misleading the public using that method (because they must be smart enough to understand the problems pointed out above).
Nothing in the way of explanation, data or analysis has been presented by the CBO or Whitehouse to prove the multipliers are correct. They could have picked ANY numbers and they'd still be claiming the analysis was valid and Obama's supporters would still be nodding their head in full agreement. And that's indicative of a problem.
Once the CBO decided to assume that every dollar of government spending increased GDP by multipliers given to them by the administration, its conclusion was "pre-ordained". The economy could have lost X million jobs and the model still would have said that without the stimulus it would have lost Y million jobs. There's a problem in that sort of methodology.
So are the multipliers correct? No.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704471504574440723298786310.html
OCTOBER 1, 2009
Stimulus Spending Doesn't Work
Our new research shows no evidence of a Keynesian 'multiplier' effect.
… snip …
These packages typically emphasize spending, predicated on the view that the expenditure "multipliers" are greater than one—so that gross domestic product expands by more than government spending itself.
… snip …
The bottom line is this: The available empirical evidence does not support the idea that spending multipliers typically exceed one, and thus spending stimulus programs will likely raise GDP by less than the increase in government spending. Defense-spending multipliers exceeding one likely apply only at very high unemployment rates, and nondefense multipliers are probably smaller. However, there is empirical support for the proposition that tax rate reductions will increase real GDP.
The results of the stimulus prove that the actual multipliers are less than one. GDP did NOT expand by more than government spending during the past 3 years. Thus, in this case, the CBO multipliers and analyses are obviously bogus. They are driven by Whitehouse supplied assumptions that are obviously bogus.
And it's no surprise that you won't acknowledge that.
It's also no surprise that you won't acknowledge the truth of the last sentence I quoted from the above link.
confused now!
