Friday the 31st: [quote] TB wrote: The short-term boost didn’t materialize, […] and as already proven, did not provide the [sic] short term boost to GDP [/quote]
The Weekend: [quote] U.S. gross domestic product a broad measure of the value of goods and services produced contracted at a 1% annual rate last quarter, compared to a first-quarter contraction of 6.4% and a 5.4% pullback in the fourth quarter last year. In his weekly radio address, Obama said the Recovery Act had helped pull the economy back from the edge.
It s very clear that the stimulus has had some effect, the former Republican presidential nominee said. And I ll be glad to give him credit for that, McCain, the 2008 Republican presidential nominee, said Sunday on the CNN program State of the Union.[/quote]
Now: [quote] TB wrote: I never said there had been any GDP movement - I said the stimulus didn’t have the effect on rescuing GDP that it was sold on. [/quote]
Sooooo… now it’s not that it already failed, but that it didn’t do as well it was sold on?
Yeah, I’m going to stick with it’s to early to start grading… but go ahead yourself.
Sooooo… now it’s not that it already failed, but that it didn’t do as well it was sold on?[/quote]
Of course. At the end of what seemed to be endless straw men, obfuscation, mischaracterizations (deliberate or ignorant), and general mediocrity, it comes down to yet one last distraction.
No, on the “GDP boost”, it didn’t deliver as sold, nor did it deliver as sold on unemployment. And now, we are stuck with the check.
As predicted, you never substantively deal with the waste in the bill, the non-stimulative aspects of the later-in-time infrastructure spending, the lack of transparency, the frightening prospects for financial consequences of the bill (inflation, interest rates, etc.), or the problems with the basic mechanics of it - so, as expected, this has been a giant waste of time.
Once again, you think I’m defending the bill…I’m not, I’m criticizing your sophomoric arguments. Try to keep with me here.
Remember it “already failed”? This was the whole argument that started this off. …Now it’s changed to “well…it didn’t do as well as sold!” I guess this is a baby step in the right direction anyway. Really though, those of us with any sense of intellectual capacity, will continue to wait and watch.
One quick point though:
Re: "the non-stimulative aspects of the later-in-time infrastructure spending:
Your (only up to this point, isn’t it?) source listed it as “stimulative” (although I believe he put it in the “less stimulative” or somesuch category), the IMF said Infrastructure spending is expected to have the largest impact on growth, although it also has the longest implementation lags … what do you want to debate? What they think? Why they’re right or wrong? Should we line up economists on all sides? This will get extremely technical extremely fast, but shoot. Put up an argument other than “I think so” and I’ll read it. Re-post if I missed it but I don’t believe you’ve done so yet. In fact, it took pages and pages just to get you to acknowledge that many, if not most, economists agree with infrastructure spending on a stimulus package. I honestly don’t think you knew this before this began. Christ, I even posted a 101 link because you seemed so blind to it. And good lord post sources young man! Don’t pretend you’ve a PhD in Economics, lord knows you’re not even close.
I might try to get at your longer post tomorrow or the next day if I find myself with time to kill… don’t hold your breath though young man, I’ve more to do than continuing to point out the gaping holes in your arguments.
Sooooo… now it’s not that it already failed, but that it didn’t do as well it was sold on?
Of course. At the end of what seemed to be endless straw men, obfuscation, mischaracterizations (deliberate or ignorant), and general mediocrity, it comes down to yet one last distraction.
No, on the “GDP boost”, it didn’t deliver as sold, nor did it deliver as sold on unemployment. And now, we are stuck with the check.
[/quote]
There will be a GDP boost.
Personally, I call that “inflation”, but the nominal numbers are bound to go up.
Ok. The stimulus bill is a clusterfuck and may well cause more harm than good down the line. But it hasn’t ‘failed.’ It is way too soon to say that. The money is only just now starting to reach the channels it was designed to reach. And the effects of the bill are just now starting to come into play.
In fact, it took pages and pages just to get you to acknowledge that many, if not most, economists agree with infrastructure spending on a stimulus package. I honestly don’t think you knew this before this began.[/quote]
More hot, dishonest gas. Yet another lie - not once did I ever claim that “many economists” didn’t agree with infratructure spending on a stimulus package. An odd point, too, since I made clear I didn’t think infrastructure spending in a stimulus package was a bad idea myself, in the right context - but let’s not belabor how that unfortunate fact desconstructs your stupid assertion.
Find one quote from me that supports the idea that I thought there was no support for infrastructure spending among economists. I will wait patiently.
As for your unwillingness or inability to discuss the pros/cons of the stimulus, why didn’t you just say so? That was the entire point of raising the issue - to debate what we thought of it.
As expected, you don’t have anything substantive to say on the matter - you should have just told me early on, and I would have ignored your posts in favor of someone who had an actual, substantive opinion on the bill.
Jesus Christ is there a lot of bullshit in your posts to get to. I simply don’t have the time or energy. I’m really impressed by your “I didn’t say that!” technique though… you do realize your posts show above and on other threads right?
Anyway, this thread is titled “tracking the stimulus” right? Why do I seem to be the only one actually “tracking” anything? Perhaps you should have titled it “Let’s bloviate on how much we hate liberals, stimulus version” , “Alternative stimulus options that weren’t implemented,” or perhaps “pros and cons to stimulus various stimulus packages.” Let’s be blunt, I could give a fuck if you don’t like what has been passed. But your argument that “it already failed” is sophomoric not only because it’s too early to assess the stimulus properly, not only because your statements about a “boost” have been proven wrong perhaps hours after you posted them*, and not only because of your fixation on a report given before the administration even began, but also because you’re so obviously biased you can’t see the damn forest from the trees. Do you want to have an academic debate about stimulus spending or track the damn recovery (or lack thereof)? Seems to me you want to have a sophomoric version of the former, excuse me for not participating save pointing out how poorly constructed your arguments are. I might, however, participate a bit in the later.
Let’s be blunt, I could give a fuck if you don’t like what has been passed.[/quote]
It took you 150 posts plus the articulate gem - bravo - above to essentially say “don’t know much about the stimulus”. There is little reason to bother reading anything you have to say on it.
“With perhaps some caveats I won’t discuss here.” Hilarious.
Off to spend time looking for a worthwhile debate.
You’re not a very good reader, are you? I’ve been saying the above since my first post here.
So are we going to “track the stimulus” then? Going to talk about unemployment numbers that just came out? I’m guessing you won’t.Hopeful Signs for U.S. Jobs - WSJ
You’ve created an answer and are looking for evidence to prove it. I refuse to play those games…
From my very first post here: [quote]Let’s have a quick review: I was arguing your argument that the stimulus was “already a failure” was biased and sophomoric. Post after post you neglected to understand this and rambled on about how I “wasn’t making an argument.” Really, though, because of your blinders or because of your limited acumen you simply couldn’t see it and repeated some strange strawman up and until before this thread.[/quote] Looks like the strawman continues.
btw, do you know what the caveats are? I doubt it.
"India’s finance minister exchanged US$6.7 billion with 200 tons of gold (a lot! - about 8% of global gold production) because, in the finance minister’s words, “Europe collapsed and North America collapsed.” You can’t get much clearer than that.
It was a waste of money. Government doesn’t create jobs, it causes them to be lost due to taxation and the crowding out effect.
The stimulus was never about jobs or the economy anyway. It was a spending bill designed to repay favors the Democrats owed to get Obama elected. It’s even worse they are now falsifying the data and trying to spin it positive.
It actually would stimulate the economy if the government stopped increasing spending, introducing new entitlement programs, gave congress a 6 month recess and Obama locked himself in his office and did nothing for the next two or three years. The economy would recover on it’s own.
Yet more FAIL from the big, stinking, steaming pile of dog shit that was ‘Stimulus’. Any of you big gov’t Nannyists still masturbating your Stimulus Packages?
Hopefully any new plan will have a better ROI than the current stimulus package. Economic analyst Ed Yardeni runs the numbers:
The Obama Administration is touting that their stimulus program has saved or created 640,329 jobs since it was enacted back in February through the end of October. This number is updated and posted on the Administrationâ??s recovery.gov web site. That amounts to $246,436 per job based on the $157.8bn that has been awarded so far! Total compensation earned by the average payroll employee during October, on an annualized basis, was $59,867. If the government had simply used the funds awarded so far to pay for a yearâ??s worth of labor, that would have paid for 2.6mn jobs!
Incidentally, there is no official way to track ‘saved’ jobs-- that was an invention of the current administration. Weasel words.