Top economists overwhelmingly back stimulus

Two important questions with relevance to the 2012 presidential campaign:

1.) Did the 2009 stimulus bill create jobs and lower the unemployment rate, or was it a waste of taxpayers’ money?

2.) In the final accounting, will the benefits of the Obama stimulus package end up outweighing its costs and risks?

The University of Chicago’s Booth School of Business put those questions to more than 40 of the top economists in the country, representing a wide range of viewpoints.

(The Booth School itself, one of the most respected business schools in the country, has long been associated with a more conservative emphasis on free markets).

questiona

Here’s what they found:

“Question A: Because of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, the U.S. unemployment rate was lower at the end of 2010 than it would have been without the stimulus bill. Agree or disagree?”

Eighty percent agreed. Four percent disagreed. And the two who disagreed acknowledged that they were far from certain in their opinion.

The results of the second question, while less overwhelming, were still strongly supportive of the policy:

questionb

“Question B: Taking into account all of the ARRA’s economic consequences — including the economic costs of raising taxes to pay for the spending, its effects on future spending, and any other likely future effects — the benefits of the stimulus will end up exceeding its costs. Agree or disagree?”

Forty-six percent agreed; just 12 percent disagreed. Another 29 percent said they were uncertain or ventured no opinion.

By a 4-1 margin, in a poll conducted by a respected institution with a conservative reputation, a cross section of the nation’s most respected economists believe that the stimulus would prove to be a net positive for the economy, even after it is paid back. By a margin of 20-1, they believe that it produced jobs and lowered the unemployment rate.

Of course, I understand that such things must be weighed against the fact that Rush and Sean have very different opinions.

– Jay Bookman

729 comments Add your comment

JOE Cool-Republicans Call Him MESSIAH, I Just Call Him Mr. President

February 21st, 2012
10:42 am

mm

February 21st, 2012
10:42 am

First and foremost.

JOE Cool-Republicans Call Him MESSIAH, I Just Call Him Mr. President

February 21st, 2012
10:43 am

Almost mm…lol

mm

February 21st, 2012
10:43 am

Dreaded second.

Jay

February 21st, 2012
10:47 am

Don’t forget, mm:

Second place is first place among the losers!

JOE Cool-Republicans Call Him MESSIAH, I Just Call Him Mr. President

February 21st, 2012
10:48 am

Honestly, no matter how many economist you put up and all but 1 says it helped the Econ, all the CONs will mimic the same mess that it was failed. Everybody is an armchair economist because they can balance their checkbook..lol

Keep Up--Te gusta losing numb nutz?

February 21st, 2012
10:50 am

But Jay, surely you must know that so many of our expert economic posters have already proven that the stimulus did not work…. now why would you take the word of real experts over say the self-proclaimed expertise without credentials of those who post here. Is it that you are waiting a link to World Net Daily. Look now Pennsylvania is having to deal with a birther complaint like GA and the photo has Obama with FAIL across his head….now why would Obama pose like that. Surely them economists are just as wrong as Georgia on birth certificates.

TBone

February 21st, 2012
10:52 am

Coulda, woulda, shoulda … why do polls drive the news these days? Economics is a faux science, more like a guessing game. Keep propping do your daily due diligence.

Granny Godzilla

February 21st, 2012
10:52 am

Russian Sean has a different opinion?

Vodka for everybody!

Jefferson

February 21st, 2012
10:52 am

Tell it to Faux news, they are the gospel to the couch crowd.

Common Sense

February 21st, 2012
10:54 am

The only evidence you need that the stimulus did not work is that years after you keep searching out evidence that it has.

Remember, if the majority was right, the majority would be rich.

Mr. Snarky

February 21st, 2012
10:54 am

If they surveyed 40 economists, shouldn’t there be at least 80 opinions?
Just a little econ major humor to start your day.

Happy Kine and The Mirth Makers

February 21st, 2012
10:54 am

Well of course the stimuli was a great idea. An idea that saved the world, but wont save Obama.

Too bad… ;)

Jimmy62

February 21st, 2012
10:56 am

These are the people who also advised the Fed to keep rates ridiculously low in the 2000’s, which is possibly the single largest factor in the rise and fall of the sub-prime economy.

Brosephus

February 21st, 2012
10:56 am

Well, I’m no trained economist, but I think the stimulus was flawed and would have been much more effective had it been targeted much better in a WPA styled program instead of trying to cut taxes and other stuff. A tax cut is fine and good when the economy has a leg or two. However, if one doesn’t have a job, cutting taxes does not help. I haven’t seen a tax cut yet that creates the demand necessary to cause hiring to increase. I’d wait a while to see the long term effects before I’ll say the stimulus was successful, but that’s just my opinion.

Steve

February 21st, 2012
10:57 am

I’m sure some conservative will proclaim that this “wasn’t Constitutional”!!

Midori

February 21st, 2012
10:58 am

TELEPROMPTER!!!

That goes for you too, mm :)

mm

February 21st, 2012
10:59 am

So I was eating breakfast at a very small diner last Friday. Evidently everyone there knows each other. The cook/owner asks one of the patrons if he has received 1 million in stimulus funds yet.

These people are ignorant, childish, and bad for our country. But the best part is, they will be silenced in November.

Mr. Snarky

February 21st, 2012
10:59 am

“The only evidence you need that the stimulus did not work is that years after you keep searching out evidence that it has.”

Ah yes. All truths are self evident…sounds like another embracer of “truthiness”.

Aquagirl

February 21st, 2012
10:59 am

Of course, I understand that such things must be weighed against the fact that Rush and Sean have very different opinions.

There’s a general disdain among Republicans for people who have spent years of their lives immersed in a subject. The GOP faithful have their talk-show hosts, google, and ginormous egos, a truly toxic combination.

Cosby

February 21st, 2012
10:59 am

Even Rosevelts Economist admitted years after the great depression all they did was spend a lot of money and only prolonged the depression…years after 2009/2009 Jay you are still trying to justify spending almost a trillion dollars which the taxpayer received nothing…just look at how it was spent – start with the green energy operations that went bankrupt..but wait, the owners / ionvestors presented king Obama with a lot of campaign cash..payback is great…and the real unemployment by the CBO is 16% now!! Great progress!!

Talking Head

February 21st, 2012
11:03 am

1.) Did the 2009 stimulus bill create jobs and lower the unemployment rate?

My Answer: My God I hope it did, we spent nearly $1 trillion on a plethora of subjects.

2.) In the final accounting, will the benefits of the Obama stimulus package end up outweighing its costs and risks?

My Answer: Like some of the economist in the survey said, there has not been enough time to see both the short term and long term impacts. What we do know is that this stimulus package added nearly $1 trillion to the national debt and we have not addressed how to pay for it. Additionally increasing the size of the government will require more revenue to continually fund these endeavors, and currently we are spending around 8% GDP more than we are taking in.

Midori

February 21st, 2012
11:03 am

Cosby,

was Roosevelt’s economist named Morgan Fairchild by any chance?

Billings

February 21st, 2012
11:03 am

Jimmy 62 nailed it @10:56. Fool me once, same on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.

BlahBlahBlah

February 21st, 2012
11:04 am

Economists agree that printing money helps the economy. Shocking.

ByteMe

February 21st, 2012
11:04 am

Additionally increasing the size of the government will require more revenue to continually fund these endeavors

Not intended to be a factual statement. Look it up. Government employment continues to shrink.

Redneck Convert (R--and proud of it)

February 21st, 2012
11:05 am

Well, what we needed instead of the great waste of the Obama Stimulus was a Republican Stimulus. Now a Republican Stimulus would of give a bunch of money to private businesses, with a sort of hint that maybe they might ought to hire some people. If these businesses never hired anybody then they might put the money in their savings account and call it Capital Accumulation. Either way, we get jobs in a few decades or a century or two.

As it was the Obama stimulus sent money to real people that went off and wasted it on stuff like food and clothes and shelter or else it sent money to state guvmints that went and kept people on the job instead of firing them and making us all better off. Or else it sent money for states and towns to repair stuff like bridges that would of fell down anyway if we give them a little more time.

I hope next January the new Republican President will send so much stimulus money to businesses that they’ll be starting up new bulldozer cos. just to give these businesses a way to pile up the money and keep it from spilling over into the pockets of lazy working people that will just go out and blow it on food and clothes and shelter and such.

That’s my opinion and it’s very true. Have a good Fat Tuesday everybody. And just forget that suggestion I made downstairs. Heck, Granny and Paul done drug me through a cow pasture full of doo-doo over that. So keep your shirts on ladies.

ByteMe

February 21st, 2012
11:07 am

The 4% who disagree are the only ones who will show up on FOX News.

mm

February 21st, 2012
11:07 am

“just look at how it was spent – start with the green energy operations that went bankrupt..but wait, the owners / ionvestors presented king Obama with a lot of campaign cash..”

Not meant to be a factual statement.

Fred ™

February 21st, 2012
11:08 am

Brosephus

February 21st, 2012
10:56 am

Well, I’m no trained economist, but I think the stimulus was flawed and would have been much more effective had it been targeted much better in a WPA styled program instead of trying to cut taxes and other stuff. A tax cut is fine and good when the economy has a leg or two. However, if one doesn’t have a job, cutting taxes does not help. I haven’t seen a tax cut yet that creates the demand necessary to cause hiring to increase. I’d wait a while to see the long term effects before I’ll say the stimulus was successful, but that’s just my opinion.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

What’choo talking bout Willis? Neal Boortz, Sean Hannidty, Rush Limbaugh, and their hordes of minion s who post here will ALL tell you that if you cut taxes on the “job creators” they will all start crapping jobs.

And look what happened. Taxes were cut and now we have a plethora of jobs. The only people now thta don’t have jobs are teh lazy slugs whom President Obama takes care of………

Stevie Ray

February 21st, 2012
11:08 am

JAY,

Did they ask those same economists if the cost per job at $185K per job is a great value? I’m wondering who paid for all this? Can you help a brother out?

Stevie Ray

February 21st, 2012
11:10 am

MM,

Investigate where $16 billion of the $20 billion of green stimulus cash went…..obama cronies and bundlers of course. Heck, he used the stimulus with Dem congress to pay back IOU’s in record time. Be careful with this hot potato…you will definitely get torched…your pal BO is as corrupt as the rest of them. Your taxpayer dollars at work eh?

Granny Godzilla

February 21st, 2012
11:11 am

Bro @ 10:56

I agree.

That’s why stuff like this made me a wee bit testy….

February 3, 2009
SENATE GOP BLOCKS ADDED INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENT…. It got 58 votes, when proponents needed 60.

Senate Republicans on Tuesday blocked Democrats from adding $25 billion for highways, mass transit, and water projects to President Barack Obama’s economic recovery program.

Already unhappy over the size of the measure, Republicans insisted additional infrastructure projects be paid for with cuts elsewhere in the bill. [...]

“We can’t add to the size of this bill,” said Sen. Jim Inhofe, R-Okla. “The amount is just inconceivable to most people.”

Of course, whether the amounts are “conceivable” or not isn’t really the issue, is it? The last federal budget was more than $3 trillion. That amount may be “inconceivable to most people,” but Congress still passed it, and the president still signed it. As standards go, this isn’t especially reliable.

Besides, for a senator like Inhofe, the size isn’t really the issue anyway. It’s not like he’s prepared to support an $885 billion package, but a $925 billion package is just beyond the pale. He and his like-minded colleagues are going to vote against the recovery plan anyway.

As for the vote itself, there were 58 senators in support of the infrastructure expansion, including two Republicans (Specter and Bond). There were 39 votes against, and 38 were Republicans. The exception was Sen. Mary Landrieu (D) of Louisiana, who voted with the GOP and acknowledged afterwards that she’s “a bit in the doghouse right now” with her Democratic colleagues over her opposition to the amendment.

Washington Monthly

godless heathen©

February 21st, 2012
11:11 am

“Question A: Because of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, the U.S. unemployment rate was lower at the end of 2010 than it would have been without the stimulus bill. Agree or disagree?”

If there were 2 more jobs created with the $745 billion, then the economists would have to agree.

Zedd

February 21st, 2012
11:11 am

And just think of how much more effective it could have been if we had not wasted money on things like a $3 million turtle crossing in FL, or the $10 million renovation of a train station that had been abandoned for 3 decades, or 10,000 dead people receiving Social Security stimulus checks, $1 million to build a guardrail around a nonexistent Oklahoma lake, nearly $600,000 for a New York town without a homeless problem to prevent homelessness, $90,000 grant for OU researchers to study how birds parent their offspring and compare that to human behavior, two scientific studies totaling close to $1 million on ants, $823,200 on a study by a UCLA research team to teach uncircumcised African men how to wash their genitals after having sex, and the list just goes on and on. What was the latest figure on how much was spent for each job saved or created again?

Talking Head

February 21st, 2012
11:11 am

“Additionally increasing the size of the government will require more revenue to continually fund these endeavors

Not intended to be a factual statement. Look it up. Government employment continues to shrink.”

I guess your comprehension doesn’t allow you to know that increasing the size of government doesn’t require additional government jobs.

jconservative

February 21st, 2012
11:12 am

Well we have had various stimulus plans since the days of “that man” Roosevelt. Economists have
generally been supportive of all the assorted stimulus plans. That is why we keep doing them.

My favorite was the stimulus of George W when he first took office. You know, the one where he mailed all us taxpayers a check from “The Surplus”.

You do remember “The Surplus”, right?

Finn McCool (Class Warfare = Stopping Rich People from TAKING MORE of OUR MONEY)

February 21st, 2012
11:12 am

You asking conservatives to take the long view?

Mwuahahahahahahaha

Mighty Righty

February 21st, 2012
11:12 am

I took my own survey of leading economists who said the stimulous actually harmed the economy in a way that will take many years to get over. They pointed out that since the stimulous this administration has spent more than three trillion dollars in borrowed money with no improvement in the economy. In fact the economy, by any measurement, is worse today in spite of economic policies that have vertually destroyed our future. They mentioned that next months unemployment numbers will be back to nine percent and that real unemploymnet is more than 18 percent. They also mentioned that with all the spending the country has no way of borrowing our way at of this mess. In addition, they believe that the administration’s lack of energy policy and no plan to improve employment could turn us into another european socialist economic failure. They see no hope unless Obama is replaced, and only then will there be even a slim chance of improvement because of the economic destruction done by the Obama administration to this country.

Keep Up--Te gusta losing numb nutz?

February 21st, 2012
11:12 am

if the cost per job at $185K per job is a great value

Because of course, when you build a bridge, there are no materials, its only labor and accordingly logic dictates that if a bridge costs $5 million and creates 5 jobs, the cost of those jobs is $1 mil each. :roll:

ByteMe

February 21st, 2012
11:13 am

if the cost per job at $185K per job is a great value

First you’d have to back up the fake cost number of $185K/job. Let’s see your homework.

JohnnyReb

February 21st, 2012
11:13 am

ARRA cost $787 billion. If the results were not better than without it, Obama would have long been run out of town on a rail. However, “better” means not much better.

The bottom line here is Jay, you have 40 economists where 32 agree in general terms we are better off with it than without it, and less than half agreed its benefits outweigh its cost.

This confirms what most on the Right already know. The stimulus as administered by Obama was a big political payback slush fund that permanently fixed nothing. Shovel ready was a joke – even Barry joked later about it. And too much of the money went to unions who feed it back to the DNC.

Makes me wonder why you posted this one?

Stevie Ray

February 21st, 2012
11:13 am

Let’s say the average salary of jobs saved (can’t be proved with W-2’s of course) and created by stimulus pay $100k each per $185k spent. Let’s calculate the payback in terms of taxes paid. Let’s assume 25% tax bracket so 25K fed tax per job….Payback only 7 years plus…what a deal!!!

Jay, do your numbers include or exclude government union jobs? I’m confused by the data on that point.

ByteMe

February 21st, 2012
11:14 am

I guess your comprehension doesn’t allow you to know that increasing the size of government doesn’t require additional government jobs.

I guess your comprehension of “increasing the size of government” is pure fantasy then.

Bruno

February 21st, 2012
11:14 am

By a 4-1 margin, in a poll conducted by a respected institution with a conservative reputation, a cross section of the nation’s most respected economists believe that the stimulus would prove to be a net positive for the economy

Or, by using the same polling data, one could generate a headline which says “Less than half of economists polled believe that the benefits of the stimulus will end up exceeding its costs.” So which is the “truth”??

Of course, I understand that such things must be weighed against the fact that Rush and Sean have very different opinions.

Jay–If you want to know why less conservatives are participating in your blog, it is because of the childish, gratuitous comments which you feel compelled to add to virtually every column. In case you didn’t know, many respectable people hold opinions which are different from yours. But, rather than reaching out to the Cons so that you might enrich your own point of view, you have nothing but derision. Is your goal to stimulate discussion, or shut it down completely??

Stevie Ray

February 21st, 2012
11:15 am

AmVet - Just say no to the War Pigs.

February 21st, 2012
11:15 am

…a cross section of the nation’s most respected economists believe that the stimulus would prove to be a net positive for the economy…

That does not matter!

What matters is what does the esteemed vulcanologist/climatologist Mr. Limbaugh have to say on the matter?

Billings, did you ever mess that up!

Here’s how it really goes… Courtesy of the (W)orst voters ever!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eKgPY1adc0A

Tommy Maddox

February 21st, 2012
11:16 am

Well, Gallup is reporting today that unemployment is at 9% and underemployment is at 19%.

So, to answer your two questions – No.

ByteMe

February 21st, 2012
11:16 am

The bottom line here is Jay, you have 40 economists where 32 agree in general terms we are better off with it than without it, and less than half agreed its benefits outweigh its cost.

Hmm… 4% of ~40 is 8, Johnny?

ragnar danneskjold

February 21st, 2012
11:17 am

Thanks goodness for credentials, since there is no intelligent argument in favor of the leftist perspectives here.

Stevie Ray

February 21st, 2012
11:17 am

BYTME,

Why you are at it, can you direct me to a site that contains all the W-2’s that prove any jobs were saved? Stimulus only helped electorate enhance their own wealth and pay back bundles, banks et al for IOU’s…Ridiculus to think otherwise…What if we hadn’t spent this money we didn’t have? Better or worse off??

Mighty Righty

February 21st, 2012
11:18 am

The federal government has increased its’ payroll while the state government’s have reduced their payroll.

Zedd

February 21st, 2012
11:18 am

Testify Bruno!

ragnar danneskjold

February 21st, 2012
11:19 am

Those economists who bother to develop an argument on those issues overwhelmingly affirm that the “stimulus” was a total waste, and will handcuff the recovery for years. E.g., Robert Barro, Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams. Those economists who adhere to the “overlords know better how to spend money” school think Obamanomics are still working great.

ByteMe

February 21st, 2012
11:20 am

kayaker 71

February 21st, 2012
11:21 am

Off topic…..

The SCOTUS has decided to hear that affirmative action case from the white kid in Texas who is suing for discrimination in selection to public universities based on racial preference. Elana Kagen has recused herself from the proceedings. That does not bode too well for minority selection based on race. Finally, a ruling on this antiquated unfair process.

Mighty Righty

February 21st, 2012
11:21 am

Still waiting for someone to point out a time when sanctions worked. Just one. I know you liberals have suggested many times we should impose sanctions so you must have an example of when thery worked.

ByteMe

February 21st, 2012
11:21 am

Those economists who bother to develop an argument on those issues overwhelmingly affirm that the “stimulus” was a total waste

Maybe they’re not considered “real” economists, like the ones who reside in rightwingnutistan.

Jefferson

February 21st, 2012
11:21 am

Anything that make the GOP whine has got to have some value.

JohnnyReb

February 21st, 2012
11:21 am

ByteMe – my statement versus the numbers are correct. Read it and Jay’s post again.

mm

February 21st, 2012
11:22 am

“Investigate where $16 billion of the $20 billion of green stimulus cash went…..obama cronies and bundlers of course. Heck, he used the stimulus with Dem congress to pay back IOU’s in record time. Be careful with this hot potato…you will definitely get torched…your pal BO is as corrupt as the rest of them. Your taxpayer dollars at work eh?”

Wow, the rubepublicans are really out on a limb today with their Fox News and Rushbo myths.

ragnar danneskjold

February 21st, 2012
11:22 am

It’s a good thing that Obamanomics are so effective. “Gallup Finds Unemployment Climbing to Nine Percent in February.”

ragnar danneskjold

February 21st, 2012
11:24 am

Dear Byte @ 11:21, can you cite a single argument in favor of the efficacy of Obamanomics? We would agree that Enron’s economist affirms the efficacy, but not with any particular argument.

Tommy Maddox

February 21st, 2012
11:25 am

Was the “number of jobs saved” classification created before or after Obama came to power?

Just wondering…

ByteMe

February 21st, 2012
11:27 am

can you cite a single argument in favor of the efficacy of Obamanomics?

Yawn. You make me sleepy with your “prove a negative” nonsense. Prove that not doing it would have been better!! Oh, right, you can’t do that either, because it’s not possible to prove.

ragnar danneskjold

February 21st, 2012
11:27 am

Is there any economist out there who will affirm that the ObamaCare fees and fines on employers have not had a dampening effect on employment?

Is there any economist out there who will affirm that the roving “Consumer Protection Agency” – not subject to Congressional budget control – has not had a dampening effect on economic activity?

Is there any economist out there who will affirm that Obamanomics/”Stimulus” led to formation of even a single private market job, save those that were funded by the “stimulus?” Most of those “jobs” were little more than a temporary phenomena, as the “stimulus” was nothing but a money-laundering scheme, transference of taxpayer funds to those entities that supported financially Obama in 2008.

Jay

February 21st, 2012
11:28 am

Or, by using the same polling data, one could generate a headline which says “Less than half of economists polled believe that the benefits of the stimulus will end up exceeding its costs.” So which is the “truth”??

Or, by using the same polling data, one could generate a headline that says “Just 4 percent of economists polled believe the stimulus did not create jobs.” That too would be true. But which is the most honest description of the data available? I’ll stick with the above, thanks.

As to your other point, Bruno, please …. you have a long history of coming on the blog and waving around your academic credentials to try to intimidate others and impress on everybody just how smart you are compared to the rest of those posting here. So your complaint comes off as somewhat less than sincere …

ragnar danneskjold

February 21st, 2012
11:29 am

Dear Byte @ 11″27, online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704751304575079260144504040.html

Mr. Snarky

February 21st, 2012
11:30 am

Rag…because the austerity pushed the right has worked sooooo well in the UK and Europe.
Talks about evidence? Let’s hear the arguments for that…evidence would be nice too.

Tommy Maddox

February 21st, 2012
11:30 am

I think y’all better stick with the goofy claim of “women being subjugated by the GOP” because heralding claims of the Obama economy makes you look silly.

Brosephus

February 21st, 2012
11:30 am

Fred

:) I forgot about that. :)

—————————

GG

Until I saw the bridge in California that was constructed in China, I thought that all infrastructure work would generate US jobs. I still think that the spending could be better targeted for infrastructure improvements than anything else. Also, it’s not like we don’t need infrastructure repair anyway.

1.) Did the 2009 stimulus bill create jobs and lower the unemployment rate?

My Answer: My God I hope it did, we spent nearly $1 trillion on a plethora of subjects.

Talking Head

Is that an admission that a tax cut is still spending? The total cost of the stimulus was under $800 Billion with 37% of it ($288 billion) in the form of tax cuts/tax relief. If you’re saying that we spent nearly $1T, then that would also imply that tax cuts are a form of spending themselves. To extrapolate on that idea a bit farther would mean that Bush’s cuts were spending just as Obama’s extensions of those same cuts/spending.

Or did I just misunderstand what you said?

Jay

February 21st, 2012
11:31 am

Mighty Righty: South Africa, apartheid.

They’ve also worked to isolate North Korea. It hasn’t yet forced a regime change there, but it has certainly helped to ensure that the country remains weakened and isolated.

Junior Samples

February 21st, 2012
11:31 am

if you live long enough you will see almost everything….even the absurd. It’s almost like jobs are falling out of the sky like snowflakes….they’re everwhere! Let’s face it folks…it was a huge failure.

Another random thought though…. when bush was in the white house he got blamed for high gas prices. are the high gas prices still bush’s fault or can this one be blamed on obama? Just asking.

Granny Godzilla

February 21st, 2012
11:31 am

DOW BREAKS 13000

ragnar danneskjold

February 21st, 2012
11:31 am

Dear Snarky @ “because the austerity pushed the right has worked sooooo well in the UK and Europe.” Fair argument, except that austerity has not yet been tried.

ByteMe

February 21st, 2012
11:32 am

ragnar: his assumption is that the money is paid back in 2 years, which is wishful thinking on his part.

ByteMe

February 21st, 2012
11:32 am

ragnar: his assumption is that the money is paid back in 2 years, which is wishful thinking on his part.

ragnar danneskjold

February 21st, 2012
11:33 am

Dear Snarky @ 11:30, perhaps the absence of slowdown in Hong Kong, where there is also an absence of economic interference by the government, would suffice as evidence for you?

ragnar danneskjold

February 21st, 2012
11:35 am

Dear Byte @ 11:32, “his assumption is that the money is paid back in 2 years, which is wishful thinking on his part.” Then would you concede that any leftists, such as Obama, who affirmed that the “stimulus” would have an immediate beneficial effect “lied?”

Keep Up--Te gusta losing numb nutz?

February 21st, 2012
11:36 am

Stevie, did you check the math in your citation? Cost of stim/# of jobs = cost per job. :roll: How very silly and lame

ByteMe

February 21st, 2012
11:37 am

Ooo… double-post! I win the lottery!!!

I didn’t??

Bruno

February 21st, 2012
11:37 am

In case any of you missed it, yahoo.com had a video which broke down our current economic situation in terms of a household budget. By scaling the numbers down (i.e. dropping several zeros), they showed that Obama’s current budget calls for spending $38,000 on an income of only $29,000. And the “credit card ” balance is $158,000.

These are the only numbers which matter to me.

Jay

February 21st, 2012
11:41 am

And with all due respect to Gallup, those polling numbers conflict with every other data point out there on jobs, from the number of people working to the weekly number of new jobless claims filed. It’s possible that they’re right and every other data source is wrong, and if so we’ll find out quickly enough.

But let’s just say I’m dubious.

Talking Head

February 21st, 2012
11:43 am

Brocephus,

Categorizing tax cuts as spending comes from the idea that all money is the goverments money to begin with, and they decide how much to give you, so no I do not think tax cuts are a form of spending.

Also, adding the interest we pay to the stimulus puts the total bill well over $1 trillion. We have yet to address how we were going to pay for this, much like other government projects.

ByteMe,

The governement has continued to grow in size under Obama, yet fewer are employed by the government.

Brosephus

February 21st, 2012
11:45 am

Bruno

I missed that comparison on Yahoo, but there’s one small bit of difference between comparing the two. The government can print money to help itself out. Eventually, that may lead to more problems, but when you’re the world reserve currency, there’s a bit of leeway with that which most other countries can nottake advantage of. A household can try to print money to help itself out. That usually ends up with someone in the custody of the state and making license plates for a few years.

AmVet - Just say no to the War Pigs.

February 21st, 2012
11:46 am

Well, what do you know?

71 obsessing about racial issues.

Again…

Under the non-leadership of the previous administration and the corporate owned legislative branch, the corporatists took the American bus called capitalism to the very edge of the cliff. In fact, they we’re so irresponsible, they crashed the bus until it hung perilously over the edge of said cliff, dumping tens of millions of Americans into the abyss of unemployment, bankruptcy and despair.

Under new management, we have been able to slowly back away from the edge of that cliff and get the bus back on the road to recovery.

Even with the Obama-hating Republicans trying to push it right back to the edge again.

All because they hate him more than they love this country…

Brosephus

February 21st, 2012
11:48 am

Talking Head

That’s one helluva interest rate then. Spending in the stimulus amounts to a little more than $500 Billion once you subtract out the tax cuts. If interest puts it back over $1T, then we really have some effed up credit.

Mighty Righty

February 21st, 2012
11:48 am

Jay, you are partially correct. The Soweto uprising in ‘76 and the Bush negotiaions in ‘93 with De Klerk had as much to do with end of aparthied as sanctions. Part of that negotiation was South Africa agreeing to destroy its necleur weapons.

ByteMe

February 21st, 2012
11:49 am

Then would you concede that any leftists, such as Obama, who affirmed that the “stimulus” would have an immediate beneficial effect “lied?”

Yawn, name-calling also seems to make me sleepy. Wonder why.

Who said the spending part would have an “immediate” benefit?? The tax cuts happen fast, the spending takes a while to get into the economy. Any leftist knows this, silly.

ByteMe

February 21st, 2012
11:50 am

The governement has continued to grow in size under Obama, yet fewer are employed by the government.

Wow. Gonna go with that nonsense, huh?

ByteMe

February 21st, 2012
11:51 am

the Bush negotiaions in ‘93 with De Klerk

Gotta be a typo. Bush was out of office in early Jan ‘93.

JOE Cool-Republicans Call Him MESSIAH, I Just Call Him Mr. President

February 21st, 2012
11:52 am

“71 obsessing about racial issues.”

Amvet, he’s just gonna love this then….

-Interracial Marriage Hits All-time High-
Interracial marriage in the United States has hit an all-time high, a new study suggests, with a record 1 in 12 marriages taking place between people from different racial backgrounds.

http://shine.yahoo.com/love-sex/interracial-marriage-hits-time-high-215600573.html

ragnar danneskjold

February 21st, 2012
11:53 am

Urge all to follow the link in Jay’s essay. Example of a supportive (pro-stimulus) view on question B:

“This all depends on how much you value avoiding short-run collapse versus the costs long-term. But it’s not free.”

Midori

February 21st, 2012
11:53 am

Byte –

there’s so much crap being flung that we need to take cover.

want to share my umbrella? :)

Midori

February 21st, 2012
11:53 am

Enter your comments here

Brosephus

February 21st, 2012
11:54 am

JOE Cool

I heard that mentioned on CNN last week. I can attest to a few of those 1’s from my family alone. :)

Talking Head

February 21st, 2012
11:54 am

“Talking Head

That’s one helluva interest rate then. Spending in the stimulus amounts to a little more than $500 Billion once you subtract out the tax cuts. If interest puts it back over $1T, then we really have some effed up credit.”

Well we payed nearly $500 billion in interest last year.

AmVet - Just say no to the War Pigs.

February 21st, 2012
11:54 am

Jay, it is interesting to note that the dictator-coddling Ronald Reagan vetoed the Comprehensive Anti-Apartheid Act of 1986 but surprisingly and, in testament to the strength of the anti-Apartheid movement, the Republican controlled Senate overrode his veto.

President Reagan appealed to members of the Republican Party for support, but as Senator Lowell P. Weicker, Jr. would state, “For this moment, at least, the President has become an irrelevancy to the ideals, heartfelt and spoken, of America”] This override marked the first time in the twentieth century that a president had a foreign policy veto overridden.

Talking Head

February 21st, 2012
11:57 am

“The governement has continued to grow in size under Obama, yet fewer are employed by the government.

Wow. Gonna go with that nonsense, huh?”

So are you saying that my statement is untrue? That the government hasn’t grown under Obama, and there are fewer employed by the government today than there was before he took office?

Women’s Rights–vs.-Men’s Rights

February 21st, 2012
11:59 am

Sorry… but off-topic…

Almost all of the lawmakers pushing for the abortion restrictions are Republican men, and lesbian Rep. Kelly Cassidy wants to make it clear that she does not stand with her agriculture committee counterparts on these issues. Cassidy reportedly told LGBT journalist Jamie Royce that she plans on introducing a measure that would require people seeking Viagra for erectile dysfunction to watch a video on potential side effects before receiving it.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/20/kelly-cassidys-viagra-ame_n_1289025.html