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).
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:
“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
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
729 comments Add your comment
JamVet - My god man, protect the billionaires!
February 21st, 2012
7:03 pm
https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-snc7/417438_350435241654411_174612345903369_1068115_2034142194_n.jpg
Towncrier
February 21st, 2012
7:03 pm
“The Constitution had already provided a means by which it could be amended to “add rights,” as you put it. So if the Ninth Amendment merely meant that we could “add rights” later through Congress, as you claim, it was a totally redundant exercise.”
Sorry. This amendment, like so much that came about at the founding of our country (including the retention of slavery), was the expression of a compromise. To me it is a disclaimer of sorts, a way of alleviating the concerns of certain members of the convention. Nothing more. It is a single sentence, for Pete’s sake. If you are suggesting that the framers envisioned what now, for instance, goes by name of “free speech” when they drafted that right, you are gravely mistaken. You are making a disclaimer into a mountain.
ragnar danneskjold
February 21st, 2012
7:05 pm
I agree with TownCrier’s 6:37 interpretation of the ninth amendment.
ragnar danneskjold
February 21st, 2012
7:08 pm
Ultimately the ninth amendment is the right to be left alone, plainly violated by ObamaCare’s mandate.
ragnar danneskjold
February 21st, 2012
7:09 pm
We put similar language into most contracts, “including, but not limited to…”
ragnar danneskjold
February 21st, 2012
7:09 pm
On a happy note:
Brown Surges in Massachusetts
In a new survey, Republican Sen. Scott Brown holds a decisive lead over Democrat Elizabeth Warren in the race for U.S. Senate in Massachusetts.
Republican Sen. Scott Brown holds a decisive lead over Democrat Elizabeth Warren in the race for U.S. Senate in Massachusetts. According to a new Suffolk University/7NEWS (WHDH-Boston) survey, the freshman senator garners 49% of the vote — nine points ahead of his main Democratic rival. It’s the first time a poll put Mr. Brown in the lead since last fall. Suffolk University was also the first to show Mr. Brown ahead in 2010 when he upset state Attorney General Martha Coakley.
Paul
February 21st, 2012
7:14 pm
Sinkwich
Ford has some new torquey engines, V6s, that get respectable mileage in town and on the highway.
F. Sinkwich
February 21st, 2012
7:16 pm
I guess even Mass. know a marxist obamabot when they see one, Rag.
F. Sinkwich
February 21st, 2012
7:19 pm
“Ford has some new torquey engines, V6s, that get respectable mileage in town and on the highway.”
Ford doesn’t make Suburbans.
By the way, I will never buy another car from GM or Mopar until they pay me back.
bman
February 21st, 2012
7:20 pm
There are no “experts” on the economy.
md
February 21st, 2012
7:22 pm
“Oh gee that settles it then. One guy who simply states “life” is testable”
You guys must of missed the part about ‘plain experimental evidence”……which suggests that the guy that discovered the Down syndrome chromosome pattern more than likely has done the actual experiments…….I’ll see what I can find to quench your thirst for more evidence to put up against your opinions, but I’m guessing the guy wouldn’t put himself on the world stage if he hadn’t done what he said he did……..
Retired Vet
February 21st, 2012
7:50 pm
@Tom(Independent)
February 21st, 2012
5:51 pm
Dude, if you had actually served in the military instead of being an arm chair soilder you would actually feel like an ass posting such puke. The U.S. military is a reflection of the nation as a whole. Different ethnic groups, different religions to include gasp, people who prcatice the Islamic faith. Gays, bi’s, straights, ambiguous, atheists, urban, suburban, rural, ghetto, Scarsdale, trailer trash, liberal, conservative, apolitical, independent. Reality check, the military is made up of us. I ‘m waiting for you to tell us you believe in the tooth fairy.
Ninja
February 21st, 2012
8:11 pm
Enter your comments here
Ninja
February 21st, 2012
8:12 pm
Idiocy reigns supreme. Now the entertaining times begin.
Tom(Independent)
February 21st, 2012
8:43 pm
Retired Vet – Yes I really served but it was way back in the 60’s, Vietnam era. I quote Pres Kennedy(Democrat) and I also supported Pres Reagan(Repub) because those men are the kind of leaders men follow, not Community Organizers who dodged the military by attending some college. To me the party is not the issue, it’s the men who say it(either party). Yes I hate it when my tax -money goes to foreign aid, welfare, illegals and other wasteful programs. Get the economy going, create jobs for American CITIZENS(yes I said CITIZENS). If people refuse to work,quite the welfare payments and let them solve their own problems. The govt does not owe you a living! I guess I learned alot about fine citizens today, having spoken with the three amigos(Joe Hussein, Paul and Retired Vet).
Adam
February 21st, 2012
9:15 pm
Erwin: hey…that’s what I said about man-made GCC
Except that Global Climate Change has a lot of peer reviewed studies, none of which has been disproven, and it has been elevated tot he level of a theory. So after that much scrutiny, even by armchair scientists, even NASA has come out with scientific proof, essentially, that global warming is real and that humans are a MAJOR cause of it. Check out the report if you’re going to insist on the rabbit hole of asking for numbers.
Adam
February 21st, 2012
9:17 pm
Towncrier: No, it is not simply a compromise to make sure that people are not denied rights simply because they were not enumerated. That’s just silly.
JKL2
February 21st, 2012
11:11 pm
Where’s the $10T stimulus package then? Deficits don’t matter Demwits. Let’s pump it up.
Vote obama: Free money for everyone!
George Watson
February 21st, 2012
11:46 pm
Fascinated that facts have so little meaning anymore. Overwhelming evidence can be so easily dismissed. Truth that is indistinguishable from patent lies. There is an arrogance among fools today that defies explanation. Aside from the current politics which reflect this comedy of the absurd, I suspect there is a great humbling lurking in the shadows. Pride goeth before… Enjoy the show folks, you may get to repeat it as a cautionary tale to your grandchildren.
Towncrier
February 21st, 2012
11:55 pm
“Towncrier: No, it is not simply a compromise to make sure that people are not denied rights simply because they were not enumerated. That’s just silly.”
May I have a historical source, please?
Towncrier
February 22nd, 2012
12:14 am
Adam, here is what Scalia has said:
“The Declaration of Independence…is not a legal prescription conferring powers upon the courts; and the Constitution’s refusal to ‘deny or disparage’ other rights is far removed from affirming any one of them, and even farther removed from authorizing judges to identify what they might be, and to enforce the judges’ list against laws duly enacted by the people.”
I agree with him. If you look at the history of how the 9th Amendment came about, you will see it was to find some way to appease both the Federalists and Anti-Federalists so the Constitution would be ratified.
Jay
February 22nd, 2012
6:31 am
“If you look at the history of how the 9th Amendment came about, you will see it was to find some way to appease both the Federalists and Anti-Federalists so the Constitution would be ratified.”
Correct, Crier. They would not have ratified the Constitution without it, which tells you how important it was to them. It was not some redundant amendment that gave Congress the power to change the Constitution, a power it already had been granted elsewhere in the document.
Adam
February 22nd, 2012
8:30 am
Towncrier: A judge’s dissenting opinion, though important so we know his views, is still just an opinion. I could pull a thousand quotes out of my ass that I could then say I “agree with” from previous officials that are just downright jackassery, but that doesn’t make it right.
Adam
February 22nd, 2012
8:32 am
Towncrier: So if a majority of laws actually respect a right to privacy prior to the court case in which they reference it, but it’s not in the Constitution, does that right still not exist because it hasn’t been put into the Constitution via amendment or Congress making a federal law bout privacy?
Joe Hussein Mama
February 22nd, 2012
9:14 am
VRWC — ” I can get a battalion of PhDs to swear up and down that the moon is made of green cheese if I pay them enough money”
No, you can’t. At least, not PhDs in applicable fields. You could get all the English, Art History and Kinesiology PhDs you want, but their opinions on the composition of the moon would mean exactly jack.
Adam
February 22nd, 2012
9:16 am
VRWC — ” I can get a battalion of PhDs to swear up and down that the moon is made of green cheese if I pay them enough money”
No, you can’t. At least, not PhDs in applicable fields. You could get all the English, Art History and Kinesiology PhDs you want, but their opinions on the composition of the moon would mean exactly jack.
Nice
Joe Hussein Mama
February 22nd, 2012
9:20 am
TownCrier — “The 9th Amendment does not say enough to indicate the means by which the unenumerated rights of people are to be preserved. My contention is that the SCOTUS has presumed to know as much and taken to itself the authority to enumerate new rights, where I believe (as originally) that is the role of the Congress alone. The fact is, the SCOTUS is not an elected body and, if allowed to its designs, is an oligarchy. That is NOT democracy. If the majority of Americans want a right to abortion (or any other right), then let them get Congress to add it as a right to ensure government cannot abridge it.”
Absolutely NOT. We are of completely divergent opinion on this.
Those unemumerated rights exist *independent* of any Congressional legislation pertaining to them, and given the judicial branch’s express power to act as a check on Congress, there’s no justification whatsoever for claiming that the courts have to stand aside on the question of rights until Congress acts. SCOTUS can and has acted *ahead* of Congress in essentially saying ‘there’s a new right here, and you are not to intrude upon it, save in narrowly defined and specifically justifiable circumstances.
Trusting the defense of our rights to Congress is a notably bad idea, and that’s why there’s a judicial branch in the first place.
Joe Hussein Mama
February 22nd, 2012
9:34 am
Adam — “Nice”
My dad’s a college professor and has been one for over 40 years. Consequently, I don’t have a lot of patience with nitwits who claim ‘college professors are paid too much’ or ‘PhDs will say anything if you give them enough money’ or ‘all these noted academics say global warming is bullspit’ and then you look at the list and it’s all economists and historians and christian studies doctorates on there.
I grew up around a college professor. I poked around in his lab from the time I was four or five years old. By the time I was in third grade, I knew what an analytical scale was, what it was used for and how to use it. Pop also explained the scientific method to me at a young age and showed me how actual experiments — ones that the government or business was going to rely on — were conducted and reported. My dad gets called on all the time by private business and the USDA to speak at conferences or to accept research grants to do studies. Some of them he accepts, and some he doesn’t. He’s well into his 70s and doesn’t have time to do every grant-bearing research project that comes his way.
I’ve got a lot of respect for people with doctorates because I didn’t have the patience to earn one myself. But buttheads who insult and disrespect the people who *did* have the intelligence, patience and perseverance to earn one just pizz me the hell off.
Then again, having a doctorate doesn’t make you educated on everything. My dad’s PhD is in Microbiology, and he’s a professor of Agriculture. I’m pretty sure he doesn’t have the faintest idea what the moon’s made of, or what the evidence shows about global climate change or what effect lower marginal tax rates would have on unemployment. Having a doctorate means you’re educated in one specific area. It doesn’t mean you have any special clue about anything else OUTSIDE your area of study.
Adam
February 22nd, 2012
10:03 am
I’ve got a lot of respect for people with doctorates because I didn’t have the patience to earn one myself. But buttheads who insult and disrespect the people who *did* have the intelligence, patience and perseverance to earn one just pizz me the hell off.
Then again, having a doctorate doesn’t make you educated on everything.
EXACTLY