The Republican Thread

[southsider2k5]

There also wouldn't be a huge lack of demand if tax cuts, and especially upper class tax cuts, had a strong positive effect on the economy. Because we've done a ton of that.

 

Or if the stimulus had actually worked instead of "worked".

[StrangeSox]

Or if the stimulus had actually worked instead of "worked".

http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-cohn/9436...stimulus-worked

As of June, the agency says, between 1.0 and 2.9 million more people are working because of the Recovery Act. And that figure actually seems to understates the impact. Not only did more people find jobs; more people who had jobs worked additional hours. Throwing those additional hours into the mix, CBO determined that the Recovery Act's net impact was the equivalent of between 1.4 and 4.0 million additional full-time jobs.

 

Posting again, this review of 9 studies on whether or not it "worked"

[southsider2k5]

http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-cohn/9436...stimulus-worked

 

 

Posting again, this review of 9 studies on whether or not it "worked"

 

Worked is in quotes on purpose. The point of the stimulus plan was to lead the economy to recovery. No matter what statistics the left wants to push to show that it "worked" it didn't work. The economy wasn't able to survive on its own after the stimulus plan that we were promised would lead to things like 8% unemployment. The economy is falling apart again. The stimulus did not work, no matter how many times it is repeated that it did. The whole point of the program is to move the economic cycle into growth. We aren't there.

[StrangeSox]

It stimulated the economy pretty much exactly as models with the revised 2008-2009 data indicate that it would have. Given that it wasn't an ideal package (too many tax cuts, not enough immediate spending) and that it wasn't large enough even by the 2009 data, its impact was overstated by politicians. Not by economists. It stabilized the economy and prevented it from falling off a cliff, but no, it was not enough to break the cycle and get us into a true recovery.

 

You can't fault economic models for political overstatements of their effects.

[NorthSideSox72]

It stimulated the economy pretty much exactly as models with the revised 2008-2009 data indicate that it would have. Given that it wasn't an ideal package (too many tax cuts, not enough immediate spending) and that it wasn't large enough even by the 2009 data, its impact was overstated by politicians. Not by economists. It stabilized the economy and prevented it from falling off a cliff, but no, it was not enough to break the cycle and get us into a true recovery.

 

You can't fault economic models for political overstatements of their effects.

That is what it accomplished - keeping the Great Recession from becoming more like a Great Depression. It did not propel growth though, not in any big way, nor did it achieve the desired UE numbers spouted by ObamaCo. So you are both right.

 

[StrangeSox]

Basically, you're right in that the 2009 ARRA failed to break the downward cycle we're in now. But that doesn't mean the entire concept of a stimulus package or Keynesian economics in general is somehow indicted. If the reults show that there were strong multipliers in place, then the spending was indeed stimulative and did help the economy. If results match the models, then the models are vindicated; conversely, if some models showed that inflation was going to skyrocket and bonds would be through the roof, those models and their underlying assumptions should be re-examined to find their flaws and correct them (or simply discard all models, as Stephen Moore would have us do).

[StrangeSox]

That is what it accomplished - keeping the Great Recession from becoming more like a Great Depression. It did not propel growth though, not in any big way, nor did it achieve the desired UE numbers spouted by ObamaCo. So you are both right.

The 8% figure will be a great hammer to hit Obama with during the campaign, but as soon as you get past the surface you see that it was made before the full depth and breadth of the economic problems were realized. It came from a report in January 2009 and also included a "no-stimulus" baseline from the CBO of 9% in 2010. Clearly, things were already much, much worse when those projections were made than anyone realized.

 

Polifact has a good breakdown of the issue and points out that it was never even a promise from Obama or anyone in the WH but part of a report put out in January 2009 that included disclaimers of high margins of error.

[Balta1701]

Worked is in quotes on purpose. The point of the stimulus plan was to lead the economy to recovery. No matter what statistics the left wants to push to show that it "worked" it didn't work. The economy wasn't able to survive on its own after the stimulus plan that we were promised would lead to things like 8% unemployment. The economy is falling apart again. The stimulus did not work, no matter how many times it is repeated that it did. The whole point of the program is to move the economic cycle into growth. We aren't there.

Didn't we go over how completely dishonest this was in the other thread when the updated GDP numbers came out?

 

Somehow I knew that when I said "I never want to hear that 8% unemployment maximum estimate" again because it was based on a plummet estimate 1/2 the size of the actual plummet...I'd still hear it again.

[southsider2k5]

Didn't we go over how completely dishonest this was in the other thread when the updated GDP numbers came out?

 

How dishonest it is to try to honestly say that the stimulus did what it was supposed to do, and try to revise it into something else?

[Balta1701]

How dishonest it is to try to honestly say that the stimulus did what it was supposed to do, and try to revise it into something else?

Because the $700 billion stimulus (which some were saying was too small at the time) might well have kept unemployment below 8% if the 3% GDP decrease estimate was correct.

 

Instead, it had an 8% GDP decrease to deal with.

 

If anyone had the 8% GDP decrease number at the time, then a $700 billion stimulus would have still wound up with projections of 10%+ unemployment.

[southsider2k5]

Because the $700 billion stimulus (which some were saying was too small at the time) might well have kept unemployment below 8% if the 3% GDP decrease estimate was correct.

 

Instead, it had an 8% GDP decrease to deal with.

 

If anyone had the 8% GDP decrease number at the time, then a $700 billion stimulus would have still wound up with projections of 10%+ unemployment.

 

So in other words, it didn't work because the government didn't have any idea about what was going on, but now it does! LOL. Funny how that works, huh.

[Balta1701]

So in other words, it didn't work because the government didn't have any idea about what was going on, but now it does! LOL. Funny how that works, huh.

Of course, if you actually follow this logic...then the right move in 2009 was to support a much larger, say $2 trillion or more stimulus package, lasting 3-4 years...

 

Because then you're expecting that the estimate might get revised downwards...and in the event that your stimulus package is actually too large, you push back to full unemployment and the Federal Reserve has to raise rates some to avoid inflation...but you're back to full employment!

 

Somehow I doubt you're going to endorse that logic.

[StrangeSox]

How dishonest it is to try to honestly say that the stimulus did what it was supposed to do, and try to revise it into something else?

 

The stimulus did what models said it would do once the models were given the appropriate data. Indictment of the ARRA as a damper (slowing the decline) and not a spring (bouncing the economy upwards) is not indictment of an entire field of macroeconomics. Even in January 2009, Kenysians were saying it wasn't going to be enough to break the cycle, as has been linked multiple times in the filibuster.

 

But what you've said above is substantially different from saying "Obama claimed unemployment wouldn't go above 8%!" both because he never claimed that and because those early estimates were done before the full impact was known. It's dishonest to keep highlighting that 8% number and removing the context in which it was made (early, part of a paper and never a promise).

[southsider2k5]

Of course, if you actually follow this logic...then the right move in 2009 was to support a much larger, say $2 trillion or more stimulus package, lasting 3-4 years...

 

Because then you're expecting that the estimate might get revised downwards...and in the event that your stimulus package is actually too large, you push back to full unemployment and the Federal Reserve has to raise rates some to avoid inflation...but you're back to full employment!

 

Somehow I doubt you're going to endorse that logic.

 

Actually my logic was that we shouldn't spend all of our money at once on a stimulus program because it might not work. That way we'd actually have bullets left just in case it didn't work. Instead now the logic is that we should have moved ourselves closer to default instead of being intelligent in the first place.

 

And now we sit here with no confidence in the system, and no bullets left to use.

[southsider2k5]

The stimulus did what models said it would do once the models were given the appropriate data. Indictment of the ARRA as a damper (slowing the decline) and not a spring (bouncing the economy upwards) is not indictment of an entire field of macroeconomics. Even in January 2009, Kenysians were saying it wasn't going to be enough to break the cycle, as has been linked multiple times in the filibuster.

 

But what you've said above is substantially different from saying "Obama claimed unemployment wouldn't go above 8%!" both because he never claimed that and because those early estimates were done before the full impact was known. It's dishonest to keep highlighting that 8% number and removing the context in which it was made (early, part of a paper and never a promise).

 

Here's an idea then, don't make claims based on information you don't know is true. Try being honest with the American people and tell them that their numbers are full of s*** instead of just baldfaced lying to get what you want.

[Balta1701]

Actually my logic was that we shouldn't spend all of our money at once on a stimulus program because it might not work. That way we'd actually have bullets left just in case it didn't work. Instead now the logic is that we should have moved ourselves closer to default instead of being intelligent in the first place.

 

And now we sit here with no confidence in the system, and no bullets left to use.

We're paying negative interest rates on 7 year debt and have our own currency.

 

The only possible sense in which we've moved closer to default is that we now have Republicans in control of the House. That's the only possible way that is true.

[southsider2k5]

We're paying negative interest rates on 7 year debt and have our own currency.

 

The only possible sense in which we've moved closer to default is that we now have Republicans in control of the House. That's the only possible way that is true.

 

Yes, the party that has tried to take the keys away from the drunk driver is at fault according to the drunk driver.

[Balta1701]

Yes, the party that has tried to take the keys away from the drunk driver is at fault according to the drunk driver.

So, in your metaphor...deficit spending is the drink...and the drunk driver is the Democrats?

 

I'll pause while anyone who is older than 2.5 years old laughs hysterically.

[StrangeSox]

Here's an idea then, don't make claims based on information you don't know is true. Try being honest with the American people and tell them that their numbers are full of s*** instead of just baldfaced lying to get what you want.

 

Baldfaced lying? No, it's a projection based on present information, the key point of which is the differential between stimulus and non-stimulus futures, not exact numbers. Working with the best information at the time doesn't mean your numbers are full of s***, just that you need to apply to appropriate margins of error to them (as the study did).

 

Baldfaced lying would be claiming that Obama promised unemployment wouldn't go about 8% if the stimulus passed.

[StrangeSox]

Yes, the party that has tried to take the keys away from the drunk driver is at fault according to the drunk driver.

 

The more appropriate metaphor would be the drunk in the passenger seat, who drove to the bar drunk in the first place, tries to grab the wheel and drive the car into a tree in order to save them all.

Edited August 31, 2011 by StrangeSox

[southsider2k5]

Baldfaced lying? No, it's a projection based on present information, the key point of which is the differential between stimulus and non-stimulus futures, not exact numbers. Working with the best information at the time doesn't mean your numbers are full of s***, just that you need to apply to appropriate margins of error to them (as the study did).

 

Baldfaced lying would be claiming that Obama promised unemployment wouldn't go about 8% if the stimulus passed.

 

If you know your numbers aren't true, and then make promises based on them, yes you are lying. At least that would have been the standard pre January 2009.

[NorthSideSox72]

Again, this whole argument is silly, when you consider that the lefties are correct (in that the stimulus bill did, clearly and demonstrably, keep UE numbers a lot better than they may have been), and the righties are correct (in that the stimulus bill did not push the economy into growth, was not well designed, increased debt load, and failed to come close to the expectations set by the White House, whose economic analysis was itself flawed).

 

Really, you guys are talking past each other on this.

 

[CrimsonWeltall]

If you know your numbers aren't true, and then make promises based on them, yes you are lying. At least that would have been the standard pre January 2009.

 

So the Democrats lied in order to make their plan look really unsuccessful?

[southsider2k5]

If you know your numbers aren't true, and then make promises based on them, yes you are lying. At least that would have been the standard pre January 2009.

 

 

So the Democrats lied in order to make their plan look really unsuccessful?

 

[Balta1701]

Again, this whole argument is silly, when you consider that the lefties are correct (in that the stimulus bill did, clearly and demonstrably, keep UE numbers a lot better than they may have been), and the righties are correct (in that the stimulus bill did not push the economy into growth, was not well designed, increased debt load, and failed to come close to the expectations set by the White House, whose economic analysis was itself flawed).

 

Really, you guys are talking past each other on this.

It never, ever could have.

 

It was way too small.

 

It needed to massively increase the debt load.

 

And have much fewer tax cuts.