Can we admit that the "stimulus" is a failure?

[Observer]

I know you're an idiot and that your think tank wanker bullshit is just that.

Vel, have you been invited to participate in any of these "think tanks" you disparage so freely?

No?

Have you ever wondered why that is?   

[SpaceCadet]

SpaceCadet, it's only supposed to be a temporary boost to cut off the lower end of a severe low in the business cycle.

How do you come to proclaim something to be a failure when you don't understand what it's about?

Simply because we could be slipping back into recession.  Tha'ts how.

[SpaceCadet]

Well, what would you're solution be as the economy nose dived from 2007 into 2008 and 9?

If not government stimulus spending, you'd prefer what have happened?

Nothing will fix an overheated economy, in which people and government have been living beyond their means, and even more than that, where great damage has been done to the economic system through misconduct, except time.

We can create a softer landing, as Vel suggests, by propping things up through government spending, but at what cost. 

Actually, Vel may be correct.  At a mere $800 billion, much of which we're likely to recoup, it may not have been too much to spend merely for a softer landing.  That is, as long as we don't go back into recession.  But its looking like we may.

[SpaceCadet]

The stimulus is not failing.  Unemployment has fallen from over 10 percent to 9 percent. Jobs have actually been created. And the only reason why it has not produced as you guys claim it should is because we did not inject enough money into the economy. IN fact if republicans had been more than the party of no, and had produced ideas that were not the same things that took used to this mess, maybe things would be better also. Instead republicans have tried sabotaging everything, and now they claim its only Obamas fault that things have not gone as they were predicted. Obama swore in with the hopes of working together with republicans and democrats to get things done. Instead that has not happened. And now we have a bunch of republican idiots on the internet talking about a failure.

One things is for certain, if we get republicans control of everything again, we will see economic failure.

Chicken Little said the sky was falling when it was not. And people believed that. The emperor was told that his clothes fit him well and looked great and he believed that. Yet he was naked. The little boy cried wolf and they believed that.

Many provisions of this stimulus package were phased in over a number of years. This was a long term plan, not some short term dyke fix. Perhaps you conservatives and fiscal conservative liberals need to understand this.

Unemployment is still quite a bit higher than it was ever supposed to get.  That's okay, models can be wrong, especially those of the economic kind.  We're now starting to lose jobs again, and we never did create all that many.

Economic growth is slowing again, and may return to recession.

We didn't inject enough money?  How many trillions should we inject?

The Republicans did indeed try to sabotage everything, but they failed.  The economic stimulus got through anyway, so now if it fails, you can't blame the Repubs for its failure.

You and Vel need to get together privately and get your story straight.  Was it a short term boost, or a long-term plan?  I'm confused now.

[SpaceCadet]

Didn't two of Obama's economic advisers resign recently?

[Velleity]

Nothing will fix an overheated economy, in which people and government have been living beyond their means, and even more than that, where great damage has been done to the economic system through misconduct, except time.

What does this mean? The economy isn't over heated. The problem is that wages have not kept up with our ability to produce. It's a liquidity problem--not over heating.

We can create a softer landing, as Vel suggests, by propping things up through government spending, but at what cost. 

The cost is goods and services not produced. Having not been produced the goods and services are lost forever. Money in and of itself is meaningless. Money is a means to an end--a way to distribute the goods and services.

Actually, Vel may be correct.  At a mere $800 billion, much of which we're likely to recoup, it may not have been too much to spend merely for a softer landing.  That is, as long as we don't go back into recession.  But its looking like we may.

Probably not.

There is no logical reason why we can't pay the debt down when we're in the part of the business cycle that is a sustainable recovery. There no logical reason why we can't grow out of the debt, as we have done before.

Don't listen to John Boner. He's never been right about anything and please don't feed the troll that is Observer. He's batshit crazy on "conservative" talking points.

You know how he does violence to the science behind global warming? He's even worse when it comes to economics, and I really and truly hate it when these people do violence to truth and reason.

[SpaceCadet]

What does this mean? The economy isn't over heated. The problem is that wages have not kept up with our ability to produce. It's a liquidity problem--not over heating.

I thought later that the better term for what I was trying to communicate might be over-extended.  But I don't see that the current situation was in any way caused by wages not keeping up with the ability to produce.  We had a huge real-state failure, caused by massive wrong-doing in the mortgage industry and in the financial industry with derivative investments based on those bad mortgages.  That led to a huge glut of housing.  That was part of the problem, and it just takes time for that glut of housing to be absorbed.  We also had a huge meltdown of the financial markets, again caused by massive wrong-doing in the financial industry.

We might be suffering from an inability of wages to keep up with the ability to produce now, but that's because so many people no longer have wages, thanks to the earlier screw ups.

The cost is goods and services not produced. Having not been produced the goods and services are lost forever. Money in and of itself is meaningless. Money is a means to an end--a way to distribute the goods and services.

Probably not.

There is no logical reason why we can't pay the debt down when we're in the part of the business cycle that is a sustainable recovery. There no logical reason why we can't grow out of the debt, as we have done before.

Don't listen to John Boner. He's never been right about anything and please don't feed the troll that is Observer. He's batshit crazy on "conservative" talking points.

You know how he does violence to the science behind global warming? He's even worse when it comes to economics, and I really and truly hate it when these people do violence to truth and reason.

We can pay it down as long as it doesn't get too out of control.  What happens if it gets so high that we are running deficits just to service the debt?  What if we can't pay it down before the next downturn in the business cycle?  Don't forget that we also have huge, HUGE, liabilities in both SS and Medicare that are going to have to be paid for also.

And I haven't ever paid any attention to John Boner.  I honestly couldn't tell you a single thing he's said.

[JC]

A large part of "Paying Down" the fuckups would be to allow the expiration of the Bush tax cuts to the wealthy and big business, but they want no part of it. In fact they are calling it a tax hike when it is only a restoration, in other words"you had your tax relief and didnt create new jobs like you claim lower taxes do" . It is also absolutely hilarious that so many middle and lower class repukes are caught up in the tax issue. How many of them make over 250k/yr where this repaled tax cut will actually affect them? Your average Hannity/Rush fan probably makes under 100k and hass been programmed to parrot out talking points to save the robber barrons when if they look at their taxes last year they(the under 250k crowd) paid less in taxes and received more back from the Black President they rail against. If it's all about taxes they should love the guy - unless they make more than 250k/yr. Its not a tax hike. These taxes are being restored to what they once were.

 I also resent this "League of American Voters" crap. As if, if you don't subscribe to them you are unAmerican. Horseshit. I'm an American Voter and I don't need a "league" to tell me what to think or how to vote.

[ivanm]

A large part of "Paying Down" the fuckups would be to allow the expiration of the Bush tax cuts to the wealthy and big business, but they want no part of it. In fact they are calling it a tax hike when it is only a restoration, in other words"you had your tax relief and didnt create new jobs like you claim lower taxes do" . It is also absolutely hilarious that so many middle and lower class repukes are caught up in the tax issue. How many of them make over 250k/yr where this repaled tax cut will actually affect them? Your average Hannity/Rush fan probably makes under 100k and hass been programmed to parrot out talking points to save the robber barrons when if they look at their taxes last year they(the under 250k crowd) paid less in taxes and received more back from the Black President they rail against. If it's all about taxes they should love the guy - unless they make more than 250k/yr. Its not a tax hike. These taxes are being restored to what they once were.

 I also resent this "League of American Voters" crap. As if, if you don't subscribe to them you are unAmerican. Horseshit. I'm an American Voter and I don't need a "league" to tell me what to think or how to vote.

Why should anyone create more jobs if the demand is not there or if the government has rules that make their
investments unattractive? I think you can thank the trade unions and the socialistic government policy for driving jobs offshore, and not the investors.  In fact, there are a lot of American investors who moved their capital money
offshore too. Why, better returns.

As far as getting back from the president I don't understand that unless you are referring to a refund of taxes paid in.  Maybe it is an ideological thing.  Why should a high end earner support programs he won't benefit from?

Apparently you don't invest much or pay taxes either? Why bite the hands that feed us in the sense that peons don't create jobs, the big investors do?

[JC]

If you are an American "investor" and have packed your money and shipped it overseas for "tax" reasons, and are not creating jobs for "tax" reasons you demonstrate that America does NOT come first but your money does. That's fine but these people need to leave the country. THAT mentality is killing America the grover norquist(starve and drown it till it circles down the drain" way). Again I find it interesting, yet laughable that under 250k folks who happen to be conservatives/repukes continue to defend the republicans on their "tax hike" meme when they are bitching against their own interests.

[IM2]

Space Cadet,

The Republicans did indeed try to sabotage everything, but they failed.  The economic stimulus got through anyway, so now if it fails, you can't blame the Repubs for its failure.

Me and Vel don't have to get together to do anything. What you need to do is get out of your government can't do anything right position.

The stimulus did not grow as expected because it was too small. It was too small because people like you ran off at the mouth about spending too much.  The stimulus money was not the only part of the economic recovery package Obama was trying. Most of what he has tried to do revolved around growing the economy and republicans fought it. This is what I mean by they have tried sabotaging everything. What do you think refusing to extend unemployment benefits did for economy Space Cadet?

How much more uncertainty has been created by the republican party’s attempt  to sabotage everything this administration has done? How much more uncertainty has been created by republicans lying about things in order to score political points?

All of these things have fucked up this situation when what Obama predicated his work on was the ability for all Americans to work together. He asked that we all work together during his campaign. He said that none of what he would do will work if we all do not do our part. We now see a portion of the population refusing to do their part, and another part of the population complaining based upon an argument that has no factual merit..

Your position relative to government cannot do shit right is invalid. Your position that government should not be have anything to do with economic growth is a fallacy that you need to stop believing in. As long as congress makes law, the government will have a major role to play in our economic growth and/ or decline. This is what you have forgotten, this is what conservatives constantly miss. The “free market” does not operate in the manner in which you claim. It never has and never will. So then if government decides to make a capital investment in the economy to help it grow, it is within it’s bounds.

It is a lie, to say that government never grew anything given the reality that government sets the conditions for economic growth. Commerce and trade is a constitutional role of the federal government.. So then I do believe that its high time that you government cannot do this and government should not do that people need to realize that your position is incorrect.

[SpaceCadet]

Me and Vel don't have to get together to do anything. What you need to do is get out of your government can't do anything right position.

What has the government done "right"?  I just dealt with the government on unemployment benefits, and they certainly didn't do that right.  I'm working again now, but I'm still dealing with straightening out the mess they made out of the short time I was on UI benefits.

The stimulus did not grow as expected because it was too small. It was too small because people like you ran off at the mouth about spending too much. 

Ok, I'll try asking again.  How many trillions should we have spent.  Is there any limit?

The stimulus money was not the only part of the economic recovery package Obama was trying. Most of what he has tried to do revolved around growing the economy and republicans fought it.

Really?  How exactly was he going to do that?

This is what I mean by they have tried sabotaging everything. What do you think refusing to extend unemployment benefits did for economy Space Cadet?

I think that was ridiculous.  You should try not to develop the notion that I am in any way a fan of the Repubs.  I'm not.

How much more uncertainty has been created by the republican party’s attempt  to sabotage everything this administration has done? How much more uncertainty has been created by republicans lying about things in order to score political points?

All of these things have fucked up this situation when what Obama predicated his work on was the ability for all Americans to work together. He asked that we all work together during his campaign. He said that none of what he would do will work if we all do not do our part. We now see a portion of the population refusing to do their part, and another part of the population complaining based upon an argument that has no factual merit..

I don't believe Obama expected everyone in the whole country to join hands and work together.  I don't believe he's that stupid.  If he is that stupid and naive, then he doesn't belong in government.  It's never been that way.

Your position relative to government cannot do shit right is invalid. Your position that government should not be have anything to do with economic growth is a fallacy that you need to stop believing in. As long as congress makes law, the government will have a major role to play in our economic growth and/ or decline. This is what you have forgotten, this is what conservatives constantly miss. The “free market” does not operate in the manner in which you claim. It never has and never will. So then if government decides to make a capital investment in the economy to help it grow, it is within it’s bounds.

I haven't forgotten any of that.  I simply don't see the bang for the buck.  It's that simple.

It is a lie, to say that government never grew anything given the reality that government sets the conditions for economic growth. Commerce and trade is a constitutional role of the federal government.. So then I do believe that its high time that you government cannot do this and government should not do that people need to realize that your position is incorrect.

Setting up conditions for economic growth is not the same thing as causing economic growth.

Your idea that the government is your parent and will just take care of you is what you need to give up.  Grow up and take care of yourself.

[JC]

“You should try not to develop the notion that I am in any way a fan of the Repubs.  I'm not.”

Can you do a better job of proving that to us? Because, up to date, you sure haven’t spent a great deal of time doing anything else but criticizing the Democrat party and liberal ideology. I don’t see where you show that you’re “no fan of the Repubs”. Not anywhere. Can you show us you are genuine in that respect, please?

“I don't believe Obama expected everyone in the whole country to join hands and work together.”

 I don’t believe he expected that either. But he did ask. And he was right that he and us(those on the left) cannot do it alone and we need some level headed bipartisanship instead of stubborn blind party loyalty.

“Setting up conditions for economic growth is not the same thing as causing economic growth.”

I think it’s a lofty expectation to expect any president to CAUSE economic growth, however, if he didn’t even try to set up conditions for such-well, folks like you already cry and complain “not enough” while you stand in the way and say NO to everything he offers up.

 “Your idea that the government is your parent and will just take care of you is what you need to give up.  Grow up and take care of yourself.”

Nobody really wants the government to be our parent, but it’s abundantly clear what deregulation on many different levels did to this country. You simply can’t trust Big Business, Banks and Wall Street to run unregulated.


SC, you want us to treat you reasonable. I tried to be as respectful as I can in this post. My point was that you try to take this "middle ground" stance but all you ever do is bash the left. I find that disingenuous, and possibly dishonest until you can solidly prove yourself otherwise. I am giving you that opportunity to do so and in a reasonable tone I hope you'll agree?

[SpaceCadet]

“You should try not to develop the notion that I am in any way a fan of the Repubs.  I'm not.”

Can you do a better job of proving that to us? Because, up to date, you sure haven’t spent a great deal of time doing anything else but criticizing the Democrat party and liberal ideology. I don’t see where you show that you’re “no fan of the Repubs”. Not anywhere. Can you show us you are genuine in that respect, please?

“I don't believe Obama expected everyone in the whole country to join hands and work together.”

 I don’t believe he expected that either. But he did ask. And he was right that he and us(those on the left) cannot do it alone and we need some level headed bipartisanship instead of stubborn blind party loyalty.

“Setting up conditions for economic growth is not the same thing as causing economic growth.”

I think it’s a lofty expectation to expect any president to CAUSE economic growth, however, if he didn’t even try to set up conditions for such-well, folks like you already cry and complain “not enough” while you stand in the way and say NO to everything he offers up.

 “Your idea that the government is your parent and will just take care of you is what you need to give up.  Grow up and take care of yourself.”

Nobody really wants the government to be our parent, but it’s abundantly clear what deregulation on many different levels did to this country. You simply can’t trust Big Business, Banks and Wall Street to run unregulated.


SC, you want us to treat you reasonable. I tried to be as respectful as I can in this post. My point was that you try to take this "middle ground" stance but all you ever do is bash the left. I find that disingenuous, and possibly dishonest until you can solidly prove yourself otherwise. I am giving you that opportunity to do so and in a reasonable tone I hope you'll agree?

I don't get on these boards to simply sit around and chime in with a "Yeah, bro', you know it!" or "Hell, yeah!".  I don't find it interesting to be part of an echo chamber.  All you would have to do to see my other side is to go check out the conversations I've had over at the "other place".  About the only conversations I take part in are those where I have a contrarian point of view.

How should I prove it to you?  My stance on gay marriage?  My stance on the global warming?  My stance on the mosque being planned near ground zero?

What difference does it make anyway?  What difference does it make on any particular issue being discussed, what my positions on other subjects might be in general?  I'm not looking to be accepted into some sort of "club", so why should I care whether you think I'm a rightie or a leftie?  Are you only going to treat me in a reasonable manner if I'm fairly closely aligned with you ideologically?

[Pepsi]

SpaceCadet.. can you tell me something.   Where do you suppose the economy would be right now without the government stimulus (ie recovery act)?   Better or worse than it is right now?   Simple question.