Getty Images
CBO Director Douglas Elmendorf
Among Republicans, it's taken as a given that President Obama's Recovery Act -- a.k.a., the "stimulus" -- was a failed Keynesian experiment. Among many voters, it's also widely assumed that the effort to get the economy back on track simply did not work.
Among those who know what they're talking about, however, there is no real doubt that the stimulus was a success. Douglas Elmendorf, the director of the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, reminded Congress of this inconvenient truth yesterday.
Did the stimulus work? Certainly not according to Republicans, who regularly blast President Obama's "failed" economic policies on the campaign trail. GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney has called the $787 billion package of temporary tax cuts and spending hikes "the largest one-time careless expenditure of government money in American history."
But on Wednesday, under questioning from skeptical Republicans, the director of the nonpartisan (and widely respected) Congressional Budget Office was emphatic about the value of the 2009 stimulus. And, he said, the vast majority of economists agree.
In a survey conducted by the University of Chicago Booth School of Business, 80 percent of economic experts agreed that, because of the stimulus, the U.S. unemployment rate was lower at the end of 2010 than it would have been otherwise.
The truth matters, not simply as a political exercise in which partisan players point fingers and thump their chests, but for entirely practical reasons.
For one thing, there's the question of credibility and accountability. In 2009, the American economy stood on the brink of a catastrophic collapse. Some proposed solutions that made sense (in this case, Democrats) and some proposed solutions that were ridiculous (congressional Republicans wanted a five-year spending freeze). Who got this right and who got it wrong helps us understand who we should listen to now and in the near future.
For another, on a substantive/policy-driven level, there's value in knowing what worked and what didn't when it came to making the economy stronger. It's common sense -- if, given certain economic conditions, a Keynesian fiscal stimulus worked, we should do more of it. If it made things worse, we should do less of it.
And I've got some charts that help separate fact from fiction.
Here, for example, is a chart showing the nation's GDP before and after the stimulus. Note, once the stimulus kicked in, the economy immediately started growing.
Here's a chart showing private-sector job growth before and after the stimulus. Note, once the stimulus kicked in, job growth immediately improved.
And here's a chart showing the Dow Jones Industrial Average before and after the stimulus. See that low point in March 2009? That's just before the stimulus kicked in.
Now, a Republican might look at this and argue, "Yeah, but the gains didn't last." That's true; they didn't. In the spring of 2010, the Eurozone debt crisis rattled international markets and through the global economy a curve ball. The U.S. gains quickly stalled, right around the time the stimulus funds started to wane. In 2011, unrest in the Middle East, coupled with a Japanese tsunami and Eurozone austerity, provided more global troubles.
But that's not an argument against the stimulus; it's an argument for more stimulus. The most accurate criticism of the Recovery Act comes from the left -- it was too small.
In a political/electoral context, Mitt Romney and congressional Republicans would have Americans believe President Obama's 2009 policies made the economy "worse." The challenge, then, is having Romney and his allies explain how, exactly, their argument lines up with reality.
The economy was failing, then the Recovery Act started spending, then conditions quickly improved. In GOP minds, how is that possible? Was it magic? Was it a coincidence? How do they explain why every relevant economic metric showed sharp improvements immediately after Obama's stimulus took effect?
That's not a rhetorical question; I genuinely want to know.
As a secondary question, if every relevant economic metric showed sharp improvements immediately after Obama's stimulus took effect, why in the world should we avoid taking similar steps right now?
Leave a Comment:
Look here, as any republican knows-the truth is a mere deception designed to remove doubt so as to make propaganda useless. In resorting to such tactics as facts and figures the left proves they are a hopeless bunch of dreamers who think rather than feel or believe. We must fight this assault on our beliefs lest we lose our freedom to ignore science and reality. Uh I mean...
That's classic. Well done, sir.
I see lots of studies stating the stimulus worked. Did it work in eliminating the threat or did it prolong the inevitable?
I would love to see a study in what would have happened if the government didn't prop up the jail worthy financial institutions. So we would have been trading for goods and services with potatoes for awhile (some are already in that boat). Where would we be now, almost four years later? Would we have already gone through the worst, bottomed out, and now working and progressing far beyond where we are at now?
hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
@ FromDownHere, are you confusing the Stimulus with TARP?
"The truth is a mere deception" is the title of my favorite unwritten Phillip K. Dick story.
@FromDownHere
What would have happened without stimulus and the Federal Reserve printing money? 1929-1933 would have happened: a depression worsened by compounded deflation and government spending cuts. The same happened in 1937, when FDR prematurely decided to start cutting spending in order to curb the deficit. The economy is driven by money circulating between different sectors, and the government is and always has been a big and important sector--especially since they are the only body authorized to print currency (through the Fed, at this point.)
Without it, we would all be living in literal poverty today, except for the wealthiest among us, and some thieves.
As a side note, TARP was also necessary, but it was handled extremely poorly.
I'm really tired of folks (mostly on the Left, but with plenty on the Right as well) making garbage statements like "Case Closed" or the "Debate is settled".
If the $timula$$ worked (and don't get it too twisted, I put W's TARP bailout in the same category) why is the TRUE unemployment rate still so high?? Why is a trip to the gas station, supermarket, "stuporcenter" or other retail outlet painful??
My my my my.... read, study, research, and know the truth. It couldn't hurt any more than not knowing now could it? The stimulus worked and to get back on our feet more stimulus is needed.
@xrayspex:
If you had read the article and not just the headline, you would have your answer.
You people have no idea what you are talking about. EVERY economic downturn comes at the back end of a credit catalyzed economic boom. Low interest rates drive up a "false demand" in the market place until growth has outpaced demand more quickly than investors realize they are overextended.
Interestingly enough, the exact same mechanisms that were in place which caused the current financial crisis are STILL in place. The Fed is still driving Interest rates lower than ever (below 4% for a 30 year fixed), sub-prime loans are alive and well thriving in the form of FHA loans, and derivatives have not yet been reigned in. I would like someone to tell me how any bailout would work under these conditions.
The Keynesian bailouts don't work because a fundamental principle is being ignored which is basic energetics. Regardless of whether or not the bailout would have been effective (and it wouldn't have) is beside the point. The underlying problem is not which political party is in power (a lie the powers that be need you to believe) or which economic schemes will be most effective, the problem is our culture has been permeated and saturated by corruption. No one is responsible, accountable, or ethical. No system will thrive under these circumstances.
While the Republi-Crats are redirecting the focus of the citizenry on the issues that divide this nation, most of us are ignoring the issues that these two seemingly separate organization into one special interest group.
Maddow and anyone else who divides the issues into a convoluted Democrat vs. Republican argument is implicit. Anyone who follows these types are fools.
As I have said before, here.
FDR used Keynesian stimulus to get us out of the depression. It was never enough until WWII was seen on the horizon and France and England started to rearm and placed orders in the US for weapons. Then the war started, more orders. Then US started to rearm too.
Finally the depression ended. So my take on this is-- if a little stimulus is not working-- add more, and more and more, until it does work.
Also, the 1% (or is it 1/10th of 1%) seem to want the 99% to to suffer with less (and less and less) while they get more (and more and more). This is their idea of shared sacrifice. I say if they want me to have less and less, I want them to join me in my misery. This is my idea of shared sacrifice.
So I understand you correctly Steve, you believe that Keynesian stimulus money the taxpayers (i.e us, i.e the 99%) must finance to cover the unscrupulous business practices of the individuals who put the nation in this position [i.e. the 1% (or is it 1/10 of 1%)] even though they (the 1%) want the rest of us (the 99%) to suffer with less?
Clearly they are not alone in wanting to share the sacrifice. Have you ever heard the phrase "public risk, private profits" or "transfer of wealth?" Fraud, AIG bonuses, PNC purchase of National City... It doesn't appear you have thought this through. If you want them to join you in misery then why bail them out? Why not put your money where your mouth is, man up, and stop consuming from these monsters?
I really think your contempt and envy has clouded your logic.
Teresa San Roman -
Bravo!
Well said!
Anyone that doesn't believe the bulk of the Stimulus money didn't go to the same institutions that helped create this mess would do well with a little number crunching.
What did it cost the taxpayer? 250k-500k per 30k-50k a year job created. Where do you think the rest of the money went?
With these kind of statistics, how can they call this a success?
Not envy, but contempt is present, but not clouding judgement. The stimulus is for hiring people, not for bank bailouts. TARP was what you are talking about.
The taxpayers are already being affected by low revenues due to underemployment. The stimulus is for working people to spend money to buy products and services for overall economy, not to be hoarded by unscrupulous businesses. Besides, the Republicans are mostly protecting those that are sending jobs away from the U.S., when this stimulus goes toward roads that are here in our country.
The Republicans want to spend money in other countries to prop them up, but the infrastructure is here. We have people in need of jobs here.
I must conclude the stimulus is opposed because some folks do not want economic recovery for political reasons?
Aren't we tired yet of betting for foreclosures and unemployment? How about trying to get something going for more people to buy a car and hire folks to put in flooring, buy some new clothes, maybe have meals in a restaurant or whatever?
I want everyone to do well, and there is no envy. Do not believe that b.s.
@ Teresa,
You do NOT know me. You have no basis to say I envy the rich. Contempt? I do not know what you mean.
Tarp was done by Bush II, not Obama. The banks were already bailed out when he took office.
In so far as the stimulus was badly crafted, blame the Repubs in Congress, not Obama.
You post failed to respond to the "shared sacrifice" part.
Go jump in a lake.
@ Steve
"...I want them to join me in my misery." That statement speaks volumes Steve. That is what I mean. I am as angry as anyone else regarding the level of corruption in our culture, but my personal philosophy is not to have others join me in my misery. You are a crab in a bucket.
My personal philosophy is to take ownership of MY OWN LIFE. We as a family are working extremely hard to improve our own lives and we teach our children to take responsibility and ownership for THEIR OWN LIVES and to do their best to improve the lives of others around them.
As far as shared responsibility, what is your suggestion? The 99% is just as much at fault as the 1% because we have taken part in this gluttonous lifestyle. You assign blame as if it is this some childish good vs evil scenario.
I do think Bush and the GOP are responsible; I blame Obama because he is continues to dig the financial hole deeper; I blame mega banks for their exotic lending schemes; I blame Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac because they invented these mortgage back securities; I blame people who bought more home or shiny new things than they could afford; I blame the people who thought they were money savvy and used their new found equity for business investments.
You seem to argue from the position that if one side is at fault, the other is not. Try not to forget that Congress controlled the majority in both chambers. There were some honest legislators on both sides that wanted nothing to do with the bailout. Ultimately, both parties voted for it. If you would actually read both of my posts you would see that I do blame both parties and I think the only real difference between the two parties is the political gimmicks that the intellectually shallow bite on like bait. The difference between me and you is I blame BOTH. Corruption is not bound by political affiliation Steve. If you really believe that then you need to grow up.
Or just join me in the lake, the water is fine.
Theresa, FDH,
I would ask those that seem bent on blaming Obama to explain specifically what Mitt Romney would do to create jobs.
We have all heard about tax cuts creating jobs, but it obviously isn't working. Address the jobs, specifically. Corps are too busy donating to tax cutters and EPA and union haters (how else do we make people stop dumping chemicals in water, etc.?). How can Mitt do better to create jobs, when the entire nation would seem to be concerned about jobs, not same sex marriage, not abortion, not what the Catholic Church feels laws should be, not what any church or religious institution thinks, JOBS. Numero uno issue is jobs and Republicans are more interested in "winning elections" to even allow a jobs bill.
The debt? Nobody was talking debt while a Republican was President and debt running up.
You try to steer conversation, but elude the real important stuff that voters want: jobs. Trickle down is such b.s., we know "job creators" are consumers, consumers need income. Corps seem bent on cutting incomes for workers and increase their own. Same with taxes. Cut working persons' jobs to keep their tax rates low- yes they are low. Cutting off OUR economy by cutting jobs.
This talk about both parties are bad is trying to get more voter apathy. Might as well give up, is that it? We need more people involved and accurately informed, not less.
Sandy,
Notice there is no h in the name Teresa. That seems to be the spelling variant that many people seem to default to. This is not much different than defaulting to political or social opinions.
We are supposed to ask those kind of questions to all candidates so I agree with you. I don't trust Romney because is blatantly dishonest and inconsistent. I hope you are not assuming I am in the Romney camp.
I also agree the economy is the critical issue. You say the Republicans are more interested in winning elections... I agree. But if you claim that the Democratic party is above this I would ask you why they are so different.
The debt. The left complained that Bush was running up the debt while the right was silent or justifying it because the Repub party appealed to their values . The Right was complaining while Obama has run up the debt while the left sits silent or justifies it because the Dems appealed to their values. I am standing pointing out the debt created by both. What is the problem with this?
Pointing out the fundamental which is corruption is not about apathy, its about identifying the problem. Cherry picking problems based on political affiliation is cheap, intellectually dishonest, and cynical.
Sorry about the h.
I want to know what Romney would do and discuss more specifics.
I was in the none of the above camp until I realized that we have a two party system and we must steer the two because having only yes or no.
So, you are calling Republicans cherry pickers for switching focus on debt instead of jobs?
I do not see how saying both parties are bad is going to be of any effect. I do see corruption (mostly Republican), but we can't just pull the plug and start over.
I'm all for discussions, but I have seen quite a bit of trying to say it's useless because all are bad. The result is more apathy. We need more information and involvement, but media would rather propagandize.
Sandy.
I would just like to say good job on the commenting and I agree with most of what you say about both parties stinking gets us nowhere.
The problem I have with voting for Obama is the fact he cannot get anything done with the Congress he has been presented and whether his fault or not it is HIS job to move forward and stop pointing fingers. President Clinton had to deal with the evils of people like Newt Gingrich and Tip O'Neal and was still able to get meaningful legislation completed. Obama has failed miserably in this area when the country needs a government that works so desperately.
I totally agree the system is broke and both parties are to blame. Even though an insider my candidate of choice in 2008 was Hillary Clinton. I liked the way she talked and believe she could have gotten things done. This year my candidate of choice is Buddy Rohmer, a Republican. He is a straight shooter and says things that make sense. Problem with him is he's more of a third party candidate and that just won't work right now, hopefully soon.
Although Romney may not be the answer, he deserves a chance and I suspect with his willingness to bend will get lots more done than this president ever will.
I appreciate your response Sandy. I don't have time now but I will respond.
FDH, I understand the Hillary statement but I believe she would face as much or more resistance. I like her and respect her. I do not think the Congress would be more cooperative with Hillary, as the Congress is apparently more focused upon their own power and status than the well being of the country as a whole.
I think Obama deserves a second term and the Congress being the people that are resisting the policies of an overwhelmingly elected president, the Congress should change majority.
Roemer seems like a good man, but I am definitely not leaning toward the Republican platform, not to mention the T.P. that influence them into wildly radical things like the debt ceiling being the whole problem, not understanding default is worse. The interest rate is bad enough as it is, causing debt to flounder longer. I want to turn tax rates back to Clinton era tax rates and cut MIC spending.
That's the part I don't get about the Democratic platform, when it has been proved over and over again that tax increases is like dropping a Bounty paper towel into the ocean of debt. The debt and deficit spending is just too enormous.
Government spending money they don't have, especially with all the exposed fraud, abuse, redundant programs, and inefficiencies, is absolutely insane and sometimes it takes the threat of insane acts, like creating a debt ceiling, to combat insanity.
I really believe most people, including the rich, wouldn't mind a tax increase, especially temporary, if the government cut spending where it could without hurting those in need, first. The problem is the taxes always seem to be increased in these types of situations with broken promises of spending cuts that never materialize.
Sandy,
I think honest and open discussion is the only way to go. One liner opinionated responses based solely on beliefs and pre-concepts are useless if not destructive.
During the 2008 campaign I was optimistic about Romney, but he has proven to me he is a quintessential double talking politician. I think Obama is as well. I am baffled that so many people are cynical about these types yet continue empowering them.
Last election I walked out of the voting booth (literally) feeling sick because I voted for a person I felt was the lesser (if only minutely) of the two evils. I didn't like either candidate at all. This time around I will vote my conscious.
Based on your statements, you don't appear to be very intimidated or concerned by the ever growing debt. For me, its important to understand your viewpoint on this matter. Jobs and the magnitude of debt are inherently linked.
I personally stand with the Republicans on drawing a line in the sand on the debt ceiling. I can't imagine anyone posting messages on this blog using this method as a means to support their own families. Going deeper into debt to pay debt while maintaining ones lifestyle is fundamentally no different than relying credit cards, signature or worse, payday loans as a way to stay afloat. The reckoning will come sooner or later in the form of out of control debt, collections, or bankruptcy if one will not change the way they manage their money.
Regarding cherry picking and blaming both sides. It's not about assigning blame, finger pointing or giving up, it is about trying to open up honest discussion in order to identify a fundamental problem which has more to do with character than econ/political philosophy. I was referring to anyone who only points out the faults of their opponents while ignoring the mistakes or transgressions of their cohorts because. This is the key recipe of dysfunction and failure in any relationship from marriage to corporate. How much more successful would these relationships be if each individual is capable of admitting fault in themselves or those that they support.
Well, I guess we will wait and see.
The assumption that the TARP bailout was equivalent to stimulus because they are creating debt is not accurate. The bailout was for the people that caused the real estate failure. Who helped those folks out? The federal backing of loans were viewed as a free for all to take too much risk without regard to the known default probablility. The private sector is reliant upon government and also seem to be holding out hands. The creation of conditions were due to deregulation while passing out home loans to risks. Then unscrupulous people scammed the system to create even larger housing bubble. I cannot look away from the fact that the bank bailouts occurred, but those banks were merged to create even less competition and the borrowers were left holding the bag. No way out for them. At least something has come out to refinance, but the false ballooning of real estate value was out of control.
I personally am watching it play out in my family. I can't find any way to help a woman with adult children (whose father is remarried and new family-not helping even his other children). She was one who was given a loan when all that was going down. She had a manufacturing job. Facing the impending loss of her job, she was diagnosed with breast cancer. Well, the company let her go after that. Nice, huh? Well, she survived, but infection cause her to be hospitalized frequently. She has totally run out of money. We pay her medical insurance. Her mother sends some money. She is probably behind in mort. payments, because she can't shake the infections to get even a Mickey D's job. Her arm is always swollen and cannot use it much. She applied for SS disability, but it will be 6 mos, to a year before a response for any income. She can get food at churches now and then. Her house is way under water, so selling it would only leave her (and her daughter) completely homeless. I visualize her moving here or with her mother some day. My brother was in a similar situation, but no health insurance. Well, he died in April (probably because he had no health insurance-delayed health care), so I am no longer worried about him becoming homeless. I paid for his burial (I am living on 401K-retired) and my mother (widow) paid for his casket and mortuary fees. Multiply these stories by millions and that is where I am coming from in regard to being a humanist and not a corporatist.
Yes, emotional approach, so sue me. I believe in helping people and education would be a way to pull up by bootstraps, but Republicans want to cut it for debt, rather than return to tax *60's or even 90's rates. The pension funds were raided by venture capitalists to enrich the already rich.
That is where I am coming from.
Balance is needed, we agree. I do not advocate dependence on government, either by private enterprise, or humans. The thing that was done for excessive greed has come back to bite us all. We would be better off regulating more and denying home loans to people without down payment. Perhaps veterans should be given special status, but the risks taken were catastrophic because they were allowed to do this, even encouraged to do this. I was told for many years, you need to save up a down payment before we loan you money, even though I had a great job.
Well people HAD jobs, but the mergers and deregulation, trade agreements need to be made to get us back on track. Jobs with higher revenues coming in would also close the budget gap faster. Hence, I would prioritize jobs first, tax rates go up for higher incomes, cut spending. I never said not to cut spending, but I believe the that some folks are trying to solve the problem by cutting more jobs. I believe jobs should NOT be cut now, the debt interest rate is also crushing, so why push for higher interest on top of it all?
But we cannot have any movement to jobs, let alone green jobs. There will still be coal producers and oil producers, but we want to open up the renewable energy.
That should explain my views. I long for the days where employers valued employees and customers because of the simpatico relationship that makes it all work. Privatizing federal, state and municipal jobs does not cut costs, now there is a profit aspect, so it would cost more.
Thanks for the exchange, but I cannot ignore the real human suffering aspect to protect the troubled tax rates of millionaires. That is where I am coming from.
That was a great response Sandy! I have to commend you for investing in the life of another family. We should all be invested in the lives of others; there is little point otherwise.
I really do agree with much of your statement (with an exception or two). I think when we can get passed the defensive or offensive exterior of our opinions, we agree on more things than we disagree. I think most of us agree that there is a real problem and many of us would agree on what has caused the problem. The disagreement seems to come when trying to find the solution to the problem.
It's easy to ignore the human aspect of a political issue unless you have directly witness other people's hardships, but we can't ignore the macro either. This is an issue which obviously requires balance.
So where am I coming from? As a person educated in science I always tend to view problems and solutions from a basic energetics standpoint. In fact, many of my beliefs, concepts and opinions have disappeared as a result of my education. I think when energetics is considered, many opinions pertaining to social, political, or economic issues get exposed as little more than red herrings.
Sandy
Thanks for sharing your personal life, unfortunately you are not alone with family and personal catastrophes created from this colossus boondoggle. Major financial losses, homelessness, health issues and even suicide has occurred within our little circle, and it doesn't seem to be over. I find some comfort observing my immediate and extended families really pulling together to support each other during these bleak times without judgement or shame. I don't know what we'd do without each and every one of them.
Good luck sisters and brothers of this planet and here's to better days!
Regarding your final question, the answer is well, duh, the Republicans control the House and they don't want the economy to improve.
Exactly. They want to make it look like Obama failed so they can get another Republican president in office to screw over the economy more.
What is scary is that they believe they could help when they clearly cannot. But they don't listen to reason, nor do they understand it.
Oh. Yes. Right. Republicans WANT the country to falter and fail economically. Absurdly dramatic falacies like that make "everyone" on the left look like we're stupid.
Yeah! This is so scary. Privatizing our Government so corporations are controlling your well being as a citizen. I don't want corporations running our Government, our lives. You and I are the Government. Turns out, Big Brother are these creepy corporations that are bankrolling this "crazy talk" Billionaire Congress/ Senators. They are interested in big business doing well, WHICH is part of our country BUT not ALL of our country. Remember. We The People to form a more prefect Union... Why support the idea that the super wealthy pay less taxes. Thats nuts! Look up how much money Blue Cross Blue Sheild "gave" Senator Boehner and Con. Cantor...hint: millions of dollars. Please, go to public records of contribution funds. Now, it makes sense why they are against Affordable Healthcare. They have been paid allot of money to corrupt the process. So, yes. Republicains in 2012 are not interested in a stable country- they are the robber barons of our times. It is sad. Never forget that We The People are the Government.
when did THE TRUTH ever bother Republicans?
never they use it every day to prove the libs wrong. In the world of science a survey is considered the least accurate and least scientific way to gather data, just look at exit polls and actuality, not even close to the scientific margin of error. why?
I love how Maddow gives reference to a servey and gives no back ground. To somebody that has any research back ground, it means nothing.
Maddow loves to use facts and half truths to forward her agenda. For example: Rachel uses the fact that during her life time 3 Republican presidents have reduced taxes and during that same time the deficit increased. She claims that lowing the taxes was the direct reason form increased deficit, claiming tax breaks won't stimulate the economy. She purposely leaves out two other numbers that fall in between taxes and deficit. Those are revenues to the government and spending by the government.
This is the part where she is Lying to you by telling you only part of the information. Under all three Presidents that reduced taxes, revenues to the government INCREASED. ( For you slow people that means that even with reducing the percentage of money taken by the government the amount payed to the government increased). The reason that the deficit increased was because of the 3rd number ( government spending) increased faster than the revenues to the government causing a net deficit increase.
So Maddow uses PART of the truth to miss lead you and decieve you.
chemdmd, why don't you stop being stupid and lazy with checking out the government agencies that have the same information? And this truth is not misleading nor deceiving unless people drink the kool aid to dispute those facts without any real facts and references to back their BS up.
I like how @chemdmd has a research background and does not trust the "servey". Nice try. Those of us who can read, know that Ms. Maddow is referencing a CBO report. Do you need background on the CBO and its function? I suggest you conduct some simple research and catch up with the rest of us.
@chemdmd - Interestingly enough, exit polls usually tracked pretty closely to election results until Republicans started implementing election fraud schemes in the 2000 election.
So, how would cons explain the turnarounds shown in the above graphs - which, by the way, are not surveys, but reporting on hard facts? It's fascinating how you ignore the truth in the article and focus your attack on a small part of what's related. At least Rachel uses *some truths to make her case, unlike you, who have provided no citations for what you claim to be factual assertions.
One only has to look at Bush's eight years in office to see that tax breaks don't stimulate the economy.
Attention troll posting as chemdmd: your job is to cause disruption. What you are doing is leading everyone here to soundly disprove your stupid statements. You failed. Go away.
When they realized they weren't going to get their way.
When one party ignores the truth because the other side has it, all they have left is to throw tantrums, like little babies.
So what's new? It was already known that the stimulus worked. I guess it's good the Republican CBO director said it, but it was already known. Of course, when the WP gets its "fact-checker" Glenn Kessler on the case, we'll find out Elmendorf pulled a 4-Pinocchio whopper for the Obama Administration.
Glenn Kessler is an idiot and leans toward the right to make him not a credible fact checker. Why don't you do the fact checking yourself instead of relying on a right leaning fake?
The stimulus worked as far as it went, like a bridge built half-way across a chasm.
Exactly! Which is why every economist in the country said the original stimulus wasn't enough. The bridge analogy is brilliant.
"Stimulus" comes from the word "stimulate". It is not meant to stretch "all the way across a chasm". Pretty much the same way you don't use "SHOUT" as a detergent. It's supposed to lift the stain so that the detergent can effectively was it away.
That said, if you Righties expected the Stimulus to prop up the economy entirely, you're preaching Communism. The Stimulus was a stop-gap for job loss, and an energizing force on the economy. The private sector was supposed to kick in and do their part, but they are a) watching Europe part deux, and b) turning down deb-ridden applicants because of credit checks.
The bridge analogy is that the stimulus, even by your quite right definition, was half what it needed to be to get us to a point of moving forward. That point lies on the other side of the chasm. Instead, we are still, and not at an economic point of moving forward. The stimulus wasn't enough to accomplish it's own objective. The half-bridge is still there and can be finished with more stimuli.
Yes, it wasn't enough. But don't simply assume he could have gotten more.
No more assumption that he couldn't, but believe more stimulus would have gotten more result as proven by the stimulus having gotten positive result to begin with.
It's about resentment and appealing to those for whom the stimulus didn't work; the under or unemployed. It is what is wrong with Kansas writ large. Romney is trying to appeal to those for whom, logically, he has no appeal.
Yes , him and the GOP are trying to appeal to those people they cut off of unemployment , and would never give unemployment too in the 1st place , if they had their way , that such people vote GOP is rather staggering
Then maybe we should pull out all of the letters that the Congress-critters wrote asking for "stimulus money" to help their districts ward off unemployment, there are pictures also with these Critters at "shovel ready" projects within their districts. Memories may fade but digital photos are forever.....
We should do more stimulus, not austerity, but it seems that some people wish to stay in status quo, worrying about their jobs and how to pay rising costs.
This is going to be ugly, but it is truly about the economy, so if Obama wants a second term, he needs to stimulate economy, if there is any way to get Republicans to ACT, they should not keep economy clamped down just to win an election. Work together Congress, or prove yourselves so below the belly of a snake you already have shown us you are. You Congress people are the problem, not the President. Can we get some Senate action here to manke it so?
Clean the tea debris out of the House of Representatives and we might get something done.
It all boils down to Congress not doing what they are supposed to do. Republicans want to translate it into "The White House is not doing anything!" or "The President has it all wrong!" We don't know if any of the WH ideas are going to work because, God help us, Congress keeps getting in the way.
When will these officials that WE elected get a clue and get something done? It's not the soul blame of Democrats, Republicans or the President. Learn how to play nice and put the needs of the people before agendas.
Be sure to watch for the 20% of economists that don't agree to be on the weekend talk shows... all of them. That's the message that is going to be pounded into the public.
A partial, or minimal, stimulus to fix our broken economy, is like having cancer and not using every method (surgery, radiation, chemo) to address it, or cure it.
And, yes, "WE" already know the Stimulus did work, to a degree. But "journalists" let the Republicans slide this failure business by all the time without challenge.
And why *why* WHY do we do such an utterly crappy job of communicating simple truths like this to the American people?!?!?
Rachael: The answer is simple...the Teapublicans will say the info is screwed up. And the real answer is that if the populace is fed garbage, propaganda and lies, they will not notice that the upper 1% will have a poorly educated, struggling just to survive workforce who will do what they are told to, and will successfully silence the non sheeple. And face it, the Dems are not doing anything to help the people, just their pocketbooks, and the DINO's will soon push out the Kennedy Dems and then it's the1800's all over again!
Waddy mean, "The U.S. gains quickly stalled"? There have been a few dips in the Dow Jones, but looking at the entire chart clearly shows significant continued growth. It's great to be critical, Rachel, but it's better to tone it down when the overall picture is good.
It says it stalled in the Spring of 2010. The Dow Jones chart goes only to April 2010, meaning the majority of the stall isn't represented on it.
The overall picture is good, but those doing well are not hiring as much as they should be. They are sitting on it, or handing it over to the likes of Scott Walker and PACs. How are WTP (us breathing people) supposed to get this back if they elect Rmoney and he appoints another Citizens United Justice?
1 person, 1 vote, but the money is speech and corps are people? WTF?
Typo - "the Eurozone debt crisis rattled international markets and through the global economy a curve ball" - I assume you meant "threw"?
Good read, will repost :)
It doesn't have to bust the budget. Here is the answer: Tax and spend.
I am totally serious. The problem we have is not that there isn't enough money in the system. There is plenty of money. The problem is that the velocity of money has dropped off a cliff.
The conservatives are right about one thing. Government collected taxes will go through and be spent like (ahem) food through a goose. That money, spent in the economy, will act as a stimulus, particularly if investments in education and infrastructure are made. In turn, the people who are paid those dollars will spend - and businesses will need to hire to satisfy the demand. Why? Because money is moving faster through the economy.
Tax cuts have not proven to stimulate the economy because the government bonds that were issued are sitting idle. Tax and spend policies would be the stimulus this economy needs. All you have to do is to let the Bush tax cuts expire... All of them.
Steve, Steve. All the facts in the world aren't going to convince them that it worked. All you're doing with your facts is muddying the waters of their clearly superior false reality!
A little slow on the uptake, aren't we? I declared the stimulus a success nearly two full years ago -- http://www.ellwoodcityledger.com/news/local_news/poole-debate-is-over/article_fa8c3301-0107-50b3-a979-b11020b53eb2.html
And you actually expect the low-information, "feed-me-all-the-hate-pablum-you-can", right-wingnut voter to understand and accept these truths?
Sadly, it will not make a whit of difference to them.
Whenever I see a right wing response to something like this, it is littered with spelling and grammar errors. And the poster usually claims to be a scientist or an economist or a researcher. Riiighhht.
I've been annoyed with NPR recently- it seems they are bending over backwards to not be biased one way or another- to the point where they often let conservatives spout nonsense unchallenged. There really needs to be more of an effort in media to call BS on easily disprovable statements like "the stimulus was a waste of money".
I agree. Giving someone a microphone so they can lie is NOT being Fair and balanced. Free speech doesn't mean A news organization is obligated broadcast propaganda.
NPR is getting absolutely terrible about not asking the tough questions decent journalism would demand.
After 12 years of the lowest tax rates in history I though the I thought the job creators were all set to wave that magic jobs wand !
Has a chunk of our nation lost its collective mind? I mean, we pay a fraction of the income taxes we routinely paid in the past, have a vastly more complicated and developed infrastructure. Yet, the Flat Earth Society on the opposite side of the aisle believes in regression.
As with climate science, an overwhelming majority of experts, history, and statistics is on our side; yet, these poor folks persist. In the old days, they said nothing was proven since they hadn't personally seen the edge of Earth. Now, they say nothing is proven since experts uniformly conspire to mislead them.
Maybe the rest of us are missing the point. Perhaps data are moot because this is a mental health issue, not one of economics or political science. Has a portion of our great nation simply succombed to a mild form of mass hysteria? There is certainly historical precendent, for this idea. Well, unless you believe recorded history is part of the conspiracy. Damned Libnuts of Salem...
I am a liberal/progressive. I am also quick to believe every well presented new idea.
Example, on "Secrets of the Dead" several years ago they had a show about how maybe the witch mania in Europe and Salem was partially a response to food poisoning.
It said that rye for rye bread has a fungus that grows on it more in wet years. This fungus is hard to separate from the rye seeds and so it gets milled into the rye flour and baked into the bread. The fungus contains LSD and other poisons that cause muscle cramps, etc. The show claimed that there was a thousands of years old folk tradition that witches were causing the visions/hallucinations and other symptoms, when in fact it was food poisoning from tainted rye flour after a wet year's harvest.
The show claimed that they grew rye in Salem and further pointed to a specific field where it was grown and claimed there was evidence that the people who got the symptoms would have eaten rye flour from that field, etc.
Wow, the comment thread for the article is "Chock full-o-Nuts"! I find it interesting the a mental-minority can continue to deny so much and still drive the narrative in every aspect of media outlet. Opinions are facts and facts are garbage. It's extraordinarily sad what has become of the country I was born into; they used to call China the "sleeping giant", they now might likewise call America the "Giant Retard"!
Sorry, I meant "Amercia, the Giant Tea-tard"..
So let's see, the stimulus stalled out due to "outside" factors, but outside factors were not in play during the improvement?
Now I realize Ed sits behind a microphone all day and does not have a background in economics, but please. This is as hollow an arguement as you can get. what abouth the Fed pumping money into the economy? Suppose thathad any effect? Really what is the answer to that?
Of course $787 billion can create jobs, but the probloem here is that they were temporary jobs and what cost to the future? These jobs are not around still, even the President made the statement "We found out there weren't that many shovel ready jobs around".
The point is you can spin #'s both ways and use several scenarios to say this worked or didn't work, but the end result is more debt for future generations period. I seem to recall a surging politician in 2007 make the statement that piling on debt to the next generation was unpatriotic - I agree with him.
It was a beginning step, never meant to not be matched by investment from private industry, or states to not have projects that were shovel-ready, or bankers to release some of the $2 Trillion so small business owners could start new businesses and hire, or states to make sure their cities, counties, and state employees would not lose their jobs in record numbers when the stimulus money ended.
But, this is a political ad that needs making - just use the CBO Director Elmendorf and ten Americans who were hired using stimulus funds to say "thank you" to Democrats in Congress and the President for passing the FIRST stimulus. And while the DNC/OFA/DGA/DCCC/etc. are making these ads, perhaps they really ought to be less arrogant in assuming they "know better" what kind of message works best with America. The charts, the stories, the lies, the statements by Romney/surrogates about foreign intervention - all are ripe for putting in ads that shouldn't have to cost very much. Especially since so many of the big ads that have aired already have fallen flat...ya think. And start telling what Obama has done and WILL do. He needs to start talking about building on what's been started and what hasn't been gotten to, yet, and new ideas to be hinted at, at least. They ought to be talking to you folks at Maddow Blog IMO. Thanks for all you do. Keep it up!
these liberals drank the tainte koolaid....
if Osama...oops i mean obama get re-elecxted
it will be the
death of this great nation as we know it !!!!!!!!
please don't re-nig in November VOTE REPUBLICAN.
I can safely say there is not a snowball's chance in hell of my doing that. OBAMA 2012
Bober
Not only are you offensive you can't even write at a third grade level. Please try an adult literacy class.
Hey, skating on razor's edge, you can say oh, I spelled it wrong, but we know what you did.
It'g going to be painful until wages increase. Once prices rise, they don't fall. Maybe in the short-term, as with gasoline, but in the long-term, price inflation doesn't tend to correct. Income rises to meet it where it is. Or it doesn't.