You believe nearly 6 trillion spent in 4 years wasn't enough. Obviously I disagree.
You believe yearly trillion dollar deficits (when the government currently is receiving more than 2T annually) isn't enough spending. I disagree.
You believe massive Keynesian Stimulus spending creates jobs, and sustained Economic Growth. I disagree. It didn't work when FDR tried it. It didn't work when Obama tried it. Both of those failures also led to enormous Opportunity Costs and Negative Externalities within the private economy that prolonged both recessions when that could have easily been avoided with more prudent economic policies. These are facts that are beyond dispute.
Except the problem is your argument was a strawman that was easily refuted/debunked. You're trying to have a conversation in a box where you set all the rules. It doesn't work that way. There are reasons why your "argument" is a house of cards that collapses under close scrutiny.I responded with support for my argument:
1. As was stated in my previous post, and for some reason you completely ignore it (I sense a pattern here) the CBO also stated that the 800B was fully accounted for, meaning that the obligations for the appropriation of those funds were in place. The table was set so to speak. So your assumption is they just needed to spend more of the Stimulus for job/economic growth is a red herring, (we know that didn't happen.) which leads to point number 2.
2. Only 400K jobs will be sustained by Stimulus spending by the end of 2013. That's about 2 million per job. Again, obviously not a very good investment of taxpayer dollars. As time goes on, each job created by the "Stimulus" becomes more costly. The spending becomes more ineffective as time goes on. There are reasons for this. One being that Government doesn't operate with the same profit motive as the private sector, so therefore it doesn't appropriate resources in the most effective and efficient ways. I really don't understand why you are trying to dispute this. It's proven Economic Theory and a lot of it is explained in Buchanan's Public Choice Theory. In other words in reality, Stimulus Spending is really just Government giving money away, except the problem is it doesn't have a firm indicator on things such price/value for the things it's handing money to.
That's why I provided multiple examples of Obama's "failed Green Job Investments". It doesn't get any clearer than that really. Obama made those investments for Ideological reasons, base upon voting. Not sound Economic Policy. It shows that the Stimulus spending in large part was dolled out to Special Interests and the people who got Obama voted into office. Unions, Campaign Bundlers, ect. This is beyond refute. The Stimulus was infested with cronyism. There was no competition or profit motive to discipline the allocation of resources by Government within Obama's Failed Stimulus Package.
3. The ARRA according to the WH's own projections only "created or saved" about 3 million jobs. That's about 260K per saved or created job. Obviously that money would have been invested more wisely by those in the private sector who created that wealth, than the Government who by it's own admission is squandering 125B a year in "improper payments". You want everyone to believe that if we only allowed Obama to spend more money, his Keynesian Policies would have worked. The evidence clearly shows otherwise.
To which you respond in a manner that does not AT ALL pertain to my argument:
I never claimed anything was not spent; not one time! My point was that the stimulus package was small, which can be reflected in its representation of U.S. output for each particular year. You continue with your rant by stating NOTHING that can be even considered a minor refutation of my point; the stimulus was far too small. How can it be possible to have a coherent discussion with someone who refuses to respond with even minimal relevance?
800B is small? 260K per "saved or created job" is small? We know where the money went. To Unions, crony campaign bundlers, Government workers, Solydra, Brightsource, A123 Systems, ect. They didn't get enough taxpayer dollars? You're doing nothing more that repeating talking points put forth by Paul Krugman. You are also forgetting TARP, which the Stimulus followed, which was another 700B. Obama inherited half those funds to spend. Obama and the Democrats also signed the Omnibus Spending bill. Another 330B. Obama's Stimulus was the most expensive Government intervention in the US Economy in it's entire History. Your only argument (which is nothing more than a Krugman talking point) is that it wasn't enough.
Obama's Stimulus was such a failure that his Administration stopped releasing reports about during 2012, because they knew those reports could potentially be damning to his reelection chances. That's how bad it was. I can't even believe the crux of your entire argument is that it wasn't big enough. That stinks of desperation and some seriously spiked Kool-Aid. Here is Obama's own December 2011 Report. Each job cost more than 300K, but we get it, "The Stimulus wasn't big enough" Economic Growth requires good spending. Not more spending.
Except that they aren't minor at all. Maybe in fantasyland they are minor, but only a radical ideologue would make such a claim. The innovations, investment, job growth, wealth creation by Individuals pursuing their own self interests (Instead of Government confiscated their money and redistributing it) is not something that can be easily dismissed, nor is it something that can easily be calculated. You're assuming that a Centrally Planned Authority that controlled all that money made the best possible choices, investments, and use of that Capital. Your assumptions are incorrect.I go on to explain why the negative externalities/opportunity cost of large fiscal deficits are minor at best:
This is the problem with massive Keynesian Stimulus Packages. They are sugar highs. Spikes, but if you look at them over the long term there is clear evidence they don't work. That's why the % of Americans of working age who are employed right now (59%) is EXACTLY the same as it was before Obama passed his Stimulus. All that money spent was a wash. There was NO NET GAIN. Obama never saw GDP reach 4% during his first term, and that was with his Omnibus Spending Bill and Stimulus Package. On the contrary Reagan saw GDP Growth as high 9% with a million jobs created on 1 month. As a matter of fact, during the same month and same year of Reagan's first term, the economy created a million jobs, where during Obama's first term ZERO jobs were created in that same month. Again, after the Stimulus was passed.
Economy Gains No Jobs in August, Rate Holds at 9.1%
The US economy created no jobs and the unemployment rate held steadily higher at 9.1 percent in August, fueling concerns that the US is heading for another recession.
It was the first time since World War II that the economy had precisely net zero jobs created for a month.You're all over the map here and you obviously completely misunderstood my point of contention. That much is obvious. I never claimed "crowding out" was risk, not sure why you're attempting another strawman here. You also once again conveniently ignore my main point, which is that LABOR was crowded out with Stimulus Funding. Where I mentioned risk is in regards to WHO invests/spends the money (Public Choice Theory). It really is quite a simple economic concept, which is probably why you can't comprehend it.To which you repsond:
??? Crowding out is the instance where government spending takes money out of capital markets to the tune where private investment is stiffeled! It is not called risk, it is called crowding out private investment. Again, how is it possible to have a coherent discussion with someone who cannot even comprehend the vocabulary associated with their own arguments?!?!?! Crowding out is THE negative externality/opportunity cost of large budgetary deficits.
When you discover the ability to have an adult discussion, then by all means.... But what you have put forth so far is... well, rather embarrassing.
I'm sensing you really don't know what you are talking about at all here, and have been reduced to nothing more than a bunch of strawmen and red herrings while chirping away Krugman talking points you've read on his blog. Kind of a shame really. You also failed to address every point I made in my previous post, as well as numerous points made in the post before that. Clearly you are unable to offer any rebuttals. I stated previously that I wouldn't respond to you unless you addressed EVERY POINT I made in the previous post. I've gone ahead and made an exception here just once, but consider that a mulligan. From now on, if you are going to have any credibility with me beyond a Krugman Parrot, you must address EVERY POINT of contention like I have done with you.
Have a great evening