Page 7 of 11 FirstFirst ... 56789 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 105

Thread: CBO: Obama stimulus harmful over long haul

  1. #61
    Girthless
    RightinNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Last Seen
    01-23-11 @ 11:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    25,894

    Re: CBO: Obama stimulus harmful over long haul

    Quote Originally Posted by winston53660 View Post
    Right in NY, I looked it up after I saw your post. And I do think there are legit concerns as with anything else. The Wash Times is just creepy. I would never use it as a primary source.
    I can understand that, and if this were an article talking about something from "anonymous sources," I wouldn't have bothered posting it. I only went with the wash times because it was the only paper i could find that had a relevant title/snippet, and it was a CBO report, so I figured they couldn't **** up reporting on it THAT badly.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dezaad View Post
    This is actually so unsurprising it is laughable that anyone would think that anyone would think otherwise. Of course having money invested in debt in the future is going to harm future GDP to some extent. But, the cost of NOT doing an effective stimulus is considered more harmful than that future harm to the GDP. It would be even more harmful to the overall short-term and medium term future GDP than the debt will be.
    Simply saying that that's the case doesn't convince me that it is. In fact, that's directly contrary to what this study concluded - it concluded that with the stimulus package, GDP will be lower than without the stimulus.
    People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

  2. #62
    Sage
    Dezaad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Last Seen
    06-28-15 @ 10:43 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    5,058
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: CBO: Obama stimulus harmful over long haul

    Quote Originally Posted by RightinNYC View Post
    I can understand that, and if this were an article talking about something from "anonymous sources," I wouldn't have bothered posting it. I only went with the wash times because it was the only paper i could find that had a relevant title/snippet, and it was a CBO report, so I figured they couldn't **** up reporting on it THAT badly.



    Simply saying that that's the case doesn't convince me that it is. In fact, that's directly contrary to what this study concluded - it concluded that with the stimulus package, GDP will be lower than without the stimulus.
    The study concluded no such thing. The Washington Times states their own conclusion, but they are deceiving you about what the CBO's conclusions are and are further trying to mislead you about the facts.

    Quote Originally Posted by From the report summary
    CBO estimates that the Senate legislation would raise output by between 1.4 percent and 4.1 percent by the fourth quarter of 2009; by between 1.2 percent and 3.6 percent by the fourth quarter of 2010; and by between 0.4 percent and 1.2 percent by the fourth quarter of 2011. CBO estimates that the legislation would raise employment by 0.9 million to 2.5 million at the end of 2009; 1.3 million to 3.9 million at the end of 2010; and 0.6 million to 1.9 million at the end of 2011
    These are the effect on GDP for each of the years indicated. Suppose the annual change in GDP would be -3.0 for 2009. The effect of the stimulus will be to make the annual change in output be between -1.6 to +1.1 for that year. Then suppose the following year would have been -2.5. The effect on the GDP for that year would be to make the annual change in GDP to be between -1.3 to +1.1. And so on.

    Now, as to the longer term effects (which I have already conceded were an obvious expectation):

    Quote Originally Posted by From the report summary
    Including the effects of both crowding out of private investment (which would reduce output in the long run) and possibly productive government investment (which could increase output), CBO estimates that by 2019 the Senate legislation would reduce GDP by 0.1 percent to 0.3 percent on net.
    So, in 2019, suppose change in GDP for that year would have been +2.3. The stimulus' long term effect will be to make the change in GDP be between +2.0 and +2.2.

    Now, let's attempt to make a comparison, such as we are able to given the amount of information we (and the Washington Times have been given) The comparison is between what would be with no stimulus and what would be with the stimulus. No stimulus is no increase or decrease to the change in GDP for each of the years between 2009 and 2019. The proposed stimulus will increase or decrease the change in GDP as follows:

    Year: GDP Effect:
    2009 +1.4 to +4.1
    2010 +1.2 to +3.6
    2011 +0.4 to +1.2
    2012 -0.1 to -0.3*
    2013 -0.1 to -0.3*
    2014 -0.1 to -0.3*
    2015 -0.1 to -0.3*
    2016 -0.1 to -0.3*
    2017 -0.1 to -0.3*
    2018 -0.1 to -0.3*
    2019 -0.1 to -0.3

    *these numbers are assumed because they are not actually presented anywhere. These are the numbers as presented for the effect in the year 2019. Since the blog and letter both leave out the actual numbers for those years, but indicate that the stimulus effect will have faded, we take the effect for year 2019, though the contractive effect will almost certainly be lower at the start and rise to the 2019 level.

    Making a rough calculation (one which completely ignores the compound effect, which would favor the growth effect since those effects are seen in the early years):

    Total benefit from the stimulus: +3.0 to +8.9
    Total harm from the stimulus: -0.8 to -2.4

    In other words, the Washington Times article could not even be granted the comparatively neutral designation "Spin". It is outright and deliberate deception to state "President Obama's economic recovery package will actually hurt the economy more in the long run than if he were to do nothing, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said Wednesday". They said no such thing. Not even remotely. The report merely indicates that the stimulus would have some negative effects alongside its positive effects, which is a completely different thing.

    Overall, the CBO report indicates that the stimulus will have a beneficial effect. Washington Times has essentially lied to their readers, period. Well, they might actually be really stupid, and not have understood what they were reading. Either way, they have ill served their readership.
    Last edited by Dezaad; 02-08-09 at 01:46 PM.

  3. #63
    Sage
    Harry Guerrilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Not affiliated with other libertarians.
    Last Seen
    09-01-17 @ 02:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    28,955

    Re: CBO: Obama stimulus harmful over long haul

    Quote Originally Posted by Dezaad View Post
    The study concluded no such thing. The Washington Times states their own conclusion, but they are deceiving you about what the CBO's conclusions are and are further trying to mislead you about the facts.



    These are the effect on GDP for each of the years indicated. Suppose the annual change in GDP would be -3.0 for 2009. The effect of the stimulus will be to make the annual change in output be between -1.6 to +1.1 for that year. Then suppose the following year would have been -2.5. The effect on the GDP for that year would be to make the annual change in GDP to be between -1.3 to +1.1. And so on.

    Now, as to the longer term effects (which I have already conceded were an obvious expectation):



    So, in 2019, suppose change in GDP for that year would have been +2.3. The stimulus' long term effect will be to make the change in GDP be between +2.0 and +2.2.

    Now, let's attempt to make a comparison, such as we are able to given the amount of information we (and the Washington Times have been given) The comparison is between what would be with no stimulus and what would be with the stimulus. No stimulus is no increase or decrease to the change in GDP for each of the years between 2009 and 2019. The proposed stimulus will increase or decrease the change in GDP as follows:

    Year: GDP Effect:
    2009 +1.4 to +4.1
    2010 +1.2 to +3.6
    2011 +0.4 to +1.2
    2012 -0.1 to -0.3*
    2013 -0.1 to -0.3*
    2014 -0.1 to -0.3*
    2015 -0.1 to -0.3*
    2016 -0.1 to -0.3*
    2017 -0.1 to -0.3*
    2018 -0.1 to -0.3*
    2019 -0.1 to -0.3

    *these numbers are assumed because they are not actually presented anywhere. These are the numbers as presented for the effect in the year 2019. Since the blog and letter both leave out the actual numbers for those years, but indicate that the stimulus effect will have faded, we take the effect for year 2019, though the contractive effect will almost certainly be lower at the start and rise to the 2019 level.

    Making a rough calculation (one which completely ignores the compound effect, which would favor the growth effect since those effects are seen in the early years):

    Total benefit from the stimulus: +3.0 to +8.9
    Total harm from the stimulus: -0.8 to -2.4

    In other words, the Washington Times article could not even be granted the comparatively neutral designation "Spin". It is outright and deliberate deception to state "President Obama's economic recovery package will actually hurt the economy more in the long run than if he were to do nothing, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said Wednesday". They said no such thing. Not even remotely. The report merely indicates that the stimulus would have some negative effects alongside its positive effects, which is a completely different thing.

    Overall, the CBO report indicates that the stimulus will have a beneficial effect. Washington Times has essentially lied to their readers, period. Well, they might actually be really stupid, and not have understood what they were reading. Either way, they have ill served their readership.
    Yea but the negative lasts longer than the short term positive effects.

    Over time when the government does things that produce long term slight negative effects to the economy they add up.
    I was discovering that life just simply isn't fair and bask in the unsung glory of knowing that each obstacle overcome along the way only adds to the satisfaction in the end. Nothing great, after all, was ever accomplished by anyone sulking in his or her misery.
    —Adam Shepard

  4. #64
    Sage
    Dezaad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Last Seen
    06-28-15 @ 10:43 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    5,058
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: CBO: Obama stimulus harmful over long haul

    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Guerrilla View Post
    Yea but the negative lasts longer than the short term positive effects.
    That is not a conclusion you can draw from this report. The positive effect of the early years carries over into later years in ways not measured by this analysis.

    Over time when the government does things that produce long term slight negative effects to the economy they add up.
    Sometimes, but not in this case.

  5. #65
    Sage
    Harry Guerrilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Not affiliated with other libertarians.
    Last Seen
    09-01-17 @ 02:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    28,955

    Re: CBO: Obama stimulus harmful over long haul

    Quote Originally Posted by Dezaad View Post
    That is not a conclusion you can draw from this report. The positive effect of the early years carries over into later years in ways not measured by this analysis.

    Sometimes, but not in this case.
    I thought I read that it was cause a .1 decline in yearly GDP. It may not seem much but that really is a lot from my perspective when you consider a lot of the measures inside the stimulus bill will be permanent in my opinion.
    I was discovering that life just simply isn't fair and bask in the unsung glory of knowing that each obstacle overcome along the way only adds to the satisfaction in the end. Nothing great, after all, was ever accomplished by anyone sulking in his or her misery.
    —Adam Shepard

  6. #66
    Phoenecian
    Indy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Chicago
    Last Seen
    03-22-13 @ 04:36 PM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    2,089

    Re: CBO: Obama stimulus harmful over long haul

    Quote Originally Posted by rebelbuc View Post
    A late response, but look at the idiot calling another an idiot. Although more than 50% do pay taxes, most pay a microscopic percentage compared with more successful taxpayers. Usually, those more successful taxpayers are successful because of their hard work, not because of the government. You seem to be the type who would follow the president over the cliff like a brainless lemming!
    Did you even bother to follow this thread before posting? If you did you'd notice the multiple maps that discredit this silly notion that Democrats pay less taxes than Republicans since the Democrats come from states with much higher household incomes. Try again genius.
    Affiant further sayeth not.

  7. #67
    Phoenecian
    Indy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Chicago
    Last Seen
    03-22-13 @ 04:36 PM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    2,089

    Re: CBO: Obama stimulus harmful over long haul

    Quote Originally Posted by RightinNYC View Post
    FWIW:

    Local Exit Polls - Election Center 2008 - Elections & Politics from CNN.com

    Vote by income:

    Under $15k - 75% O, 25% M
    $15k-30k - 60% O, 37% M

    Vote by education:

    No High School: 63% O - 35% M
    AAAAAND exit polls are somehow now believable? Oh ok, I wasn't aware Kerry wasn't the pres for the last 4 years.

    Again, will somebody please explain why the New England area is ALWAYS blue and yet is comprised of some of the wealthiest states in the nation? You can't have it both ways, either Democrats typically make less and as such pay less in taxes, or they make more and pay more in taxes. Just repeating the same mantra when its shown to be incorrect (see previous maps) is something we've been seeing for 8 years now. Do we really need to continue this?
    Last edited by Indy; 02-08-09 at 02:54 PM.
    Affiant further sayeth not.

  8. #68
    Phoenecian
    Indy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Chicago
    Last Seen
    03-22-13 @ 04:36 PM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    2,089

    Re: CBO: Obama stimulus harmful over long haul

    Quote Originally Posted by RightinNYC View Post
    The claims you're advancing in this post and your subsequent ones rely on several assumptions, many of which are flawed:

    1) Income is a proxy for intelligence/understanding the economy
    2) Absolute income is a good way to measure earning potential (If a dishwasher earns $6/hr in rural alabama but $10/hour in manhattan due to COL, is the dishwasher in manhattan really richer than the guy in alabama?)
    3) States/counties are monolithic entities, and the south is generically Republican while the north is generically liberal (In reality, the places with the greatest income disparity and highest levels of poverty are generally large cities, wherever they are found.)
    You seem to be missing a very basic idea: If you make more you pay more in taxes. Did I loose you? Here, one more time: If a dish washer makes 4/hour MORE in a blue state than a red state, guess what? He pays more taxes. Crying about how democrats don't pay as much taxes as republicans is silly unless you are trying to claim that famous 1% who pays 20% of the nation's taxes. In this climate I'm not so sure if bragging that you own that coveted 1% of the populous is a good thing.

    Also, it isn't hard to understand why a poor person would vote democrat in a southern state if that state is historically controlled by republicans and that state also has one of the highest income gaps in the nation. In fact, one would think that perhaps republicans formulate and enforce policies that protect the rich and cause the income gap to widen. If this is not the case, again please explain the maps I've posted before.
    Last edited by Indy; 02-08-09 at 03:04 PM.
    Affiant further sayeth not.

  9. #69
    Sage
    Harry Guerrilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Not affiliated with other libertarians.
    Last Seen
    09-01-17 @ 02:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    28,955

    Re: CBO: Obama stimulus harmful over long haul

    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Guerrilla View Post
    I thought I read that it was cause a .1 decline in yearly GDP. It may not seem much but that really is a lot from my perspective when you consider a lot of the measures inside the stimulus bill will be permanent in my opinion.
    I should of reworded that better. I think a lot of the "welfare" type programs will be permanent.
    I was discovering that life just simply isn't fair and bask in the unsung glory of knowing that each obstacle overcome along the way only adds to the satisfaction in the end. Nothing great, after all, was ever accomplished by anyone sulking in his or her misery.
    —Adam Shepard

  10. #70
    Phoenecian
    Indy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Chicago
    Last Seen
    03-22-13 @ 04:36 PM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    2,089

    Re: CBO: Obama stimulus harmful over long haul

    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Guerrilla View Post
    I should of reworded that better. I think a lot of the "welfare" type programs will be permanent.
    I can see that logic. I think they should write something into the bill that specifically states that it is in NO WAY a permanent increase in yearly budgets for these programs. They won't, because the democrats are trying to push pork through when they can, much like republicans do when they are in that position, but one can wish.
    Affiant further sayeth not.

Page 7 of 11 FirstFirst ... 56789 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •