• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Judging Stimulus by Job Data Reveals Success

Deuce said:
Can't take

this guy's

LOL

posting

LOL

style anymore

so I'm

LOL

adding him

to my

LOL

ignore

list

LOL
Click to expand...

Welcome to the “prof is background noise club”. :2wave:
 
RightinNYC said:
I'm not saying that the stimulus was unquestionably a bad thing or that it didn't create any jobs, I'm simply pointing out that many are too quick to a) take overly rosy claims at face value and b) ignore the fact that the money and jobs don't come out of thin air.

As to the argument that there's no problem because it's a state college anyways - I don't see how that really makes sense. The fact that the government already subsidizes some portion of the school doesn't mean that any decision to increase that subsidy is automatically and indisputably a positive thing. If the government decided to pay for every single person's tuition/rent/food/health care/car/etc., it would certainly be beneficial to those receiving the benefits - until they had to pay it back.

Similarly, the claim that the town would otherwise collapse doesn't really do much either. Plenty of towns would dry up if their major source of revenue went under - does that mean that the government should bail out every single institution that's important to every small town in the country?
Click to expand...

No, that is a egaltarian pipe dream. I think you must look at the costs vs benefits and realize that the pragmatic decision to make was to increase subsidies to places that will generally need help during times of economic hardship.When you make this descision you must realize, everyone that helped pay for this will not recieve a benefit.

When the decision was made for the stimulus the cost of not spending money now was high. People were becoming unemployed, states were going to have large budget gaps, businesses were going to lose money... you know all this. But the time value for money was realtively small, interest rates and yields on government bonds were practically zero and the economy was in debt deflation. The pragmatic decision was to spend the money now and pay it back later and try to spend it in a way that positively impacts those who need it most.
 
I started a thread on this in the economics area, but I will repost it here because I think it adds to the discussion.


----


Economic Stimulus Gets a B-Minus Grade - ABC News

What kind of grade do experts give the economic stimulus bill following the one-year anniversary of its enactment?
The president marks the one year anniversary of the Recovery Act.

We put that question to our ABC News panel of economists. What came back: no "A's" for Washington -- but no "F's" either.

he average grade was a B-minus, with one economist saying it really might be more accurate to grade it "incomplete."

Most of our panelists think the economy would be worse today without the big aid package, which totaled $787 billion and was signed into law by President Obama on Feb. 17, 2009. The bill, known as the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, included money for tax cuts, infrastructure projects, education and aid to state and local governments.
Click to expand...

This is the second article I have seen on the subject where economists give the stimulus a positive grade overall. Obviously it could have been better, but the consensus seems to say that it was what the economy needed.

However, moving forward, I think we need to focus on reducing the federal deficit, hopefully to the point of surplus so we can start paying our debts off, but we need to be careful to not hurt the economy in the process.

Not all the economists who responded to our survey agreed the stimulus was necessary.

"Throwing a trillion dollars at anything will move it," said Standard and Poor's David Wyss, "but the recovery would be beginning and the unemployment rate nearing a peak" without it.

"The economy would probably be recovering," argued Jay Bryson of Wells Fargo, just maybe not "as fast as it is."
Click to expand...

I also agree with these guys. The economy would have found its way back regardless, but the stimulus does seem to have softened the blow (which was its purpose) and made recovery easier.
 
1. why can't the prez use the s-word anymore?

2. why does he need to do another s-word if the first s-word was such a success?

3. why is the second s-word dying so horribly in the senate (talk to ex senator bayh)?

4. why does the prez' own web site report so many bogus jobs from so many bogus districts?

5. why are the chinese dumping T-bills at a record rate?

6. why do only SIX PERCENT of americans agree with your panel of experts?
 
The Prof said:
1. why can't the prez use the s-word anymore?

2. why does he need to do another s-word if the first s-word was such a success?

3. why is the second s-word dying so horribly in the senate (talk to ex senator bayh)?

4. why does the prez' own web site report so many bogus jobs from so many bogus districts?

5. why are the chinese dumping T-bills at a record rate?

6. why do only SIX PERCENT of americans agree with your panel of experts?
Click to expand...

Do you have it in you to make sound economic commentary or analysis? Or are you hear to rant and make silly posts? We need to see some substance Prof.:2wave:
 
donc said:
Welcome to the “prof is background noise club”. :2wave:
Click to expand...

a.k.a., the group that's never won a debate against Prof club. LOL

He schools you guys so badly, it's fun to watch.
 
Goldenboy219 said:
Do you have it in you to make sound economic commentary or analysis? Or are you hear to rant and make silly posts? We need to see some substance Prof.:2wave:
Click to expand...

Leave the poor guy alone. Who knows what he might do if we provoke him too much.
 
Goldenboy219 said:
Do you have it in you to make sound economic commentary or analysis? Or are you hear to rant and make silly posts? We need to see some substance Prof.:2wave:
Click to expand...

thus spoke the personality whore
 
Erod said:
a.k.a., the group that's never won a debate against Prof club. LOL

He schools you guys so badly, it's fun to watch.
Click to expand...

So, you don't think maybe your personal political slant leads you to that conclusion?
 
Erod said:
a.k.a., the group that's never won a debate against Prof club. LOL

He schools you guys so badly, it's fun to watch.
Click to expand...

Comon Erod, you and i know that the prof is a defective RNC BOT that was stuck on DP before the Nov elections, and never recalled.I believe the unit number is/was... LOL 1.01. :2wave:
 
Last edited:
drz-400 said:
No, that is a egaltarian pipe dream. I think you must look at the costs vs benefits and realize that the pragmatic decision to make was to increase subsidies to places that will generally need help during times of economic hardship.When you make this descision you must realize, everyone that helped pay for this will not recieve a benefit.

When the decision was made for the stimulus the cost of not spending money now was high. People were becoming unemployed, states were going to have large budget gaps, businesses were going to lose money... you know all this. But the time value for money was realtively small, interest rates and yields on government bonds were practically zero and the economy was in debt deflation. The pragmatic decision was to spend the money now and pay it back later and try to spend it in a way that positively impacts those who need it most.
Click to expand...

And my point is that everyone thinks their own pet cause is the most deserving and efficient way to hand out money, so simply saying "it saved my small town" doesn't really do much. I'm sure that there are tens of thousands of small towns across the country that could use a revenue infusion of that magnitude, but we can't fund all of them.

Look at it this way: The accepted wisdom is that in order to get the biggest bang for your stimulus buck, you put it in the hands of those who would spend it immediately, which is why a large portion of the stimulus money was directed at things like food stamps and unemployment. However, the impact of the money is not the only concern - if it was, we could have done a much better job by eliminating all the inefficient things like tax cuts and hiring incentives and replacing them with a $400b grant to Lenny Dykstra. That doesn't mean that such a plan would have been "fair" or objectively beneficial.
 
donc said:
Comon Erod, you and i know that the prof is a defective RNC BOT that was stuck on DP before the Nov elections, and never recalled.I believe the unit number is/was... LOL 1.01. :2wave:
Click to expand...

this, from the guy who doesn't know the difference between a BILL and a LAW

LOL!

donc said:
Again, it’s not a bill until the President signs it; until then it’s a proposed bill, often to referred by the HC number.

When it is signed it will be called “OBAMAS HEALTHCARE BILL” or there also the possibility it will be called the “KENNEDY HEALTCARE BILL”. Until then it is not a BILL it’s a proposed bill or a HC number.
Click to expand...

http://www.debatepolitics.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=1058252213
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom