Jobless Figures Pose Social, Political Threat for Obama, Dems

[Damocles]

Do you really think that is why the spending is so protracted...because they are "playing politics"?

I'm not trying to be in your face here, but do you fully understand the dynamics of stimulus spending?

What I think is that a huge part of the spending is put off until election years, and that the Rs would be stupid not to point it out, repeatedly. Even if you think it is part of the dynamics of stimulus you understand and have posted that it should be getting into the economy faster than it is. I believe that while some may be understood as part of those "dynamics" that there was direct mucking with it to ensure that it would benefit most during election cycles.

They should especially and particularly speak of it while they are thinking of creating a second stimulus before the money from the first even hits the market. There is no excuse for that kind of warped nonsense. The first stimulus must begin before we ever think of another spree like this. Shoot 67% of Americans polled said they wanted to have the money go back because it wasn't being spent... If the Rs don't take advantage of those kind of numbers and what seems to be obvious play with stimulus spending then they don't deserve to be a political party.

 

[Onceler]

What I think is that a huge part of the spending is put off until election years, and that the Rs would be stupid not to point it out, repeatedly. Even if you think it is part of the dynamics of stimulus, even you understand and have posted that it should be getting into the economy faster than it is. I believe that while some may be understood as part of those "dynamics" that there was direct mucking with it to ensure that it would benefit during election cycles.

They should especially and particularly speak of it while they are thinking of creating a second stimulus before the money from the first even hits the market.

How much do you think should be spent this year?

 

[Damocles]

How much do you think should be spent this year?

How much do you think should? The reality is you posted that you agreed it wasn't getting out quick enough. Extrapolating from that, you must have some idea of how much you think should be spent this year, and why a new stimulus should be in the minds of the majority party before the first has yet to really start. Me, I'm talking about politics and what the Rs should do to gain a hand in this particular instance. Obama has worked to end that particular ability by saying, "no" to any further stimulus, but Rs have an opening and he knows it.

I believe that the stimulus shouldn't have been set to stimulate mostly during election years. I have pointed it out several times before it was passed, after it was passed, and now here. It would make more sense to call it "dynamics of stimulus" if it was spread out more evenly, however the heaviest of "stimulus" takes place in 2010 and 2012 and gives at least the appearance of playing with people's lives, if not direct evidence.

 

[Bonestorm]

What I think is that a huge part of the spending is put off until election years, and that the Rs would be stupid not to point it out, repeatedly. Even if you think it is part of the dynamics of stimulus, even you understand and have posted that it should be getting into the economy faster than it is. I believe that while some may be understood as part of those "dynamics" that there was direct mucking with it to ensure that it would benefit during election cycles.

They should especially and particularly speak of it while they are thinking of creating a second stimulus before the money from the first even hits the market.

The beauty of this theory of yours is that it can never affirmatively be proved or disproved. The other beauty is that if the opposite were true and money was flying out the door we'd be hearing a constant refrain of "fraud" and "waste."

Additionally, lots of the things that are designed to get money into the economy very quickly (increased unemployment benefits, increased food stamp payments, direct payments to state governments to plug budget gaps) were vociferously opposed by Republicans. Infrastructure spending takes time.

 

[Bonestorm]

How much do you think should? The reality is you posted that you agreed it wasn't getting out quick enough. Extrapolating from that, you must have some idea of how much you think should be spent this year, and why a new stimulus should be in the minds of the majority party before the first has yet to really start. Me, I'm talking about politics and what the Rs should do to gain a hand in this particular instance. Obama has worked to end that particular ability by saying, "no" to any further stimulus, but Rs have an opening and he knows it.

I believe that the stimulus shouldn't have been set to stimulate mostly during election years. I have pointed it out several times before it was passed, after it was passed, and now here. It would make more sense to call it "dynamics of stimulus" if it was spread out more evenly, however the heaviest of "stimulus" takes place in 2010 and 2012 and gives at least the appearance of playing with people's lives, if not direct evidence.

Can you source some of this stuff?

 

[Onceler]

To start with, Dixie is wrong about October of 2010. Much of the stimulus is scheduled to kick in during the 2010 fiscal year, which actually starts at the federal level this October (2009). I think Dixie read that wrong and thought, “right before the election!”

Second, anyone with even a grade schoolers understanding of the economy would not conclude that it would be beneficial for politicians to wait until just before an election to disburse monies. The idea behind a lot of the stimulus involves a delayed effect. You create an initial wave of jobs for something like a bridge project, but the real effects to the economy will be delayed: those workers spending their money, so that other businesses in their areas & elsewhere start to do well, and so on. If you assume that many of these workers will likely be catching up on debt for their first months of employment, it seems logical that you’d want at least a 9-12 month headstart for the full effects to be felt.

It just wouldn’t make sense for lawmakers to try to “time” something so complex. If they could infuse it all in the system immediately, without waste and creating long-term employment for people, the economy would be that much better in 2010, when election time comes. To wait until what would really amount to the “last minute” is a crapshoot that I think it’s unlikely to assume lawmakers would risk.

Beyond that, the idea is longer term recovery. Yes, I do wish more was being spent this year, but is it possible that a 2-3 year project or opportunity might actually require a third spend this year, a third next year & so on? Honestly, I don’t know the answer to that one, but I have heard the argument made, and it makes some sense.

Last, if you have read anything on it, states are having a brutal time handling the amounts that are coming in & are projected to come in. They are simply not equipped right now to process the money both quickly and without waste, and many are erring on the side of the latter.

Regardless, getting back to the election point, I think it’s silly to assume this is a re-election ploy. If it is, it’s extremely risky, and kind of dumb.

 

[Topspin]

wow hate to pop your cherry on politicians doing things to get elected.
Please save me the false outrage, republicans go to war to get elected so I'm not losing sleep on the dems juicing the economy in a timed fashion.

 

[Damocles]

The beauty of this theory of yours is that it can never affirmatively be proved or disproved. The other beauty is that if the opposite were true and money was flying out the door we'd be hearing a constant refrain of "fraud" and "waste."

Additionally, lots of the things that are designed to get money into the economy very quickly (increased unemployment benefits, increased food stamp payments, direct payments to state governments to plug budget gaps) were vociferously opposed by Republicans. Infrastructure spending takes time.

However the refrains of "fraud" and "waste" wouldn't resonate if the stimulus actually stimulated and people therefore had jobs. The reason that this would resonate well is the "we didn't realize it would be this bad" and the mention of all those "saved jobs" and the fact that there is already more jobs lost than they projected at the peak, then add to it the sudden "we need more stimulus" talk... Whammo... When you show that the stimulus has barely started before they are into talking about new stimulus, that it spends more in election cycle years than in off election years, it just gets to make you go "Hmmmm..."

 

[Bonestorm]

However the refrains of "fraud" and "waste" wouldn't resonate if the stimulus actually stimulated and people therefore had jobs. The reason that this would resonate well is the "we didn't realize it would be this bad" and the mention of all those "saved jobs" and the fact that there is already more jobs lost than they projected at the peak, then add to it the sudden "we need more stimulus" talk... Whammo...

Before we get sidetracked and I have to lecture you about employment being a lagging indicator such that the beauty of crying "fraud" and "waste" is that even if there was not one wasteful dollar spent there would not necessarily be a corresponding increase in employment for some time, can you source some of the garbage about stimulus spending being pegged to election years? I am particularly intrigued by the claim that heaviest of the stimulus takes place in 2012.

 

[Damocles]

To start with, Dixie is wrong about October of 2010. Much of the stimulus is scheduled to kick in during the 2010 fiscal year, which actually starts at the federal level this October (2009). I think Dixie read that wrong and thought, “right before the election!”

It would be dumb to have it one month before the election, it is better to kick it in a full year beforehand to give it enough time to have effect and show improvement. Thus when people feel it is getting better they'll vote for those who "made it happen". It plays with people's lives.

Second, anyone with even a grade schoolers understanding of the economy would not conclude that it would be beneficial for politicians to wait until just before an election to disburse monies. The idea behind a lot of the stimulus involves a delayed effect. You create an initial wave of jobs for something like a bridge project, but the real effects to the economy will be delayed: those workers spending their money, so that other businesses in their areas & elsewhere start to do well, and so on. If you assume that many of these workers will likely be catching up on debt for their first months of employment, it seems logical that you’d want at least a 9-12 month headstart for the full effects to be felt.

See above.

It just wouldn’t make sense for lawmakers to try to “time” something so complex. If they could infuse it all in the system immediately, without waste and creating long-term employment for people, the economy would be that much better in 2010, when election time comes. To wait until what would really amount to the “last minute” is a crapshoot that I think it’s unlikely to assume lawmakers would risk.

I think that this is desperately naive, and that the timing of the spending is a fair question. Then to be speaking of a new stimulus package before this one even really kicks in is just a kicker to start up that conversation. I think the Administration knows this and tried to end this conversation by saying directly, "No." (Yet they added a caveat that allows the conversation to continue. They aren't perfect, just really good.)

Beyond that, the idea is longer term recovery. Yes, I do wish more was being spent this year, but is it possible that a 2-3 year project or opportunity might actually require a third spend this year, a third next year & so on? Honestly, I don’t know the answer to that one, but I have heard the argument made, and it makes some sense.

Last, if you have read anything on it, states are having a brutal time handling the amounts that are coming in & are projected to come in. They are simply not equipped right now to process the money both quickly and without waste, and many are erring on the side of the latter.

Regardless, getting back to the election point, I think it’s silly to assume this is a re-election ploy. If it is, it’s extremely risky, and kind of dumb.

I think it is a calculated risk, and I also believe that if it works they're golden, but if they continue to open the door for conversation on it, then they set themselves up for a fall even if the stimulus works. Whether or not it is a ploy, they need to be very careful to make sure they don't do something to make it appear like it is, or to allow the opposition party from pointing out such things. Explanations after the fact will not assuage many people who feel they lost a job to a political play.

 

[Onceler]

Well, your speculation requires a lot of assumptions, as well as ignoring a few realities about stimulus disbursement. I just don't buy it.

Like I said, if they could spend every dime today - like immediately - without waste, and securing long-term employment, that would be the best-case scenario for both the economy & their re-election prospects in 2010. If you are correct and they are delaying for election-year purposes, they're just really dumb; I don't see how any of them could consider themselves such masters of the economy that they could take a risk on more companies failing and further downturn.

It just doesn't wash; you're really reaching here...

 

[Damocles]

Well, your speculation requires a lot of assumptions, as well as ignoring a few realities about stimulus disbursement. I just don't buy it.

Like I said, if they could spend every dime today - like immediately - without waste, and securing long-term employment, that would be the best-case scenario for both the economy & their re-election prospects in 2010. If you are correct and they are delaying for election-year purposes, they're just really dumb; I don't see how any of them could consider themselves such masters of the economy that they could take a risk on more companies failing and further downturn.

It just doesn't wash; you're really reaching here...

Again, you don't have to buy it. Nor do I know with certainty that such is the case, but I do know that it would be prudent for them to carefully avoid the conversation.

When even MSNBC starts to question the speed of stimulus..

http://rss.msnbc.msn.com/id/31548130/

There is something to worry about.

 

[Onceler]

Again, you don't have to buy it. Nor do I know with certainty that such is the case, but I do know that it would be prudent for them to carefully avoid the conversation.

When even MSNBC starts to question the speed of stimulus..

http://rss.msnbc.msn.com/id/31548130/

There is something to worry about.

Jeez - did you actually read that article?

It kind of undermines your theory; just an FYI...

 

[Damocles]

Jeez - did you actually read that article?

It kind of undermines your theory; just an FYI...

I read the article, it was the question that I was pointing out.

It doesn't "kind of" undermine my theory, in fact it says that people are upset that the spending isn't getting there and are beginning to question the stimulus, and IMO that the time is ripe for this conversation to start. And the reasons that they give for the slow spending will sound like excuses, especially to those whose lives appear to have been messed with.

The reality is you know that I am right, that this is something that the Ds need to pay attention to, because once this conversation starts in earnest it will not benefit the Ds even if they consider new stimulus. The Ds need to be very careful to not give openings to Rs, will Obama's "No. Not unless jobs losses get even higher." work to close that door?

Even you pointed out that the spending won't really begin until one year before the next election.. and that it would be best to give (what was it you said?) yeah, one year...

 

[Topspin]

Obama is no dummy.
If the stimulus all goes out in 09 / early 10 then you have serious potential for a slowdown before 2012.
I don't think it reaching at all to say they are being abundantly slick in the trickle.
Dems don't like trickle down, but they love trickle out.

 

[Onceler]

I read the article. It doesn't "kind of" undermine my theory, it says that people are upset that the spending isn't getting there and are beginning to question the stimulus, and IMO that the time is ripe for this conversation to start. And the reasons that they give for the slow spending will sound like excuses, especially to those whose lives appear to have been messed with.

The reality is you know that I am right, that this is something that the Ds need to pay attention to, because once this conversation starts in earnest it will not benefit the Ds even if they consider new stimulus. The Ds need to be very careful to not give openings to Rs, will Obama's "No. Not unless jobs losses get even higher." work to close that door?

It explains pretty well some of the dynamics of the stimulus spending, and where some of the delays are coming from, and even states that it's not such a bad thing that it's not getting rushed out there.

It certainly doesn't add much to a conspiracy theory about helping re-election prospects by intentionally delaying it...

 

[Bonestorm]

Damo, I'm still waiting for a response to this:

Can you source some of the garbage about stimulus spending being pegged to election years? I am particularly intrigued by the claim that heaviest of the stimulus takes place in 2012.

Preferably something that rebuts this from the CBO at the time the bill was passed:

Taking all of the short- and long-run effects into account, CBO estimates that the legislation implies an increase in GDP relative to the agency’s baseline forecast of between 1.4 percent and 3.8 percent by the fourth quarter of 2009, between 1.1 percent and 3.3 percent by the fourth quarter of 2010, between 0.4 percent and 1.3 percent by the fourth quarter of 2011, and declining amounts in later years (see Table 1). Beyond 2014, the legislation is estimated to reduce GDP by between zero and 0.2 percent. This long-run effect is slightly smaller than CBO estimated in its preliminary analysis of the Senate stimulus legislation last week due to refinements in our methodology.

Correspondingly, the legislation would increase employment by 0.8 million to 2.3 million by the fourth quarter of 2009, by 1.2 million to 3.6 million by the fourth quarter of 2010, by 0.6 million to 1.9 million by the fourth quarter of 2011, and by declining numbers in later years. The effect on employment is never estimated to be negative, despite lower GDP in later years, because CBO expects that the U.S. labor market will be at nearly full employment in the long run. The reduction in GDP is therefore estimated to be reflected in lower wages rather than lower employment, as workers will be less productive because the capital stock is smaller.

So you see, the stimulus bill was actually front-loaded to have its largest impact by the 4th quarter of 2009, slightly less of an impact in 2010 (an election year), even less of an impact in 2011 and declining from there.

 

[Bonestorm]

I read the article, it was the question that I was pointing out.

It doesn't "kind of" undermine my theory, in fact it says that people are upset that the spending isn't getting there and are beginning to question the stimulus, and IMO that the time is ripe for this conversation to start. And the reasons that they give for the slow spending will sound like excuses, especially to those whose lives appear to have been messed with.

The reality is you know that I am right, that this is something that the Ds need to pay attention to, because once this conversation starts in earnest it will not benefit the Ds even if they consider new stimulus. The Ds need to be very careful to not give openings to Rs, will Obama's "No. Not unless jobs losses get even higher." work to close that door?

The bold is hilarious, particularly because you think you are being insightful. Here's a newsflash for you: the Republicans will say whatever kind of crazy shit they want to say notwithstanding what the facts are.

You are proof positive of that.

 

[Damocles]

It explains pretty well some of the dynamics of the stimulus spending, and where some of the delays are coming from, and even states that it's not such a bad thing that it's not getting rushed out there.

It certainly doesn't add much to a conspiracy theory about helping re-election prospects by intentionally delaying it...

Again, it gives what will appear as excuses, and it was the question that I was pointing out, when people who frequent that place begin to question, it is time to start the conversation.

 

[DamnYankee]

wow hate to pop your cherry on politicians doing things to get elected.
Please save me the false outrage, republicans go to war to get elected so I'm not losing sleep on the dems juicing the economy in a timed fashion.

In other words, the Democrats lied.