Congressional Budget Office: Obama stimulus harmful over long haul

R

RockX

Banned
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.

CBO, the official scorekeepers for legislation, said the House and Senate bills will help in the short term but result in so much government debt that within a few years they would crowd out private investment, actually leading to a lower Gross Domestic Product over the next 10 years than if the government had done nothing.

CBO estimates that by 2019 the Senate legislation would reduce GDP by 0.1 percent to 0.3 percent on net. [The House bill] would have similar long-run effects, CBO said in a letter to Sen. Judd Gregg, New Hampshire Republican, who was tapped by Mr. Obama on Tuesday to be Commerce Secretary.


LOL

Better to do nothing then to pass this bill.

Obama to CBO: “but...but....I WON!!!!”
 
So if I understand correctly, right-wingers are unwilling to trade this:

CBO has developed a range of estimates of the effects of the Senate legislation on GDP and employment that encompasses a majority of economists’ views. According to these estimates, implementing the Senate legislation would increase GDP relative to the agency’s baseline forecast by between 1.2 percent and 3.6 percent by the fourth quarter of 2010. It would also increase employment at that point in time by 1.3 million to 3.9 million jobs, as shown in Table 1. In that quarter, the unemployment rate would be 0.7 percentage points to 2.1 percentage points lower than the baseline forecast of 8.7 percent.
Click to expand...

For a projected decrease in GDP of .1% in 2019.

That's min-numbingly stupid and further evidence that the Republicans ought to sit this one out.

By the way, the first sentence of the block quote above is my favorite. Here it is again for those that missed it:

CBO has developed a range of estimates of the effects of the Senate legislation on GDP and employment that encompasses a majority of economists’ views.
Click to expand...

Someone ought to hurry up and get them that list!
 
Onceler said:
I think my favorite part of this thread is Damo's initial reaction.
Click to expand...
What? I was trying to help out the troll.

Usually when anybody posts about the CBO it is preceded by the words: non-partisan.

It isn't like I'm going to read this stuff. CBO reports are famously boring reads that have little plot line and even less literary appeal.
 
cawacko said:
What's that saying in English?
Click to expand...


I misunderstood the question. I construed "first stimulus" to mean the bill that just passed the house, not the bill that passed way back when Bush was still president. Disregard my response. It is not germane to the question.

It'll take some digging but I may be able to dig up such a report.
 
Dungheap said:
So if I understand correctly, right-wingers are unwilling to trade this:



For a projected decrease in GDP of .1% in 2019.

That's min-numbingly stupid and further evidence that the Republicans ought to sit this one out.

By the way, the first sentence of the block quote above is my favorite. Here it is again for those that missed it:



Someone ought to hurry up and get them that list!
Click to expand...
Rightwingers? The CBO is non-partisan.
The loss in GDP is hardly the only downfall of the so called stimulus, let's not forget the MASSIVE increase to the debt, how harmful that is to the dollar. And there are the scary side issues we've seen resulting from this stimulus, from funding companies with corporate welfare that are doomed to fail anyway (ie: GM), to the crazy amounts of waste we've seen proposed to protectionism with other countries threatening trade wars, and on and on.

The stimulus should be abandoned, it does more harm than good in the long run.
 
KingCondanomation said:
Rightwingers? The CBO is non-partisan.
The loss in GDP is hardly the only downfall of the so called stimulus, let's not forget the MASSIVE increase to the debt, how harmful that is to the dollar. And there are the scary side issues we've seen resulting from this stimulus, from funding companies with corporate welfare that are doomed to fail anyway (ie: GM), to the crazy amounts of waste we've seen proposed to protectionism with other countries threatening trade wars, and on and on.

The stimulus should be abandoned, it does more harm than good in the long run.
Click to expand...


Right-wingers like you that argue that the trade off is not appropriate like you are doing above.
 
cawacko said:
What's that saying in English?
Click to expand...
It says that long-term government programs will cost more in the future and thus increase future indebtedness. Even my daughter would comprehend that simple point.

Webbway suggested that it meant the same thing as it being "detrimental". I think their projections are a bit optimistic on the tiny portion of GDP it will cost us then, but I certainly don't think this plan is the doom of the US. It will be another straw on the camel's back.
 
CBO also credited the 1993 tax increase as the driving force behind the Tech boom of the late 90's LMFAO... yah the tax increase created all that new technology.
 
Dungheap said:
I misunderstood the question. I construed "first stimulus" to mean the bill that just passed the house, not the bill that passed way back when Bush was still president. Disregard my response. It is not germane to the question.

It'll take some digging but I may be able to dig up such a report.
Click to expand...

nah, it was my fault. I'm confused by the HR1 and what that refers to. thanks, but no need to look it up.
 
KingCondanomation said:
Rightwingers? The CBO is non-partisan.
The loss in GDP is hardly the only downfall of the so called stimulus, let's not forget the MASSIVE increase to the debt, how harmful that is to the dollar. And there are the scary side issues we've seen resulting from this stimulus, from funding companies with corporate welfare that are doomed to fail anyway (ie: GM), to the crazy amounts of waste we've seen proposed to protectionism with other countries threatening trade wars, and on and on.

The stimulus should be abandoned, it does more harm than good in the long run.
Click to expand...

He's not talking about what the CBO said, Dano. He's talking about the way the righties on this thread cherrypicked & exaggerated the info.
 
Chapdog said:
CBO also credited the 1993 tax increase as the driving force behind the Tech boom of the late 90's LMFAO... yah the tax increase created all that new technology.
Click to expand...

Chap, that is such a mischaracterization, on all counts.

You're really slipping into that mode lately.
 
Onceler said:
He's not talking about what the CBO said, Dano. He's talking about the way the righties on this thread cherrypicked & exaggerated the info.
Click to expand...
Sure, but cherrypicked his own points in his rebuttal.
Anyways, it remains that overall the nonpartisan CBO considers the stimulus doing more harm than good in the long run.
 
Damocles said:
It says that long-term government programs will cost more in the future and thus increase future indebtedness. Even my daughter would comprehend that simple point.

Webbway suggested that it meant the same thing as it being "detrimental". I think their projections are a bit optimistic on the tiny portion of GDP it will cost us then, but I certainly don't think this plan is the doom of the US. It will be another straw on the camel's back.
Click to expand...


Actually that's not what it says. What it says is that capital used to purchase government bonds that would otherwise be used for private investment will slightly decrease GDP by 2019. It says nothing about government programs costing more in the future and thus increasing future indebtedness.

You already said you didn't read the report and have no inclination of doing so. Why pretend you know what it says?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top