stimulus worked so well, we need another one

[FUCK THE POLICE]

You mean giving them incentive to fire the ones they have and hire "new" people. Temporary tax credits for hiring specifically are not incentive to increase the work force, just to play with people's lives.

In fact with all the people that have been laid off they wouldn't even have to spend money training some of the people they "hire" while they fire people who are currently working. They can even re-hire them for less money than they used to make, get a tax credit, and fire people currently working. Deflationary wages... Yaaaaay!

Why not make tax penalties for firing?

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Plus, there are difficulties and costs involved in firing without cause.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

Wanted: An actual economist opining that the stimulus bill passed last year did not create jobs.

Still waiting for that one.

if it worked, why is this one needed when only about a 1/3 of the original stimulus has been spent?

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

if it worked, why is this one needed when only about a 1/3 of the original stimulus has been spent?

A lot of economists said the first one was too small.

Also, this bill really isn't that large. Calling it a "second stimulus" is a bit of a hyperbole.

 

[Jarod]

if it worked, why is this one needed when only about a 1/3 of the original stimulus has been spent?

Only 1/3 spend and look at the turn around already!

 

[Damocles]

Why not make tax penalties for firing?

I think that they actually fixed that, I haven't read it yet but I'll give Nigel the benefit of the doubt. Basically, if this bill uses tax breaks to incentivize keeping employees and hiring new ones I am in support of it and think it is stupid for Rs to reject it. They should say, "This is what we've said all along!" and shout it from the rooftops. Talk about how the Ds have finally "seen reason", vote for it in a bloc. Talk about how much better it would be if the large corporations could do the same...

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

The burden isn't on me to prove that your claim about union membership is wrong. Substantiate your claim and maybe I'll take a shot at debunking it. To get things started, I'd note that about one third of public sector are union members.

Just keep apologizing. It is what you are good at. Even Obama has harped on the 'saving teachers jobs and first responders' which came through direct aid to the states so they wouldn't have to cut those jobs. All of which are union employees. The bulk of the jobs 'saved' have gone to the public sector. Period.

The private sector jobs have been again to benefit who? Cash for clunkers benefited who? Oh yeah... the auto workers unions.... AGAIN.

Second, the first stimulus, even if every single dollar were spend tomorrow, is too small to help bridge the output gap. That being the case, whether or not the first stimulus funds are spent is irrelevant to the question of whether more stimulus is needed.

That is simply bullshit. To claim that you can state the first one was 'too small' when 65% of it hasn't even been spent is nothing more than speculation. Period. Had they spent 90% of it and it not worked, then you might have a point.

I thought you were a bit smarter than this. Companies A, B and C lay off 100 people. Companies X, Y and Z hire 80 new people as a result of stimulus funds. You've created 80 jobs while experiencing net jobs lost of 20.

This isn't that difficult to figure out.

Yes, I understand how NET jobs numbers are calculated. But the public doesn't give a shit if you created 10 jobs if 30 were lost. They care about the NET numbers. Not some subjective claims of jobs 'saved'. Not the total number of jobs 'created'. They care about the NET jobs. Period.

THAT isn't very difficult to understand.... unless of course you are an Obama Apologist party hack.

No one is claiming a net increase. You want to makes this about a net increase instead of about improving the employment situation because you're an ignorant hack. Basically, your expectation was for the economy to go from shedding 700,000 jobs per month to immediate positive employment growth. That's stupid.

Wrong again moron. You continue to misstate my position. My position again, since you seem to fucking retarded to comprehend it the first 20 times I stated it.....

yes, we have seen some jobs 'saved' and some new jobs' created.... but NET jobs have been lost at a greater pace than your messiah stated. In addition, the stimulus should have been put to work faster. There is NO REASON (other than political) for the money to still be sitting in the hands of the idiots in DC. That money should have been put to work rebuilding our infrastructure and providing credits to small businesses. THAT is how you stem the rising unemployment. THAT is how you create jobs that are sustainable.

Now... please... apologize for Obama's ineptitude one more time... I think that gets you a set of steak knives.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

A lot of economists said the first one was too small.

Also, this bill really isn't that large. Calling it a "second stimulus" is a bit of a hyperbole.

this makes no sense. only 1/3 of the origional stimulus has been spent. how can it be too small if a few hundred billion remains to be spent? this is a second stimulus, it may be a smaller one, but it is in fact a second stimulus when the first hasn't seen more than a 1/3 spent.

its bullshit.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

Only 1/3 spend and look at the turn around already!

iirc the turn around is mostly from TARP, not the stimulus.

 

[Damocles]

this makes no sense. only 1/3 of the origional stimulus has been spent. how can it be too small if a few hundred billion remains to be spent? this is a second stimulus, it may be a smaller one, but it is in fact a second stimulus when the first hasn't seen more than a 1/3 spent.

its bullshit.

If I were the R's I'd start talking up the tax breaks proposed, talk about how good it is for the Ds to finally see reason, then start talking about any spending portions of the "new stimulus" to come from the unspent "stimulus" from the previous bill. Talk about how the previous bill was created as a timely re-election fund and pound it.... Point out that most of the turn around is caused by the banks being saved and starting to give loans... We have some very strong points here that the Rs can use on this particular bill to gain more momentum.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

If I were the R's I'd start talking up the tax breaks proposed, talk about how good it is for the Ds to finally see reason, then start talking about any spending portions of the "new stimulus" to come from the unspent "stimulus" from the previous bill. Talk about how the previous bill was created as a timely re-election fund and pound it....

agreed

 

[Bonestorm]

Just keep apologizing. It is what you are good at. Even Obama has harped on the 'saving teachers jobs and first responders' which came through direct aid to the states so they wouldn't have to cut those jobs. All of which are union employees. The bulk of the jobs 'saved' have gone to the public sector. Period.

The private sector jobs have been again to benefit who? Cash for clunkers benefited who? Oh yeah... the auto workers unions.... AGAIN.



That is simply bullshit. To claim that you can state the first one was 'too small' when 65% of it hasn't even been spent is nothing more than speculation. Period. Had they spent 90% of it and it not worked, then you might have a point.

I thought you were a bit smarter than this. Companies A, B and C lay off 100 people. Companies X, Y and Z hire 80 new people as a result of stimulus funds. You've created 80 jobs while experiencing net jobs lost of 20.

This isn't that difficult to figure out.

Now... please... apologize for Obama's ineptitude one more time... I think that gets you a set of steak knives.

Can yo fix your quote boxes?

 

[Onceler]

3 misconceptions propogated by this thread:

1) The entire stimulus was supposed to be spent within a year. As stated many time, the stimulus is intended for long-term results, and is spread out over several years by design.

2) The remaining 2/3 of the stimulus is just free cash, that they can allocate any way they want. Go back and look at the measure that passed; everything is marked, everything is allocated for certain areas of the economy. They can't change the intent of the original bill.

3) The stimulus was supposed to result in a net gain of jobs by this point. Not by the analysis I read; the loss of jobs that the U.S. experienced last year was not going to turn on a dime no matter what policy was implemented. That was a given. The idea was to get as many people as possible back to work again, as quickly as possible.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

QUOTE=Onceler;607519]3 misconceptions propogated by this thread:

1) The entire stimulus was supposed to be spent within a year. As stated many time, the stimulus is intended for long-term results, and is spread out over several years by design.

who said this? i didn't see it. you're making it up.

2) The remaining 2/3 of the stimulus is just free cash, that they can allocate any way they want. Go back and look at the measure that passed; everything is marked, everything is allocated for certain areas of the economy. They can't change the intent of the original bill.

again, no one said this.

3) The stimulus was supposed to result in a net gain of jobs by this point. Not by the analysis I read; the loss of jobs that the U.S. experienced last year was not going to turn on a dime no matter what policy was implemented. That was a given. The idea was to get as many people as possible back to work again, as quickly as possible.

obama said the UE rate would go down to below 8%...for that to happen you would need a net gain of jobs.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

3 misconceptions propogated by this thread:

1) The entire stimulus was supposed to be spent within a year. As stated many time, the stimulus is intended for long-term results, and is spread out over several years by design.

2) The remaining 2/3 of the stimulus is just free cash, that they can allocate any way they want. Go back and look at the measure that passed; everything is marked, everything is allocated for certain areas of the economy. They can't change the intent of the original bill.

3) The stimulus was supposed to result in a net gain of jobs by this point. Not by the analysis I read; the loss of jobs that the U.S. experienced last year was not going to turn on a dime no matter what policy was implemented. That was a given. The idea was to get as many people as possible back to work again, as quickly as possible.

1) It is NOT being misrepresented, we are saying their PLAN was wrong to begin with. To pretend that we need to spend it over several years in order to get long term results is ridiculous at best. Every state had shovel ready infrastructure jobs that could have been funded.

2) So you are saying they did not plan very well in terms of allocating money to benefit jobs in the first bill?

3) Yes, the idea was to get as many people back to work as possible. Yet they sat on over two thirds of the money. Hmmm...

 

[PostmodernProphet]

3 misconceptions propogated by this thread:

1) The entire stimulus was supposed to be spent within a year. As stated many time, the stimulus is intended for long-term results, and is spread out over several years by design.

simple response....if we have money on line to be spent this year.....why do we need to set aside additional money to be spent this year?.....

 

[Bonestorm]

Just keep apologizing. It is what you are good at. Even Obama has harped on the 'saving teachers jobs and first responders' which came through direct aid to the states so they wouldn't have to cut those jobs. All of which are union employees. The bulk of the jobs 'saved' have gone to the public sector. Period.

The private sector jobs have been again to benefit who? Cash for clunkers benefited who? Oh yeah... the auto workers unions.... AGAIN.

Like I said, present some evidence to support your assertion that the bulk were union employees and I'll gladly take it up. Until then, I'm not inclined to discuss the matter further.

That is simply bullshit. To claim that you can state the first one was 'too small' when 65% of it hasn't even been spent is nothing more than speculation. Period. Had they spent 90% of it and it not worked, then you might have a point.

We know what the economic assumptions were when the stimulus was passed. We know that many felt that the stimulus was too small to bridge the gap under those economic assumptions. We also know that those economic assumptions were too optimistic and that the economy deteriorated further than anticipated. Given all of that, we know with absolute certainty that the stimulus was too small, regardless of how much of it has been spent.

Yes, I understand how NET jobs numbers are calculated. But the public doesn't give a shit if you created 10 jobs if 30 were lost. They care about the NET numbers. Not some subjective claims of jobs 'saved'. Not the total number of jobs 'created'. They care about the NET jobs. Period.

THAT isn't very difficult to understand.... unless of course you are an Obama Apologist party hack.

This debate is not about what the public understands but what Obama predicted and what the results have been. Based on the actual figures Obama predicted, GDP growth of 3.7% by Q42010 and positive impact on employment of 3.6 million jobs by Q42010, we know that that the stimulus is on track to meet or exceed Obama's predictions.

Wrong again moron. You continue to misstate my position. My position again, since you seem to fucking retarded to comprehend it the first 20 times I stated it.....

yes, we have seen some jobs 'saved' and some new jobs' created.... but NET jobs have been lost at a greater pace than your messiah stated. In addition, the stimulus should have been put to work faster. There is NO REASON (other than political) for the money to still be sitting in the hands of the idiots in DC. That money should have been put to work rebuilding our infrastructure and providing credits to small businesses. THAT is how you stem the rising unemployment. THAT is how you create jobs that are sustainable.

Now... please... apologize for Obama's ineptitude one more time... I think that gets you a set of steak knives.

Actually, no. The economic projections were wrong on unemployment, but the impact of the stimulus is on track to meet expectation. And again, we've been over the reasons for the stimulus funds being spent over time. Where you predict a fairly large output gap over two years the stimulus should inject money into the economy over that period rather than flooding the economy with cash on day one and having a double dip recession three or six months later.

 

[Bonestorm]

simple response....if we have money on line to be spent this year.....why do we need to set aside additional money to be spent this year?.....

Simpler response: Because the underlying economic assumptions were overly optimistic.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Like I said, present some evidence to support your assertion that the bulk were union employees and I'll gladly take it up. Until then, I'm not inclined to discuss the matter further.

In other words, you haven't read a single fucking thing on the topic and yet you continue to cry foul?

We know what the economic assumptions were when the stimulus was passed. We know that many felt that the stimulus was too small to bridge the gap under those economic assumptions. We also know that those economic assumptions were too optimistic and that the economy deteriorated further than anticipated. Given all of that, we know with absolute certainty that the stimulus was too small, regardless of how much of it has been spent.

again... the above is nothing more than speculative bullshit. Just because some economists such as Krugman want the government to spend us into oblivion and think that 'more money' is always the answer doesn't make it so.

Again... to pretend that it was 'too small' at the same time they held back 2/3's of it is a fucking joke.

This debate is not about what the public understands but what Obama predicted and what the results have been. Based on the actual figures Obama predicted, GDP growth of 3.7% by Q42010 and positive impact on employment of 3.6 million jobs by Q42010, we know that that the stimulus is on track to meet or exceed Obama's predictions.

Ok... based on Obama's predictions... the stimulus is a complete failure thus far. The only number that he predicted that has been reached thus far is his prediction on unemployment.

You cannot claim success based on what you THINK MIGHT HAPPEN in 2010.

Actually, no. The economic projections were wrong on unemployment, but the impact of the stimulus is on track to meet expectation. And again, we've been over the reasons for the stimulus funds being spent over time. Where you predict a fairly large output gap over two years the stimulus should inject money into the economy over that period rather than flooding the economy with cash on day one and having a double dip recession three or six months later.

Again... that is simply bullshit. I know that is the line you have been fed and you have sold yourself out on the concept. But it simply is not true.

Run any monte carlo scenario on spending. Injecting the cash earlier tends to have the greater long term effect. The only time you would withhold spending is on projects that were not yet ready to go. But all of the shovel ready projects should have been ramped up immediately. It would have put more people to work sooner and would have slowed the downturn faster. More people working leads to fewer foreclosures/bankruptcies and also leads to more velocity of money.

sitting on it does NOTHING but push the effects of the stimulus back in time.

If as you claim the first stimulus bill was too small... then all the more reason to put it to work as fast as possible to prove your position.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Simpler response: Because the underlying economic assumptions were overly optimistic.

even simpler response: Obama is all talk...no substance.