Timmah? Competent?
What do you read? Obama's teleprompter?
Yea, that wasn't a help at all. Thanks.
Timmah? Competent?
What do you read? Obama's teleprompter?
Yea, that wasn't a help at all. Thanks.
No.So would you have preferred 0.7% to -2.1% growth instead of the 2.4% that is estimated?
No.Would you have preferred unemployment to be 0.7% to 1.8% higher?
No. If we know the stimulus money worked, then do we also know what money worked and what didn't? What about the lost opportunity cost incurred in spending this money?Because the way I read it that is where we would have been without the plan.
The question is, if you recall all of the claims being made by both sides during the debate over stimulus; Have any of them been truly realized? The stimulus plan was not the shock to the heart of the economy that supporters had claimed and it was not the death-stroke that its detractors had claimed. It just proves, yet again, that politicians on both sides of the debate are incompetent.
BSmith, I hate to break it to you, but conservatives haven't "moved past the debate" on the New Deal. I don't think it's gonna happen with the stimulus.
Zarn said:Deficit spending is never cheap.
You missed the point. Regardless of of what political point you're trying to make, he was talking in economic terms.
It hurts the economy, too.
Really? Cause the economy actually expanded output.
Not always. Look at the economy of the Weimar Republic. Down the crapper it went because of government austerity measures.Economies tend to do that, regardless.
Removing water from one end of a swimming pool and dumping it in the other end will not raise the overall water level.Really? Cause the economy actually expanded output.
I see so people would not have bought a car if they needed one? All that policy did is delay the pain as we're seeing recently with the housing market. So moving the water was stimulative how? Very questionable on a short term basis and undisputed on a long term basis.The economy still relies on a transfer of money right? So using the swimming pool analogy, its not the amount of water that is there, but whether it is moving. Still water lets algae grow on it, moving water doesn't.
Unfortunately, it seems like there is a lot of this one-dimensional thinking; if a stimulus package to entices people to buy cars, there is the impression that the program "worked." But how did it work? People that had money and intended to spend it elsewhere were now buying cars subsidized by the government, so the program helped Chrysler but hurt Sony, Microsoft, Wal-Mart, or whoever. And at what cost did it come at? The government paid out $3 billion to people that were going to spend money anyway.I see so people would not have bought a car if they needed one? All that policy did is delay the pain as we're seeing recently with the housing market. So moving the water was stimulative how? Very questionable on a short term basis and undisputed on a long term basis.
Not me!The stimulus package stimulates the economy. whodathunkit?
In other words, taking money from the private economy to finance the public economy will not expand the economy.