«

»

CBO downgrades the Patronage Bill

In a move that doesn’t surprise people like me a bit, and which the LSM will simply ignore and thus allowing others that feel unless the LSM says it word for word, it isn’t so, we now find out that the stimulus patronage bill has had it’s price tag increased and its positive impact majorly downgraded:

Recovery: After nearly all the stimulus money has been spent, the Congressional Budget Office now admits it cost more than advertised, did less to boost growth and will hurt the economy in the long run. In its latest quarterly report on the economic effects of the Obama stimulus, the CBO sharply lowered its “worst case” scenario while trimming many of its upper-bound estimates for stimulus-fueled growth and employment. The new report finds, for example, that the stimulus may have added as little as 0.7% to GDP growth in 2010 — when spending was at its peak — and created as few as 700,000 new jobs.

Both are down significantly from the CBO’s previous worst-case scenario. The report also lowered the best-case estimate for added growth in 2010 to 4.1% from 4.2%. In addition, the CBO says the extra infrastructure money didn’t boost growth as much as it previously claimed, because states reacted by spending less out of their own budgets on highways. So in other words, the CBO now says it’s possible In our view, even the CBO’s downgraded estimates are too high, because they’re still based entirely on Keynesian economic models that simply assume extra government spending results in added economic growth.

You don’t have to look very hard to see this isn’t what happened. Wile Obama promised the massive stimulus would “ignite spending by businesses and consumers,” unleash “a new wave of innovation, activity and construction,” and keep unemployment under 8%, what we actually got was the worst recovery since the Great Depression.

Look this was the biggest rip off of the American tax payer in our history. We were “Bernie Madorffed” by the one party that controlled the two houses of our government that does the spending. All the problem makers stepped up and demanded that they be allowed to “fix the problems”. We got a ton of new regulation, government driven crony capitalism, massive uncertainties that prevent private sector businesses from doing any growing or hiring in the near, and maybe even far future, leading to horribly high unemployment, deeper in debt, and unless you count democrat friends, donors, lobbyists, politicians, and campaign coffers making out like bandits, no tangible assets to show for all that cash spent. And the fundamental underlying problems not only remain there, intact, but in addition to the “social engineering” problems of the housing market, we now are staring at another one in education.

Oh wait. I know. It’s Bush’s fault. The donkeys inherited all the problems from Bush and the porkulus failed because it was just too small. At this point we should ask if we would not have been better off without any of it.

17 comments

No ping yet

  1. Mississippi Yankee says:

    The cricket sounds at this site are deafening. Not even a request for a kiss.

    Color me surprised :0

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  2. CM says:

    Is this the same CBO that is being reported completely differently here?

    The agency said the measure raised gross domestic product by between 0.3 and 1.9 percent in the third quarter of 2011, which ended Sept. 30. The Commerce Department said Tuesday that GDP in that quarter was only 2 percent total.

    CBO said that the stimulus also lowered the unemployment rate by between 0.2 and 1.3 percentage points and increased the number of people employed by between 0.4 million and 2.4 million.

    “CBO estimates that, compared with what would have occurred otherwise, [the stimulus] will raise real GDP in 2012 by between 0.1 percent and 0.8 percent and will increase the number of people employed in 2012 by between 0.2 million and 1.1 million,” a Tuesday report adds.

    By CBO’s numbers, the $800 billion stimulus added up to 0.9 million jobs in 2009, 3.3 million jobs in 2010 and 2.6 million jobs in 2011.

    Here is the actual report.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2

      
  3. AlexInCT says:

    Yeah, it is the same CBO that drastically altered the worst case scenario and the best case scenario down, only to then have the LSM focused ONLY on the best case scenario numbers. Are you disputing that they had to downgrade all their previous claims, BTW, or are you just trying to pretend that this turd sandwich wasn’t a bad idea?

    Mark my words: those numbers the CBO now pulled out of it’s ass will be downgraded yet again once we get more facts showing their assumptions on positive economic impact did not pan out yet again. This is patterned just like the “rosy” reports about the employment and economy the LSM keeps pushing on us. They always get revised into “ugly’ territory later, and remain unreported but for the effort of those outside the LSM.

    I should add that only idiots believe or tout the best case scenario numbers from the CBO these days. Even the Obama administration and the democrats try real hard to pretend this wasn’t done by them even as they try to do more of the same. And most sane people in the know, especially those that are not Keynesian shitheads and unfazed by how this stuff never pans out, point out that the CBO’s worst case scenario is still too rosy and far more likely to be the reality of it all.

    Also let’s not forget that even the CBO now finds itself forced to admit this is going to have a long term NEGATIVE impact both on the economy AND employment.

    You can put as much lipstick on this pig as you want CM, but the fact is that those of us that pay taxes got robbed and this thing, like everything tied to this administration seems to be, was purely political payback, based on false promises and fear mongering.

    This thing was a costly failed boondoggle.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  4. CM says:

    Yeah, it is the same CBO that drastically altered the worst case scenario and the best case scenario down,

    Dropping the upper GDP figure from 4.2% to 4.2% isn’t even remotely “drastic”.

    only to then have the LSM focused ONLY on the best case scenario numbers

    You initially said the ‘LSM’ would ignore it all. Which is it?

    And why did the investors.com piece (you’re basing your entire opinion on) not mention this, from the latest CBO report:

    The current estimates of the impact of ARRA on output and employment differ from those CBO presented in August 2011 because CBO has adjusted its methodology and slightly revised its projections of the timing of changes in federal spending as a result of ARRA.

    Also let’s not forget that even the CBO now finds itself forced to admit this is going to have a long term NEGATIVE impact both on the economy AND employment.

    Actually, the report says:

    In contrast to its positive near-term macroeconomic effects, ARRA will reduce output slightly in the long run, CBO estimates—by between zero and 0.2 percent after 2016. But CBO expects that the legislation will have no long-term effects on employment because the U.S. economy will have a high rate of use of its labor resources in the long run.

    They then discuss the extent of uncertainties when assessing these issues.

    You can put as much lipstick on this pig as you want CM,

    No, it’s called READING THE ACTUAL REPORT. Why rely on a single-source editorial on something (which misses something rather fundamental) when the actual report is available and isn’t that hard to read?

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2

      
  5. CM says:

    And BTW

    …and thus allowing others that feel unless the LSM says it word for word…

    suggests you still don’t even remotely understand. I never said the mainstream media source had to report something before you could rely on it. E.g. you could check and quote directly from the actual report you’re posting about if you wanted to.
    So please stop being dishonest.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 5

      
  6. balthazar says:

    You dont find that they had to CYA and drasticly lower the bottom numbers and trim the higher numbers to be telling of what actually will occur?

    Holy fuck man,

    Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

      
  7. CM says:

    Ah yeah, the CBA “adjusted its methodology and slightly revised its projections of the timing of changes in federal spending as a result of ARRA“. It’s IN THE REPORT Balt. The one Alex didn’t bother reading. The one the author of his link either didn’t bother reading, or decided to misrepresent.

    If they DIDN’T alter their projections you’d be bitching. If they DO, you’re bitching.

    Same old same old.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  8. AlexInCT says:

    There are always good excuses why this fuckup is defended.

    The fact is that the American tax payer paid the price of a brand new Ferrari, was told he got a Cadillac instead, once things went south, then, as the facts came out, found out it got the equivalent of a fucking 10 year old beat up bicycle. Even the Obama administration stopped pretending this thing was any kind of success, and the democrats all run for the hills every time this thing comes up because they know nobody but the fucking partisan hacks believe anything they claim anymore. It was a complete and total disaster. We got pennies on the dollar in the best case scenario. The only people that profited where the usual democrat constituents while the private sector got jacked.

    And people like CM still try to defend that as a success of some kind. It was a failure that makes the stuff that happened during the Carter years seem brilliant in comparison.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  9. CM says:

    There are always good excuses why this fuckup is defended.

    Whether it is a ‘fuckup’ or not is a matter of opinion. There is certainly nothing within this latest CBO report, or when looking at it against the previous ones, which ‘proves’ it’s a big fuckup. No reputable economist (that I can find) suggests anything remotely close to what you pretend is fact. And your last paragraph about “blame Bush” is a little strange, particularly when McCain would have likely done something very similar to what Obama.

    We got pennies on the dollar in the best case scenario.

    Where does it say that? The multiplier is an accepted economic outcome. Not even the Republican economists dispute it. Neutrals certainly don’t.

    And people like CM still try to defend that as a success of some kind.

    And yet again (for only about the millionth time in a row) you confuse defence with attack. You must get really confused watching football.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

      
  10. AlexInCT says:

    QED.

    He is still pretending this thing was not a major fail when the people that did it run from it.

    Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

      
  11. CM says:

    Here is your current list of questions you’ve avoided:

    How is dropping the upper GDP figure from 4.2% to 4.2% isn’t even remotely “drastic”?

    You initially said the ‘LSM’ would ignore it all. Which is it?

    And why did the investors.com piece (you’re basing your entire opinion on) not mention the methodology changes (which are explained in the report)?

    What would McCain have done differently? And based on what economic advise? From who? Alex in CT?

    Where/how does the report suggest that “we got pennies on the dollar in the best case scenario”?

    Why do you insist on mistaking attack for defence? Is it to distract so you can avoid all these questions?

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2

      
  12. AlexInCT says:

    How is dropping the upper GDP figure from 4.2% to 4.2% isn’t even remotely “drastic”?

    They dropped it from 4.2 to 4.2? Was that a typo, right? BTW, that was the BEST CASE SCENARIO numbers. They are as likely to be true as the Iranian soccer team is to win the next world cup. They also lowered the worst case scenario numbers, and those are the ones that actually matter, because those come far closer to how bad this thing was.

    You initially said the ‘LSM’ would ignore it all. Which is it?

    I did not initially say anything. I stand by the LSM not reporting on this story. Source me any of the LSM members writing an article pointing out that the CBO recently downgraded their numbers and pointing out that they lowered not just the best case numbers you remain fixated on, but the worst case numbers which are also far likely to be the reality of what happened. Fox News or this site I linked BTW, are not part of the LSM. So far most Americans have no idea this happened. You do because I brought it up.

    If the LSM ever does report on this downgrade, I expect it to be more of the same as “unemployment is UNEXPECTEDLY up yet again bullshit we get week after week, month after month, and for the last 3 years. The only people fooled are the ones that want to be. And then you will attack me for pointing out they are spinning the story in favor of the collectivist crooks that robbed us.

    And why did the investors.com piece (you’re basing your entire opinion on) not mention the methodology changes (which are explained in the report)?

    Seriously? BECAUSE THAT”S ALL BULLSHIT! This wealth transfer scheme was a failure from the start. The methodology around it is bullshit. Changing already bogus and made up junk numbers that were created for political expediency to hide the fact that the democrats ripped us off and got it all wrong, and that the CBO itself now admits that in the long term this was real bad, IS the story. Stay focused.

    What would McCain have done differently? And based on what economic advise? From who? Alex in CT?

    Who the fuck cares? Why would I let myself be distracted by this bullshit when the issue at hand is that the left is fucking full of crooks & idiots? That’s 2 questions in a row that are intended to confuse the subject and/or drag people into meaningless discussion you hope will confuse the issue enough to keep justifying the unjustifiable. Classic CM, though.

    Where/how does the report suggest that “we got pennies on the dollar in the best case scenario”?

    We won’t get that until the CBO no longer fears retaliation from democrats over that. It might be decades. But if you need immediate proof, I point you to the shitty economic numbers that the LSM constantly, and unexpectedly at that, need to revise down after reporting how great all this Keynesian nonsense is.

    BTW, the CBO has a history of getting these collectivist money transfer schemes all wrong. The scored Social Security’s top cost to Americans at some $9 billion. Today we know better. Same with Obamacare, where they actually somehow pretend that it will save us money by artificially putting up a 10 year window where the government collected taxes for all 10 years but then only paid out benefits for 5 or 6 tops, and ignoring what comes after that. The front end pieces of this disaster that immediately went into effect, like the removal of the no previous condition exclusion, cost so much more than they estimated, that they have shut down or exhausted the funding scheduled for the whole programs over the next 10 years in the first year.

    The list of other such “wishful thinking” CBO projections of liberal wealth transfer schemes is long and distinguished. But you can pretend that this trillion dollar boondoggle every democrat is running away from was anything but bad. Just don’t ask me to waste time “debating” that with you. You have a far better chance of trying to get me to debate the positive side of child molestation, which will never happen.

    Why do you insist on mistaking attack for defence? Is it to distract so you can avoid all these questions?

    Actually, it’s because these “questions” are intended to drag anyone stupid enough to actually think you mean well into meaningless side conversations that basically you hope to capitalize on to confuse the fact that this boondoggle was a failure, CM.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  13. CM says:

    They dropped it from 4.2 to 4.2? Was that a typo, right?

    Well spotted.

    BTW, that was the BEST CASE SCENARIO numbers.

    It was. But the drop wasn’t drastic. It was about the slightest it could have been.

    I did not initially say anything.

    You said “which the LSM will simply ignore”. And then your said “only to then have the LSM focused ONLY on the best case scenario numbers”. Make up your mind.

    Source me any of the LSM members writing an article pointing out that the CBO recently downgraded their numbers and pointing out that they lowered not just the best case numbers you remain fixated on, but the worst case numbers which are also far likely to be the reality of what happened.

    Nice try, but I’m not fixated on anything, merely pointing out your attempt to spin everything you come across. You relied on an article that somewhat dishonestly failed to point out why they revised the numbers.

    If the LSM ever does report on this downgrade, I expect it to be more of the same as “unemployment is UNEXPECTEDLY up yet again bullshit we get week after week, month after month, and for the last 3 years.

    The unexpected part is based on economists expectations. So what exactly is the problem? Which economists should they be taking advice from?

    The only people fooled are the ones that want to be. And then you will attack me for pointing out they are spinning the story in favor of the collectivist crooks that robbed us.

    The problem is that you simply CLAIM they’re “spinning the story”. But you’re unable to demonstrate it. Again, in that example you gave, where is the evidence of the opposite? In order for them to be spinning the story, they’d have to be relying on Paul Ashworth (and others) holding a minority opinion. If that’s the case, where are all the economists which you’re basing your opinion on? Seriously, where are they all?

    Seriously? BECAUSE THAT”S ALL BULLSHIT!

    Jesus H Christ. The reason they revised the numbers is explained IN THE REPORT. It wasn’t just a revision based on updated data. It was an adjustment of METHODOLOGY and a revision of projections of the TIMING of changes in federal spending. To dismiss and ignore (to the point of calling them “ALL BULLSHIT”) the VERY reasons given (not hidden by the way, like it was in your linked piece) is the height of ridiculousness. Honestly, how far do you let yourself go with this intellectually dishonesty? Do you have no personal standards at all?

    This wealth transfer scheme was a failure from the start.

    That’s apparently your opinion. You don’t seem to be able to demonstrate it though.

    The methodology around it is bullshit.

    How so? Please explain how/why the methodology the CBO use is “bullshit”. Or is it just how you ‘feel’? You know, like, emotionally?

    Changing already bogus and made up junk numbers that were created for political expediency to hide the fact that the democrats ripped us off and got it all wrong, and that the CBO itself now admits that in the long term this was real bad, IS the story. Stay focused.

    Oh I see. By reading the ACTUAL REPORT I lost focus. Wow, what a strange little world you inhabit.

    How were the numbers bogus/junk? Which ones specifically? Where is your evidence that they were created for political expediency (here is yet another example of you accusing people of fraud without evidence – how classy)? Where does the CBO “admit that in the long term this was real bad”? I don’t see anything of the sort. Are you looking at an entirely different report? Oh that’s right, you never actually look at source material, my bad.

    Who the fuck cares?

    Presumably you should care. Apparently this is all the work of evil collectivists. And yet if the Republican candidate had won, what would have been different? Even if the size of the stimulus had been a little smaller, that means the only difference would be one of degree.

    Why would I let myself be distracted by this bullshit when the issue at hand is that the left is fucking full of crooks & idiots?

    Why would you be distracted by a question about what would have happened had the left not been in charge? Being that you seem certain that these problems are 100% the result of the evil lefty collectivists? I guess only someone with your mentality could answer that.

    That’s 2 questions in a row that are intended to confuse the subject and/or drag people into meaningless discussion you hope will confuse the issue enough to keep justifying the unjustifiable. Classic CM, though.

    How do those questions even remotely “confuse the issue”? Unless you’re under about 10 years of age.
    But sure, you can keep ignoring that one if you like. Let’s get back to how you didn’t even read the report you seem to know all about. LOL.

    We won’t get that until the CBO no longer fears retaliation from democrats over that.

    No, you have already seen the clear evidence. You know that “It was a complete and total disaster. We got pennies on the dollar in the best case scenario.” So which economists or analysis are you relying on. It’s clearly not the CBO analysis.
    Where is the evidence that the CBO is pressured to be partisan?

    But if you need immediate proof, I point you to the shitty economic numbers that the LSM constantly, and unexpectedly at that, need to revise down after reporting how great all this Keynesian nonsense is.

    As the surprise comes from the economists, you should really be taking it up with them. Again, which economists AREN’T surprised?

    The list of other such “wishful thinking” CBO projections of liberal wealth transfer schemes is long and distinguished.

    I’ll have a look.

    But you can pretend that this trillion dollar boondoggle every democrat is running away from was anything but bad.

    Not pretending anything of the sort. I was pulling you up on your inability or unwillingness to consider source material. If it’s so obviously bad, that should be very easy to demonstrate.

    Actually, it’s because these “questions” are intended to drag anyone stupid enough to actually think you mean well into meaningless side conversations that basically you hope to capitalize on to confuse the fact that this boondoggle was a failure, CM.

    Why is “questions” in inverted commas? Did some blog tell you that sometimes questions aren’t even questions?
    You’d need to be severely mentally challenged to be confused by the questions I’ve posed. Most of them are obvious questions which result directly from YOUR statements.

    Again whether it was a failure or not is largely up to interpretation. I’m sure those people who got jobs through it (that wouldn’t have been employed otherwise) would disagree. Strongly.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  14. CM says:

    Following on, here are some non-CBO economic studies on the effects of the stimulus. They also suggest that the stimulus has created or saved jobs.

    Again, it all comes to down to issues such as:
    (a) whether you understand what the fundamental purpose of a stimulus package is
    (b) the thresholds you want to use to determine whether it was a ‘success’ or a ‘failure’ (and whether you can accept that it may be somewhere inbetween)

    http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/cea_7th_arra_report.pdf
    http://web.econ.ohio-state.edu/dupor/arra10_may11.pdf
    http://www.frbsf.org/publications/economics/papers/2010/wp10-17bk.pdf
    http://nasbo.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=H6sHQ5MhK5o%3D&tabid=81

    Mark Zandi, chief economist for Moody’s Analytics, projected that without the stimulus bill, the country would have had 1.75 million fewer jobs as of the third quarter of 2011.

    “The debate is how much, not whether it had a benefit,” Zandi said.

    Daniel Wilson, a senior economist at the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, has estimated that stimulus spending created or saved 3.4 million jobs by March 2011.

    Ohio State University economics professor Bill Dupor offered another projection.

    Due to the stimulus bill, there were 870,000 private-sector jobs and 510,000 government jobs in place in December 2010, said Dupor, who made the analysis with University of Western Ontario economics professor Tim Conley.

    http://www.politifact.com/new-jersey/statements/2011/dec/04/chris-christie/chris-christie-claims-barack-obama-did-nothing-t/

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  15. CM says:

    The claim that “The economic stimulus created zero jobs” is one of the finalists for “Lie of the Year” at politifact.com.

    http://www.politifact.com/virginia/statements/2011/oct/21/national-republican-senatorial-committee/national-republican-senatorial-committee-ad-says-s/

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  16. AlexInCT says:

    You said “which the LSM will simply ignore”. And then your said “only to then have the LSM focused ONLY on the best case scenario numbers”. Make up your mind.

    Trouble with English I guess. The LSM reported the ORIGINAL BEST CASE SCENARIO NUMBERS as if those where fact, and did not even bother with the worst case ones. They have avoided the down grade story entirely. Why do I need to make up my mind? Maybe you should worry about your lack of comprehension of simple concepts?

    Nice try, but I’m not fixated on anything, merely pointing out your attempt to spin everything you come across. You relied on an article that somewhat dishonestly failed to point out why they revised the numbers.

    So me correcting the LSM making up bullshit to protect their stupid ideology makes me the one spinning? Yeah, OK. here is what I am going to do CM – what everyone else does once they have made their point and you pretend you are arguing in good faith – I am going to not bother with you anymore. Post all the stupid propaganda you want. There isn’t that much difference between your rambilings and the LSMs bullshit anyway, and nobody here is being fooled by any of it.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  17. CM says:

    The LSM reported the ORIGINAL BEST CASE SCENARIO NUMBERS as if those where fact, and did not even bother with the worst case ones.

    Where did they report this? Links?

    So me correcting the LSM making up bullshit to protect their stupid ideology makes me the one spinning?

    How are you “correcting” them? By adding your opinion?
    Sorry, but that’s not “correcting”. It’s just adding your opinion.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      

Comments have been disabled.