«

»

Today it’s been 5 year since they promised a recovery (UPDATED)

Today marks the 5th anniversary of the Porculus bill that the left told us would solve all the problems causes by evil Boosh dropping taxes and starting all the wars they were for before they were against them. I suspect the LSM will not bring this up, because frankly, things look bleaker, if anything, today then they did then. And we only pissed away some $6 trillion to get here. No problem they don’t think other people’s money can’t fix.

Seems that the WSJ also remembered the anniversary of the biggest rip-off of the American tax payer, and wrote about it. Let me paste the entire thing for people that might not have access, because it is worth reading:

Five years ago today, President Barack Obama signed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act into law. The $830 billion spending blowout was sold by the White House as a way to keep unemployment from rising above 8%. But the stimulus would fail on its own terms. 2009 marked the first of four straight years when unemployment averaged more than 8%. And of course the unemployment rate would have been even worse in those years and still today if so many people had not quit the labor force, driving labor-participation rates to 1970s levels.

The Obama White House had been egged on by liberal economists like Paul Krugman, who in November of 2008 recommended a stimulus of at least $600 billion. Team Obama worked with Democrats in Congress to exceed his minimum request by more than 30%. But after the failure of the stimulus the same liberal economists who had enthusiastically supported the plan would claim that its main flaw was that it was too small.

Shortly after the passage of the Recovery Act in 2009, Vice President Joseph Biden urged local politicians not to spend the money on “stupid things.” They ignored his advice, and so did Mr. Biden. The federal government poured billions into the government and education sectors, where unemployment was low, but spent only about 10% on promised infrastructure, though the unemployment rate in construction was running in double digits. And some of the individual projects funded by the law were truly appalling. $783,000 was spent on a study of why young people consume malt liquor and marijuana. $92,000 went to the Army Corps of Engineers for costumes for mascots like Bobber the Water Safety Dog. $219,000 funded a study of college “hookups.”

In aggregate, the spending helped drive federal outlays from less than $3 trillion in 2008 to $3.5 trillion in 2009, where federal spending has roughly remained ever since. The legacy is a slow-growth economy: Growth over the last 18 quarters has averaged just 2.4% — pretty shoddy compared to better than 4% growth during the Reagan recovery in the 1980s and almost 4% in the 1990s recovery.

The failure of the stimulus was a failure of the neo-Keynesian belief that economies can be jolted into action by a wave of government spending. In fact, people are smart enough to realize that every dollar poured into the economy via government spending must eventually be taken out of the productive economy in the form of taxes. The way to jolt an economy to life and to sustain long-term growth is to create more incentives for people to work, save and invest. Let’s hope Washington’s next stimulus plan is aimed at reducing the tax and regulatory burden on American job creators.

Let the excuse making begin.

28 comments

No ping yet

  1. CM says:

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 16

      
  2. Seattle Outcast says:

    I find it funny that libs talk about the recession as if it’s over.

    Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0

      
  3. Mook says:

    I was also promised that invading Iraq would solve all the world’s problems

    Please cite ANY national politician who made such a claim. Otherwise, have the balls and the honesty to admit that you’re making up lies to advance a lying narrative.

    Hot! Thumb up 8 Thumb down 2

      
  4. Hal_10000 says:

    No, Alex, you see we just didn’t go far enough. We should have spent more! Why look at Japan. They went full-in on Abenomics and their GDP is … well, stagnant actually. Doing worse than ours. But never mind that. We know that Keynesian economics works because reasons.

    Thumb up 11 Thumb down 0

      
  5. CM says:

    Sure Mook, right after you cite someone who claimed the stimulus would “solve all the problems causes by evil Boosh dropping taxes and starting all the wars they were for before they were against them”. Otherwise, have the balls and the honesty to admit that you’re enabling lies to advance a lying narrative. The stimulus was to halt economic collapse and stop jobs being lost at a record rate, not to start an economic boom or anything else. It was specifically designed to break the recession.
    Obama: I don’t want to pretend that today marks the end of our economic problems, nor does it constitute all of what we must do to turn our economy around”. But no, apparently some people heard “this will solve all the problems caused by the tax cuts and wars” instead.

    Hal, many economists who have studied it have concluded that the stimulus had a positive effect on the economic recovery. Using different methodologies. But it is hard to say with any real specificity *how much* the stimulus helped, particularly compared to what would have happened otherwise. Numbers vary widely. Very very few find the opposite. But I’m sure they’re all biased and corrupt because Obama.
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/post/did-the-stimulus-work-a-review-of-the-nine-best-studies-on-the-subject/2011/08/16/gIQAThbibJ_blog.html

    Hot! Thumb up 4 Thumb down 10

      
  6. CM says:

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 9

      
  7. CM says:

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 8

      
  8. Section8 says:

    Hal has it right, it will always be we just didn’t spend enough. Remember the unemployment projection chart where doing nothing ultimately ended up being better than the actual outcome of all this spending? Thing is with throw more money at it policies the solution is always to throw more money at it, and when you have a OMG we need to do something NOW! society, throw more money at it arguments tend to work, although the actual method itself doesn’t work for shit, and the failure just rewards itself with calls for more money.

    Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0

      
  9. Seattle Outcast says:

    CM-Tard hasn’t ever heard of “cooking the books” apparently.

    Your “technical” recession doesn’t account for the stagnant job market, people on unemployment 5 years and counting who have dropped out of the labor force, inflation, and deficit spending at levels that are simply too stupid to comprehend how intelligent people could have voted for them.

    You can claim that “economists” have this and that until the cows come home and you start having sex with them again, and yet the pale truth of the matter is that not one single coin of “stimulus spending” has ever delivered on promises.

    Keynes himself didn’t even believe the own steaming pile of shit that has his name attached to it when he kicked the bucket.

    Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1

      
  10. Hal_10000 says:

    S8, to be fair that unemployment chart was based on outdate numbers. The recession was much more severe than they thought. And CM, I am aware of the models that show that the stimulus helped. However … those same models predicted Japan would have 2+% growth in Q4, not 0.3%. Those models depend on various assumptions, some of which are quite shaky. IT seems that real world tests never shake them.

    Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0

      
  11. AlexInCT says:

    No, Alex, you see we just didn’t go far enough.

    The fact that this was seriously advocated Hal, just scares me to death. I understand that nobody likes to admit they are wrong, but shit, how hard do you have to fuck people over, and how many people have to be fucked that hard, before you take a step back and admit you have got it wrong?

    Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

      
  12. Poosh says:

    Obviously the “invade Iraq” scenario is only advocated when in tandem with other objectives (and not bugging out as Obama did) and obviously it’s not “invade” but actually regime change, which is quite diff.. you know, obvious stuff here, wasted breath.

    Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0

      
  13. CM says:

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 8

      
  14. Seattle Outcast says:

    Or alternatively it will always be “doing nothing would have been better”. Even though there is nothing to back that up.

    1) It is not the role of government to regulate the economy, provide economic “stimulus”, or get in bed with lobbyists to the detriment of the country

    2) Doing nothing is quite frequently the better alternative, particularly when you are trying to put out a fire with gasoline, or treating a patient by drilling holes in their head to get the evil spirits out

    3) You might want to study that thing called “history” that you can’t quite get the hang of. There you will find that not once hasveKeynesian solutions to economic woes worked – at all. Actually, starting with the Great Depression, they have made things much worse than they would have been. During the Carter administration we actually saw Keynesian theory completely falsified when we had stagflation.

    Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0

      
  15. CM says:

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 7

      
  16. Seattle Outcast says:

    No, it’s not the function of ANYONE to “regulate” an economy – for the simple reason that the only thing that can actually be done is to get out of the way. Thinking that anybody can do anything else, aside from enforcing criminal laws for theft, fraud, etc, is sheer idiocy.

    “New Keynesian” = New economic creationism

    The very foundation of Keynesian economics is fantasy, much like your links to “data”…

    Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

      
  17. Seattle Outcast says:

    Nice of you to list Lenin as one of the surest reasons for governments to stay out of economics. Once you let the criminals in (Lenin, Obama, Kennedy, etc) the whole thing is a fuck up.

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

      
  18. Section8 says:

    S8, to be fair that unemployment chart was based on outdate numbers. The recession was much more severe than they thought.

    I was being fair. That was the chart that was sold to push a huge stimulus package. If I recall you pointed out several times that the projection of doing nothing was ultimately lower than what occurred with the spending Obama was able to successfully roll out. Not sure why the change of heart now, but not surprised either. Once that was done, real steps to improve the economy like reducing small business crushing regulation were put on the back burner for corporate favoritism, and a cluster fuck healthcare law.

    Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0

      
  19. CM says:

    No, it’s not the function of ANYONE to “regulate” an economy – for the simple reason that the only thing that can actually be done is to get out of the way. Thinking that anybody can do anything else, aside from enforcing criminal laws for theft, fraud, etc, is sheer idiocy.

    And that opinion is why you’re way out on the fringe.

    “New Keynesian” = New economic creationism

    The very foundation of Keynesian economics is fantasy, much like your links to “data”…

    Ok then SO. Whatever you say.

    Nice of you to list Lenin as one of the surest reasons for governments to stay out of economics.

    Except that I didn’t. But as usual you’ll make something up and then make yourself believe it and then use that in the future as some sort of evidence. YAWN. Different day….etc

    Once you let the criminals in (Lenin, Obama, Kennedy, etc) the whole thing is a fuck up.

    I’m not sure there was a crime committed when the stimulus package was passed under Obama. Have you managed to ‘unskew’ something again?

    I was being fair. That was the chart that was sold to push a huge stimulus package. If I recall you pointed out several times that the projection of doing nothing was ultimately lower than what occurred with the spending Obama was able to successfully roll out. Not sure why the change of heart now, but not surprised either.

    Would it not be fair to suggest that if they knew at that stage how bad it would get, the projection (of doing nothing) would have been adjusted accordingly? Otherwise you’re comparing apples with oranges.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 5

      
  20. CM says:

    From Alex’s article (which he could have easily written himself if there were only 20 spelling errors)…

    Growth over the last 18 quarters has averaged just 2.4% — pretty shoddy compared to better than 4% growth during the Reagan recovery in the 1980s and almost 4% in the 1990s recovery.

    However GDP growth was at -5.4% during Q1 2009 and +4.1% in Q3 2013 (before the government shutdown). That’s a 9.5% improvement. What was the equivalent improvement in those comparisons?
    http://useconomy.about.com/od/economicindicators/a/GDP-statistics.htm

    Also, recessions brought on by financial crises are thought to take much longer to recover from because of their nature. Financial crises are very bad for growth over long periods. Or does that not matter because Obama (and Lenin and Kennedy apparently too)?

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 5

      
  21. Xetrov says:

    Yay! http://cnsnews.com/news/article/terence-p-jeffrey/106-obama-has-more-doubled-marketable-us-debt

    …despite the massive increase in the government’s marketable debt during Bush’s eight years, Obama managed to accumulate more additional marketable debt in his first five years in office than all the presidents who preceded combined.

    It’s certainly change, though I don’t see a lot of hope.

    Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0

      
  22. Xetrov says:

    Damn you, Blockquote!

    Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

      
  23. Seattle Outcast says:

    And that opinion is why you’re way out on the fringe.

    And that “fringe” would include entire schools of economic thought – the ones the actually match up with reality.

    Remember, per your thinking CM-Tard, whatever you think is the majority opinion is right! That’s why we still bleed patients to release evil spirits, the earth is flat, light travels through the luminiferous ether, flying machines are the work of crackpots, and thunderbolts come from Zeus.

    Of course, you could test all of those ideas and see which ones are correct, but that would required understanding of scientific method and data analysis – two other things you are horrible with.

    Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0

      
  24. Iconoclast says:

    Or alternatively it will always be “doing nothing would have been better”. Even though there is nothing to back that up.

    Just as there is nothing to back up the notion that doing the Stimulus was “better” than doing nothing at all, even though that is what you and those in your camp keep claiming, or implying at the very least.

    Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0

      
  25. Iconoclast says:
    Today marks the 5th anniversary of the Porculus bill that the left told us would solve all the problems causes by evil Boosh dropping taxes and starting all the wars they were for before they were against them.

    I was also promised that invading Iraq would solve all the world’s problems. I demand a refund (in lives as well as monetary cost).

    And you wonder why you’re treated so “badly” here, why people (like me) immediately assume the worst about you. Well, this is a perfect example. Alex was definitely overstating things a bit, but the truth is that Bush in general, his tax cuts and wars more specifically, were indeed blamed for the financial crisis to a large degree, the financial crisis the Stimulus was supposed to address. Hell, those same things were still being blamed for the weak recovery years in. Given that, Alex didn’t “demand” anything by way of recompense. Not anything at all, in spite of the fact that there is at least a grain of truth to the notion that the Stimulus was indeed supposed to — at some level — solve, or at least address, the problems incurred by Bush’s tax cuts and wars.

    On the other hand, you come charging in with a “promise…[to] solve all the world’s problems“, and you make demands that are utterly impossible to meet, such as the resurrection of thousands of dead people (or perhaps the sacrifice of thousands you may deem “guilty” of some damned thing or another, to make up the loss). Nobody anywhere ever claimed anything remotely comparable to “solving all the world’s problems”, yet that’s your overstated take away. And, as a Kiwi, I sincerely doubt that you personally were “promised” anything at all, although I am confident that, via Herculean stretches of the imagination and the truth, you can “show” that you were.

    So, the bottom line is that your immediate response indicates that you are a dick and an ass, so you are invited to sodomize yourself at your earliest opportunity…

    Thumb up 10 Thumb down 2

      
  26. CM says:

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    Thumb up 2 Thumb down 9

      
  27. Iconoclast says:

    Huh? There are studies that have concluded that it was significantly positive, as mentioned and linked to. How are they ‘nothing’?

    They have no way of quantifying what would have happened if nothing was done — they simply proceed from the bald-faced assumption that things would have been “really really really really bad” if nothing was done. Of course the conclusions would be “significantly positive” when based on such as assumption.

    Bush told me that “the peace of a troubled world” depended on all the men and women of the United States armed forces.

    Told you that personally, did he? Regardless, that still isn’t remotely comparable to “solving all the world’s problems”, unless you can convincingly argue that “all the world’s problems” are simply Islamic terrorism, and if you can convincingly argue that Bush claimed that invading Iraq, in and of itself, would solve that problem.

    Actually, I have gone back and researched that phrase, and surprise surprise, you took it out of context and misrepresented it in a flaccid attempt to score points. What Bush actually said was:

    To all the men and women of the United States armed forces now in the Middle East, the peace of a troubled world and the hopes of an oppressed people now depend on you.

    So, he wasn’t actually telling you anything, chump. He was talking to the U.S. military forces in the Middle East. And it is still a far far cry from “I was also promised that invading Iraq would solve all the world’s problems.”

    Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

      
  28. Iconoclast says:

    But anyway, as already mentioned, nobody claimed that the stimulus (and ONLY the stimulus) “would solve all the problems causes by evil Boosh dropping taxes and starting all the wars they were for before they were against them”.

    I have already conceded that Alex overstated the claim, so this is beside the point. That point is that there is simply more truth in his overstatement than there is in yours, yours being basically none whatsoever.

    Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

      

Comments have been disabled.