CBO: Obama stimulus harmful over long haul

Actually, not so much.

CBO estimates that the Senate legislation would raise output by between 1.4 percent and 4.1 percent by the fourth quarter of 2009; by between 1.2 percent and 3.6 percent by the fourth quarter of 2010; and by between 0.4 percent and 1.2 percent by the fourth quarter of 2011. CBO estimates that the legislation would raise employment by 0.9 million to 2.5 million at the end of 2009; 1.3 million to 3.9 million at the end of 2010; and 0.6 million to 1.9 million at the end of 2011.

Those estimated effects are slightly greater than those of H.R. 1 (as introduced) in 2009 and 2010 (particularly in 2009), but lower in 2011, because more of the overall rise in spending and fall in revenues occurs in the first two years under the Senate legislation.

Nope, that’s just Iraq but keep digging and dodging, ol boy!

Well, there’s a red flag.

Translation: “Who does this elitist think he is? What with all his fancy ‘words’ and ‘sentences’. A real man talks and writes with grunts and moans! Ooga-chaka! Ooga-chaka!”

I agree about the need to get people working again. But spending almost $1 trillion to get “some” people working again is ridiculous. Despite a lot of talk about how this bill will create jobs, I’ve yet to see anyone provide any kind of detailed analysis that shows how spending this much money will result in significant numbers of jobs created. Instead, we get funding for various (and often nebulous) “programs”, each which, we are assured, will (possibly utilizing magic) create new jobs.

I explained how this works. These “programs” aren’t magically run by robots. People run them. People whose job it is to run them. People who are paid to run them. I don’t know how I can make this any clearer.

So which is it? This bill is super awesome “as-is” and should be passed immediately and without delay, or it has spending in it which won’t help stimulate the economy and will only contribute to the deficit problem (like the “misguided” critics have been saying)?

This objection would make sense if the opponents were opposing it on a few specific points. Instead, they are objecting the stimulus on the grounds of it being a stimulus in the 1st place. It’s possible to defend a general idea while thinking it could use some improvements.

Dave, you may be sure, when an economist has given you his opinion, he has analyzed the situation. His professional reputation is at stake. And yes, I know some of the Cato economists (Milton Friedman?) are Nobelists. To make judgments of judgments requires subtlety and regular reading, ie, of Krugman’s column and TV appearances, not to mention Jim Cramer’s show and books, to be able to assess them with any degree of probity. Such judgment, on the part of lay people like myself, relies on our objectivity and education in most cases; here, as I said, it’s easier: the volume of the consensus is pretty deafening, to THINK STIMULUS and THINK TRILLIONS. And ACT NOW.

And how about the $1 trillion stimulus bill, much of which creates and funds new programs or substantially increases funding to existing ones? It’s setting a new baseline for an awful lot of spending. What’s the long term cost of all this increased funding? I suspect it will make your $1.2 trillion spent on Iraq and Afghanistan estimate look pretty small in comparison.

So where is the analysis coming from this “consortium of economists, Nobelists and otherwise”? A lot of opinions, sure, but actual analysis?

And by the way, some of the economists signing the Cato letter are Nobel laureates too.

It appears Oliver is okay with the CBO as long as it supports his position:

CBO: Bailout Could Make Economy Worse
September 24th, 2008 | 7:57 pm

Oliver: Scared yet?

You mean the direct military expense. The total cost of the “He Tried To Kill My Daddy” War will tally to about 1.2 trillion in total cost when you factor in reconstruction costs, healthcare for wounded vets, disablity payments and interest- thats a conservative estimate, BTW..

And the chorus of intelligent, let’s-do-it advocates of stimulus is deafening. Krugman doesn’t think the package is big enough, nor do most others, but acknowleges it’s a first step.

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.

By all means, anotherbozo, let’s ram this thing through, warts and all. Although those warts are looking more like malignant tumors.

Or Geithner, President of NY Fed? We saw how THAT all worked out, didn’t we? What’s that saying about repeating things and expecting a different outcome?

Which is why Obama wants limits on exec pay for companies that get federal aid.

And I agree. But what’s he doing on the far more important issue of keeping himself and Congress from bankrupting us all with out of control Federal spending?

Touching speech. If you can’t refute the argument, play to the emotions. Right from the Liberal Handbook.

Tell me how you’ll love living the highlife while collecting welfare/unemployment benefits.

You do know that “welfare” and “unemployment” are two totally separate things, with different purposes, don’t you?

Would that be President “I Won” Obama? And that process, would that be the “Pelosi-Reid drafting the bill behind closed doors with ZERO Republican input ()and little Democrat input)?

Your accusation of the Republicans being the ones partisan in this mess is touching, if a bit inaccurate.

With the exception of some proposals from centrist republicans (a rare breed), all I’m hearing from the Rs is talk about tax cuts.

Then you need to listen more. I gave you a link above from Coburn. He’s not the only one. The claims that “Republicans only want tax cuts” is a myth that Oliver and other people here like to push.

As I understand it, what needs to be done is to get people confident in the economy so they start spending money again. That’s the aim of the proposed plan. What President Obama didn’t count on is the inability of most of the republicans to get beyond party affiliations and really engage in the process.

With the exception of some proposals from centrist republicans (a rare breed), all I’m hearing from the Rs is talk about tax cuts. But you know, that’s all I’ve heard since, oh, about y2k. Tax cuts didn’t keep the problem from starting and it surely won’t fix what’s broken today.

Like Paulson and Bernake?

but I prefer the people in charge of the economy to be just a little more prudent with OUR money.
Which is why Obama wants limits on exec pay for companies that get federal aid.

Time to get a new talking point, Jam. Iraq’s only cost us $550 B, give or take.

I think jam was talking more about the cost of blood.

The image of intellectually challenged Republican obstructionists as arsonists getting in the way of the fire trucks is a good one.

I think Obama should table Lincoln for the moment and channel LBJ: the arm-twisting he did to pass the Civil Rights Act was reportedly rough but, in the end, totally justified. Does Obama have the leverage over dullard Senators that LBJ had? If not, I wish to hell he did.

Jaim, if you’re using Nancy “500 million jobs lost every month!!” Pelosi as your information source, I’d think again.