And pay special attention to the source:
http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-...atestheadlines
The $800 billion economic stimulus package signed into law early last year "has had a slightly bigger effect on the U.S. economy than was projected when it was passed more than a year ago," the Wall Street Journal reports.
"Through the first quarter of 2010, the stimulus boosted employment by an estimated 1.3 million to 2.8 million jobs, about a quarter or half million more than projected. Gross domestic product was 1.7 to 4.1 percentage points higher than it would have been without the stimulus."
I would be curious how they differentiate between how much the stimulus helped, and what it would have been without the stimulus.
Please don't spam us.DOW JONES NEWSWIRES
The $800 billion U.S. stimulus package has had a slightly bigger effect on the U.S. economy than was ...
To continue reading, Subscribe now.
Worse yet, the le tells us it's from the CBO. Do you trust the CBO?
Why are you being a tool for the demonrats?CBO: Economic Effect Of Stimulus Bigger Than Projected
Last edited by Wild Cobra; 05-27-2010 at 10:22 AM.
What would the reason(s) be to not trust the CBO?
Are you serious? They have one of the worse track records of analysis and predictions ever.
They may be bipartisan, but they are elitist stateists.
Is this one of those "it would have been much worse if we did nothing" reports? Kind of difficult to prove.
Sincerely,
15 million unemployed Americans
There is nothing you can show me that it helped.
Sincerely,
Darrins
here is the link:
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/115xx/doc...05-25-ARRA.pdf
which part of this is an example of bad analysis in your opinion
LOL@ better than expected. Barry said if we pass the Stimulus that unemployment wouldn't go above 8 percent.
Stimulus didn't work.
The $800 billion economic stimulus package signed into law early last year "has had a slightly bigger effect on the U.S. economy than was projected when it was passed more than a year ago," the Wall Street Journal reports.
"Through the first quarter of 2010, the stimulus boosted employment by an estimated 1.3 million to 2.8 million jobs, about a quarter or half million more than projected. Gross domestic product was 1.7 to 4.1 percentage points higher than it would have been without the stimulus."
Even I thought that was optimistic bull .
Stimulus did work, it isn't as bad as it would have been otherwise.
Do you really believe their crystal ball?
Please tell me you aren't that naive.
How do you know it wouldn't be better if the stimulus didn't pass? can you see into alternate dimensions?
WC, If you want to stop talking in bull anecdotes and actually provide data on why the stimulus didn't help or how things would not be any worse or even better without it then by all means I'm ready to listen.
GDP is, in part, calculated by factoring in government spending as part of the equation, if you may remember from some previous discussions.
Make the "G" term bigger, especially by borrowing, and you get larger GDP, QED.
One thing that I think a lot of people lose sight of is that spending on infrastructure projects has some rather solid synergies.
you don't like to read, do you.
much easier to ass talk.
That's a recent do ent. Past predictions have a 50% chance either way if done correctly. If the past prediction was purposely low-balled, it has a higher than 50% chance of saying the bailout worked.
Again, what would have happened if there was no bailout? Can you trust a CBO report on that? Wasn't unemployment not suppose to get as high as it did?
Please wake-up, and stop trusting these elitists. They only have their future as a concern. Not yours.
So you don't trust the CBO at all. Is that what you are saying?
You act as if the CBO is the only one saying it worked. In the past I have linked several private economic firms who have said the exact same thing: Without the stimulus - the recession is far worse.
I don't even think any serious person takes this as a debatable issue. I just post these threads to get people like you and Jack to squirm with BS.
I will agree to the "infrastructure."
How much of the bailout had anything to do with infrastructure?
Did we build a border fence?
Did we improve the transit systems?
Are the Pennsylvania Interstates still filled with potholes?
Have we built any large power systems?
As far as I know, we didn't do any new construction at large scale. We only did "Trickle-Down-Bailouts" at large scale. My God. To say they are "too large to fail" is giving in to Fascism.
Yes, I resemble that remark.
And the data you provided is proof?
Please don't make me laugh.
So is there any non partisan organization that you would trust when reviewing their economic data?
Where's your proof to refute the article?
I'm a pretty big fan of the CBO, personally. They seem to couch their estimates fairly. Of course, the OP doesn't mention that this is only an estimate. The CBO admits that the underlying employment data isn't exactly pristine and has to use models based upon "previous similar policies" in addition to other corrective methodology. That's why it's an estimate. I guess Manny likes estimates.
I think that's one of the factors that keeps the employment figures from being as solid as the CBO would like.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
