Reply With Quote
Hey, at least I try. Can't say the same for you.
On what are grounds are these "mul ude of economists" basing their conlusion that the stimulus worked?
a) Unemployment
b) Stock market performance
c) Deficit as % of GDP
d) Housing sales
Please, elaborate?
Hey, at least I try. Can't say the same for you.
Awwwwww... you want somebody to mop your brow, fella? You must be exhausted from the effort you've expended in this thread alone
That says that tax cuts had a lot to do with quadrupling the deficit. It just questioned the veracity of one superlative.
Thanks for taking the time to prove yourself wrong.
100s of 1000s, maybe Ms, of jobs were saved by the stimulus provided to state and local levels. Which was primarily addressing the overwhelming priority: reducing unemployment and maintaining employment.
The decline in GDP was lessened by the stimulus.
The stimulus was never intended to pump up the stock market or Wall St, never meant to reduce the deficit (duh).
At this point, housing foreclosures and late payments are mostly due to unemployment.
Keynesian stimulus didn't work in 2001. Tax cuts with out cutting spending is de facto keynesianism. All it did was promote bad sectors instead of letting them falter.
Keynesianism can be achieved through printing money to bail out bad sectors, and start new govt programs, tax cuts, or war.
The only time a keynesian tool has achieved any success was the WW2.
And that wasn't because of govt spending, or stimulus. What govt did there was impose rationing which forced investors and the public to save, along with removing a huge part of the labor force to get killed in europe and asia.
This was a command economy in which the Govt became the largest investor and purchaser while it restrained buisiness.
Unless Paul Krugman is going to propose we initiate another world war, or have the govt ration supplies for a reason, then whatever he proposes is idiocy.
We don't have another way to create an artificial boom like removing the currency from gold, we did that already, worked for England and got them out of the depression of the 30's quicker.
Why don't you just explain to us the rational you have for the obvious stimulus failure?
Well, it said that the tax cuts (across the board) account for 48% of 2001-2007 legislation costs. What is that percentage with the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 factored in?
It sad that you can't even put forth the same effort as boutons.
You were wrong.
You proved you were wrong.
You even gave a link.
This is why we laugh at you.
Had you placed your goalposts properly in the first place, you wouldn't have to attempt to move them now.
The ? You made a statement and I'm asking you to back up what you said. You need to brush up on burden of proof. I've posted so many links to people talking about the stimulus working. When was the last time you posted anything of substance?
What is that percentage with the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 factored in?
The ? You made a statement and I'm asking you to back up what you said. You need to brush up on burden of proof. I've posted so many links to people talking about the stimulus working. When was the last time you posted anything of substance?
Is the prerponderance of evidence that the stimulus is working? Or not working?
I asked you earlier what was the basis for all those economists that said the stimulus was working. That was YOUR claim.
Why are you moving the goalposts?
Just so Chump knows, the deficit didn't quadruple in 2007.
Youtube must be down.
Darrin who made their statement first? Me or you?
I gave you a list of factors that are currently sucking asss
a) Unemployment
b) Stock market performance
c) Deficit as % of GDP
d) Housing sales
And I asked you what those economist are using to guage success. See, this is how it works. It's your turn.
Wait, so that was your proof that it was blatently obvious the stimulous didn't work?
Just so Darrin knows, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 didn't only authorize spending.
Perhaps he can now figure out why what he said was so incredibly stupid.
Deficits are based on revenue and spending. Bush tax cuts represent lost revenue. What percentage of the CURRENT deficit are these lost revenues, when the stimulus is factored in?
Wait, so that was your proof that it was blatently obvious the stimulous didn't work?
What were the goals of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009?
If you knew, your
According to you 0%, Darrin.
Then I misspoke. They aren't zero (obviously). But are they significant when compared to the stimulus? Where's RandomGuy when you need him?
The goals are exactly what it accomplished. Improvements across the board on the economy.What were the goals of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009?
If you knew, your
Yes, I know what you're going to say no so go ahead and tell me how Obama gave an arbitrary number that we passed and ignore the fact that without the stimulus it would have been worse.
Its funny that you make fun of Krugman all the time because his forecasts of what this stimulus was going to do have been pretty much perfect.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions