American Recovery and Reinvestment Act is working!

[UncleBob]

Or not...

http://www.factcheck.org/politics/making_sense_of_stimulus_spending.html

Whoops.

 

[tivo]

The private sector -- not government -- will get us out of this mess. All the government should be doing is creating an environment where people take risks to expand the job rate.

 

[Quillion]

[quote name='tivo']The private sector -- not government -- will get us out of this mess. All the government should be doing is creating an environment where people take risks to expand the job rate.[/QUOTE]
Isn't that a direct GWBush quote?
[quote name='George W Bush']"I know it's going to be the private sector that leads this country out of the current economic times we're in," the former president said to applause from members of a local business group..."The major role for the government is to create an environment where people take risks to expand the job rate in the United States," he said to huge cheers.[/Quote] http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jun/18/bush-takes-swipes-at-policies-of-obama/

The best person to listen to while fixing a problem is the person who started it, after all.

 

[RAMSTORIA]

i was driving to san jose this past weekend and there was a sign on the freeway that said "american recovery and reinvestment act at work". first time ive seen it "at work". i had no idea that project needed money as its been going for a year and to the best of my knowledge has been continuous.

 

[Koggit]

[quote name='tivo']The private sector -- not government -- will get us out of this mess. All the government should be doing is creating an environment where people take risks to expand the job rate.[/QUOTE]
how can you say that at a time like this, when we're at the eye of a shitstorm raindanced by that very line of thought

 

[tivo]

All I'm saying is that some convalescence should be occurring in the economy but its obstinate. Unemployment rates are rising as if we have a pestilence at hand and the government's panacea, the once effulgent stimulus package which was sailing in to revive our extreme prostration, has gone athwart producing no recognizable improvements. Should we look to the government again for another remedy? Let's put faith back into the private sector.

 

[mykevermin]

Funny how the "hey, this isn't working, perhaps we should try something else" argument comes about in these circumstances, but when it comes to revising healthcare, that mentality is nowhere to be found amongst these same people.

I'm a bit more patient than these people in terms of bashing government intervention in favor of an ideology.

But then again, I also like to do more than look at one chart.

But, hey, what do I know about the unemployment rate?

 

[HowStern]

Here's a chunk of text from OP's article that hasn't been mentioned:

So Bernstein is sticking to the prediction that unemployment will be substantially lower with the stimulus bill than without. On that point there's good economic theory to support him. Last October, for example, Republican economist Martin Feldstein, who had been Ronald Reagan's chief economic adviser, wrote in the Washington Post: "The only way to prevent a deepening recession will be a temporary program of increased government spending." He argued for a package in the hundreds of billions of dollars. Later Feldstein wrote that the package Congress was considering was "a mistake" and said it should concentrate more on military spending and temporary tax credits for such things as home improvements and buying automobiles. But he added: "The problem with the current stimulus plan is not that it is too big."

 

[elprincipe]

[quote name='HowStern']Here's a chunk of text from OP's article that hasn't been mentioned:[/QUOTE]

Obviously he's a Keynesian fool as well. I posted the same graph some time ago as it was included in another article. There is no real defense against the facts from the administration's defenders except "be patient." I sure hope they are right, since there's not really any going back now - unless we had politicians that grew brains and repealed the "stimulus" bill.

 

[HowStern]

Feldstein isn't the only economist to say the bill was too small.

Nobel Winner Paul Krugman Tells Face The Nation President-Elect's Stimulus Plan Not Big Enough

 

[mykevermin]

[quote name='elprincipe']Obviously he's a Keynesian fool as well. I posted the same graph some time ago as it was included in another article. There is no real defense against the facts from the administration's defenders except "be patient."[/QUOTE]

You could have read the bloomberg link I posted that showed unemployment claims declined in early June, and new enrollments are up, but only by 3,000 (an overall insignificant increase that suggests more stability than incrase).

But that's not as fun as basing an opinion off of a chart that doesn't include that information, is it?

 

[UncleBob]

"Increases in new unemployment claims suggest stability"

Hmmm.. Bizzarro World.

 

[mykevermin]

an increase of 3,000 when the monthly average is over 600,000 is bad, but it's not as bad as a statistically significant jump.

It's elementary statistics.

 

[UncleBob]

3,000 new claims - not bad.

608,000 new claims... ouch.

 

[soulvengeance]

[quote name='tivo']All I'm saying is that some convalescence should be occurring in the economy but its obstinate. Unemployment rates are rising as if we have a pestilence at hand and the government's panacea, the once effulgent stimulus package which was sailing in to revive our extreme prostration, has gone athwart producing no recognizable improvements. Should we look to the government again for another remedy? Let's put faith back into the private sector.[/QUOTE]

Dude, are you reading a dictionary or something? You do realize this doesn't make you look smarter, right? Anyway, it's pretty early to say it's not working at all, at least give it a little while. I don't really see why we should put our faith back into the private sector.

 

[cochesecochese]

I've got interviews out the ass lined up for the next two weeks. Go Pats.

[quote name='tivo']All I'm saying is that some convalescence should be occurring in the economy but its obstinate. Unemployment rates are rising as if we have a pestilence at hand and the government's panacea, the once effulgent stimulus package which was sailing in to revive our extreme prostration, has gone athwart producing no recognizable improvements. Should we look to the government again for another remedy? Let's put faith back into the private sector.[/QUOTE]
the

 

[UncleBob]

My point isn't that the plan is or isn't working at all. It's that our current administration (both the Executive and Legislative branches (That's Dems and Repubs) that created and passed this abomination of an act) obviously had no idea what they were doing or what they were dealing with. "X is what we think will happen if we do nothing. Y is what we think will happen if we do this." Then, they go forth with their plans and -Z#@ happens. Either they never had a clue what was going to happen to begin with or their plan just made things way worse.

Either way, I sleep better at night knowing these are the people in charge.

 

[mykevermin]

[quote name='UncleBob']3,000 new claims - not bad.

608,000 new claims... ouch.[/QUOTE]

I said an increase of 3,000 - meaning an increase over the baseline.

Don't misread me.

 

[UncleBob]

I'm just saying, an increase of 3,000 may not look that bad (unless you're one of those 3,000, of course), but you can't just look at that. 608,000 more people filed for unemployment claims. In addition to the crazy-high unemployment numbers we have now. In addition to those who are no longer eligible for unemployment or have just given up.

 

[bmulligan]

[quote name='mykevermin']You could have read the bloomberg link I posted that showed unemployment claims declined in early June, and new enrollments are up, but only by 3,000 (an overall insignificant increase that suggests more stability than incrase).

But that's not as fun as basing an opinion off of a chart that doesn't include that information, is it?[/QUOTE]

Wait, wait, wait.

Aren't you the one who made a point of telling us that the "unemployment rate" is a misnomer at best and doesn't reflect the actual number of unemployable, or unemployed people?

How can you now use figures of dubious calculation to prop up an argument for a burgeoning recovery? Many of those people may just have given up looking for work or have lapsed their benefits because they cannot find jobs and don't fall within the criteria of the measure. The rate of increase in claims is lowering? Great, but a sign of a recovery it's not. Only 3000 over the baseline. tsk tsk. I thought you could make better stuff of numbers than that.

 

[mykevermin]

Even if it's an inappropriate measure of what actual unemployment, that doesn't mean it is unstable.

It has its uses, albeit limited ones.

You're really rarin' to single me out tonight, eh?