CRC wrote:gcomeau wrote:
Of course they can exist, and of course they are allowed.
But they have an agenda. They aren't an objective arbiter of what was occurring, they exist for the PURPOSE of promoting one specific view of events. So of course their analysis is going to say their view is right. The entire reason they exist is to say their view is right..
That is why their analysis should be especially interesting to you. it provides a completely different perspective. I could say the same about any anti- or pro-global warming advocacy group.
You are writing as if you think I wasn't already familiar with the analysis of any of those groups.
There is no such thing as an objective POV. Period.
But there are analyses which make the best attempt. And there are analyses which have *no interest* in objectivity. The CBO is the former. Your cited think tank is the latter.
gcomeau wrote:Minor revisions only. The reality that the stimulus clearly worked is unchanged. Which is the only point of disagreement with your right wing think tank analysis that matters for this topic.
Minor revisions that add up to Billions of dollars.
In a multi Trillion dollar budget.
Minor. Revision.
One which does not alter the conclusion that is the point of contention. That the stimulus *worked*.
gcomeau wrote:No, not really. Not when the purpose is to get that money circulating in the economy. Also known as ECONOMIC STIMULUS.
The POINT is to spend money. Do you really still not understand that?
I understand that. I also understand that the GREAT RECESSION ended in June 2009. Prior to anything the ARRA did to for ECONOMIC STIMULOUS.
Oh FFS.
The technical definition of the end of a recession is the first quarter GDP growth switches from negative to positive. So yes technically the recession ended June 2009.
But you are saying that as if the problem was over then. That there was no more economic emergency to address. What were the economic conditions in June 2009?
Unemployment was at almost 10%, the financial markets were in disarray, the housing market had been *gutted*, GDP was massively depressed.
End of technical recession does not mean end of problem. FFS 7 years later unemployment was at half that, GDP had been growing for years, the housing and financial market was stabilized..... and Republicans were STILL claiming the economy was a disaster. So compare that to 7 years ago and try telling me it was all fine back then because "the recession ended".
The end of the recession is like the last of the fire that burned your house down being extinguished. That doesn't end your problem, there's still all that fire damage to deal with. You still have to rebuild your damn house and replace all your lost stuff. And that doesn't come free.
That. Takes. Spending.
If someone came along and told you you were being ridiculously irresponsible spending money to put a roof back over your family's head and replace their burned up clothes and etc etc because "what are you doing? The fire isn't burning any more! There's no serious problem you need to be spending all this money on!" how would you react to that???
And it doesn't to me. Not with the additional burden of the money being borrowed that was spent.
Now, had Obama put $100B in a manned mission to Mars, that would have been money well spent considering the type of investment return we got back from the moon shots.
You have to be kidding me.
Look, I'm a huge fan of manned missions to Mars, but there were other rather clearly higher priorities at the time.
gcomeau wrote:Which is the one thing *I* agreed with them on too. And which Democrats agree with them on. And which the GOP does NOT.
The GOP accepts the CBO analysis and this particular type of impact.
Yeah, their words and actions say otherwise
They don't act like they accept it. They act like tax cuts are God's magic economy medicine and spending is of the Devil every time it's time to give a speech to their base.
gcomeau wrote:If you don't know who keeps insisting on tax cuts as stimulus in American politics you have been buried in an underground bunker somewhere for the last 30 years with no outside media access.
Tax cuts do stimulate, just not as much as direct purchases, according to the CBO analysis. But tax cuts give power back to the people that earned the money in the first place. GOVT keeping that money gives power to the politicians.
Oh bullshit.
The most free and most powerful the middle class in this nation has EVER been was during the huge middle class expansion of the 50s and 60s.
Tax rates dwarfed what they are now.
When we talk about tax cuts from the GOP we are pretty much ALWAYS talking about tax cuts for the rich to make sure they can accumulate ever increasing amounts of wealth and power. So sure, THOSE people get more power given to them. But not most people, most people get screwed.
gcomeau wrote:As a sop to the Republicans to try to get them to vote for the damn thing.
Yes, its called political bargaining. Just like giving tax increases is how you get Democrats on board. That pretty much sums it up right there.
Yes it does!
Because see, the nature of the bargaining matters. And what did the Republicans demand as their bargaining position? That more of the stimulus was in the form of tax cuts, the *least* effective form of stimulus.
gcomeau wrote:HE'S NOT FIGHTING AN ECONOMIC EMERGENCY. He was handed a relatively healthy economy from Obama. There is no reason to sign emergency spending legislation outside the normal budget cycle.
Yes Obama was fighting an economic emergency that essentially ended 5 months after he took the oath of office.
See previous response to this nonsensical statement.Recession ending does not mean emergency ending.