gcomeau wrote:
You are writing as if you think I wasn't already familiar with the analysis of any of those groups.
Just taking you at your word where you dismissed my reference to them because of the political leanings, not because of what they wrote.
gcomeau wrote: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.
Not necessarily. CBO has a predetermined process and procedure that is considered 'non-partisan' and that does not translate to 'objective'. There is a big difference.
gcomeau wrote:
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*.
Depends on how you define 'worked'. I prefer to look at it from a 'cost effective' POV - which should be all of us taxpayer's POV. Spending $1 to achieve a dime's worth of stimulous is not my idea of cost effectiveness.
And a billion here, a billion there, which is $10k a year for 100,000 families, is not an insignificant chunk of change.
gcomeau wrote:
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???
Here we go again. Changing the rules. Conflating anecdotes. The definition of the end of a recession is that the GDP, which you state was massively depressed, is now growing again rather than contracting.
Your analogy of spending money to fix the house is completely BS. Let me interpret it the way it should be seen. Your house burns down, you take the insurance money, you borrow 10x more money, then you start giving the money away to friends and family, you eat out at very expensive restaurants, you travel a lot, you hire business associates to design a new house, you pay them up front (they don't deliver), after all the money is gone, you end up pitching a tent and complaining about it...
gcomeau wrote:
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.
I would never kid you. You're being squishy again. "Clearly higher priorities..". So let's test your social conscience - who in the world would you allow to DIE while you funded a manned mission to Mars. Be specific as you think about that and while you think about that, realize what anyone could say about your heartless, selfishness in allowing that person to DIE while you send money elsewhere. Think about the red light on the camera, the microphone in your face, the poor starving or dead child/whale/seal/elephant/man/woman video playing in split screen while you answer the question how this technological problem spending is more important than this person/animal/thing dead or dying.
My point is simple. No amount of spending will ever solve all 'higher priority' issues. By turning inward over the past 20-25 years and not looking 25- 50 years ahead we are internalizing rather than pushing the ball forward. This will have grave consequences for the future of the human race as we are still limited to one fragile planet only...
To some people there will always be 'higher priorities' than major technological government sponsored projects.
gcomeau wrote:
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.
Tax cuts take power away from the politicians (who parcel it out for votes) and give it back to the tax payers - the people who earned it in the first place. Economic power to the people. What can possibly be wrong with that?
gcomeau wrote:
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.
Oh such an eloquent rebuttal - throwing the BS flag. Here we go again - tax cuts for the rich - please. The rich, for the most part, earn their money - there are exceptions of course. The politicians take that money, borrow more, and give it away to buy votes.
No most people get free money. Take a very close look at the CBO report of 2013. THEN look at a couple of 'op-ed' type reviews of that report and you will see how the 'snapshot' of 'total wealth' is VERY misleading once you take into account government programs.
gcomeau wrote:
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.
But the most democratic wouldn't you agree? Once again, giving people back a portion of what they earned has to take priority over frivolous spending - or income redistribution.
gcomeau wrote: See previous response to this nonsensical statement.Recession ending does not mean emergency ending.
Hmmm. So hindsight is not 20/20? The fact that it ended does not mean what it is supposed to mean? So basic facts that all can agree with do not conflict with 'facts' necessary to continue the debate? So the end of a recession does not mean the end of an emergency when viewed retrospectively. Interesting argument.
But this entire thread is now so far off base from the original premise.