What will make the stimulus successful?

[Calabrio]

To make it completely clear, I opposed the so-called "stimulus" from it's inception. I think it will do damage to the country, and in the best case scenarios, we're passing a debt burden to future generations that is unethical and inexcusable.

But it's abundantly clear that there are some here who supported it. While I'm inclined to ask why, I'm really interested in knowing how will you measure its success?

This bill was passed in very quickly, with virtually no opportunity for debate. It was sold to the public with a sense of dire urgency. Speed was of the essence.

So, what do you expect to happen now?
How long will it take before we see this trillion dollar recovery?
Do you expect to see unemployment at or above 7% in six months or a year from now?

What, if anything, would indicate that it was a failure?

Also, would anyone support another trillion dollar stimulus if nothing happens in six months?

(I'm going to use my mod powers to try to keep things on topic in this thread as to not discourage others from participating. Don't take offense if I clean up the thread.)

 

[Mr Wiggl3s]

Be successful at putting money in my wallet sir. Last i heard that was pretty much 95% what it was suppose to

Nothing's supposed to happen anyway until the next election year. How convenient.

Remember what Biden said, thirty percent chance they get it wrong.

Yea, thats a bitch part of having the ability to do :q:q:q:q. You might get it wrong. Sometimes i think people think it would be better if we just got rid of the option.

 

[Calabrio]

Be successful at putting money in my wallet sir. Last i heard that was pretty much 95% what it was suppose to....

Could you put it in terms that are more specific, I don't understand what your benchmark is.

Based on that, the last stimulus in February, 2008 put at least in a $300 rebate in everyone's hand, though I don't think you'd consider that $168,000,000,000 plan to have been successful.

 

[Calabrio]

It's curious that none of the Obama supporters or prolific Democrats who have expressed support for this bill will actually tell us what they expect it to do or provide a rough reference as to what will make it "successful." I'd think you should have an idea of what constitutes success before supporting an $800B bill.

 

[foxpaws]

It's curious that none of the Obama supporters or prolific Democrats who have expressed support for this bill will actually tell us what they expect it to do or provide a rough reference as to what will make it "successful." I'd think you should have an idea of what constitutes success before supporting an $800B bill.

Sometimes we dems don't have time to answer all the posts out here - sorry Cal...

A success...
If the Dems hold Congress in '10 and Obama is re-elected in '12...

Isn't that the answer you wanted me to give

 

[luxuryrules]

Very thought provoking question, and you present it in a manner conducive to all discussion. I will also jump in with saying there are a few things I like in the Stimulus, but a lot that I don't. You are also hitting on something very big here, in that the rush to get this pushed through nobody has asked these questions and as a result, nobody has actually thought about the answers.

So, what do you expect to happen now?
How long will it take before we see this trillion dollar recovery?
Do you expect to see unemployment at or above 7% in six months or a year from now?
And what, if anything, would indicate that it was a failure?

Happen now? I understand I'll be getting a few dollars extra in my paychecks every week. That will be nice.
How long for recovery? Nobody knows. I would not expect to see recovery even begin for another year or so.
Unemployment around 7%: yes. We are losing half a million jobs a month and I would not be surprised to see that trend continue, so even to lose fewer jobs a month is a step in the right direction, but unemployment will get higher before it gets better. Extending unemployment benefits is one of those parts of the stimulus I don't like - I know lots of people take advantage of the unemployment program just to get free money for as long as possible, and I hate giving those people more money out of my taxes.
Indicate a failure? After a year or so, if job losses haven't stemmed, if the GDP is still shrinking, or deflation.

Also, would anyone support another trillion dollar stimulus if nothing happens in six months?

Nope. I didn't like this one, there is no reason to do it again - unless it can be done with less money used more intelligently.

It's curious that none of the Obama supporters or prolific Democrats who have expressed support for this bill will actually tell us what they expect it to do or provide a rough reference as to what will make it "successful." I'd think you should have an idea of what constitutes success before supporting an $800B bill.

That's exactly right - nobody has thought of what would indicate success, so they have not defined it.

I'm sincerely hoping the effect of the 'goods' in this bill outweigh the effect of the 'bads' but I have a feeling that is not going to be the case. Even still, nobody knows what will happen in the future and at the very least we should hope that this actually works. What's done is done, if it turns out to be a failure then the only thing we can do is learn from our mistakes and keep plugging away. The American people are very resilient and we work harder than most of the rest of the world, so ultimately we will pull through. The only question is when, and whether the government will have helped us or hindered us.

 

[Calabrio]

Isn't that the answer you wanted me to give

What do you expect to happen now that the bill has been signed?

How long will it take before we see the recovery, and how will we know?

Do you expect to see unemployment at or above 7% in six months or a year from now?

What, if anything, would indicate that it was a failure?

Would anyone support another trillion dollar stimulus if nothing happens in six months?

 

[Calabrio]

Luxury, correct me if I'm wrong, but in essence your saying, you don't expect the stimulus to stimulate anything? Nothing short term.

 

[luxuryrules]

Luxury, correct me if I'm wrong, but in essence your saying, you don't expect the stimulus to stimulate anything? Nothing short term.

You may be oversimplifying more than I intend you to, but yes. Short term nothing is going to happen, at least that will be of a measurable and significant difference to us the taxpayers. We will be getting a few extra dollars in our pockets, but not nearly what it will take to 'jump start' the consumer economy, so really that will just help people put food on their tables or pay down debt.

Stimulating anything... yeah, I agree, it really is a poor name for the bill. The Pork Bill is more like it. I do like seeing the money in there for infrastructure development and public works projects, because our aging roads/bridges/pipelines/power grid/etc will eventually need to be addressed, but I would rather not see it called 'economic stimulus' when they do it - and whatever it does stimulate will be drawn out a couple of years from now, again returning to not stimulating anything in the short term.

Fundamentally, the American people and businesses have taken on way too much debt over the past decade or two, and the time has come to pay the price for such irresponsibility. I can only hope that we as a country will learn from this, so that future generations don't try to buy a $2M house on a salary of $50k a year, while driving cars worth triple their annual salary and drinking $5 cups of coffee every morning.

 

[Calabrio]

This thread has been cleaned up to encourage participation.

 

[luxuryrules]

Shame there's little activity here. In the interest of sparking things up again, does anybody see how Obama can keep the promise of halving the deficit after having just spent thirteen figures worth of money?

I'm all for that idea, but I can't see how it will happen without massive government downsizing and some very probable tax hikes.

 

[Calabrio]

Shame there's little activity here. In the interest of sparking things up again, does anybody see how Obama can keep the promise of halving the deficit after having just spent thirteen figures worth of money?

I'm all for that idea, but I can't see how it will happen without massive government downsizing and some very probable tax hikes.

He doesn't intend to reduce the total deficit, but the annual deficit.
And he'll use 2009 as the baseline. Since the spending will be so staggeringly high this year, reducing it $500B or $800B won't be that difficult.

 

[luxuryrules]

He doesn't intend to reduce the total deficit, but the annual deficit.
And he'll use 2009 as the baseline. Since the spending will be so staggeringly high this year, reducing it $500B or $800B won't be that difficult.

That clears it up a good deal. Since the Stimulus package is only supposed to last for two years, that means the spending *should* end in early 2011 and he can start working to reduce the deficit. At least, I hope.

 

[Calabrio]

That clears it up a good deal. Since the Stimulus package is only supposed to last for two years, that means the spending *should* end in early 2011 and he can start working to reduce the deficit. At least, I hope.

I might be wrong on that last one, but that was a plausible answer at the time I made it. I actually think he's totally full of crap. If you thought the Clintonian legalese approach of specific language was tiresome, you haven't seen anything yet (that depends on what the meaning of what the word "is" is).

Isn't it interesting that prolific posters who embrace the politics of Obama won't respond to this thread?

 

[alexfranke]

Wow. This actually sounds like the type of political discussion I originally hoped this forum would offer!

...I'm really interested in knowing how will you measure its success?
. . .
How long will it take before we see this trillion dollar recovery?

I would look to see some positive trends by 2011 -- like employment report, home starts, investor confidence, GDP, inflation in check, etc.

This bill was passed in very quickly, with virtually no opportunity for debate. It was sold to the public with a sense of dire urgency. Speed was of the essence.

It's a shame.

So, what do you expect to happen now?

I don't expect much of anything -- but I would hope that things don't continue spiraling out of control. I would like to see new jobs created or saved in a lot of different fields, and for a lot of different people. I would like to see the money getting out there as quickly as possible in a way that most benefits Americans, their businesses, and their future generations.

I hope that people will begin to feel that things are getting better -- or will be getting better soon. And at the end of the day, if it all works out, I'd love to see some ingenious new discoveries or advances -- some real game changers -- credited to the American spirit and drive.

Do you expect to see unemployment at or above 7% in six months or a year from now?

Probably above, but I'd like to see it start to trend downward by next year this time.

What, if anything, would indicate that it was a failure?

Chaos, rioting in the streets, coup d'etat, runaway inflation or unemployment. Things like that.

Also, would anyone support another trillion dollar stimulus if nothing happens in six months?

Maybe. We've had a bit of time to see what happened and learn from TARP, and we'll have a bit more experience with this sort of thing six months from now. I think it's important that we get the best minds in the country to set politics aside and reach some sort of consensus on the best way to move forward.

I don't presume to know the answer to this problem, so I have to rely a lot on what the "experts" have to say. I'll try to stay in the the know and form my opinion and decision when the time comes.

 

[fossten]

I think it's important that we get the best minds in the country to set politics aside and reach some sort of consensus on the best way to move forward.

Empty words. None of the best minds in the country are in Washington. In fact, nothing but the worst minds are in Washington.

 

[alexfranke]

Empty words. None of the best minds in the country are in Washington. In fact, nothing but the worst minds are in Washington.

There's nothing empty about them. Regardless of where the best minds are (or who they work for), I think it's important that they set politics aside and reach some sort of consensus on the best way to move forward. If nine out of ten of the best dentists prefer Crest, double-blinded, then I'll probably choose to use Crest.

 

[Calabrio]

If nine out of ten of the best dentists prefer Crest, double-blinded, then I'll probably choose to use Crest.

But what if 8 out of 10 of those dentists were hoping to be hired by Crest after retired from dentistry, or started their careers working for Crest?

 

[alexfranke]

But what if 8 out of 10 of those dentists were hoping to be hired by Crest after retired from dentistry, or started their careers working for Crest?

That's why I said double-blind.

 

[Calabrio]

I would look to see some positive trends by 2011 -- like employment report, home starts, investor confidence, GDP, inflation in check, etc.

Two years from now? That's not much of a "stimulus." A natural economic correction would take less than two more years. Shouldn't we see "stimulative" effects, especially noting the vast size of the bill, within a year?

I don't expect much of anything -- but I would hope that things don't continue spiraling out of control. I would like to see new jobs created or saved in a lot of different fields, and for a lot of different people. I would like to see the money getting out there as quickly as possible in a way that most benefits Americans, their businesses, and their future generations.

But what in the so-called stimulus leads you to believe that positive things are going to happen? Correct me if I'm wrong, but you're really basing your entire opinion on optimism and faith in the ability of those in government.

Amongst a lot intelligent, though casual observers of government, I'm seeing this trend. There's sort of a dismissal of the haste and outrageous size of the bill, and then just a lot of hope that it'll work out. Much like you just did, when talking about the haste and speed at which the largest spending bill in history was passed, you casually acknowledge it as a shame rather than an outrage. And I get the impression that you just hope it works out based upon the presumption that the people in charge in D.C. know what they are doing.

I'd love to see some ingenious new discoveries or advances -- some real game changers -- credited to the American spirit and drive.

But instead we're putting our faith in the government and actually moving towards a command economy.

Chaos, rioting in the streets, coup d'etat, runaway inflation or unemployment. Things like that.

Perhaps you could be more specific than just cities burning.
This wasn't even a $160B stimulus, it was $800,000,000,000.
Don't you think that we should see some significant and demonstrable improvements within the next year?

Would I be wrong in assuming that you think things might get "a little" worse than they are right now, but things should start looking pretty optimistic by mid-2010? That unemployment and everything else should be trending in the right direction by March, 2010?

I don't presume to know the answer to this problem, so I have to rely a lot on what the "experts" have to say. I'll try to stay in the the know and form my opinion and decision when the time comes.

Have you considered what might happen with free-market, capitalist solutions were applied instead of the big government, socialist approach?

 

[Calabrio]

That's why I said double-blind.

That doesn't happen in Washington.

Furthermore, you have contrasting philosophical, political, and economic schools of thought. To push your analogy into the absurd, it'd be like having a bunch of dentists from Cambridge who felt that if you just ate a lot of sugar all at once you could stop cavities, and another group from Vienna who thought brushing two times a day was the best way to do it. Both would be considered "experts".

 

[alexfranke]

Two years from now? That's not much of a "stimulus." A natural economic correction would take less than two more years. Shouldn't we see "stimulative" effects, especially noting the vast size of the bill, within a year?

Yes and no. A positive trend by 2011 means that things have been looking up for enough time to call it a trend. But, yes, I'm suggesting two years partly because I don't consider this a very natural economic situation, and partly because I see it as more of a hemostat than a stimulus.

But what in the so-called stimulus leads you to believe that positive things are going to happen? Correct me if I'm wrong, but you're really basing your entire opinion on optimism and faith in the ability of those in government.

Like I said, I don't expect much of anything. I hope there will be a lot of positive things that come out of it, but if I'm coming across as blindly optimistic, then you should know that fingers are crossed on both hands behind my back.

I'm cautiously optimistic that whatever leaders my fellow countrymen have chosen will do their best to do what's right for the people, even though I probably won't agree with all of it, and I will probably speak out against some of it. But I hope that whatever is done turns out to be the right thing to do.

I do have faith in our form of government, but not always in all of the people who are elected. I base my opinions on lots of things, but rarely on faith alone.

I do think that dumping that much money into the system should have some effect in the short term (so long as it's not all going to pay for foreign-made DTV converters, etc), but I don't know what effect to expect. I can't imagine that all of it will just evaporate. I am concerned about inflation in our future, though, and even a run on the American dollar.

Much like you just did, when talking about the haste and speed at which the largest spending bill in history was passed, you casually acknowledge it as a shame rather than an outrage. And I get the impression that you just hope it works out based upon the presumption that the people in charge in D.C. know what they are doing.

Pretty much-- there's not a lot else I can do right now. To me the word outrage sort of implies a wanton disregard of human decency, and I don't think that's what happened. But I do think it's shameful, so that's probably why I picked that word.

But instead we're putting our faith in the government and actually moving towards a command economy.

Regardless of where we're putting our faith, at the end of the day I'd love to see some really groundbreaking advancements. If that comes from government handouts now that the bill is law, then that's fine by me. Of course I'd prefer it to be done without government handouts, but that's out of my hands.

Perhaps you could be more specific than just cities burning.
. . . .
Don't you think that we should see some significant and demonstrable improvements within the next year?

I'm not sure I can get more specific... Maybe if the money never got out there, or if huge chunks of it went to foreign businesses, to buy foreign-made goods, or employ non-citizens.

Within the next year would be nice, and I would also consider it successful if that happened.

Would I be wrong in assuming that you think things might get "a little" worse than they are right now, but things should start looking pretty optimistic by mid-2010? That unemployment and everything else should be trending in the right direction by March, 2010?

I think things will get worse before they get better. I wouldn't use the phrase "a little."

I believe this will be a tough year. I hope it's not, but I'm planning as though it will be. By the end of next year, if I don't see some positive 3-6 month trends, I'll be pretty disappointed.

Have you considered what might happen with free-market, capitalist solutions were applied instead of the big government, socialist approach?

Yes, to some extent that I have read or envisioned those solutions. (I've often wondered if a better way to spend that much money was to simply suspend income taxes, for example.) And I could have supported an alternative approach, too.

I'm interested in hearing about and considering other approaches that might have worked or worked better for my own edification.

Thank you for helping to keep this discussion respectful.

 

[alexfranke]

That doesn't happen in Washington.

That's why I said "set politics aside."

Furthermore, you have contrasting philosophical, political, and economic schools of thought. To push your analogy into the absurd, it'd be like having a bunch of dentists from Cambridge who felt that if you just ate a lot of sugar all at once you could stop cavities, and another group from Vienna who thought brushing two times a day was the best way to do it. Both would be considered "experts".

I'm not sure I get the schools of thought point. I don't think you're talking about the dentists -- could you explain?

Regarding the foreign dentists, if they were the most respected experts in their field, and they reached a consensus on the best way to move forward, then I would probably go along for the ride. But this seems trivial and off-topic -- my point was that I will usually trust a consensus formed by a group of top minds in a field outside of my own expertise (dentistry, economics, physics, whatever).

 

[shagdrum]

my point was that I will usually trust a consensus formed by a group of top minds in a field outside of my own expertise (dentistry, economics, physics, whatever).

Then you would be buying into what they say for fallacious reasons; specifically, an appeal to authority type argument. That is an argument where an assertion is deemed true because of the position or authority of the person asserting it.

The fact is, in the economic community there is no "consensus" supporting keynsian economics. If there is any strong consensus at all, it is against keynsian economics (outside of liberal hacks like Krugman).

Economics can basically be broken down into two schools of thought or points of view; theory and reality. The theory camp tends to be the elites who are more apt to buy into keynsian economics which is where Obama's views come from. Then there are the realists, which is the larger group, and they reject Keynsian economics (because it has been proven to fail) in favor of more realistic and proven ideas (like the Laffer curve).

 

[alexfranke]

Then you would be buying into what they say for fallacious reasons; specifically, an appeal to authority type argument. That is an argument where an assertion is deemed true because of the position or authority of the person asserting it.

I believe that appeal to authority would apply more to my religious convictions than it would to my point in this case. I'm not formally arguing that what nine out ten dentists say is true is actually true. I hope it turns out to be true, but I don't presume to know if it is, nor do I know enough about the issue to reason my way through it or form a more empirical conclusion. There's definitely some faith in there.

But I can see your point. I do indeed rely on the expertise of authorities when making my own decisions. I don't think that's too uncommon, though.

The fact is, in the economic community there is no "consensus" supporting keynsian economics. If there is any strong consensus at all, it is against keynsian economics (outside of liberal hacks like Krugman).

I don't know enough about Keynsian economics to debate it. I'll have to read more about it.

Economics can basically be broken down into two schools of thought or points of view; theory and reality.

Regardless of what kind of economics "moving forward" might entail, I think it's important that experts (both realist and theorist, left and right, green and purple) set politics aside and try reach some sort of general agreement on the best way to move forward. I think it would help bolster consumer confidence as well.

If it's impossible, then they should try to make it possible. That's how great things happen. (Apollo 13 comes to mind. The movie was great, too -- I think I'll add it my my NetFlix again. )