A TRILLION DOLLAR DISASTER… CBO Confirms Obama-Pelosi Stimulus Damages Economy in Long Run

Worst. President. Ever.

The CBO confirmed today that the $787 billion Obama-Pelosi stimulus plan damages the economy in the long run.
The Washington Times reported:

The Congressional Budget Office on Tuesday downgraded its estimate of the benefits of President Obama’s 2009 stimulus package, saying it may have sustained as few as 700,000 jobs at its peak last year and that over the long run it will actually be a net drag on the economy.

CBO said that while the Recovery Act boosted the economy in the short run, the extra debt that the stimulus piled up “crowds out” private investment and “will reduce output slightly in the long run — by between 0 and 0.2 percent after 2016.”

The analysis confirms what CBO predicted before the stimulus passed in February 2009, though the top-end decline of two tenths of a percent is actually deeper than the agency predicted back then.

#1 November 22, 2011 at 6:40 pm
BridgetGB commented:

It will Drag on and on and on in the long and short run if Big Govt elitists aren’t tossed out on their arses. More.Failed.Democrat.Policy.

This is the year to get involved politically, folks!

Register Voters.
Become a Poll Worker.
Become a Poll Watcher.
Walk Precincts.
GOTV.
Donate.
#2 November 22, 2011 at 6:52 pm
Questionman commented:

“CBO: Obama Stimulus hurts economy in the long run”
You tell that to the people’s whose jobs were saved.
You tell that to the people who continued to receive unemployment that (barely) kept them out of
misery.

In your analysis. . .it doesn’t take into account the additional jobs that would have been lost, without the stimulus.

Tell that to the GM workers whose jobs were NOT a casualty of the terrible downturn in the economy in 2008!

And ask yourself why, the Bush tax cuts, and the deregulations under Bush led to the 2008 economy crash.

Ask yourself why jobs were NOT created, but disappeared under Bush tax cuts (you know, those tax cuts that encourage the “job creators” to “create jobs?).

I think you guys missed this part of the article…

“All told, the stimulus did boost jobs and the economy in the short run, according to CBO’s models. At the peak of spending from July through September 2010 it sustained anywhere from 700,000 to 3.6 million, which lowered the unemployment rate by between four-tenths of a percent to 2 percent.

For this current quarter CBO said the stimulus is sustaining between 600,000 and 1.8 million jobs, which has improved the unemployment rate by as much as 1 percent versus what it otherwise would have been.”
#3 November 22, 2011 at 7:08 pm
BeckgalTX commented:

Nothing with these clowns is as advertised. Nothing! How they are able to muster a plurality of support at this point makes me question the intelligence of the average American.

On another note- this blog is one of my favorites and has been for the last two years. I rarely post, but just wanted to put that out there. Also, I know advertisers are a necessary part of the equation, but Alan Grayson? Really? That’s just so wrong.
#4 November 22, 2011 at 7:16 pm
Objective Analysis commented:

Road to hell was not paid with good intentions from these democRATS. Get the socialist, communist, fascist bumbs out. They should be flogged and hanged for treason.
#5 November 22, 2011 at 9:44 pm
Mikey commented:

@ Questionman (above)
I’ve (almost) never have seen so many lies and distortions in one post.
Too much bullsh!ttery for this place.
#6 November 22, 2011 at 9:49 pm
Freddy commented:

The CBO is desperatly trying to save their worthless jobs! They should all be fired for gross incompetance and political hackery.
#7 November 22, 2011 at 9:49 pm
Swifty commented:

I’m still waiting for that 8% unemploymenmt we were promised by this administration. It shows me that they have no clue whatsoever what they are doing as they merrily go along guessing and spending money no one has. They are a damn disgrace.
#8 November 22, 2011 at 11:51 pm
Mark Barnes commented:

This is clearly a human rights violation.
#11 November 23, 2011 at 5:14 am
squeaky commented:

when the government claims job stats, i always wonder. i worked for a state agency at one time and i know that they were only interested if someone held a job for 30 days and reported it as successfully transition to full time employment on their stats – if the person was no longer employed on day 31 they didn’t want to know. so if you had 120 people employed for 30 days that is the number they submitted…….the 100 who left the job because of different reasons were ignored. john q taxpayer would only read about 120 people who were now working but would never know that the real number was 20 unless they had a clue from the inside track.
#12 November 23, 2011 at 5:22 am
Nick commented:

Did anyone on this post actually look at the CBO report. I see no mention of the 700,000 jobs number. More misinformation from the right. The report states clearly and the vast majority of educated economist state that this stimulus worked. The only problem was it wasn’t large enough to give the proper boost. Look at history during the Great Depression and the deficit reduction of 1937 and tell me what we are doing wrong and what we are doing right today as relevant to historical facts on ways to get the economy rolling. Also look at the income inequality levels during the years before the great Depression. Do you see anything that looks like today?
#13 November 23, 2011 at 5:27 am
squeaky commented:

“CBO said that while the Recovery Act boosted the economy in the short run..” oregon had reported jobs created [in the beginning] that in reality were just 35 hour [1 week] shots – hardly anything that would make you run out and spend. if someone claims 2 million jobs, i want a definition of what they label a job. when you lose your bread and butter jobs the little ones can’t survive.
#14 November 23, 2011 at 7:20 am
bg commented:

++

OT (not really, i mean, what topic isn’t related to the “wone” /s)..

If Only Obama Had Been This Guy 11/23/11

[Alas, a few days before his all-but-certain election, he glibly
telegraphed what would prove the seminal mistake of his
administration, telling Time magazine's Joe Klein that, right
after fixing the financial crisis, "a new energy economy . . .
That's going to be my No. 1 priority when I get into office."

The financial crisis would not be fixed, but Mr. Obama decided
our sagging economy would just have to endure fights over
the big ideas he was so determined to implement anyway,
including health care, re-empowering labor, redressing income
inequality, etc.]

sneakiest president & hard core racist first lady ever!!

==
#15 November 23, 2011 at 8:16 am
theBuckWheat commented:

It turns out that we now have a study that shows that cuts in taxes have a far higher economic benefit than increases in government spending. This is covered in a delightful weekly podcast EconTalk by Russ Roberts.

ref:
Valerie Ramey of the University of California, San Diego talks with EconTalk host Russ Roberts about the effect of government spending on output and employment. Ramey’s own work exploits the exogenous nature of wartime spending. She finds a multiplier between .8 and 1.2. (A multiplier of 1 means that GDP goes up by the amount of spending–there is neither stimulus nor crowding out.) She also discusses a survey looking at a wide range of estimates by others and finds that the estimates range from .5 to 2.0. Along the way, she discusses the effects of taxes as well. The conversation concludes with a discussion of the imprecision of multiplier estimates and the contributions of recent Nobel Laureates Thomas Sargent and Christopher Sims.

[transcript and link to MP3 file:]
http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2011/10/ramey_on_stimul.html