• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

CBO: Obama stimulus harmful over long haul

winnar111

Banned
http://www.washingtontimes.com...armful-over-long-haul/

President Obama's economic recovery package will actually hurt the economy more in the long run than if he were to do nothing, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said Wednesday.

CBO, the official scorekeepers for legislation, said the House and Senate bills will help in the short term but result in so much government debt that within a few years they would crowd out private investment, actually leading to a lower Gross Domestic Product over the next 10 years than if the government had done nothing.

CBO estimates that by 2019 the Senate legislation would reduce GDP by 0.1 percent to 0.3 percent on net. [The House bill] would have similar long-run effects, CBO said in a letter to Sen. Judd Gregg, New Hampshire Republican, who was tapped by Mr. Obama on Tuesday to be Commerce Secretary.

The House last week passed a bill totaling about $820 billion while the Senate is working on a proposal reaching about $900 billion in spending increases and tax cuts.

But Republicans and some moderate Democrats have balked at the size of the bill and at some of the spending items included in it, arguing they won't produce immediate jobs, which is the stated goal of the bill.

The budget office had previously estimated service the debt due to the new spending could add hundreds of millions of dollars to the cost of the bill -- forcing the crowd-out.

CBOs basic assumption is that, in the long run, each dollar of additional debt crowds out about a third of a dollars worth of private domestic capital, CBO said in its letter.

CBO said there is no crowding out in the short term, so the plan would succeed in boosting growth in 2009 and 2010.

The agency projected the Senate bill would produce between 1.4 percent and 4.1 percent higher growth in 2009 than if there was no action. For 2010, the plan would boost growth by 1.2 percent to 3.6 percent.

CBO did project the bill would create jobs, though by 2011 the effects would be minuscule.


It's come well past time to shed light on why this so called 'stimulus' package needs to be so big. Zero and his congressional minions need to pay off their key backers, and even admit to there being loads of waste.

Our GDP has more than quadrupled since Ronald Reagan came into office.
 
Of course it is harmful. It is just as harmful as the first one Bush and the Dems pushed through, and the Republicans in congress tried to stop.

Borrowing more money for short-term gain is a bad idea. Period.
 
Good thing nobody actually listens to these guys.
 
Originally posted by: winnar111
http://www.washingtontimes.com...armful-over-long-haul/

President Obama's economic recovery package will actually hurt the economy more in the long run than if he were to do nothing, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said Wednesday.

CBO, the official scorekeepers for legislation, said the House and Senate bills will help in the short term but result in so much government debt that within a few years they would crowd out private investment, actually leading to a lower Gross Domestic Product over the next 10 years than if the government had done nothing.

CBO estimates that by 2019 the Senate legislation would reduce GDP by 0.1 percent to 0.3 percent on net. [The House bill] would have similar long-run effects, CBO said in a letter to Sen. Judd Gregg, New Hampshire Republican, who was tapped by Mr. Obama on Tuesday to be Commerce Secretary.

The House last week passed a bill totaling about $820 billion while the Senate is working on a proposal reaching about $900 billion in spending increases and tax cuts.

But Republicans and some moderate Democrats have balked at the size of the bill and at some of the spending items included in it, arguing they won't produce immediate jobs, which is the stated goal of the bill.

The budget office had previously estimated service the debt due to the new spending could add hundreds of millions of dollars to the cost of the bill -- forcing the crowd-out.

CBOs basic assumption is that, in the long run, each dollar of additional debt crowds out about a third of a dollars worth of private domestic capital, CBO said in its letter.

CBO said there is no crowding out in the short term, so the plan would succeed in boosting growth in 2009 and 2010.

The agency projected the Senate bill would produce between 1.4 percent and 4.1 percent higher growth in 2009 than if there was no action. For 2010, the plan would boost growth by 1.2 percent to 3.6 percent.

CBO did project the bill would create jobs, though by 2011 the effects would be minuscule.


It's come well past time to shed light on why this so called 'stimulus' package needs to be so big. Zero and his congressional minions need to pay off their key backers, and even admit to there being loads of waste.

Our GDP has more than quadrupled since Ronald Reagan came into office.

Where were you when the Bush Wall Street bailout happened, ended up being even more then the current stimulus package? The talk about debt from massive bailout plans was valid back in November / December too.
 
Originally posted by: Firebot
Originally posted by: winnar111
http://www.washingtontimes.com...armful-over-long-haul/

President Obama's economic recovery package will actually hurt the economy more in the long run than if he were to do nothing, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said Wednesday.

CBO, the official scorekeepers for legislation, said the House and Senate bills will help in the short term but result in so much government debt that within a few years they would crowd out private investment, actually leading to a lower Gross Domestic Product over the next 10 years than if the government had done nothing.

CBO estimates that by 2019 the Senate legislation would reduce GDP by 0.1 percent to 0.3 percent on net. [The House bill] would have similar long-run effects, CBO said in a letter to Sen. Judd Gregg, New Hampshire Republican, who was tapped by Mr. Obama on Tuesday to be Commerce Secretary.

The House last week passed a bill totaling about $820 billion while the Senate is working on a proposal reaching about $900 billion in spending increases and tax cuts.

But Republicans and some moderate Democrats have balked at the size of the bill and at some of the spending items included in it, arguing they won't produce immediate jobs, which is the stated goal of the bill.

The budget office had previously estimated service the debt due to the new spending could add hundreds of millions of dollars to the cost of the bill -- forcing the crowd-out.

CBOs basic assumption is that, in the long run, each dollar of additional debt crowds out about a third of a dollars worth of private domestic capital, CBO said in its letter.

CBO said there is no crowding out in the short term, so the plan would succeed in boosting growth in 2009 and 2010.

The agency projected the Senate bill would produce between 1.4 percent and 4.1 percent higher growth in 2009 than if there was no action. For 2010, the plan would boost growth by 1.2 percent to 3.6 percent.

CBO did project the bill would create jobs, though by 2011 the effects would be minuscule.


It's come well past time to shed light on why this so called 'stimulus' package needs to be so big. Zero and his congressional minions need to pay off their key backers, and even admit to there being loads of waste.

Our GDP has more than quadrupled since Ronald Reagan came into office.

Where were you when the Bush Wall Street bailout happened, ended up being even more then the current stimulus package? The talk about debt from massive bailout plans was valid back in November / December too.

Err, half that bailout was rolled over to Obama's term. So it was significantly smaller.
 
Originally posted by: winnar111
Originally posted by: Firebot
Originally posted by: winnar111
http://www.washingtontimes.com...armful-over-long-haul/

President Obama's economic recovery package will actually hurt the economy more in the long run than if he were to do nothing, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said Wednesday.

CBO, the official scorekeepers for legislation, said the House and Senate bills will help in the short term but result in so much government debt that within a few years they would crowd out private investment, actually leading to a lower Gross Domestic Product over the next 10 years than if the government had done nothing.

CBO estimates that by 2019 the Senate legislation would reduce GDP by 0.1 percent to 0.3 percent on net. [The House bill] would have similar long-run effects, CBO said in a letter to Sen. Judd Gregg, New Hampshire Republican, who was tapped by Mr. Obama on Tuesday to be Commerce Secretary.

The House last week passed a bill totaling about $820 billion while the Senate is working on a proposal reaching about $900 billion in spending increases and tax cuts.

But Republicans and some moderate Democrats have balked at the size of the bill and at some of the spending items included in it, arguing they won't produce immediate jobs, which is the stated goal of the bill.

The budget office had previously estimated service the debt due to the new spending could add hundreds of millions of dollars to the cost of the bill -- forcing the crowd-out.

CBOs basic assumption is that, in the long run, each dollar of additional debt crowds out about a third of a dollars worth of private domestic capital, CBO said in its letter.

CBO said there is no crowding out in the short term, so the plan would succeed in boosting growth in 2009 and 2010.

The agency projected the Senate bill would produce between 1.4 percent and 4.1 percent higher growth in 2009 than if there was no action. For 2010, the plan would boost growth by 1.2 percent to 3.6 percent.

CBO did project the bill would create jobs, though by 2011 the effects would be minuscule.


It's come well past time to shed light on why this so called 'stimulus' package needs to be so big. Zero and his congressional minions need to pay off their key backers, and even admit to there being loads of waste.

Our GDP has more than quadrupled since Ronald Reagan came into office.

Where were you when the Bush Wall Street bailout happened, ended up being even more then the current stimulus package? The talk about debt from massive bailout plans was valid back in November / December too.

Err, half that bailout was rolled over to Obama's term. So it was significantly smaller.

😕

It was a bailout under Bush's mandate that was split in two parts. That's like saying Iraq is now Obama's war because he has to control spending for Iraq.
 
Originally posted by: Firebot
Originally posted by: winnar111
Originally posted by: Firebot
Originally posted by: winnar111
http://www.washingtontimes.com...armful-over-long-haul/

President Obama's economic recovery package will actually hurt the economy more in the long run than if he were to do nothing, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said Wednesday.

CBO, the official scorekeepers for legislation, said the House and Senate bills will help in the short term but result in so much government debt that within a few years they would crowd out private investment, actually leading to a lower Gross Domestic Product over the next 10 years than if the government had done nothing.

CBO estimates that by 2019 the Senate legislation would reduce GDP by 0.1 percent to 0.3 percent on net. [The House bill] would have similar long-run effects, CBO said in a letter to Sen. Judd Gregg, New Hampshire Republican, who was tapped by Mr. Obama on Tuesday to be Commerce Secretary.

The House last week passed a bill totaling about $820 billion while the Senate is working on a proposal reaching about $900 billion in spending increases and tax cuts.

But Republicans and some moderate Democrats have balked at the size of the bill and at some of the spending items included in it, arguing they won't produce immediate jobs, which is the stated goal of the bill.

The budget office had previously estimated service the debt due to the new spending could add hundreds of millions of dollars to the cost of the bill -- forcing the crowd-out.

CBOs basic assumption is that, in the long run, each dollar of additional debt crowds out about a third of a dollars worth of private domestic capital, CBO said in its letter.

CBO said there is no crowding out in the short term, so the plan would succeed in boosting growth in 2009 and 2010.

The agency projected the Senate bill would produce between 1.4 percent and 4.1 percent higher growth in 2009 than if there was no action. For 2010, the plan would boost growth by 1.2 percent to 3.6 percent.

CBO did project the bill would create jobs, though by 2011 the effects would be minuscule.


It's come well past time to shed light on why this so called 'stimulus' package needs to be so big. Zero and his congressional minions need to pay off their key backers, and even admit to there being loads of waste.

Our GDP has more than quadrupled since Ronald Reagan came into office.

Where were you when the Bush Wall Street bailout happened, ended up being even more then the current stimulus package? The talk about debt from massive bailout plans was valid back in November / December too.

Err, half that bailout was rolled over to Obama's term. So it was significantly smaller.

😕

It was a bailout under Bush's mandate that was split in two parts. That's like saying Iraq is now Obama's war because he has to control spending for Iraq.


Apparently you arent familiar with the way laws are passed. Ill give you a clue, it was not an executive order.
 
Originally posted by: Ocguy31
Apparently you arent familiar with the way laws are passed. Ill give you a clue, it was not an executive order.

In fact, I seem to recall Nancy Pelosi taking all the credit for it.
 
What do you think would happen if we stood pat, if we don't pass
any kind of stimulus bill and if we halt all TARP bail outs?
 
Originally posted by: Geekbabe
What do you think would happen if we stood pat, if we don't pass
any kind of stimulus bill and if we halt all TARP bail outs?

The markets would correct and likely become stronger long term because of it.
 
Originally posted by: Geekbabe
What do you think would happen if we stood pat, if we don't pass
any kind of stimulus bill and if we halt all TARP bail outs?

Probably nothing different than what has been going on for the past 4 months, considering the TARP funds have all been used to pay bonuses, lending hasn't eased, companies are still going out of business left and right, and the stimulus package is:

A) going to fix everything (if you believe Obama)
B) going to help in the short run and hurt in the long run (if you believe the CBO)
C) going to do nothing (if you believe Congressional Republicans)
D) going to do nothing in the short run and help in the long run (if you believe a handful of independent economists)
 
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: Geekbabe
What do you think would happen if we stood pat, if we don't pass
any kind of stimulus bill and if we halt all TARP bail outs?

The markets would correct and likely become stronger long term because of it.

That's what rejects said during the Great Depression, and it failed miserably then too. So if you study history, business cycles, economics, etc., doing nothing is far worse.
 
Originally posted by: senseamp
That is why tax cuts need to be taken out of this bill and replaced with direct government spending.

They aren't "tax cuts". Rates haven't changed etc.

They're mostly either disguised welfare payments or rebates/incentives to purchase stuff like cars and homes.

Fern
 
Originally posted by: Firebot
Originally posted by: winnar111
Originally posted by: Firebot
Originally posted by: winnar111
http://www.washingtontimes.com...armful-over-long-haul/

President Obama's economic recovery package will actually hurt the economy more in the long run than if he were to do nothing, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said Wednesday.

CBO, the official scorekeepers for legislation, said the House and Senate bills will help in the short term but result in so much government debt that within a few years they would crowd out private investment, actually leading to a lower Gross Domestic Product over the next 10 years than if the government had done nothing.

CBO estimates that by 2019 the Senate legislation would reduce GDP by 0.1 percent to 0.3 percent on net. [The House bill] would have similar long-run effects, CBO said in a letter to Sen. Judd Gregg, New Hampshire Republican, who was tapped by Mr. Obama on Tuesday to be Commerce Secretary.

The House last week passed a bill totaling about $820 billion while the Senate is working on a proposal reaching about $900 billion in spending increases and tax cuts.

But Republicans and some moderate Democrats have balked at the size of the bill and at some of the spending items included in it, arguing they won't produce immediate jobs, which is the stated goal of the bill.

The budget office had previously estimated service the debt due to the new spending could add hundreds of millions of dollars to the cost of the bill -- forcing the crowd-out.

CBOs basic assumption is that, in the long run, each dollar of additional debt crowds out about a third of a dollars worth of private domestic capital, CBO said in its letter.

CBO said there is no crowding out in the short term, so the plan would succeed in boosting growth in 2009 and 2010.

The agency projected the Senate bill would produce between 1.4 percent and 4.1 percent higher growth in 2009 than if there was no action. For 2010, the plan would boost growth by 1.2 percent to 3.6 percent.

CBO did project the bill would create jobs, though by 2011 the effects would be minuscule.


It's come well past time to shed light on why this so called 'stimulus' package needs to be so big. Zero and his congressional minions need to pay off their key backers, and even admit to there being loads of waste.

Our GDP has more than quadrupled since Ronald Reagan came into office.

Where were you when the Bush Wall Street bailout happened, ended up being even more then the current stimulus package? The talk about debt from massive bailout plans was valid back in November / December too.

Err, half that bailout was rolled over to Obama's term. So it was significantly smaller.

😕

It was a bailout under Bush's mandate that was split in two parts. That's like saying Iraq is now Obama's war because he has to control spending for Iraq.

The 2nd half of TARP was entirely optional, and passed specifically and only due to Zero asking for it. So, yeah....
 
Originally posted by: Fern
Originally posted by: senseamp
That is why tax cuts need to be taken out of this bill and replaced with direct government spending.

They aren't "tax cuts". Rates haven't changed etc.

They're mostly either disguised welfare payments or rebates/incentives to purchase stuff like cars and homes.

Fern

Whatever it is. The government needs to be spending the money directly, not beating around the bush hoping to incentivise someone else to do so. There is no time for that.
 
Originally posted by: senseamp
Originally posted by: Fern
Originally posted by: senseamp
That is why tax cuts need to be taken out of this bill and replaced with direct government spending.

They aren't "tax cuts". Rates haven't changed etc.

They're mostly either disguised welfare payments or rebates/incentives to purchase stuff like cars and homes.

Fern

Whatever it is. The government needs to be spending the money directly, not beating around the bush hoping to incentivise someone else to do so. There is no time for that.

So why is alot of the money being spent 2 or 3 years out. If crisis is now, why wait that long.

Simple direct tax cuts would money in the hands of people the fastest, as it would come directly in their usual paychecks.
 
Originally posted by: senseamp
Originally posted by: Fern
Originally posted by: senseamp
That is why tax cuts need to be taken out of this bill and replaced with direct government spending.

They aren't "tax cuts". Rates haven't changed etc.

They're mostly either disguised welfare payments or rebates/incentives to purchase stuff like cars and homes.

Fern

Whatever it is. The government needs to be spending the money directly, not beating around the bush hoping to incentivise someone else to do so. There is no time for that.

No. The government needs to stop spending more than it collects in revenue each year.

You are like a kid with a credit card.
 
Originally posted by: Evan
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: Geekbabe
What do you think would happen if we stood pat, if we don't pass
any kind of stimulus bill and if we halt all TARP bail outs?

The markets would correct and likely become stronger long term because of it.

That's what rejects said during the Great Depression, and it failed miserably then too. So if you study history, business cycles, economics, etc., doing nothing is far worse.

This

The great depression got as bad as it did because so many people said the market would correct itself, free market!!! Then it just got worse..and worse...and worse..until the Government stepped in and started spending.
 
Originally posted by: winnar111

The 2nd half of TARP was entirely optional, and passed specifically and only due to Zero asking for it. So, yeah....

No it wasn't. It's posts like this that cause for there to be discussions about you being banned.
 
Originally posted by: tenshodo13
Originally posted by: Evan
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: Geekbabe
What do you think would happen if we stood pat, if we don't pass
any kind of stimulus bill and if we halt all TARP bail outs?

The markets would correct and likely become stronger long term because of it.

That's what rejects said during the Great Depression, and it failed miserably then too. So if you study history, business cycles, economics, etc., doing nothing is far worse.

This

The great depression got as bad as it did because so many people said the market would correct itself, free market!!! Then it just got worse..and worse...and worse..until the Government stepped in and started spending.


Protectionism is one of the reason the great depression got bad. smooth harley act had very bad effects. Much of the government intervention during the great depression was not helpful at all.
 
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: winnar111

The 2nd half of TARP was entirely optional, and passed specifically and only due to Zero asking for it. So, yeah....

No it wasn't. It's posts like this that cause for there to be discussions about you being banned.

Yes Tarp came in two parts. The 2nd 1/2 had to be requested and It was by obama.
 
Back
Top