Wall St. Journal reports stimulus is working

[fskimospy]

Article here.

The good news is that this is just the front end of the stimulus spending, and there is still quite a bit more to come. If the economists cited in the article are correct, this could be very good news. Amazing what socialistfascistunamericancommiepork can do!

In all seriousness, growth of the US economy at a 3.3% rate in the 3rd quarter would be pretty fantastic, that's even better than I had hoped. Lets hope it turns out that way, eh?

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Article here.

The good news is that this is just the front end of the stimulus spending, and there is still quite a bit more to come. If the economists cited in the article are correct, this could be very good news. Amazing what socialistfascistunamericancommiepork can do!

In all seriousness, growth of the US economy at a 3.3% rate in the 3rd quarter would be pretty fantastic, that's even better than I had hoped. Lets hope it turns out that way, eh?

Most of it is coming from tarp and cheap fed money. Not nearly enough of the stimulas package has left the govt purse. The economy had was already turning around before the stimulus was even passed.

HIgh unemployment will be around awhile, I wonder if the libs will label this a jobless recovery as well.

 

[Genx87]

Considering so little of the stimulus has been spent. I highly doubt it could be responsible for 3% points. Now the bailout a year ago that helped keep the credit markets from freezing may have a legitimate role in any economic growth we are seeing.

Time will tell of course. I am curious to see what kind of inflation we will see when the majority of the the stimulus is spent into 2010. And once it is spent if we see a drop in economic activity.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Article here.

The good news is that this is just the front end of the stimulus spending, and there is still quite a bit more to come. If the economists cited in the article are correct, this could be very good news. Amazing what socialistfascistunamericancommiepork can do!

In all seriousness, growth of the US economy at a 3.3% rate in the 3rd quarter would be pretty fantastic, that's even better than I had hoped. Lets hope it turns out that way, eh?

Most of it is coming from tarp and cheap fed money. Not nearly enough of the stimulas package has left the govt purse. The economy had was already turning around before the stimulus was even passed.

HIgh unemployment will be around awhile, I wonder if the libs will label this a jobless recovery as well.

The DJIA fell another 15% or so after the stimulus was passed. What economic indicators are you referring to that make you think the economy was turning around before the stimulus went into effect on February 17th?

If you go back and search the stimulus threads I said then as I believe now that no matter what the stimulus does (and what it is credited for), those against it will claim the economy would have done just fine without it. Similarly had things continued to worsen people who were for the stimulus would have said things would have been even worse without it.

Luckily for all of us however, at least so far it would appear that the pro-stimulus people were in fact correct. Look at it this way, you might be wrong on an internet message board, but the whole country is doing better. I'd take that any day.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Genx87
Considering so little of the stimulus has been spent. I highly doubt it could be responsible for 3% points. Now the bailout a year ago that helped keep the credit markets from freezing may have a legitimate role in any economic growth we are seeing.

Time will tell of course. I am curious to see what kind of inflation we will see when the majority of the the stimulus is spent into 2010.

It's not 3 percentage points all by itself, it's growth at the annual rate of 3 percentage points which is considerably smaller.

 

[First]

Surprises no one intelligent who has been paying attention. We will continue to hear excuses for why it'll be a temporary, slow, prolonged, and arbitrary gov't economy, and then when the next boom occurs for several more decades we'll hear how it's all about to come crashing down because SS will be near bankruptcy...30 years from now...again. Except it won't and we'll be in better position.

Hooray for dumb people not running the economy (and props to Bush for not being so blinded by ideology that he would block fiscal stimulus).

 

[Drako]

Wow, a Deborah Solomon opinion piece. Big surprise.

 

[bamacre]

The Right was saying the same thing about the Bush economy, and it was very well pointed out that the economy wasn't growing, we were just going more into debt. It was true then, and it's true now. Do we have more shit? Sure, but we owe more money, too. It's like we whipped out a massive credit card, went on a shopping spree, and those in charge say "hey, look how much stuff we have."

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Drako
Wow, a Deborah Solomon opinion piece. Big surprise.

What's wrong with the WSJ's pulitzer prize winning SEC and financial regulation reporter?

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: bamacre
The Right was saying the same thing about the Bush economy, and it was very well pointed out that the economy wasn't growing, we were just going more into debt. It was true then, and it's true now. Do we have more shit? Sure, but we owe more money, too. It's like we whipped out a massive credit card, went on a shopping spree, and those in charge say "hey, look how much stuff we have."

Not really. Debt owed internally (as the vast majority of our debt is), is in no way a 'credit card'.

I'm not trying to talk shit or anything, but it looks like you might start sweating your signature.

 

[Drako]

Deborah Solomon ... does anyone take anything she writes seriously?

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Drako
Deborah Solomon ... does anyone take anything she writes seriously?

Can you point to some things she has written that we should not take seriously?

 

[Drako]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Drako
Deborah Solomon ... does anyone take anything she writes seriously?

Can you point to some things she has written that we should not take seriously?

Pretty much anything. Do you read the NY Times? She is notorious for taking anything or everything out of context. But she sells articles, so its OK

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Drako

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Drako
Deborah Solomon ... does anyone take anything she writes seriously?

Can you point to some things she has written that we should not take seriously?

Pretty much anything. Do you read the NY Times? She is notorious for taking anything or everything out of context. But she sells articles, so its OK

Different Deborah Soloman, big guy.

 

[Balt]

Originally posted by: charrison
Most of it is coming from tarp and cheap fed money. Not nearly enough of the stimulas package has left the govt purse. The economy had was already turning around before the stimulus was even passed.

 

[Drako]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Drako

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Drako
Deborah Solomon ... does anyone take anything she writes seriously?

Can you point to some things she has written that we should not take seriously?

Pretty much anything. Do you read the NY Times? She is notorious for taking anything or everything out of context. But she sells articles, so its OK

Different Deborah Soloman, big guy.

There is another Deborah Solomon? My mistake then. You mention a Doborah Soloman. I've never read any of her "work"

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Drako

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Drako

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Drako
Deborah Solomon ... does anyone take anything she writes seriously?

Can you point to some things she has written that we should not take seriously?

Pretty much anything. Do you read the NY Times? She is notorious for taking anything or everything out of context. But she sells articles, so its OK

Different Deborah Soloman, big guy.

There is another Deborah Solomon? My mistake then. You mention a Doborah Soloman. I've never read any of her "work"

Yeap, one works for the NYT, this one is the SEC/financial regulation reporter for the Wall St. Journal. No relation.

 

[Mani]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Article here.

The good news is that this is just the front end of the stimulus spending, and there is still quite a bit more to come. If the economists cited in the article are correct, this could be very good news. Amazing what socialistfascistunamericancommiepork can do!

In all seriousness, growth of the US economy at a 3.3% rate in the 3rd quarter would be pretty fantastic, that's even better than I had hoped. Lets hope it turns out that way, eh?

Not nearly enough of the stimulas package has left the govt purse.

The money doesn't have to be physically spent to impact the economy. Government agencies, schools, and SLGs for example have been spending in anticipation of stimulus funds earmarked for them.

 

[BarrySotero]

France, Germany and Japan already exited their recessions. The US would have been out already as well without without the Clunkulus bill - of which 22% could be considered "stimulating" (WSJ) and the rest was wealth transfers (Medicaid, unemployment etc) and dumb things like cable boxes, ACORN, Amtrack etc etc. We didn't need the bill and it will be a rock around the neck of economy for years to come.

 

[Drako]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Drako

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Drako

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Drako
Deborah Solomon ... does anyone take anything she writes seriously?

Can you point to some things she has written that we should not take seriously?

Pretty much anything. Do you read the NY Times? She is notorious for taking anything or everything out of context. But she sells articles, so its OK

Different Deborah Soloman, big guy.

There is another Deborah Solomon? My mistake then. You mention a Doborah Soloman. I've never read any of her "work"

Yeap, one works for the NYT, this one is the SEC/financial regulation reporter for the Wall St. Journal. No relation.

Both Solomons appear to be very entertaining reads. I'm not to sure how much truth you can glean from either though. I will have to read more .

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: charrison

The economy had was already turning around before the stimulus was even passed.

^^^ That's BULLSHIT ^^^ Show proof or retract.

 

[First]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: bamacre
The Right was saying the same thing about the Bush economy, and it was very well pointed out that the economy wasn't growing, we were just going more into debt. It was true then, and it's true now. Do we have more shit? Sure, but we owe more money, too. It's like we whipped out a massive credit card, went on a shopping spree, and those in charge say "hey, look how much stuff we have."

Not really. Debt owed internally (as the vast majority of our debt is), is in no way a 'credit card'.

I'm not trying to talk shit or anything, but it looks like you might start sweating your signature.

He doesn't even understand his sig, let alone sweat it.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: eskimospy


The DJIA fell another 15% or so after the stimulus was passed. What economic indicators are you referring to that make you think the economy was turning around before the stimulus went into effect on February 17th?

Housing had stopped its freefail and problem markets started moving forward.
Transportation indexes started moving forward again.
Copper future picked up.

The stockmarket is not a leading indicator.

If you go back and search the stimulus threads I said then as I believe now that no matter what the stimulus does (and what it is credited for), those against it will claim the economy would have done just fine without it. Similarly had things continued to worsen people who were for the stimulus would have said things would have been even worse without it.

I have not said the stimulus had no effect, but as designed it can only have litle effect as so little of it has been spent when compared to 12T+ economy.

Luckily for all of us however, at least so far it would appear that the pro-stimulus people were in fact correct. Look at it this way, you might be wrong on an internet message board, but the whole country is doing better. I'd take that any day.

Not enough of it has been spent to have much effect. Most of it is very backloaded as it will be spent later, not now.

 

[StageLeft]

This is great news. If only the economy could be kept indefinitely growing on government money thrown at it, eh? GDP is only being kept up by the government filling in the gaps left by private contraction. And, unlike private growth, this one comes with the national debt price tag, which continues to sky rocket.

How long can the government keep filling the gaps? When it pulls back, what do you think is going to happen to GDP then?

bamacre is in fact correct, the economy is being propped up by a debt addiction. If you balance the budget and fail to increase the debt at a blinding pace, then you'll see a major contraction. If the debt:GDP ratio was being kept in check, that's one thing but it's not, debt is charging toward 100% and will surpass it soon.

 

[Darwin333]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: bamacre
The Right was saying the same thing about the Bush economy, and it was very well pointed out that the economy wasn't growing, we were just going more into debt. It was true then, and it's true now. Do we have more shit? Sure, but we owe more money, too. It's like we whipped out a massive credit card, went on a shopping spree, and those in charge say "hey, look how much stuff we have."

Not really. Debt owed internally (as the vast majority of our debt is), is in no way a 'credit card'.

I'm not trying to talk shit or anything, but it looks like you might start sweating your signature.

Have you seen the insane amount of bonds we have sold so far this year? As far as our internal debt, eventually we will have to sell more bonds to pay it back so I don't see how its a good situation.