Thursday, July 02, 2009

How's That Stimulus Working??


Updated to reflect the accomplishments of Dear Leader Obama for June 2009.
HT: Ace

9 comments:

Shoebox said...

Is there any reason to believe any of TheOne's economists given how badly they misestimated their own legislation?

Deekaman said...

It's Bush's Fault. We inherited this. It would be so much worse. We inherited this. We don't want to run banks or auto companies. We inherited this. More stimulus.....

Blah...blah...blah...

Where's Capper when you need him?

Billiam said...

He's writing about Walker. :-)

J. Strupp said...

Again, this is a case of the Obama administration underestimating the magnitude of this crisis and over promising a quick resolution.

As a result, it appears that the stimulus package was far too small to make a sizeable impact, especially now that dozens of states are in the process of slashing budgets and laying off workers (therefor offsetting the benefits of stimulus even further).

Deekaman said...

Yes, yes. Just like always, we need more of the government.

No, we don't. Kill it now. it only prolongs the agony.

J. Strupp said...

yes. we need more government (in the form of additional fiscal stimulus).

Dad29 said...

Strupp, if you were not occasionally rational, I'd swear that you are a member of WEAC--the "MORE MONEY mantra" crowd.

We have NO MONEY TO SPEND, Strupp...

J. Strupp said...

Did the U.S. government lose the ability to issue debt to raise capital over the weekend Dadster?


If not, then we have the ability to raise capital by issuing debt. I have no problem with this, given our current position. I understand that this isn't a popular idea with the budget hawk's in this country. Thankfully, they aren't in charge. If they were, their contractionary fiscal policy would have us in a much worse position that we currently are in.

Dad29 said...

their contractionary fiscal policy would have us in a much worse position that we currently are in.

Aside from your assertion of that as "fact," can you adduce actual evidence?

Only a few posts back, you touted the importance of MONETARY policy.

I know it's not either/or, but both, just as you do.

But let's go back to the top: on what evidence do you think that mo'money is The Solution?

Finally--no the USG did not lose its bonding capability--yet. But there have to be buyers of those instruments. You cannot guarantee their continuing presence, either, can you?