Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The quote that matters starts around 1:25, when Elmendorf says that, according to CBO's estimates, with the stimulus legislation in place, "the level of GDP would be a little lower at the end. That is, a net negative effect on the growth of GDP over 10 years." Elmendorf then confirms that CBO estimates that the economic drag will continue in the following decade:
SESSIONS: And in the next 10 years, since you’re carrying that debt and paying interest on it and the stimulus value is long since gone, it would be a continual negative of some effect?
ELMENDORF: Yes, it would represent a drag on the level of GDP beyond that, if no other actions were taken.
I've already told you, what you used is OUTDATED information from 2011.
In 2012, Elmendorf, the very person you quoted, testified in front of the Congressional hearing that the stimulus WORKED!!
Quote:
Most economists not only think it should have worked; they think it did work, Elmendorf replied. CBO’s own analysis found that the package added as many as 3.3 million jobs to the economy during the second quarter of 2010, and may have prevented the nation from lapsing back into recession.
But yet you havent explained to me how removing money from the economy to pay the debt and interest, does not lower the GDP.. here, lets start
WTF?? Your own post basically answered your question! See your post below that answers your above question.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
"billions" of debt, actually created TENS of trillions of dollars in wealth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
Tell me how you know more than the CBO on the issue.. I'll wait to hear about your vast knowledge and experience
I can do better, I can use the more recent testimony from the CBO and let them tell you why you are wrong. You know, the very CBO that you seem to have placed a lot of your faith and trust on.
Quote:
On Wednesday, under questioning from skeptical Republicans, the director of the nonpartisan (and widely respected) Congressional Budget Office was emphatic about the value of the 2009 stimulus. And, he said, the vast majority of economists agree.
Most economists not only think it should have worked; they think it did work, Elmendorf replied. CBO’s own analysis found that the package added as many as 3.3 million jobs to the economy during the second quarter of 2010, and may have prevented the nation from lapsing back into recession.
That is the problem with Liberals they nerve look deeper than they have to even though the facts are right in front of your Liberal Socialist heart. Matter of fact Liberals are famous about "How they Feel" ,Frankly tired of the PC culture that has been created by Libs and Democrats alike.
The Housing Crash is a long issue that Democrats have been involved with.(some Rep too) It was started by President Carter and Bill Clinton saw this gain as his economy weaken. So the Clinton administration open up the flood gates.
Acorn sued Bank of America fro unfair lending practices and the Last resort lender of Fannie Mae and Mac. Dems, Water, Frank , Dodd actively protected William Raines for miss management and fraud. during the Bush administration. Bush went before a Dem Controlled Congress and Congress protected Rains.
Bush pumped18 million dollars to voter those Loans and it was too little too late.
Then it crashed. History in a nut shell.
It worked from JFK, Reagan and the Bushes. GW had a Growth rate of GDP of 5 %until the crash. Obama Growth rates are 1.1 % while China is outpacing us @ 6%.
Clintons budget resembles Trumps in some aspects . So what you are saying is Clintons Proposal is a train wreck waiting to happen.
You guys got layoff of the Smoke. Its making Liberals crazy
LOL. You may as well blame the FHA for helping invent mortgage in the 1930s.
If the Bush administration hadn't actively fueled the landing fraud from behind the scene and actively blocked state attorney from investigating and hadn't fanned the flame for the housing bubble, you may have a point. But then, if Bush hadn't orchestrated the bubble, we wouldn't have a crash; so there. Basically if you take Bush away from the equation, the crisis wouldn't have happened. That's why the blame falls squarely on them.
Here, you need to read this because you don't know the whole facts. The following is straight from the horse's mouth - the former NY attorney general.
Even though predatory lending was becoming a national problem, the Bush administration looked the other way and did nothing to protect American homeowners. In fact, the government chose instead to align itself with the banks that were victimizing consumers.
Not only did the Bush administration do nothing to protect consumers, it embarked on an aggressive and unprecedented campaign to prevent states from protecting their residents from the very problems to which the federal government was turning a blind eye.
When history tells the story of the subprime lending crisis and recounts its devastating effects on the lives of so many innocent homeowners, the Bush administration will not be judged favorably. The tale is still unfolding, but when the dust settles, it will be judged as a willing accomplice to the lenders who went to any lengths in their quest for profits. So willing, in fact, that it used the power of the federal government in an unprecedented assault on state legislatures, as well as on state attorneys general and anyone else on the side of consumers.
Fact is a B isn't it? The thing with this "feeling" is that the conservatives, in an effort to boost their self worth, like to say liberals use "feelings". When in fact, studies after studies, shown that it's the conservatives who places feelings over facts. The study also shown that when a conservative is shown facts that contradicts their feelings, the dug in and double down. I think we are about to witness that again here with your post.
.
Of course it is.. You cant first claim that we need to increase spending to jump start the economy, and then claim that the debt doesnt come as a result of federal spending.
I have no idea what you are saying.
At any rate, your post isn't even remotely related what I and the OP were talking about.
.
If you are so smart I am sure you know how to use Google, no?
You are the one asking for links. The question is do you know how to Google or research anything ?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
