Log In | Register
The latest Chicago Booth poll of economists focuses on the 2009 stimulus..The first question asked whether the stimulus increased employment by the end of 2010. Eighty percent of the polled economists agreed. Four percent disagreed. Two percent were uncertain.
The second question asked whether, over the long run, the benefits would outweigh the long-term costs (like paying down the extra debt). Forty-six percent agreed. Twelve percent disagreed. Twenty-seven percent were uncertain.
Four out of five economists agree: The stimulus created jobs
Seeded on Mon Feb 20, 2012 8:31 PM EST
Article Source: The Washington Post
- Enjoy this article? Help vote it up the 'Vine.
- Public Discussion (17)
From the link in the article...
And in this context it is worth noting that the two members who want to go on record agreeing with the Republican Party line and disagreeing with the statement appear to do so very carefully.
- 4 votes
#1 - Mon Feb 20, 2012 8:33 PM ESTFor years the majority of scientists agreed that the sound barrier could not be broken either.
- 1 vote
sorry if this sounds bad but that almost sound like the trident gum disclaimer:
4 out of 5 dentists agree ...
- 1 vote
#3 - Mon Feb 20, 2012 10:41 PM ESTThe question that will unfold, as time goes on...
How many millions of dollars did EACH new job cost?
- 3 votes
#4 - Tue Feb 21, 2012 1:26 AM ESTThe stimulus was needed as a quick shot of adrenaline to the economy. That was its purpose. Was it the most efficient way to spend money? no, but the alternative would have been to plan it out for 4 years while the country was racing towards a depression.
The biggest problem with the stimulus is that just under half of it was republican demanded tax rebates, and that it took almost 8 months to get passed, when it should have been passed in less than a month. Hell it should have been done in the Lame Duck session of the bush administration. By delaying as much as they did, and making almost half of it useless, congress made it far less effective than it could have been.
- 3 votes
#4- Your concern about how much each new job cost is trivial. People want unemployment to decrease, they could care less about how much a job cost, the only concern will be how much am I getting paid.... People could care less about the deficit at this point.... That argument will be mute if unemployment continues to decrease....
- 2 votes
Jonathan...
while the country was racing towards a depression.
We'll never know.
The "experts" told us that we needed to save the banks. They had made record profits, mismanaged their money and needed us to give them a "loan." Congress bought into it, took the money from us and gave them the money they "needed."
Much of it was either not used, for the purposes intended, and/or unaccounted for.
Who did we give our tax dollars to? The same "experts" that had mismanaged their money to begin with.
We'll never know.
In the meantime, banks are enjoying record earnings. They would have survived, without the bailout. The Age of Entitlement was never more apparent, than with the banking industry.
.
Politico...
That argument will be mute if unemployment continues to decrease...
The argument is mute, already. Unemployment is not dropping, in 2012, due to stimulus money from 2009. That money is long spent and gone.
- 2 votes
Unemployment is not dropping, in 2012, due to stimulus money from 2009.
- 1 vote
Sorry, there are more pressing matters, competing for my attention.
Attempting to prove that which does not exist, is fruitless. If you believe that dollars, allocated in 2009, are still creating new jobs, in 2012, please enlighten.
And if dollars, allocated in 2009, are just now creating new jobs in 2012, what was the cause for the 3 year delay?
I am anxious to learn...
- 1 vote
$4.8- Sorry, I don't have to enlighten my belief. You are the one making an accusation as if it were fact. Now you are saying proof doesn't exist. What does that say about your credibility? I'll tell you, some would say, you have none....and the rest now have it in question.....
- 2 votes
PM...
My credibility is fine, thank you.
Assertions, like:
People could care less about the deficit at this point....
... set the stage for concerns about you!
While you search for proof that "People could care less about the deficit," I'll be having discussions with fellow, credible Viners.
Memo:
I made an Assertion, not an Accusation. Knowing the difference will help you attain "credibility."
All right, then. Bye Bye, Now!
- 1 vote
What else are you suppose to say about your credibility? When you make accusations without bothering to back it up with substantial unbiased proof, then stating your credibility is fine is no longer up to you, it is now in the domain of public opinion.....
http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2011073028/new-major-poll-shows-again-voters-want-jobs-not-deficit-reduction-will-dc-list
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/republicans-deficit-card-loses-its-appeal-2012-02-23?reflink=MW_news_stmp
Unlike you, I will post credible proof to back up any claim I make... and you can play games with words all night. That is a very feable attempt on your part... You made a statement as if it were based off fact and you haven't produced anything to support that statement...
- 2 votes
You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead. |
As a new user, you may notice a few temporary content restrictions. Click here for more info.
