President George W. Bush - credit where credit is due

[^_^ 5,021]

TARP will ultimately cost $25 billion, reports Jim Puzzanghera: "The projected cost of the $700-billion financial bailout fund -- initially feared to be a huge hit to taxpayers -- continues to drop, with the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimating Monday that losses would amount to just $25 billion. That's a sharp drop from the CBO's last estimate, in August, of a $66-billion loss for the Troubled Asset Relief Program, known as TARP. Going back to March, the budget office estimated that the program would cost taxpayers $109 billion. The new, more optimistic forecast largely reflects money the Treasury Department has received as banks have repaid their loans and repurchased stock warrants."

So in the end, we'll have spent $25 billion to save the economy? There's an increasingly strong case that TARP may have been the most cost-effective economic policy ever passed.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/12/wonkbook_white_house_takes_ove.html

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

TARP will ultimately cost $25 billion, reports Jim Puzzanghera: "The projected cost of the $700-billion financial bailout fund -- initially feared to be a huge hit to taxpayers -- continues to drop, with the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimating Monday that losses would amount to just $25 billion. That's a sharp drop from the CBO's last estimate, in August, of a $66-billion loss for the Troubled Asset Relief Program, known as TARP. Going back to March, the budget office estimated that the program would cost taxpayers $109 billion. The new, more optimistic forecast largely reflects money the Treasury Department has received as banks have repaid their loans and repurchased stock warrants."

So in the end, we'll have spent $25 billion to save the economy? There's an increasingly strong case that TARP may have been the most cost-effective economic policy ever passed.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/12/wonkbook_white_house_takes_ove.html

Yup.

[The_Dude 1,142]

TARP will ultimately cost $25 billion, reports Jim Puzzanghera: "The projected cost of the $700-billion financial bailout fund -- initially feared to be a huge hit to taxpayers -- continues to drop, with the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimating Monday that losses would amount to just $25 billion. That's a sharp drop from the CBO's last estimate, in August, of a $66-billion loss for the Troubled Asset Relief Program, known as TARP. Going back to March, the budget office estimated that the program would cost taxpayers $109 billion. The new, more optimistic forecast largely reflects money the Treasury Department has received as banks have repaid their loans and repurchased stock warrants."

So in the end, we'll have spent $25 billion to save the economy? There's an increasingly strong case that TARP may have been the most cost-effective economic policy ever passed.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/12/wonkbook_white_house_takes_ove.html

This will undoubtedly devolve into a partisan shouting match with no facts.

[^_^ 5,021]

Partisan? GWB is a Republican. This is a huge bipartisan victory.

[JohnSmith2007 353]

No argument here. TARP was the only part of this economic clusterfukc that I agreed with. It did its job.

[The_Dude 1,142]

Partisan? GWB is a Republican. This is a huge bipartisan victory.

You think facts like that matter to partisan hacks like Danno et al?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

No argument here. TARP was the only part of this economic clusterfukc that I agreed with. It did its job.

As did the stimulus. There's broad consenses among economists that it had done what it was supposed to do - put a floor under the recession and give the economy footing to grow again. That's exactly what it's done.

The charts below are estimates that leading financial analysis and forecasting companies have done. Notice just how close Moody's and IHS are on their predictions and how we are today pretty much where they predicted a year ago we would be today. Of course, these are estimates but since we can validate the actuals at this point to be largely accurate, it isn't a big leap to state that they didn't just take a stab in the dark. That said, without the stimulus, the unemployment rate today would be above 11% rather than the 9.6% we have - a full 2 percentage point higher.

But I almost forgot that these are data and fact driven arguments which don't resonate with you.

[JohnSmith2007 353]

As did the stimulus. There's broad consenses among economists that it had done what it was supposed to do - put a floor under the recession and give the economy footing to grow again. That's exactly what it's done.

The charts below are estimates that leading financial analysis and forecasting companies have done. Notice just how close Moody's and IHS are on their predictions and how we are today pretty much where they predicted a year ago we would be today. Of course, these are estimates but since we can validate the actuals at this point to be largely accurate, it isn't a big leap to state that they didn't just take a stab in the dark. That said, without the stimulus, the unemployment rate today would be above 11% rather than the 9.6% we have - a full 2 percentage point higher.

But I almost forgot that these are data and fact driven arguments which don't resonate with you.

The stimulus was a huge waste of money. It was just an excuse for pols to get their pet projects done. Without it we would be exactly the same only without a trillion dollars of debt.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

The stimulus was a huge waste of money. It was just an excuse for pols to get their pet projects done. Without it we would be exactly the same only without a trillion dollars of debt.

And you base that on what? You broad macroeconomic expertise? It's not surprising that IHS and Moody's have predicted fairly precisely where we will be at the end of 2010 in terms of unemployment? That they got the peak just about right both in terms of timing and points? Thet their analysis bears out just about the same curves? It's all just coincidence because Boehner and McConnell conditioned you to parrot their catch-phrase?

[JohnSmith2007 353]

Stimulus Failure: 48 Out of 50 States Lost Jobs Since Democrats Trillion Dollar Stimulus

Planby Publius

The Department of Labor today released its latest state-by-state job report, showing state jobs and unemployment data for September 2010. This latest data, when compared with the level of jobs in February 2009, when President Obama signed Democrats trillion-dollar stimulus plan into law, reveals that 48 out of 50 States have lost jobs since then.

In total, over 2 million jobs have been eliminated, in contrast to the over 3 million more jobs Americans were promised if Democrats 2009 stimulus plan passed. The only place in America that has exceeded its projected job growth following Democrats stimulus is Washington, D.C.

http://biggovernment.com/publius/2010/10/22/stimulus-failure-48-out-of-50-states-lost-jobs-since-democrats-trillion-dollar-stimulus-plansince/

Is the department of labor a credible source?

I suggest looking at the chart for unemployment figures on the link. We were promised 3 million new jobs but in reality we lost 2 million. Hey, they were only off by 5 million, not bad for the dems.

Edited December 2, 2010 by JohnSmith2007

[Dan J 277]

Stimulus Failure: 48 Out of 50 States Lost Jobs Since Democrats Trillion Dollar Stimulus

Planby Publius

The Department of Labor today released its latest state-by-state job report, showing state jobs and unemployment data for September 2010. This latest data, when compared with the level of jobs in February 2009, when President Obama signed Democrats’ trillion-dollar stimulus plan into law, reveals that 48 out of 50 States have lost jobs since then.

In total, over 2 million jobs have been eliminated, in contrast to the over 3 million more jobs Americans were promised if Democrats’ 2009 stimulus plan passed. The only place in America that has exceeded its projected job growth following Democrats’ stimulus is Washington, D.C.

http://biggovernment.com/publius/2010/10/22/stimulus-failure-48-out-of-50-states-lost-jobs-since-democrats-trillion-dollar-stimulus-plansince/

Is the department of labor a credible source?

I suggest looking at the chart for unemployment figures on the link. We were promised 3 million new jobs but in reality we lost 2 million. Hey, they were only off by 5 million, not bad for the dems.

Trying to derive conclusions like that is making the assumption that any action in the economic system has an immediate reaction.

The housing bubble peaked in 2005, But we really didn't start hitting crisis mode until 2007 and huge job losses started shortly after. The largest amount of jobs lost in one month was in january 09 and continued at a decreasing rate through 2009. We didn't start gaining any jobs until 2010.

The stimulus went primary to three places, divided into thirds. Tax rebates (probably had the least effect), state government aid, and infrastructure project (many projects didn't start until 2010).

The infrastructure spending was most likely to create jobs, the state government aid was mostly keeping job losses from getting worse (at least until private industry started creating more jobs again) and tax breaks basically did nothing (Paradox of Thrift).

[mawilson 2,133]

If the banks were able to pay it back with interest so quickly, did they really need it? I mean, *really* need it?

[JohnSmith2007 353]

Trying to derive conclusions like that is making the assumption that any action in the economic system has an immediate reaction.

The housing bubble peaked in 2005, But we really didn't start hitting crisis mode until 2007 and huge job losses started shortly after. The largest amount of jobs lost in one month was in january 09 and continued at a decreasing rate through 2009. We didn't start gaining any jobs until 2010.

The stimulus went primary to three places, divided into thirds. Tax rebates (probably had the least effect), state government aid, and infrastructure project (many projects didn't start until 2010).

The infrastructure spending was most likely to create jobs, the state government aid was mostly keeping job losses from getting worse (at least until private industry started creating more jobs again) and tax breaks basically did nothing (Paradox of Thrift).

And yet, two years later we still have 9+% unemployment when we were promised that the stimulus would keep the unemployment rate below 8%. This is why it is a total failure. I mean, if it still hasn't created jobs after 2 years how can it be called a success? The whole point was to prevent what happend, massive unemployment.

Edited December 2, 2010 by JohnSmith2007

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

And yet, two years later we still have 9+% unemployment when we were promised that the stimulus would keep the unemployment rate below 8%. This is why it is a total failure. I mean, if it still hasn't created jobs after 2 years how can it be called a success? The whole point was to prevent what happend, massive unemployment.

U.S. private sector payrolls hit a 3-year high in November, adding a key indicator to the strengthening economy, and representing an optimistic outlook for the reversal of the unemployment rate. Private employers added 93,000 jobs in November, beating the expectations and an improvement on October's revised 82,000 jobs, according to research firm ADP Employer Services.

Markets responded to the optimistic news and opened up Wednesday. The Dow Jones industrial average gained 147 points over Tuesday's close, at 11,153, the Nasdaq gained 41 points at 2,539 and the S&P 500 gained 16 points at 1,196.

Nonfarm Private Employment Highlights -- November Report:

-- Total employment: +93,000

-- Small businesses* +54,000

-- Medium businesses** +37,000

-- Large businesses*** +2,000

-- Goods-producing sector: +14,000

-- Service-providing sector: +79,000

Addendum:

-- Manufacturing industry: +16,000

And again, we're at 9.6% rather than 11.5% unemployment today because of the stimulus the fed provided to the economy. We went from 750,000 jobs lost a month to start gaining jobs within a matter of months and the economy has thus far in 2010 added more than 1 million private sector jobs - while government at various levels also reduced it's workforce by about 300K. We're on an upward trajectory in terms of the unemployment numbers and it took quite a bit less time to reverse the trend than it did in the early 2000's. Two tax cut packages passed in 2001 and 2003 didn't have any noticable impact on job creation until 2005.

Look at the trajectory change following the passage of the stimulus bill - deny it all you want but it did what it was supposed to do.

[Danno 1,228]

You think facts like that matter to partisan hacks like Danno et al?

Unprovoked personal attacks only confirm your a-hole status around here.