Sunday show economic experts agree: more stimulus needed
On the September 5 editions of CBS's Face the Nation and ABC's This Week, economic experts noted that the initial stimulus package was too small and that the resultant slow economic recovery demanded further stimulus. Media largely ignored progressive economists' statements during the stimulus debate that the package was too small, and have since promoted the falsehood that the stimulus failed.
Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.
Economic experts take to Sunday shows and call for more stimulus
Krugman: "Back in January '09... a number of us said, 'This is not commensurate with the scale of the crisis.'" On This Week, Nobel laureate economist Paul Krugman noted that many economists raised concerns that the stimulus might not be large enough when it was first proposed. Krugman said, "Back in January '09, when Obama was first announcing his plans, a number of us said this is not commensurate with the scale of the crisis." Krugman later added, "What we need is more demand."
Tyson: "We need targeted policies for jobs and right now, the deficit is not the issue." On Face the Nation, former chair of the Council of Economic Advisers Laura Tyson said: "I think we're in a situation where we're bumping along at a slow rate [of economic growth]. There's a lot of down side risk. I think all of us agree here we need targeted policies for jobs and right now, the deficit is not the major issue. The major issue, slow economy, lack of jobs, 24 million people are still looking for full-time work. We really have to get our priorities right and focus on targeted job creation policies."
Morgenson: "The stimulus was not big enough... we need something instant." On Face the Nation, New York Times assistant business and financial editor Gretchen Morgenson, who received the Pulitzer Prize in 2002 for coverage of Wall Street, said: "The stimulus was not big enough. Because you would have seen far greater recovery. The unemployment numbers would be better, I think, if you had, if we wanted to think the stimulus was enough. But again I think that it has to be targeted. I think that what Laura, the point she made earlier is a good one. That is, let's go for things that will have a more immediate impact like, say, a payroll tax cut holiday or a payroll tax holiday. We need something instant, something a little bit quicker."
Zandi: "[A]dditional help" for the recovery "would be prudent." When asked by guest host Harry Smith about the possible need for a second stimulus, Mark Zandi, chief economist for Moody's Analytics and a former economic adviser to John McCain's presidential campaign, answered:
Well, we are talking about other stimulus, right? I mean, an R&D tax credit, payroll tax holiday, job tax credit. All these things are different forms of stimulus. In fact, the federal government has provided a couple hundred billions dollars in additional stimulus beyond the recovery act stimulus that we put in place a year-and-a-half ago. So, we are doing that. In my view the recovery needs some more help. It would be prudent, I think, to provide some additional help through some of the things that we're talking about.
Tyson advocates for increased infrastructure spending. When asked by Smith about the possible need for larger stimulus spending, Tyson said:
I believe that we should look at infrastructure because we know before the recession, before the great recession, we know that we were vastly under-spending on the nation's infrastructure. You can sort of, therefore, start with the notion: infrastructure spending is terrific in two ways. It creates demand right away when you go out and get the project started and get the workers started. It also creates the ability to grow and be productive in the future.
Zandi, Tyson: A payroll tax holiday for new hires would stimulate economy. On Face the Nation, Tyson and Zandi agreed that a payroll tax holiday for firms making new hires, reportedly under consideration by the administration, would have an immediate stimulating economic effect:
SMITH: Mark, let me start with you. Among the two very important ideas that are being talked about this week that the president is suspected to be addressing on Wednesday is this idea of suspending a payroll tax. How much of a boost can that provide? And is it enough to help speed the recovery as the president suggests?
ZANDI: I think if we suspend the payroll tax for businesses that go out and hire additional workers, expand the job tax credit that is in place today, I think that could be effective and be helpful in the next six, 12 months when the recovery really needs it. I think that would be a boost to the economy.
SMITH: Laura Tyson, how do you feel about it?
TYSON: I think that's correct. I think that we already have in place the credit. The credit could be extended into a partial payroll tax holiday. I think the issue is really gonna be for new hires. All new hires. And then what the size of the firm should be. This is an area I which is really worthy of serious discussion and with the possibility of some action.
Media rarely raised economists' warnings that stimulus was too small during debate
A Media Matters review of the ABC, CBS, and NBC evening news programs from January 25, 2009, through February 15, 2009 found that of the 59 broadcasts that addressed the economic stimulus package and debate in Congress during the three-week period leading up to and immediately following its passage, only three of those broadcasts included discussion of whether that package was big enough, despite statements from many economists that it might not be.
While right-wing media claim stimulus failed, analysts agree it significantly boosted GDP, employment
Since its passage, right-wing media have falsely claimed the package failed. Right-wing media figures and outlets frequently promote the false claims that the stimulus "didn't work" and "has not created jobs."
CBO: Unemployment would be as much as 1.8 percentage points higher without the stimulus. A report released in August by the Congressional Budget Office estimated that the stimulus lowered the unemployment rate by between 0.7 and 1.8 percentage points. Thus, had the stimulus not been passed, the unemployment rate could currently be as high as 11.4 percent, compared to the actual rate of 9.6 percent. The CBO estimates that the stimulus increased the number of employed people by between 1.4 million and 3.3 million.
CEA: Recovery act raised GDP by at least 2.7 percent in the second quarter of 2010. In its fourth quarterly report on the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, the Council of Economic Advisers (CEA) stated that "the ARRA has raised the level of GDP as of the second quarter of 2010, relative to what it otherwise would have been, by between 2.7 and 3.2 percent."
Independent analysts agree that recovery act significantly raised GDP. In its quarterly report, the CEA included figures from independent analyses that also credited the recovery act with increasing the GDP. Included in these figures is the estimate by the nonpartisan CBO, which estimated that the stimulus raised GDP "by between 1.7 percent and 4.5 percent." CEA included the following chart in its report:

CEA: Recovery act has raised employment "by between 2.5 and 3.6 million." In its fourth quarterly report on the ARRA, the CEA stated: "The CEA estimates that as of the second quarter of 2010, the ARRA has raised employment relative to what it otherwise would have been by between 2.5 and 3.6 million. These estimates are broadly consistent with the direct recipient reporting data available for 2010:Q1."
Independent analysts agree that recovery act significantly raised employment. In its quarterly report, the CEA included figures from independent analyses that also credited the recovery act with increasing employment:

Economists say stimulus helped economic recovery
WSJ: 70 percent of economists surveyed said stimulus helped. The Wall Street Journal reported on March 12 that 38 of the 54 economists it surveyed "said the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act boosted growth and mitigated job losses, while six said the legislation had a net negative effect."
ABC News: Most on panel of economists "think the economy would be worse" without the stimulus. ABC News reported on February 18 that "most" of the economists on its panel "think the economy would be worse today without the big aid package, which totaled $787 billion and was signed into law by President Obama on Feb. 17, 2009."
NABE: 83 percent say stimulus raised GDP. A February survey of 203 members of the National Association for Business Economics (NABE) found that "[e]ighty-three percent believe that GDP is currently higher than it would have been without the 2009 stimulus package (ARRA)."
USA Today: Surveyed economists said "stimulus package saved jobs." USA Today reported on January 25:
President Obama's stimulus package saved jobs -- but the government still needs to do more to breathe life into the economy, according to USA TODAY's quarterly survey of 50 economists.
Unemployment would have hit 10.8% -- higher than December's 10% rate -- without Obama's $787 billion stimulus program, according to the economists' median estimate. The difference would translate into another 1.2 million lost jobs.
















To Hell With Fox News, Study F.D.R. & be America's Oak Tree.
State what you Stand for Loud & Clear & if America isn't with it, Then you go Down.
That's America, Sometimes you Win & Sometimes you Lose, But to Tread Water? I'd rather Drown.
Speak truth to power.
Mr. News
If you're a rancid Washington pig,
Be sure to run on stealing some more,
And we'll be sure to show you the door.
Seek booth, then shower.
Mr. Galileonardo
who only see government as the cause of the pit
has made you oblivious to the fact
that we the people need to act
and keep corporate power in check
and spend well any debt
and reverse deflationary trends
that makes your job come to an end
Yes a deficit is all we have
to get out of a liquidity trap thats bad
but since Glenn Beck says no
my job's got to go.
If America can't recover in a way your comfortable with then it deserves to fail then um?
Just for you two, a strawman to kick arround. I want too see a subtle effective approach, a seasoned set up, and a clean follow though and straw scatted accross three counties. Enjoy
Doesn't it occur to you that there is a whole other interpretation of recent economic events that your typical FOX/Rush fan is completely oblivious too? Its not just a matter of Krugman being completely wrong and Sarah Palan being completely correct 100 percent of the time. No, what should get your attention here is that Right Wing media PR networks have left millions of people unable to even comprehend that there is a wider debate. Its as if this other view doesn't even exist or if it does, it is in the form of some kind of straw configuration.
I think most of your evil America hating secretly Muslim socialistic progressives can comprehend negative consequences from deficits. Why Clinton even did something about it. I seriously doubt you average dittohead or Fox & Friends friend could explain the counter argument for government intervention in a deflationary cycle.
But it isn't just you. It's millions of wage earners pumping millions of dollars into the economy each week.
It DID have a stimulative effect. THESE kinds of tax cuts are the most stimulative ones that there are. Most tax cuts are pretty poor, as far as stimulus goes, but the one giving everyone under $75,000 an extra few bucks in their paycheck each week are pretty good.
Now, some people didn't actually get the money each week, and got it instead in a lump sum when they filed their taxes this past April, and they got the $400. That isn't as effective, as people pay debt or save that more often.
Jobs programs are the best-- even make-work jobs.
Not sure how you missed that.
And the issue I raised was how it wasn't how one person's $10 would stimulate the economy - since millions GOT that same $10. Not sure how you missed that either.
And, in fact, a tax cut that gives everyone earning under $75 grand a little bit of money each week is quite stimulative, and is better than several other things.
And actually, additional money to food stamp recipients are the best stimulative cash spending programs.
So, you got virtually everything wrong you could have possibly gotten wrong.
Why are you so angry all the time? Carlileb offered his opinion. Seemed reasonable enough. There's really no need to get upset about the fact that you disagree with him, or think he misunderstood your post. Grow up!!
And then this person who was trying to educate me and correct things that I had gotten wrong was actually the person who WAS wrong in several things that he said.
But I'm not angry or upset.
You, on the other hand, can't control YOUR personal animus - that's clear.
It's not that I "disagree" with him. HE was wrong. One can't disagree about facts! And I don't "think" that he misunderstood my post. It's CLEAR that he did.
It would be YOU who needs to grow up.
So what? I understand your personal animus towards me, and other posters, who repeatedly call you out on your outright lies and dishonesty (see DUI example). It just irritates you beyond the bounds of your limited self-control. You're not mature enough to refrain from name-calling when your lies are exposed.
But Carlileb didn't insult you or otherwise demonstrate how you're a liar, (which has been proven repeatedly), yet you couldn't resist calling him "dumb." I just don't get why you're so angry. . .
Here's a hint - if you want people to listen and appreciate what you have to say, try being a little more humble, don't insult people, respect what others have to say. It's not your right to tell people what they should and should not respond to. As the old cliche goes - "You can catch a lot more flies with honey than vinegar."
Carllieb was offering input that jobs are the most effective stimulus (which many economists agree). I certainly saw no need to go off on the guy.
The "deficit Daleks", as former Australian Prime Minister Paul Keating referred to them, have absolutely no concept of the way in which an economy operates. Contrary to their popular myth almost every business and household in the developed world operates on some sort of deficit budget. The trick is ensuring that the debt is manageable. To cut government spending in a recession is to court disaster - much like stomping on the brakes when in a skid.
In managing an economy the first requirement is that money is circulating. The most effective and beneficial way is through spending on capital infrastructure, where the money put into circulation brings with it a tangible community benefit. This puts money into the hands of people who need to spend it right away. As regards raising money to finance the debt, then the most effective way is to ensure that those who do not need to spend extra money pay their fair share of taxes. The wealthy do not need a financial stimulus - it's all about targeting.
The experts cited by mmfa resoundingly agree that more stimulus is needed...and what do they recommend? TAX CUTS.
Yep, TAX CUTS...now that's what I call progress.
What the experts above were talking about were mostly payroll tax credits for newly hired workers to try to encourage those businesses who HAVE money to spend to spend it hiring workers and expanding inventories.
ALL that needs to happen now is rich people (Republicans) and business owners (Republicans) need to STOP trying to hurt Obama and they need to start helping themselves. If we give them an offer they can't refuse, like R&D tax credits and payroll tax holidays for new hires, the hope is that the carrot on a stick will be tempting enough to get them to overlook their animus towards Obama and go after their short-term gain.
Right now, the wealthy and business leaders aren't doing what would be best for them, in order to hurt Obama - the trolls need to be lured out from under the bridges in order to help the USA economy and thereby help themselves!
BTW Not all "rich people" are (R)s, a lot are (D)s or (I)s.
If we really want to fix the economy we really do need to get past the partisan politics.
Most of businesses are making decisions based on what they feel is best for them, not the country. It may be short sighted but; they would rather someone else take the risk of investing first, even if that means they would lose out on some profit because of it. Basically it is the bird in the hand syndrome, they are way more comfortable with what they have, not what they could have.
And yes, that does mean you still get to point out the lies and innuendo that are being promoted in the media.
No one above was talking about tax cuts for lower and middle income households. How is it possibly considered successfully "baiting" someone to put a big, fat, juicy falsehood in front of them?
And yeah, I was generalizing about Republicans. Not all rich people have stopped being active consumers either. It was a generalization - NOT evidence of partisan politics.
And no, I disagree, most businesses ARE NOT making the best decisions for themselves - so do most economists. We are very close to the tipping point, and so it would be very good for almost every business to start spending some of that saved capital that they'd be spending in any sort of normal economy. It's not true that they'd be making a bad decision to be one of the first. They're holding off, just like wealthy people are, because of their animus towards Obama and because of the misinformation from the rightwing media about tax increases, etc.
You're sort of right - to fix the economic problems our nation is having, we need those on the right to get past the partisan politics.
And that's why Obama is willing to look at further tax cuts for those groups - to get THEM past their partisan political views that are stopping them from actually looking out for their best interests!
Well, if that doesn't make my day.
The people who need to discard the partisan politics to help fix our economy are those on the right - not everyone.
Yeah DD. My son isn't hiring for any of his three businesses because he doesn't like Obama. Has nothing to do with Obama's policies.....
Obama's policies can't possibly be the reason.
It's not Obama's policies that will return tax rates back to higher levels for those wealthiest in our nation - it's a Bush policy.
Now, it IS an Obama policy that those making less than $250,000 as a couple to continue to get the lower tax rates extended - so it can't be that Obama policy.
And Obama's policies saved the economy from entering a second Great Depression. Did your son want a LARGER stimulus? Is he unhappy that Obama didn't announce a second stimulus sooner?
So tell us, what "Obama policy" is the specific one that has caused your son to refuse to look out for his best interests?
Oh DD, what a sweetheart you are! You not only call people who post here names and such, you call their relatives, who care less about MMFA and you, such cute names as well. And to think some man may have been lucky enough to be your spouse! I can only imagine how he feels waking up next to you every morning (actually, he's probably lucky to wake up at all).
"So tell us, what "Obama policy" is the specific one that has caused your son to refuse to look out for his best interests?"
I'll give you two. Obamacare and his proposed tax increases. The uncertainty of what these will cost is why he isn't hiring.
It's that the MSM hasn't told the American public this enough.
And so, many believe that the stimulus didn't do what it was supposed to do.
But it DID work. The economic recession was just deeper than the Obama Administration knew when they were figuring out how much stimulus was needed in early January, 2009. As I have repeatedly explained here, they didn't have final numbers from the last quarter of 2008, and it turned out, that 3 months was horrific economically!
The omission of relevant information does a disservice to the American public.
THAT'S the topic here, doofus.
There isn't even any kind of debate over this any more. You are massively wrong and I can't figure out why you're still talking. I'd be too embarrassed in your position.
Next time you talk, your wrongness will be shoved in your face again. Do you think that on the hundredth repetition that you'll become right?
(Notice how the economists want tax credits for actual hiring. Not tax cuts that might be used to hire, because the last ten years have proven, beyond any possible doubt, that they aren't.)
That is NOT all they recommend.
There is virtually no sector of our economy that is not in or on the verge of catastrophic crisis (sorry 'bout the alliterative, lol). Examples are abundant, just dig past the headlines and.. well, it is scarier than one even imagines.
was this a bit too dour? sorry,,,
Never mind. It's all good just a few disagreements between friends 'tis all ... don't worry, be happy.
Let's forget BP for the moment. Huge fish kills are the norm in the gulf due to to severely polluting factory food production and toxic run-off. As long as cheap, and hazardous food and high profits to a few is the standard ... well, that seems inadequate to me.
Market capitalism _cannot_ address Health Care infrastructure adequately. There must be, by definition in a Market Capitalist system: winners and losers. A rather poor model for Health Care I would say.
Market Capitalism is not a sustainable economic motif, despite the prosperity engendered to this point. ... only because massive waste and costs have gone postponed, neglected and unaddressed. _All_ economic productivity in Market Capitalism is a gain + massive expense equation. So perhaps Market Capitalism is the best we have, but it has ushered in unsustainable way of existence. And so, perhaps there is no Socialist adequacy, that is clear. So?
There are times when a business can't do the right thing and still stay in the market. But those times are fewer than the US makes it look.