Free Markets, Free People

Stimulus had no impact

That’s according to a survey of the members of the National Association for Business Economics (NABE):

NABE conducted the study by polling 68 of its members who work in economic roles at private-sector firms. About 73% of those surveyed said employment at their company is neither higher nor lower as a result of the $787 billion Recovery Act, which the White House’s Council of Economic Advisers says is on track to create or save 3.5 million jobs by the end of the year.

That sentiment is shared for the recently passed $17.7 billion jobs bill that calls for tax breaks for businesses that hire and additional infrastructure spending. More than two-thirds of those polled believe the measure won’t affect payrolls, while 30% expect it to boost hiring “moderately.”

The point, of course, is these are the people who would have seen any such positive impact within the market created by both the stimulus and the “jobs” bill.  Almost 3/4s saw no effect whatsoever.  That’s because the stimulus, among other things, was ill conceived, ill timed (if you’re going to do it, you don’t pay “stimulus” out over several years) and despite what President Obama said, almost 100% pure pork.

So apparently, as the recovery begins, it will be under its own steam and without the impact of any government “stimulus” spending.

~McQ

[ad] Empty ad slot (#1)!

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUponShare on RedditPin on PinterestEmail this to someone

13 Responses to Stimulus had no impact

  • That’s because the stimulus, among other things, was ill conceived, ill timed (if you’re going to do it, you don’t pay “stimulus” out over several years) and despite what President Obama said, almost 100% pure pork.

    Accoding to Erb and his referenced Time Magazine article regarding all of the super accomplishments of the Obama Adminstration, this is one of their strong points.

    I just had a thought – maybe it’s true!  As bad as the Stimulus Package was, compared to the rest of the Obama Adminstration high points, this might be right up there at the top!  LOL!

  • It has had no impact, but recall that it was a critical national emergency that it get passed.

    The critical national emergency part had to do with getting it passed before anyone found out what was actually in it.

    It was a political payoff. If it was going to have an impact on the economy that would come from the cash being dumped into circulation, but they couldn’t even get that part right. It just got sucked into various bureaucracies. Maybe a lot of it went to offshore accounts for that rainy day. Who knows.

    But it was just the opening moment of bad faith for a bad faith presidency. If only it had ended at bad faith, but it has unfortunately moved on to maliciousness, recklessness and destructiveness. But at least we now have a context to understand why the bad faith came so easy to them.

    • Doesn’t it strike you as odd that no one seems to wonder why all these ‘critical emergencies’ are dealt with anywhere from 2 to 10 years down the road in every plan that Imeme has?   And that the usual parties that would demand action are dead silent about it?  Or better yet, a’la (Out of)Time magazine tout these plans as evidence of a well run, orderly, successful administration?
       
      Who says there’s no liberal narrative.

  • NABE conducted the study by polling 68 of its members who work in economic roles at private-sector firms.

    Not that I have any faith in Porkulus (the unemployment numbers indicate that it flopped), but what the hell does “members who work in economic roles at private-sector firms” mean?  How do these people really know the impact (or lack thereof) of Porkulus?  Isn’t this survey about one step above using “man on the street” data as evidence of a position?  Does NABE have a political bias?  Have they had a prior position on Porkulus?

    It’s hard to say “what might have been”, and I don’t think that economists are any better at it than the rest of us.

  • Actually, these guys are wrong – the stimulus did have an impact – it drove us deeper into debt.

    • If the survey had been of various left-leaning special interest groups aligned with the Democrats, I bet they would say it had an impact. They can probably point to jobs created right there in their own offices.

  • Of course it was never anything more than a huge slush fund for the Donks to pay off all their political cronys, buy votes, and line their own pockets.
     
    Anyone who is not an Obama tool can see that.

  • “Of course it was never anything more than a huge slush fund for the Donks to pay off all their political cronys, buy votes, and line their own pockets.”

     
    Of course.
     
    That is why the post is sort of a ho-hum, guess what post for both the poster and reader alike.  Like if it was about how President Obama does not play with his dog much (quick, name it.  Bet you can’t) which was a big deal when he was acquired.
     
    If the big issue at the time this bill was passed had been a water shortage that threatened the nation, the bill would have been exactly the same except for the name and we would now be reading a story here about how it wasn’t needed because there is plenty of rain and full reservoirs.
     
    You see, smart, caring people already KNOW.  The only suspense is over are there enough of them and whether or not it is too late and the system can still be gamed to give us more candidates who say one thing while already having sold out to do another.
     
    Sensing this dynamic, the Democratic think tanks are putting in the long hours going over Sarah Palin’s activities and churning out the smallest item that can be used to make her untrustworthy and a potential sellout.  Do you have an awareness of how much money she is making?  Do you know every decision she makes and whether or not (and how much) she is being paid?  How is that?  Why is that newsworthy?  Isn’t Romney making money doing something?  I have no idea where his money comes from, other than his inheritance.  Or any other potential Presidential candidate. When you think about that, don’t you find it strange?
     
    Why don’t the Democrats (and therefore the LN) care about anyone‘s income except hers?  Because the others are known career politicians, and therefore all potential sellouts.  No need to tar them further.  Sarah?  If the election turns on integrity?  Think about it.
     
    And don’t get lost in the talk of not liking what she stands for.  The issue will be “Is What You See What You Will Get?”  And much like voters voted for McCain as the lesser of two evils…
     
    It is pretty hard (at least for me) to see her selling out her campaign promises like W or President Obama.  So the think tanks are busily setting backfires.  If she were to break one tiny, little commitment I guarantee you NYT front page treatment.  They know.

  • This can’t be true. It is contrary to what Scott Erb says, so the economists must be wrong.