In an attempt to get his message out to the most Americans, President Obama actually granted me a quick interview for a pseudo-podcast.
I KNOW WTF? right… man he must REALLY need this crap sandwich um.. generational theft um.. stimulus bill to…

THE CHOSEN ONE on February 6, 2009 at 1:57 AM

Hi Lindsey.

CBO Director’s Blog
Macroeconomic Effects of the Senate Stimulus Legislation
February 4th, 2009 by Douglas Elmendorf

In a letter sent today to Senators Grassley and Gregg, CBO analyzed the macroeconomic effects of an initial Senate version of the stimulus legislation (the Inouye-Baucus amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 1, which is the House stimulus bill). CBO estimates that the Senate legislation would raise output by between 1.4 percent and 4.1 percent by the fourth quarter of 2009; by between 1.2 percent and 3.6 percent by the fourth quarter of 2010; and by between 0.4 percent and 1.2 percent by the fourth quarter of 2011.

[...]

Most of the budgetary effects of the Senate legislation would occur over the next few years. Even if the fiscal stimulus persisted, however, the short-run effects on output that operate by increasing demand for goods and services would eventually fade away. In the long run, the economy produces close to its potential output on average,

[...]

In contrast to its positive near-term macroeconomic effects, the Senate legislation would reduce output slightly in the long run, CBO estimates, as would other similar proposals. The principal channel for this effect is that the legislation would result in an increase in government debt.

[...]

The negative effect of crowding out could be offset somewhat by a positive long-term effect on the economy of some provsions—such as funding for infrastructure spending, education programs, and investment incentives, which might increase economic output in the long run. CBO estimated that such provisions account for roughly one-quarter of the legislation’s budgetary cost. Including the effects of both crowding out of private investment (which would reduce output in the long run) and possibly productive government investment (which could increase output), CBO estimates that by 2019 the Senate legislation would reduce GDP by 0.1 percent to 0.3 percent on net.

It looks like the Director of CBO is saying that the bill would reduce output by 0.1 to 0.3 percent in the long run, even with the increases in output in 2009 and 2010.

Times are really tough, so I decided to re-enter the work force after years of staying home with the kids. My husband and I were working on the budget, and I listed some money for an interview suit. Hubby responded by saying “If you can buy new clothes, I get a new TV”. My son overheard us and demanded a new game system. My daughter declared “If he gets a wii, I get a pony”. This went on for weeks with each one-upping the other.

Long story short, we’re now millions in debt, I still haven’t landed a job interview, and we’re up to our necks in pony loaf;)

Laura in Maryland on February 5, 2009 at 11:58 PM

Wow, a HotAir classic post… Funny and pointed. Great job!

***

[list of economists opposing the bill]

Poptech on February 5, 2009 at 9:43 PM

Holy sh*t. I realize how inexact the discipline is, but on top of everything else that’s been said and written, if it boils down to the overwhelming criticism plus these economists against and guy who didn’t use an interest-bearing checking account until 2005 (Obama), I say go back to the drawing board.

Democrats are screwing the country over with this bill. Why can’t the GOP single out the sh*t and start hanging it around the necks of particular Democrats. Require some of these POS to own the objectionable parts of the package. Then we’ll get some real outrage. Personalize then demonize. Sorry to be vindictive, but the Democrats cannot be allowed to enact this POS bill without some vehement opposition. This is important to create a death match over it.

Make sense?

Nanny claims people love nanny. Englishman
Mayor Daley: Chicago’s stimulus pork is secret
Sweden lifts nuclear power ban. For the wrong reasons.
Via Insty:

Roosevelt: We have nothing to fear, but fear itself!
Obama: Be afraid. Very afraid!!
…

eh, I pulled out of the marketand did some other things. I can see this thing going down the tubes for now.

They had better watch their backs. Cheney had a few things to say they need to be paying attention to while all this is going on.

Long story short, we’re now millions in debt, I still haven’t landed a job interview, and we’re up to our necks in pony loaf;)

Laura in Maryland on February 5, 2009 at 11:58 PM

I love parables.

I can smell the bacon when I open the front door. Try it. I bet you can too.

The Democrats know that if they don’t pass this dog now, it’s not going to pass at all, so they’re rushing things through prematurely…

2-year gain = 2.6%
9-year loss at -0.3% per annum = -2.7%

Net Loss for the inclusive period 2009 thru 2019 = -0.1%

This is a hell of a return for a trillion dollar investment that must be paid back with interest… but about what any sane adult would expect from a government program.

Voicemail boxes FULL at both Snowe and Collins as of the time of this post……good.

But you can still send email to their 4 minions above. I did. I put them all on the same email and just blasted them for helping to destroy my country. I also told ‘em that “Boycott Maine” bumper stickers sure sound good.

Let’s roll. No b*itchin’ if you don’t do anything. It’s easy. Write. Call tomorrow.

Long story short, we’re now millions in debt, I still haven’t landed a job interview, and we’re up to our necks in pony loaf;)

Laura in Maryland on February 5, 2009 at 11:58 PM

I don’t know you, but I love you for this post.

I do not trust Lindsay Grahamnesty.

ex-Democrat on February 5, 2009 at 11:54 PM

Watching Graham be shocked and upset over a gang of senators working independently from the rest of them….. THE HUMANITY!
Welcome to our world doofus.