Amongst the Right, anyway, I don’t recall a lot of people saying the gov’t should do nothing vis a vis stimulus. That wasn’t the main argument. It had more to do with how the stimulus should be structured, what it should target (i.e. encouraging investment by lowering capital gains), and how much it should cost. In many ways, the same thing we’re seeing in regards to healthcare reform.

“Where does TARP come into play in reference to the Stimulus? I don’t remember too many arguing outright against a stimulus. There was vehement disagreement, though, on how it should be structured and where the monies should be directed.”

Does the it in the last sentence refer to TARP or the stimulus?

I realize too that unemployment is a lagging indicator. But, even the WH at times has seemed confused on what the stimulus was designed to do, and its effects: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-stimulus-facts31-2009oct31,0,72545.story. That reeks of throwing something against the wall and hoping it sticks, nothing more. And the improved GDP picture is great, but a big chunk of that was cash for clunkers.

Where does TARP come into play in reference to the Stimulus? I don’t remember too many arguing outright against a stimulus. There was vehement disagreement, though, on how it should be structured and where the monies should be directed. It was loaded with pork, too…$650 million for digital TV coupons, if I’m not mistaken? If Obama is able to claim that the stimulus created (or the highly dubious saved) 3 million jobs, then that amounts to over $200,000 per job. What kind of value is that, especially when the cost doesn’t include servicing the interest on it?

I’m not suggesting I have the answers, because I don’t. I can link you to conservative think tanks which argue no stimulus, or a much smaller, more targeted one, would’ve been better, but then of course you can always do the same with those arguing Keynesian theories and proposing much larger stimulus packages. All I know is what was passed, what the White House promised, and what we’re seeing now. The fact they have to resort to the rather dubious “saved” jobs meme tells me they’re not as confident as they should be about it. I think GDP is supposed to remain stagnant, at best, for some time, which means the private economy won’t be creating the jobs to sustain a recovery.

Aside from the politics of it all a statistical fact is that employment lags behind other indicators of a recovering economy. This is apparent with the improved GDP picture, that on it’s face appears to contradict the jobs numbers.

Also of note is that the majority of TARP funds are in the form of Tax benefits—$288 Billion. So, I still don’t understand what the alternative “plan” was/is. To not do anything? Undeniably people expect results, as we damn well should. But to argue against the stimulus outright, and in principle contradicts a plan that was weighted heaviest in tax relief also.

In February, at a news conference I think, Obama said the success or failure of his stimulus rested on stopping the loss of jobs and reversing unemployment. I think people will start holding him to that.

The second link in the post is the most illustrative of exactly how wrong they were on the stimulus.