Is This The 1970s All Over?

[The Rabbi]

The Rabbi, the economy of The Entire World is distressed right now. What part do you think Obama had in that? Or do you think the US is an economic island?

And what exactly do you think McCain would have done so far superior to Obama that we'd have little unemployment now? (Presumably you are not complaining because inflation is too low...that'd be kinda dumb.)

The federal government can affect the US economy, but it does not operate it. See the difference?

Really? I had no idea Germany was somewhere else.
Euro May Gain as German Unemployment Rate Drops to Match 16-Year Low - Yahoo! Finance
Or Israel
Israel's Unemployment Rate Drops - Again - Good News - Israel News - Israel National News

Or Czech Republic
Analysts: Unemployment in ?R grows to 8.7% in July | Prague Monitor
Or South Korea
South Korean Jobless Rate to Stay Near 4%, Yim Says (Update1) - BusinessWeek
Remember Iceland? That country was virtually bankrupt right after the crash. Now look at them
Iceland Review Online: Daily News from Iceland, Current Affairs, Business, Politics, Sports, Culture

And what did they all have in common? Barack Obama was not their president. They did not pass massive stimulus bills that drove national debt to historic highs.

 

[rdean]

In the mid-late 1970s Jimmy Carter was president.
We had growing stagflation.
We had a weak foreign policy.
We had a GOP weakened from Watergate and Democratic control in Congress and the White House
We had high taxes
We had obstreperous unions
We had ugly cars like the AMC Pacer and Gremlin
We had ugly music like disco
We were told WE were the problem

Now Obama is president.
We have growing stagflation
We have a weak foreign policy
We have a GOP weak from the Bush years
We have rising taxes
We have obstreperous unions
We have ugly cars like the Cube
We have ugly music like techno and rap
And we're being told we're the problem.

Coincidence?

Don't worry, the GOP is even more rotten today than they were back then. This is as close as they've ever been to bringing down this country.

 

[Flopper]

It is absurd to believe that employment should have returned to previous levels after the worst recession since the great depression. Anyone who knows anything about economics knows that employment is last thing to recover after a recession. There is nothing the president or congress could have done that would have brought unemployment down significantly. Fiscal stimulus by the government has only a temporary effect of bolstering consumer spending and confidence. Cutting taxes from the current low levels, would have little effect on business expansion. Cutting interest rates would have even less impact.

This recession as all recessions in the past must simply run their course. Business profits are up and businesses are piling up cash. Many of these businesses were near bankruptcy 18 months ago and are not going to significantly expand regardless of tax rates until they are confident that the excesses in the economy have been shaken out and consumer confidence is on the mend. All of this takes time. Government action, whether it be spending, cutting spending, cutting taxes, or raising taxes is only one factor that effects the economy. No action of the government has proven itself effective in turning around the economy consistently.

 

[uscitizen]

It is absurd to believe that employment should have returned to previous levels after the worst recession since the great depression. Anyone who knows anything about economics knows that employment is last thing to recover after a recession. There is nothing the president or congress could have done that would have brought unemployment down significantly. Fiscal stimulus by the government has only a temporary effect of bolstering consumer spending and confidence. Cutting taxes from the current low levels, would have little effect on business expansion. Cutting interest rates would have even less impact.

This recession as all recessions in the past must simply run their course. Business profits are up and businesses are piling up cash. Many of these businesses were near bankruptcy 18 months ago and are not going to significantly expand regardless of tax rates until they are confident that the excesses in the economy have been shaken out and consumer confidence is on the mend. All of this takes time. Government action, whether it be spending, cutting spending, cutting taxes, or raising taxes is only one factor that effects the economy. No action of the government has proven itself effective in turning around the economy consistently.

You do see the catch 22 in a consumer based economy thought don't you?
Industry will not expand jobs till sales rise and sales will not rise till jobs are created.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Question for anyone that may wish to answer.
How many people were on government assistants programs back in the 70's versus now? You can do it by percentages or by the number of people in the system

 

[Flopper]

It is absurd to believe that employment should have returned to previous levels after the worst recession since the great depression. Anyone who knows anything about economics knows that employment is last thing to recover after a recession. There is nothing the president or congress could have done that would have brought unemployment down significantly. Fiscal stimulus by the government has only a temporary effect of bolstering consumer spending and confidence. Cutting taxes from the current low levels, would have little effect on business expansion. Cutting interest rates would have even less impact.

This recession as all recessions in the past must simply run their course. Business profits are up and businesses are piling up cash. Many of these businesses were near bankruptcy 18 months ago and are not going to significantly expand regardless of tax rates until they are confident that the excesses in the economy have been shaken out and consumer confidence is on the mend. All of this takes time. Government action, whether it be spending, cutting spending, cutting taxes, or raising taxes is only one factor that effects the economy. No action of the government has proven itself effective in turning around the economy consistently.

You do see the catch 22 in a consumer based economy thought don't you?
Industry will not expand jobs till sales rise and sales will not rise till jobs are created.

There is always a catch22 in economics. That's why government intervention in the economy is dicey at best. In the past we cut interest rates repeatedly in order to simulate the economy, only to find that we went too far and pushed the country toward an inflationary spiral. We cut taxes and raised taxes often without getting the desired result.

I believe the best action the government can take in a recession is to prevent economic free fall as was done in late 2008 and cushion the impact on American workers with some fiscal stimulus. My main point is that business got themselves into this economic mess and they are the ones to get themselves out of it. As businesses cut jobs and costs they become more productive. At some point business regains it's confidence and begins to expand into the most profitable markets. Consumers, realizing that things aren't getting worse begin to buy. Thus the business cycle starts to turn. This cycle repeats over and over.

 

[The Rabbi]

It is absurd to believe that employment should have returned to previous levels after the worst recession since the great depression. Anyone who knows anything about economics knows that employment is last thing to recover after a recession. There is nothing the president or congress could have done that would have brought unemployment down significantly. Fiscal stimulus by the government has only a temporary effect of bolstering consumer spending and confidence. Cutting taxes from the current low levels, would have little effect on business expansion. Cutting interest rates would have even less impact.

This recession as all recessions in the past must simply run their course. Business profits are up and businesses are piling up cash. Many of these businesses were near bankruptcy 18 months ago and are not going to significantly expand regardless of tax rates until they are confident that the excesses in the economy have been shaken out and consumer confidence is on the mend. All of this takes time. Government action, whether it be spending, cutting spending, cutting taxes, or raising taxes is only one factor that effects the economy. No action of the government has proven itself effective in turning around the economy consistently.

In the terrible recession after 2001 the unemployment rate soared to 5.99% and Democrats were all over Bush. Within 2 years it was back down under 5%. So of course it is reasonable for things t turn around in 24 months.
They are not going to expand because this is the most anti-business administration since FDR.

 

[uscitizen]

It is absurd to believe that employment should have returned to previous levels after the worst recession since the great depression. Anyone who knows anything about economics knows that employment is last thing to recover after a recession. There is nothing the president or congress could have done that would have brought unemployment down significantly. Fiscal stimulus by the government has only a temporary effect of bolstering consumer spending and confidence. Cutting taxes from the current low levels, would have little effect on business expansion. Cutting interest rates would have even less impact.

This recession as all recessions in the past must simply run their course. Business profits are up and businesses are piling up cash. Many of these businesses were near bankruptcy 18 months ago and are not going to significantly expand regardless of tax rates until they are confident that the excesses in the economy have been shaken out and consumer confidence is on the mend. All of this takes time. Government action, whether it be spending, cutting spending, cutting taxes, or raising taxes is only one factor that effects the economy. No action of the government has proven itself effective in turning around the economy consistently.

You do see the catch 22 in a consumer based economy thought don't you?
Industry will not expand jobs till sales rise and sales will not rise till jobs are created.

There is always a catch22 in economics. That's why government intervention in the economy is dicey at best. In the past we cut interest rates repeatedly in order to simulate the economy, only to find that we went too far and pushed the country toward an inflationary spiral. We cut taxes and raised taxes often without getting the desired result.

I believe the best action the government can take in a recession is to prevent economic free fall as was done in late 2008 and cushion the impact on American workers with some fiscal stimulus. My main point is that business got themselves into this economic mess and they are the ones to get themselves out of it. As businesses cut jobs and costs they become more productive. At some point business regains it's confidence and begins to expand into the most profitable markets. Consumers, realizing that things aren't getting worse begin to buy. Thus the business cycle starts to turn. This cycle repeats over and over.

The rules are far different now than in the past. We are much more dependent on consumer spending than in the past.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Question for anyone that may wish to answer.
How many people were on government assistants programs back in the 70's versus now? You can do it by percentages or by the number of people in the system

Not to act like I want to be notice but I would like my question answered.

 

[Greenbeard]

Question for anyone that may wish to answer.
How many people were on government assistants programs back in the 70's versus now? You can do it by percentages or by the number of people in the system

Not to act like I want to be notice but I would like my question answered.

Well, what are you referring to? "Welfare," i.e. AFDC and its successor, TANF?

The numbers through 2002:

The national caseload numbers as of 2009 were still hovering around that 4-5 million mark for recipients.

So they're less than half of what they were in the 1970s.

 

[The Rabbi]

Thanks to GOP reforms of welfare, signed into law by Clinton.
I wonder if you add in the number of unemployed what the numbers look like. I saw an estimate that nearly 50% of Americans get some kind of government assistance.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Thanks to GOP reforms of welfare, signed into law by Clinton.
I wonder if you add in the number of unemployed what the numbers look like. I saw an estimate that nearly 50% of Americans get some kind of government assistance.

48% thats why I find Greenbeard link suspect

 

[Madeline]

50%????

Are you counting "government assistance" as stuff like roads, The Rabbi?

 

[Greenbeard]

I wonder if you add in the number of unemployed what the numbers look like.

Amazingly, it's exceedingly easy to compare the numbers/percentages of unemployment benefits being payed out now to those in the late 1970s. Take the seasonally adjusted unemployment insurance rate (i.e. the number drawing benefits divided by the entire population, working or not, of covered employees) for the first week in July in various years:

• 1976: 4.5%
• 1977: 3.8%
• 1978: 3.2%
• 1979: 2.8%
• 1980:4.4%
• 2008: 2.3%
• 2009: 4.7%
• 2010: 3.7%

At the beginning of July this year, the seasonally adjusted number of workers filing continuing unemployment claims was 4,710,000 (out of a total 126,763,245 covered workers in the U.S.).

If we generously estimate a combined 10 million recipients of TANF and unemployment benefits, that's a grand total of 3.2% of the American population.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I wonder if you add in the number of unemployed what the numbers look like.

Amazingly, it's exceedingly easy to compare the numbers/percentages of unemployment benefits being payed out now to those in the late 1970s. Take the seasonally adjusted unemployment insurance rate (i.e. the number drawing benefits divided by the entire population, working or not, of covered employees) for the first week in July in various years:

• 1976: 4.5%
• 1977: 3.8%
• 1978: 3.2%
• 1979: 2.8%
• 1980:4.4%
• 2008: 2.3%
• 2009: 4.7%
• 2010: 3.7%

At the beginning of July this year, the seasonally adjusted number of workers filing continuing unemployment claims was 4,710,000 (out of a total 126,763,245 covered workers in the U.S.).

If we generously estimate a combined 10 million recipients of TANF and unemployment benefits, that's a grand total of 3.2% of the American population.

Look at the date of the source.
Nation & World | Many Americans are falling deeper into depths of poverty | Seattle Times Newspaper

 

[skookerasbil]

And limo's behind the White House like this..................

 

[The Rabbi]

50%????

Are you counting "government assistance" as stuff like roads, The Rabbi?

Pensions, WIC, SSI, etc etc. It adds up.

 

[The Rabbi]

50%????

Are you counting "government assistance" as stuff like roads, The Rabbi?

Of course you could have discovered the figure for yourself with about 15 seconds worth of work.
I stand corrected. The figure is over 52%. But that includes people actually employed by the gov't at some level.
RealClearPolitics - Articles - The Public Trough Is Bigger Than Ever

 

[Greenbeard]

Look at the date of the source.
Nation & World | Many Americans are falling deeper into depths of poverty | Seattle Times Newspaper

And?

Of course you could have discovered the figure for yourself with about 15 seconds worth of work.
I stand corrected. The figure is over 52%. But that includes people actually employed by the gov't at some level.
RealClearPolitics - Articles - The Public Trough Is Bigger Than Ever

As well as any firm contracting with federal, state, or local governments. Oh, and every elderly person in the country:

One out of five Americans works for some level of government or for a firm that depends on taxpayer financing. One in five also draws Social Security or a federal pension. That number will grow as the baby boomers move on to Social Security, which, let's not forget, is a transfer program.​

I suppose we should also include anyone receiving health benefits through their employer (i.e. the federal tax exemption), any college graduate paying back federal student loans, any doctor whose residency was supported by Medicare DGME payments, anyone who went to a public school, and so on.

If your metric is "anyone touched by government programs" then obviously that's going to include most people--virtually everyone, in fact.

But that's a somewhat broader category than people receiving public assistance.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Look at the date of the source.
Nation & World | Many Americans are falling deeper into depths of poverty | Seattle Times Newspaper

And?

Of course you could have discovered the figure for yourself with about 15 seconds worth of work.
I stand corrected. The figure is over 52%. But that includes people actually employed by the gov't at some level.
RealClearPolitics - Articles - The Public Trough Is Bigger Than Ever

As well as any firm contracting with federal, state, or local governments. Oh, and every elderly person in the country:

One out of five Americans works for some level of government or for a firm that depends on taxpayer financing. One in five also draws Social Security or a federal pension. That number will grow as the baby boomers move on to Social Security, which, let's not forget, is a transfer program.​

I suppose we should also include anyone receiving health benefits through their employer (i.e. the federal tax exemption), any college graduate paying back federal student loans, any doctor whose residency was supported by Medicare DGME payments, anyone who went to a public school, and so on.

If your metric is "anyone touched by government programs" then obviously that's going to include most people--virtually everyone, in fact.

But that's a somewhat broader category than people receiving public assistance.

Date 2007
WASHINGTON — The percentage of poor Americans who are living in severe poverty has reached a 32-year high, millions of working Americans are falling closer to the poverty line and the gulf between the nation's "haves" and "have-nots" continues to widen.

It really doesn't match your stats. It is quite possible that since this newspap is based in Seattle it could be untrue and was meant as an attack on Bush