Jobless rates drop in 34 states and DC

[Toro]

And for the record, we should not engage in stimulus spending on infrastructure outside the normal course of spending.

 

[The Rabbi]

First of all, the idea that this recession is "the weakest since WWII" is factually wrong. You can see GDP growth here, and you can see recession dates here.

The NBER will announce the end of the recession after the November elections, and they will say that it ended in the summer of 2009. Here is GDP growth since then.

Q3 09 2.2%
Q4 09 5.6%
Q1 10 3.2%

Economic growth of the first three quarters after 2001 recession ended.

Q1 02 3.5%
Q2 02 2.1%
Q3 02 2.0%

So the rebound was weaker after the 2001 recession.

The 1990-91 recession lasted from July 90 to March 91. Here is economic growth after that recession.

Q2 91 2.7%
Q3 91 1.7%
Q4 91 1.6%

So this recovery have been stronger than the prior two. The idea that this is the weakest recovery since 1945 is completely false.

Contrary to what the Right would have you believe, most of the stimulus has NOT been spent on make-work jobs. Most of the stimulus has been tax cuts and extensions of social programs and transfers to the states used primarily to fund state social programs. Most of the stimulus money for infrastructure has yet to be spent.

Obama inherited the most serious economic decline since The Great Depression, and we would have gone into another Great Depression had the government not back-stopped the financial system that the Far Right now decries.

Having said that, the build-up in debt is extremely worrisome. We must start looking for an exit to this debt NOW. Adding on new social programs that add to the debt is egregiously bad policy. The government has to have plans to cut spending, dramatically reform social security and medicare and pay down debt. The end game is going to be very bad if we don't find a way to lower government spending. Liberals can't keep piling on spending. It is going to waste the currency.

Qoq, complete bullshit, hook line and sinker.
We can start by looking at the GDP attributable to gov't spending. Take that out and the numbers don't support what you are saying.
Second, the "Far Right" (whoever that is) did not decry backstopping financial institutions. I supported supplying liquidity to the banks when they stopped lending to each other. I did not support extending the TARP to auto makers, insurers, brokers, and anyone else who ever made a load. Neither did Congress, btw. Pres Bush carried that one on his own. I certainly did not support the Stimulus Boondoggle. Neither did about 200 economists, who took out an ad in the WSJ saying it would fail. Which it has.

Now, states have used their "stimulus money" to fill in revenue shortfalls they have had for social programs. Unfortunately, a) the stimulus money is gone for next year, and b) the money came with strings that forced states to guarantee more spending. Which they don't have. This is why Gov Sanford (wait for it) didnt want to take the money and was forced to by the administration and his legislature.
So now the piper will need to be paid. And states still don't have the revenue. Expect massive defaults in the coming 12 months.

 

[Toro]

Qoq, complete bullshit, hook line and sinker.
We can start by looking at the GDP attributable to gov't spending. Take that out and the numbers don't support what you are saying.

Wrong. You should look at the actual data rather than make unsubstantiated and politically biased claims.

Components of GDP = C+I+G+NX. You can see all the data here.

U.S. Department of Commerce. Bureau of Economic Analysis

C is consumption. The past three quarters, consumption growth has been

+1.96%, +1.16%, +2.55%

I is investment. The last three quarters have been

+0.54%, +4.39%, +1.67%

NX is net exports, which has been

-0.81%, +0.27%, -0.61%

And last, G is government spending. The last three quarters have been

+0.55%, -0.26%, -0.37%.

Government spending has fallen over the past three quarters whereas consumption and private investment has risen each and every quarter. So clearly, the idea that government spending is driving this recovery is completely wrong.

Now, let's look at the first three quarters coming out of the 2001 recession

C +0.97, +1.41, +1.89
I +2.09, +0.77, +0.15
G +1.12, +0.71, +0.60
NX -0.70, -0.76, -0.63

So not only was the rebound from the 2001 recession weaker, consumption and private investment were weaker and government spending was a greater driver of economic growth.

And how about 1990/91?

C +2.01, +1.01, -0.11
I -0.23, +1.32, +2.02
G +0.29, -0.39, -0.33
NX +0.65, -0.25, 0.00

So government spending was a bit weaker, but so was consumption and investment.

Therefore, not only has this recovery been stronger than the prior two, but total government spending has been a drag on growth, and even lags the 2002 rebound and was roughly equal to the 1991 recovery.

 

[VaYank5150]

Rabbi...the floor is yours.

 

[Toro]

Look, the reason why this recovery has been stronger than the past two is not because of Obama but because we fell harder to begin with, so the snapback was greater. Government stimulus spending, i.e. extensions of social benefits and transfers to the states, kept us from falling further than we would have. Government spending has fallen in this recovery because of extreme pressure on the states. But to say that this recovery is driven by government spending is just factually wrong. All you have to do is listen to the most recent quarterly conference calls of companies to know this.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Come on, Rabbi, answer Toro or apologize for your ignorance and bias on the matter.

 

[Toro]

Hey, Rabbi was just mistaken. Its a narrative you hear in the media, so its not surprising that many people believe it. Not many people dig into the numbers.

But he's not mistaken about the build-up in debt, or what's going to happen if we don't deal with it. If we don't deal with the debt soon, it is going to have serious ramifications for the economy.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Hey, Rabbi was just mistaken. Its a narrative you hear in the media, so its not surprising that many people believe it. Not many people dig into the numbers.

But he's not mistaken about the build-up in debt, or what's going to happen if we don't deal with it. If we don't deal with the debt soon, it is going to have serious ramifications for the economy.

I agree with your latter statement. No, Rabbi knows what he was saying with the exception of the debt to be untrue. Yet he fabricated for political reasons, so he is what he is: not trustworthy.

 

[Dulo]

Why do you guys let these people control your mind. Where do jobs come from I ask?

Why is nobody talking about opening a business, being innovative and using one's skills to

provide a service. This is America we take the hard road because we choose to. Let the

socialist and communist whine about not having jobs provided. The question I have and

you should to is who the heck is robbing me and rigging the game so I am left at a

disadvantage.

 

[Vast LWC]

Because Reagan inherited a much worse problem than Obama did and made it better. What was the unemployment rate when he ran for re-election? What was the inflation rate compared to when he took office?
Obama inherited a somewhat problemmatic economy and proceeded to make it much worse.

"A somewhat problematic economy"?

Did Reagan have 2 wars to deal with? No.

Did Wall Street completely collapse in 1979? No.

Did Reagan inherit a 11.5 Trillion dollar debt? No.

Inflation would actually be a good thing now, considering how much money is owed, both by the government and individuals, and the fact that next to no-one has any savings to speak of. The real value of that debt would be lowered by inflation.

 

[Vast LWC]

LOL! Even the so-called "EXPERTS" are wrong...

And here we have so many disparaging REAGAN [Living in the PAST] and Giving their Messiah [Obama] and the Congress a PASS.

Boggles the mind.

Look at the quote given and think about the bolded portion.

Initial claims for unemployment benefits shot up by 25,000 to 471,000 last week, which rattled an already jittery market as economists had expected claims to drop to 440,000.

The poster is using ONE WEEK's worth of data and treating it like it's some kind of trend.

25,000 jobs? Perhaps there were a couple of big layoffs last week. That would account for that, and certainly would not constitute a trend.

The trend at the moment is smaller unemployment numebrs, rising consumption, rising production, rising GDP, etc, etc. In other words, all the signs of a recovery.

I know you America Haters are hoping that the economy collapses so you can score political points...

But try to be more credible than pretending a week's worth of data, of ONE FACTOR, says anything at all about the economy.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Tke out all the census workers hired and other new governemet jobs.. and then there's this:

Don't Rule Out a Double Dip Recession - WSJ.com

 

[Vast LWC]

And for the record, we should not engage in stimulus spending on infrastructure outside the normal course of spending.

I don't think we need to at this point.

I know there's a lot of people that really want the economy to recover faster (in time for the election season presumably), and want more stimulus to do it, but I think we need to let things run their course from this point.

I don't think we should add any more to the deficit than we already, that's for sure.

 

[Vast LWC]

Tke out all the census workers hired and other new governemet jobs.. and then there's this:

Don't Rule Out a Double Dip Recession - WSJ.com

All the new census workers were added in the last batch of monthly data. There were 66,000 of them, and we added 230,000 new jobs in addition to them.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Wow.. we're blaming Reagan now?

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

What about Taft? He was quite the fuckup.

 

[Vast LWC]

Wow.. we're blaming Reagan now?

Nooooo, not at all.

I have no real issue with Reagan myself.

I was using his recovery as a comparison. Nothing more.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Gotcha!

The bottom line here is that there really isn't a recovery... we have added some temporary jobs, a lot of them Census related, and that will unwind in 2 months. Do I blame Obama? No.. but his policies are surely not pro-growth in the least. i can tell you firsthand.. there is a lot of anxiety over what is coming from this administration; they are decidedly anti-business.

 

[Vast LWC]

Gotcha!

The bottom line here is that there really isn't a recovery... we have added some temporary jobs, a lot of them Census related, and that will unwind in 2 months. Do I blame Obama? No.. but his policies are surely not pro-growth in the least. i can tell you firsthand.. there is a lot of anxiety over what is coming from this administration; they are decidedly anti-business.

But, as you can see from Toro's data, that is just not the case.

There has been a sustained trend of improvement across the economy. There wasn't just a one-time giant bump in GDP, or Jobs, there was a trend that led up to this.

 

[JakeStarkey]

If that bump continues, the GOP might lose seats this fall. I chuckle to myself when I hear Newt, I guy I like personally, talk about "maybe a 100 seat swing this fall," his eyes rolling wildly in his head, and he is thinking, I hate telling these lies but this is my livliehood. Meh.