Obama stimulus added jobs and boosted economy

[8537]

Ecvnomists forecast. And the ones Obama has been usingt have proven to be awful at forecasting. They assured no higher than 8% unemployment and when it soared above, they said they read the economy wrong.

Republican economists were predicting unemployment rates of 8-8.5% at the time.

Economists read the economy wrong....Love that one.

Some of them did, some didn't.

However, HISTORY shows us that recessions come every 6-8 years and are based primarily on market saturation, with some also spurred by technological advances. History also shows us that such recessions usually stablize within 18 months...sometimes quicker. The one recession that did not was the one that turned into the great depression.

No, the recessions of the early 1980's lasted longer and were far deeper than the rest, as is this one.

So from an honest debate standpoint, we again look at history and ask if "spending" has proven to be the answer to economic collapese during peacetime. Afterall, there is a solid debate that war helps economies recover so maybe FDR's spedning was not the catalyst.

FDR's policies led from 3000 bank failures in 1933 to 7 bank failures in 1934. That single act brought stability to the financial markets. Later spending programs that increased demand helped create an environment of 4-years of record growth and decreasing unemployment.

So we look at history of peacetime spending...ala...Japan. For ten years of peacetime, they tried to spend themselves out of a recession and it did squat.

Japan entered that recession and responded by cutting spending and increasing interest rates,then made tepid steps towards Keynesian stimulus until about 1999.

So now we look back at history of the US. When we dont spend, we get out of the recession in about 18 months.

We got out of the 1980 recession in 18 months? Because you're relying on the NBER recession dates, you'll have to conclude that most likely this recession only lasted about 20 months - it started in November of 2007 and most believe the NBER will date the end as June - August 2009. Just b/c the NBER has declared it over doesn't mean the economy is doing great. Afterall, the last recession ended in October of 2001 and we didn't see positive jobs numbers until almost 2004.

 

[The Rabbi]

Ecvnomists forecast. And the ones Obama has been usingt have proven to be awful at forecasting. They assured no higher than 8% unemployment and when it soared above, they said they read the economy wrong.

Republican economists were predicting unemployment rates of 8-8.5% at the time.

Link? Which "Republican economists" would that be? Also recall Republicans were not selling a program that was supposed to keep unemployment below 8%. But the administration's advisors (two of whom have resigned) were.

 

[Jarhead]

Ecvnomists forecast. And the ones Obama has been usingt have proven to be awful at forecasting. They assured no higher than 8% unemployment and when it soared above, they said they read the economy wrong.

Republican economists were predicting unemployment rates of 8-8.5% at the time.

Economists read the economy wrong....Love that one.

Some of them did, some didn't.



No, the recessions of the early 1980's lasted longer and were far deeper than the rest, as is this one.



FDR's policies led from 3000 bank failures in 1933 to 7 bank failures in 1934. That single act brought stability to the financial markets. Later spending programs that increased demand helped create an environment of 4-years of record growth and decreasing unemployment.

So we look at history of peacetime spending...ala...Japan. For ten years of peacetime, they tried to spend themselves out of a recession and it did squat.

Japan entered that recession and responded by cutting spending and increasing interest rates,then made tepid steps towards Keynesian stimulus until about 1999.

So now we look back at history of the US. When we dont spend, we get out of the recession in about 18 months.

We got out of the 1980 recession in 18 months? Because you're relying on the NBER recession dates, you'll have to conclude that most likely this recession only lasted about 20 months - it started in November of 2007 and most believe the NBER will date the end as June - August 2009. Just b/c the NBER has declared it over doesn't mean the economy is doing great. Afterall, the last recession ended in October of 2001 and we didn't see positive jobs numbers until almost 2004.

Whereas I appreciate your civil, intelligent, well thought out and comprehensive explanation of your perception of the economy, it is quite obvious that you read datat and results differently than I do. Now, putting aside the partisan crap you and I hear everyday and assuming that you, such as I, have studied economics beyond basic Micro and Macro, I believe we canboth agree that those who read economic data, tend to read it based on their beliefs and perception of economics, and that some of the top economists in the world can prove their "theory" to be correct.

That being siad, whereas you made it quite clear as to why you believe the results came to be, there are just as strong arguments as to why there are other reasons for the results to be what they are.

If not, by now, there would be no debate as to what is right and what is wrong.

Do you agree?

 

[Jarhead]

Ecvnomists forecast. And the ones Obama has been usingt have proven to be awful at forecasting. They assured no higher than 8% unemployment and when it soared above, they said they read the economy wrong.

Republican economists were predicting unemployment rates of 8-8.5% at the time.

Link? Which "Republican economists" would that be? Also recall Republicans were not selling a program that was supposed to keep unemployment below 8%. But the administration's advisors (two of whom have resigned) were.

I am not sure what he means by republican economists. I do not se ecvonomists as partisan based on politics. I see economists who analyze data and theory based on their own ideolgy and teachings.

If aneconomist offer "solutions" based onparty affiliation, they should never be allowed to advise the President.

 

[Meister]

While listening to the obama administration talk up what a great job they are doing.....where are the jobs, where is the unemployment declining? Talk all you want about all the jobs created....the numbers speak for themselves.

 

[Bass v 2.0]

You rightwing monkeys are retarded, after having 8 years of a incompetent president that you elected twice you expect Obama to have absolute 100% overnight success is less that two years on the job, pathetic. What you dumb monkeys fail to realize is that his stimulus package wasn't about just spending, it also included tax cuts.

 

[8537]

Whereas I appreciate your civil, intelligent, well thought out and comprehensive explanation of your perception of the economy,

Likewise.

it is quite obvious that you read datat and results differently than I do. Now, putting aside the partisan crap you and I hear everyday and assuming that you, such as I, have studied economics beyond basic Micro and Macro, I believe we canboth agree that those who read economic data, tend to read it based on their beliefs and perception of economics, and that some of the top economists in the world can prove their "theory" to be correct.

While that is indeed true, there are certain things that all economists agree are facts. The end of bank panics in 1933 are a fact, and the cause of that end - the banking act - is also accepted by every economist. Now, some might argue that we would have been better off to let even more banks collapse and liquidate, which would be the same as Morganthau saying that a 40% decline wasn't far enough. While it's a sujbective call to some degree, I simply can't grok how one could accept that - especially in light of the social upheaval that was bound to follow such a continued decline.

That being siad, whereas you made it quite clear as to why you believe the results came to be, there are just as strong arguments as to why there are other reasons for the results to be what they are.

If not, by now, there would be no debate as to what is right and what is wrong.

Do you agree?

Well, here's what I'd agree with: One can debate what would have happened had TARP and the stimulus not been passed, had we allowed every bank to fail etc...But I honestly don't think there's a debate outside of partisan circles that we would have somehow been better off right now. something like 500 of the nation's largest financial institutions used TARP funds to balance their books. We could have tried a 1931-style Laissez faire approach to finance and let them fail, but how would that make our current situation better? I believe there can be a fair and wide-ranging debate about the impact of the government's efforts starting in the summer of 2008. But I've never seen a legitimate model to explain how allowing a financial system to collapse ala 1931 makes things better.

Bailing out billionaires and corporations is never popular, it's always messy and it's patently unfair in many ways, but the alternative is even worse. Instead of creating funds to bail them out during a crisis, we need to find better ways to shut them down without creating systemic risk when they reach such levels of problem...But the interested parties aren't likely to give up on that teet easily.

 

[Jarhead]

You rightwing monkeys are retarded, after having 8 years of a incompetent president that you elected twice you expect Obama to have absolute 100% overnight success is less that two years on the job, pathetic. What you dumb monkeys fail to realize is that his stimulus package wasn't about just spending, it also included tax cuts.

Fixing a leaky roof by patching it AND replacing it seems to be a way to do nothing but appease those that wanted to replace it and appease those that want to patch it.

So saying he had tax cuts in it as well is admitting that all he was trying to do was appeasing people....likely for votes.

Mine is not a stance against Obama. Mine is a stance on government spending. Just as it was when Bush did it.

In times like this if you are going to "take a chance" first try what is least ecpoensive...not what is most expensive.

 

[Jarhead]

Whereas I appreciate your civil, intelligent, well thought out and comprehensive explanation of your perception of the economy,

Likewise.

it is quite obvious that you read datat and results differently than I do. Now, putting aside the partisan crap you and I hear everyday and assuming that you, such as I, have studied economics beyond basic Micro and Macro, I believe we canboth agree that those who read economic data, tend to read it based on their beliefs and perception of economics, and that some of the top economists in the world can prove their "theory" to be correct.

While that is indeed true, there are certain things that all economists agree are facts. The end of bank panics in 1933 are a fact, and the cause of that end - the banking act - is also accepted by every economist. Now, some might argue that we would have been better off to let even more banks collapse and liquidate, which would be the same as Morganthau saying that a 40% decline wasn't far enough. While it's a sujbective call to some degree, I simply can't grok how one could accept that - especially in light of the social upheaval that was bound to follow such a continued decline.

That being siad, whereas you made it quite clear as to why you believe the results came to be, there are just as strong arguments as to why there are other reasons for the results to be what they are.

If not, by now, there would be no debate as to what is right and what is wrong.

Do you agree?

Well, here's what I'd agree with: One can debate what would have happened had TARP and the stimulus not been passed, had we allowed every bank to fail etc...But I honestly don't think there's a debate outside of partisan circles that we would have somehow been better off right now. something like 500 of the nation's largest financial institutions used TARP funds to balance their books. We could have tried a 1931-style Laissez faire approach to finance and let them fail, but how would that make our current situation better? I believe there can be a fair and wide-ranging debate about the impact of the government's efforts starting in the summer of 2008. But I've never seen a legitimate model to explain how allowing a financial system to collapse ala 1931 makes things better.

Bailing out billionaires and corporations is never popular, it's always messy and it's patently unfair in many ways, but the alternative is even worse. Instead of creating funds to bail them out during a crisis, we need to find better ways to shut them down without creating systemic risk when they reach such levels of problem...But the interested parties aren't likely to give up on that teet easily.

AGain, well presented.

In the interest of time (I am actually busier this week than usual)...

I still believe TARP was a stab in in the integrity of pure competition. I recall the ad agency craze of the 80's. The greedy got greedier and they lost...and the patient reaped the rewards.

Bear in mind...the lost money; the red; it goes somewhere. Yes, my home lost value, and assuming I had a negative loan to value (I do not), that money I borrowed is somewhere.

Slack will always picked up by the little boys...always. ESPECIALLY in an Oligopoly which is how I view the banking industry.

The true losers in the TARP program were the pateint little people waiting for greed to open the door for them.

 

[8537]

You rightwing monkeys are retarded, after having 8 years of a incompetent president that you elected twice you expect Obama to have absolute 100% overnight success is less that two years on the job, pathetic. What you dumb monkeys fail to realize is that his stimulus package wasn't about just spending, it also included tax cuts.

I love a spirited debate as much as the next guy, but do you really think this kind of shit contributes to the discussion?

 

[Jarhead]

You rightwing monkeys are retarded, after having 8 years of a incompetent president that you elected twice you expect Obama to have absolute 100% overnight success is less that two years on the job, pathetic. What you dumb monkeys fail to realize is that his stimulus package wasn't about just spending, it also included tax cuts.

I love a spirited debate as much as the next guy, but do you really think this kind of shit contributes to the discussion?

I realized I was wasting mny time and energy responding to him.
He makes some very valid points but he has a tendancy to debate to be right on not to debate to learn.

 

[8537]

Slack will always picked up by the little boys...always. ESPECIALLY in an Oligopoly which is how I view the banking industry.

The true losers in the TARP program were the pateint little people waiting for greed to open the door for them.

Like you, I need to focus on the revenue-generating portion of life for a bit...however:

Where ever we may disagree, I agree with you 100% on the above points. 110%.
I don't want to sound too conspiratorial, but it seems to met that every time a crisis hits, banks come up with a "solution" to the crisis that involved enriching bankers....and the bankers at the Fed and Treasury agree to it because they are bankers. I wish more people could see that.

It's a damn good gig if you can get it.

 

[Jarhead]

Slack will always picked up by the little boys...always. ESPECIALLY in an Oligopoly which is how I view the banking industry.

The true losers in the TARP program were the pateint little people waiting for greed to open the door for them.

Like you, I need to focus on the revenue-generating portion of life for a bit...however:

Where ever we may disagree, I agree with you 100% on the above points. 110%.
I don't want to sound too conspiratorial, but it seems to met that every time a crisis hits, banks come up with a "solution" to the crisis that involved enriching bankers....and the bankers at the Fed and Treasury agree to it because they are bankers. I wish more people could see that.

It's a damn good gig if you can get it.

Wow.
Just wow.

ANd I thought I was the only one who saw it that way.

TARP...a Bush idea...well...enodrsed by Bush....and then doubled down by Obama saved the banks from themselves. At the cost of tax payer money and at the cost of honest bankers who could not compete with the unscrupulous during the re-fi boom.

 

[Bass v 2.0]

The massive package of tax cuts, construction spending and enhanced safety-net benefits was passed in February 2009 in the midst of the deepest recession since the 1930s.

Now monkeys, the Great Depression didn't end in two years or less so why the expectations for it?

 

[Bass v 2.0]

You rightwing monkeys are retarded, after having 8 years of a incompetent president that you elected twice you expect Obama to have absolute 100% overnight success is less that two years on the job, pathetic. What you dumb monkeys fail to realize is that his stimulus package wasn't about just spending, it also included tax cuts.

Fixing a leaky roof by patching it AND replacing it seems to be a way to do nothing but appease those that wanted to replace it and appease those that want to patch it.

So saying he had tax cuts in it as well is admitting that all he was trying to do was appeasing people....likely for votes.

Mine is not a stance against Obama. Mine is a stance on government spending. Just as it was when Bush did it.

In times like this if you are going to "take a chance" first try what is least ecpoensive...not what is most expensive.

I'll relent from my guns blazing posting style on you......slightly. You earlier said that Obama spent, spent, spent, when he actually didn't.

 

[Meister]

You rightwing monkeys are retarded, after having 8 years of a incompetent president that you elected twice you expect Obama to have absolute 100% overnight success is less that two years on the job, pathetic. What you dumb monkeys fail to realize is that his stimulus package wasn't about just spending, it also included tax cuts.

Bass....your the dumb monkey...ya buffoon. The dems had Congress and the Senate since 2006. Why not talk that up while your at it.

 

[The Rabbi]

Slack will always picked up by the little boys...always. ESPECIALLY in an Oligopoly which is how I view the banking industry.

The true losers in the TARP program were the pateint little people waiting for greed to open the door for them.

Like you, I need to focus on the revenue-generating portion of life for a bit...however:

Where ever we may disagree, I agree with you 100% on the above points. 110%.
I don't want to sound too conspiratorial, but it seems to met that every time a crisis hits, banks come up with a "solution" to the crisis that involved enriching bankers....and the bankers at the Fed and Treasury agree to it because they are bankers. I wish more people could see that.

It's a damn good gig if you can get it.

Wow.
Just wow.

ANd I thought I was the only one who saw it that way.

TARP...a Bush idea...well...enodrsed by Bush....and then doubled down by Obama saved the banks from themselves. At the cost of tax payer money and at the cost of honest bankers who could not compete with the unscrupulous during the re-fi boom.

Recall that the projected failure of the banking system (which was well underway, btw) would have caused the entire economy to seize up.
I was in favor of the initial TARP, aimed at backstopping the banks to restore confidence. I was opposed to the indiscriminate extensions of TARP (under Bush and Obama) to every sector of the economy.

 

[Jarhead]

You rightwing monkeys are retarded, after having 8 years of a incompetent president that you elected twice you expect Obama to have absolute 100% overnight success is less that two years on the job, pathetic. What you dumb monkeys fail to realize is that his stimulus package wasn't about just spending, it also included tax cuts.

Fixing a leaky roof by patching it AND replacing it seems to be a way to do nothing but appease those that wanted to replace it and appease those that want to patch it.

So saying he had tax cuts in it as well is admitting that all he was trying to do was appeasing people....likely for votes.

Mine is not a stance against Obama. Mine is a stance on government spending. Just as it was when Bush did it.

In times like this if you are going to "take a chance" first try what is least ecpoensive...not what is most expensive.

I'll relent from my guns blazing posting style on you......slightly. You earlier said that Obama spent, spent, spent, when he actually didn't.

As one who is very much against governement intervention in private enterprise, I see Bush and Obama as spenders...and I see the current comgress as spenders to the nth degree.

Government, Obama as of late, is spending billions upon billions of dollars on preventing people from making decisions that may hurt them. They are spending billions to "take control" so corporations can not "hurt the people".

They took a chance with billions of dollars on a stiumulus that has produced nothing of any long term value. Sure, temporary spikes...but heck...a half a trillion dollars better dam well give us a temporary spike....

But to use borrowed money to save a job that will be lost anyway a year later is not doing anything but buying votes.

As for regulation and control spending...

I believe one can only get hurt by the "system" if they opt to try to capitalize on the system. If they lose becuase of unscrupulous behavior, a lesson has been learned.

If a deal sounds too good to be true....likely it is so dont sign.

If you must lie about your income on an application, then you are taking a chance by signing.

Likewise, if one does not like the way a company conducts business, do not buy from them and do not invest in them. In time, the company will learn and straighten out their act.

Me? I own a business (actually 2) and have yet to lay off. I have investments, but none that will return 20% regardless of the economy...but none that have negative returns over the course of any given year. Safe investments. Utilities, municiples, etc.

I read every contract I sign. I do not have a single credit card that is charging me more than 6%. If and when one shoots up, I pay it off with one of my 0% for the first year teaser offers.

In the past 6 years I have re-fi'd 3 times.....NEVER with an adjustable.

Why is it that I have not been hurt by the evil greedy corporations that we have now spent billions to control?

 

[Jarhead]

Like you, I need to focus on the revenue-generating portion of life for a bit...however:

Where ever we may disagree, I agree with you 100% on the above points. 110%.
I don't want to sound too conspiratorial, but it seems to met that every time a crisis hits, banks come up with a "solution" to the crisis that involved enriching bankers....and the bankers at the Fed and Treasury agree to it because they are bankers. I wish more people could see that.

It's a damn good gig if you can get it.

Wow.
Just wow.

ANd I thought I was the only one who saw it that way.

TARP...a Bush idea...well...enodrsed by Bush....and then doubled down by Obama saved the banks from themselves. At the cost of tax payer money and at the cost of honest bankers who could not compete with the unscrupulous during the re-fi boom.

Recall that the projected failure of the banking system (which was well underway, btw) would have caused the entire economy to seize up.
I was in favor of the initial TARP, aimed at backstopping the banks to restore confidence. I was opposed to the indiscriminate extensions of TARP (under Bush and Obama) to every sector of the economy.

There is a big differernce between the failure of some major banks and the failure of the banking system.

When a bank fails, the money does not vanish. I believe people actually think it does.

If I lend you 300K and you spend it and then you default on your debt to me.....I lose the 300k,...yes.....but that 300k is still in the economy as you spent it elsewhere.

If I lend you 300K and your house is worth 400K and it is collateral. And then your house goes down in value and worth only 200K and you default....yes, I lose 100K on paper...but that money is still in the economy as you spent it elsewhere.

There was no imminent failure of the banking system. There was the likely failure of the major banks.

There were plenty of smaller institutions ready willing and able to pick up the slack.

 

[WillowTree]

The massive package of tax cuts, construction spending and enhanced safety-net benefits was passed in February 2009 in the midst of the deepest recession since the 1930s.

Now monkeys, the Great Depression didn't end in two years or less so why the expectations for it?

so what you sezzzz is the obie wan ain't man enough to handle it huh?? so why'd he do it?