Obama stimulus is failed

[Uncensored2008]

What next, you'll try to tell us Friedrick Hayek was really a socialist?

Don't give him any ideas....

LOL.

 

[Trajan]

according to the 'plan' we should be under 7% right now......

 

[The Rabbi]

according to the 'plan' we should be under 7% right now......

It's a plot by greedy right wing corporations to hoard all the money and make him look bad.
I'm making that up. For now.

 

[Jack Fate]

notice the economy tanked again after the republicans took the house.

oh my god

 

[Jack Fate]

A great Democrat, Harry Truman, has some sound advice for this President......."The buck stops here".

Stupid fucking liberals.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

We never really had a recovery.

The stats were cooked by programs which have deferred the ultimate and much needed full correction of the housing market, and the pull forward of demand with Cash for Clunkers, as well as the wasted Stimulus funds used to prop up state and local government union employment.

These delays just make the ultimate correct worse as we now have $5T more debt on the balance sheet.

Precisely!

See Link: http://www.usmessageboard.com/media...g-will-lead-to-more-deaths-4.html#post3716109

 

[8537]

Of course an expansion of the money supply stimulates the economy

Well, I'm not sure that's quite so obvious as you might think. I think, in fact, it might not be true....

just like giving your kid a hundred dollar bill stimulates the sale of candy. The problem is you can't keep giving your kid $100 bills forever. Uncle Milty was strongly against the creation of the Federal Reserve and that is a fact. Your statement was HIGHLY misleading regarding his position.

"Uncle Milt" advocated a continuous, ongoing and permanent expansion of the money supply - i.e. giving kids $100 bills forever.

And he didn't oppose the creation of the Federal Reserve - he was in diapers when it was created. He opposed the Fed policy of targeting price levels instead of the MB, not the idea of central bank (in fact, his policies required a central bank)

and once again, instead of refuting facts Rabbi just turns to bad repping folks.

Such a sweetie, Rabbi! How's your sheet?

 

[8537]

"Uncle Milt" advocated a continuous, ongoing and permanent expansion of the money supply - i.e. giving kids $100 bills forever.

And he didn't oppose the creation of the Federal Reserve - he was in diapers when it was created. He opposed the Fed policy of targeting price levels instead of the MB, not the idea of central bank (in fact, his policies required a central bank)

Well that's just not true. Believe what you want about Milton, I stand opposed to the idea of a central bank as did he.

What next, you'll try to tell us Friedrick Hayek was really a socialist?

No, that simply IS true. How does one expand the money supply by 3% per anum without a central bank increasing the money supply?

Hayek was no socialist - though he did argue at times in favor of universal health care and he spoke against commodity currencies at times as well.

 

[Vast LWC]

according to the 'plan' we should be under 7% right now......

Was it Reagan's "plan" that we should have been at 10.1% at this point in this presidency?

 

[boedicca]

according to the 'plan' we should be under 7% right now......

Was it Reagan's "plan" that we should have been at 10.1% at this point in this presidency?

No, his plan was to combat inflation, and then focus on growing the economy by lower taxes and deregulation. It worked. By the time of the 1984 election, unemployment was down to 7.2%.

That's not going to happen under Obamanomics...unless millions more people drop out of the labor force altogether and the Labor Force Participation Rate drops a few more points.

 

[Vast LWC]

So I posit things are different and you respond "How convenient."
Then you post that conditions aren't comparable today.
How convenient.
Your irony meter off today?

Obama's success is not a subjective question. We have theory and we have history. The theory is that Keynesian type stimulus will not work because it creates the "broken window" scenario. Gov't simply takes money from productive sources and channels it to unproductive ones. No net wealth is created.
Historically the New Deal and every other stimulus program has been a dismal failure. There is no reason, zero, to think this will be any different.

And ok, I'm back to address this.

Let me ask you this, Rabbi:

The period that began during World War II, and lasted for many years after, was one of the most productive in the history of the world. America became a world economic leader, and a superpower besides.

Tell me, what economic strategy was used during this period?

In fact, lets concentrate on the period of the most productivity: World War II. What economic strategy was America using during this period?

You talk about what economic plans have worked "historically", but then you not only pick-and-choose your time periods, and then you use revisionist history to describe what happened during those periods.

 

[Vast LWC]

No, his plan was to combat inflation, and then focus on growing the economy by lower taxes and deregulation. It worked. By the time of the 1984 election, unemployment was down to 7.2%.

That's not going to happen under Obamanomics...unless millions more people drop out of the labor force altogether and the Labor Force Participation Rate drops a few more points.

First of all, the unemployment rate was at 7.4% WHEN REAGAN TOOK OFFICE.

So, after 4 years of his plan, the unemployment rate had decreased by .2%, after years of double-digit unemployment, and you call this an accomplishment?

Now I'm not saying that Reagan didn't eventually prove himself economically, though much of that had to do with massive increases in automation as well as massive increases in spending in the form of Defense. But he did eventually prove himself.

Also remember that, in the Reagan years, there was a large portion of the population that was uncounted in the unemployment figures, otherwise known as WOMEN.

A much greater percentage of the population is eligible to be counted in the unemployment figures now, since so many more women have become part of the workforce.

 

[The Rabbi]

What is your definition of value in practice?
Does a part of your definition consider the cause and effect of your consumer choice?
Does a part of your definition include the extraordinary negative effect of placing price as a key factor of why you buy something?

My definition of value is: Will this item meet my needs at the best price?
I recently bought a bicycle after 30 years of not having one. I looked at several at all prices. I didnt pick the cheapest because it was heavier and less user friendly. I didnt pick the most expensive because it lacked features I wanted. I picked one that had the best combination and happened to be cheaper than the more expensive one. And it's made in China.
What was the effect? The local bike merchant made money from me and I got what I wanted at a price I was happy with.
And that's really all that matters. If an American company wants to compete they will need to offer something that is competitive. If they can't, they won't sell bikes. And that's how it should be.

Indeed it is, if your goal is to make the entire working class poor as church mice.

Why is spending money unnecessarily making other people poor as church mice? Your plan would make EVERY consumer poorer to the benefit of a few who can't compete on the world market.
If what you want worked, E.Germany would be an economic powerhouse.

 

[The Rabbi]

according to the 'plan' we should be under 7% right now......

Was it Reagan's "plan" that we should have been at 10.1% at this point in this presidency?

I dont think Reagan ever foresaw Obama's presidency. He was a great man and all but prophecy wasn't his bag.

 

[The Rabbi]

So I posit things are different and you respond "How convenient."
Then you post that conditions aren't comparable today.
How convenient.
Your irony meter off today?

Obama's success is not a subjective question. We have theory and we have history. The theory is that Keynesian type stimulus will not work because it creates the "broken window" scenario. Gov't simply takes money from productive sources and channels it to unproductive ones. No net wealth is created.
Historically the New Deal and every other stimulus program has been a dismal failure. There is no reason, zero, to think this will be any different.

And ok, I'm back to address this.

Let me ask you this, Rabbi:

The period that began during World War II, and lasted for many years after, was one of the most productive in the history of the world. America became a world economic leader, and a superpower besides.

Tell me, what economic strategy was used during this period?

In fact, lets concentrate on the period of the most productivity: World War II. What economic strategy was America using during this period?

You talk about what economic plans have worked "historically", but then you not only pick-and-choose your time periods, and then you use revisionist history to describe what happened during those periods.

Hmm. You would be speaking about a strict statist regime that issued ration coupons for everythign from gasoline to butter and sugar. It also commandeered men of every ability and put a gun in their hands.

Is that really what you want for this country? A police state like N.Korea?

 

[The Rabbi]

No, his plan was to combat inflation, and then focus on growing the economy by lower taxes and deregulation. It worked. By the time of the 1984 election, unemployment was down to 7.2%.

That's not going to happen under Obamanomics...unless millions more people drop out of the labor force altogether and the Labor Force Participation Rate drops a few more points.

First of all, the unemployment rate was at 7.4% WHEN REAGAN TOOK OFFICE.

So, after 4 years of his plan, the unemployment rate had decreased by .2%, after years of double-digit unemployment, and you call this an accomplishment?

Now I'm not saying that Reagan didn't eventually prove himself economically, though much of that had to do with massive increases in automation as well as massive increases in spending in the form of Defense. But he did eventually prove himself.

Also remember that, in the Reagan years, there was a large portion of the population that was uncounted in the unemployment figures, otherwise known as WOMEN.

A much greater percentage of the population is eligible to be counted in the unemployment figures now, since so many more women have become part of the workforce.

How fucking old are you? There were plenty of women in the workforce by 1980. They had been drawn there because the inflation of the 1970s made the one earner household impossible to maintain.

This country had over regulation, stagnant industries supported by gov't fiat, uncompetitive areas of the economy, and high taxation. We were getting our asses beaten by the Japanese and the Arabs, who were buying everything in sight.
Reagan changed all that. This is simply fact.

 

[boedicca]

No, his plan was to combat inflation, and then focus on growing the economy by lower taxes and deregulation. It worked. By the time of the 1984 election, unemployment was down to 7.2%.

That's not going to happen under Obamanomics...unless millions more people drop out of the labor force altogether and the Labor Force Participation Rate drops a few more points.

First of all, the unemployment rate was at 7.4% WHEN REAGAN TOOK OFFICE.

So, after 4 years of his plan, the unemployment rate had decreased by .2%, after years of double-digit unemployment, and you call this an accomplishment?

Now I'm not saying that Reagan didn't eventually prove himself economically, though much of that had to do with massive increases in automation as well as massive increases in spending in the form of Defense. But he did eventually prove himself.

Also remember that, in the Reagan years, there was a large portion of the population that was uncounted in the unemployment figures, otherwise known as WOMEN.

A much greater percentage of the population is eligible to be counted in the unemployment figures now, since so many more women have become part of the workforce.

Uh. Do you know what the INFLATION RATE was when Reagan took office?

Have you ever heard of the Volcker Recession? The recession was induced in 1981 to curb double digit inflation. That's what caused the spike in unemployment. Once inflation was reduced, and the economy started growing again, job creation resumed.

That's the big difference between Reagan's Recovery and Obama's. Reagan's resulted in Real Job Creation. Obama's has just caused people to drop out of the Labor Force.

 

[The Rabbi]

No, his plan was to combat inflation, and then focus on growing the economy by lower taxes and deregulation. It worked. By the time of the 1984 election, unemployment was down to 7.2%.

That's not going to happen under Obamanomics...unless millions more people drop out of the labor force altogether and the Labor Force Participation Rate drops a few more points.

First of all, the unemployment rate was at 7.4% WHEN REAGAN TOOK OFFICE.

So, after 4 years of his plan, the unemployment rate had decreased by .2%, after years of double-digit unemployment, and you call this an accomplishment?

Now I'm not saying that Reagan didn't eventually prove himself economically, though much of that had to do with massive increases in automation as well as massive increases in spending in the form of Defense. But he did eventually prove himself.

Also remember that, in the Reagan years, there was a large portion of the population that was uncounted in the unemployment figures, otherwise known as WOMEN.

A much greater percentage of the population is eligible to be counted in the unemployment figures now, since so many more women have become part of the workforce.

Uh. Do you know what the INFLATION RATE was when Reagan took office?

Have you ever heard of the Volcker Recession? The recession was induced in 1981 to curb double digit inflation. That's what caused the spike in unemployment. Once inflation was reduced, and the economy started growing again, job creation resumed.

That's the big difference between Reagan's Recovery and Obama's. Reagan's resulted in Real Job Creation. Obama's has just caused people to drop out of the Labor Force.

For whatever reason the Lefties are fixated on Reagan. They either want to show Reagan was a hypocrite, Reagan was a failure, or Obama is the new Reagan. They can't make up their minds.

Reagan's achievement is obvious to anyone who lived through that time. The benefits of what he did made Clinton's presidency the modest success it was.

 

[Trajan]

First of all, the unemployment rate was at 7.4% WHEN REAGAN TOOK OFFICE.

So, after 4 years of his plan, the unemployment rate had decreased by .2%, after years of double-digit unemployment, and you call this an accomplishment?

Now I'm not saying that Reagan didn't eventually prove himself economically, though much of that had to do with massive increases in automation as well as massive increases in spending in the form of Defense. But he did eventually prove himself.

Also remember that, in the Reagan years, there was a large portion of the population that was uncounted in the unemployment figures, otherwise known as WOMEN.

A much greater percentage of the population is eligible to be counted in the unemployment figures now, since so many more women have become part of the workforce.

Uh. Do you know what the INFLATION RATE was when Reagan took office?

Have you ever heard of the Volcker Recession? The recession was induced in 1981 to curb double digit inflation. That's what caused the spike in unemployment. Once inflation was reduced, and the economy started growing again, job creation resumed.

That's the big difference between Reagan's Recovery and Obama's. Reagan's resulted in Real Job Creation. Obama's has just caused people to drop out of the Labor Force.

For whatever reason the Lefties are fixated on Reagan. They either want to show Reagan was a hypocrite, Reagan was a failure, or Obama is the new Reagan. They can't make up their minds.

Reagan's achievement is obvious to anyone who lived through that time. The benefits of what he did made Clinton's presidency the modest success it was.

all I know is its now 23 months after the recession ended, we are diving back to the bottom. 23 months after the Reagan recession we were in the midst of and had phenomenal growth in jops and gdp....that is a fact.

we pay for success, keynes is dead, period end of story, they are, like the weekend at Bernies propping him up like ragdoll becasue they have no ideas, and the ideas that will work are anathema to them, there fore they are 'wrong' and we will until a change at the top occurs , continue to fail.

 

[boedicca]

The valid comparisons are to look at the periods beginning November 1982 and June 2009. Those are when the recessions ended. By October, 1984, unemployment had fallen from 10.8% to 7.4%. By May, 2011, unemployment went from 9.5% to 9.1%.

Reagan reduced unemployment by 3.4 points; Obama's result is a.4% decline. During these periods, the Labor Force Participation Rate increased under Reagan and dropped under Obama. The decrease in unemployment under Obama is due to a drop in the Labor Force Participation Rate, not real job creation.

And that is why Reaganomics Works and Obamanomics is an Epic Fail.

Jobs Matter to Real People.