Why we want stimulus now and worry about deficits later

[Cammmpbell]

The last stimulus was $1 trillion and it failed.

It did not fail, it stopped the economy from sliding deeper into recession.

ROFL! What it really did is turn a recession into a depression. Handing out money to parasites does not increase the productivity of our economy. I can't think of any plausible explanation of how it would.

Can you?

Handing out money to the wealthiest among us as tax cuts and borrowing from foreign banks to cover the shortfall is no doubt what you think is right:

Total U S Debt


09/30/2009 $11,909,829,003,511.75(80% Of All Debt Across 232 Years Borrowed By Reagan And Bushes)

09/30/2008 $10,024,724,896,912.49(Times Square Debt Clock Modified To Accomodate Tens of Trillions)

09/30/2007 $9,007,653,372,262.48
09/30/2006 $8,506,973,899,215.23
09/30/2005 $7,932,709,661,723.50
09/30/2004 $7,379,052,696,330.32

09/30/2003 $6,783,231,062,743.62(Second Bush Tax Cuts Enacted Using Reconciliation)


09/30/2002 $6,228,235,965,597.16

09/30/2001 $5,807,463,412,200.06(First Bush Tax Cuts Enacted Using Reconciliation)


09/30/2000 $5,674,178,209,886.86(Administration And Congress Arguing About How To Use Surplus)

09/30/1999 $5,656,270,901,615.43(First Surplus Generated...On Track To Pay Off Debt By 2012)

09/30/1998 $5,526,193,008,897.62
09/30/1997 $5,413,146,011,397.34
09/30/1996 $5,224,810,939,135.73
09/29/1995 $4,973,982,900,709.39
09/30/1994 $4,692,749,910,013.32

09/30/1993 $4,411,488,883,139.38(Debt Quadrupled By Reagan/Bush41)

09/30/1992 $4,064,620,655,521.66
09/30/1991 $3,665,303,351,697.03
09/28/1990 $3,233,313,451,777.25
09/29/1989 $2,857,430,960,187.32
09/30/1988 $2,602,337,712,041.16
09/30/1987 $2,350,276,890,953.00
09/30/1986 $2,125,302,616,658.42
09/30/1985 $1,823,103,000,000.00
09/30/1984 $1,572,266,000,000.00
09/30/1983 $1,377,210,000,000.00

09/30/1982 $1,142,034,000,000.00(Total Debt Passes $1 Trillion)

09/30/1981 $997,855,000,000.00

 

[Rozman]

Democrats: What do we want....
Democrats: Stimulus
Democrats : when do we want it....
Democrats: Duh...Now!
Republicans: How much should it be for:
Democrats: Trillions and Trillions and Trillions more.

Republicans: You know we don't have that kind of money.

Democrats: Do you think we care?

 

[Oddball]

??? Would you please rephrase that?

We have a defacto 0% Fed rate in the right here and now....According to your neo-Keynesian witch doctor "logic" (for lack of a better term), the economy should be rippin' and roarin' by now.

Not at all. Keynes was arguing precisely the opposite -- that in a deep recession lowering rates to 0 will not be enough, and printing money would not help either. He called that a "liquidity trap", and we are living it now for the first time since the Great Depression (that's why 81-82 recession is irrelevant).

Here is from Greg Mankiw's blog, we needed negative rates to pull out (still do):

Or is it just possible that Fed interest rates aren't the only thing that can cause and/or lead us out of a recession?

Of course! Recession can be caused by the private sector over-investing, aka bubble. And there are other ways to stimulate the economy at zero lower-bound -- fiscal stimulus is one of them, which was advocated by Keynes.

Or maybe all you technocratic know-it-alls can just get the fuck out of the way and quit pretending that the American public is comprised of 300 million meat puppets, who are mere playthings for your social experimentation.

Just a thought.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The last stimulus was $1 trillion and it failed.

It did not fail, it stopped the economy from sliding deeper into recession.

Really? The stimulus bill passed in early 2009. What was the unemployment rate in January 2010, did it go up or down? Show me the facts of the unemployment rate and UNDERemployment rate by the numbers.

Can you accurately show where those numbers would have been without the stimulus?

 

[bripat9643]

Handing out money to the wealthiest among us as tax cuts and borrowing from foreign banks to cover the shortfall is no doubt what you think is right:

Cutting taxes does not constitute "handing out money."

You obviously believe that government owns every dime you earn and that your net income is a gift from the government.

That's about as servile as a person can get.

 

[bripat9643]

Really? The stimulus bill passed in early 2009. What was the unemployment rate in January 2010, did it go up or down? Show me the facts of the unemployment rate and UNDERemployment rate by the numbers.

Can you accurately show where those numbers would have been without the stimulus?

ROFL! Can you?

 

[Listening]

The last stimulus was $1 trillion and it failed.

It did not fail, it stopped the economy from sliding deeper into recession.

Can't prove that claim.

 

[Listening]

Democrats: What do we want....
Democrats: Stimulus
Democrats : when do we want it....
Democrats: Duh...Now!
Republicans: How much should it be for:
Democrats: Trillions and Trillions and Trillions more.

Republicans: You know we don't have that kind of money.

Democrats: Do you think we care?

Democrats: We have printing presses, don't we ?!?!?!?!

 

[Luddly Neddite]

The last stimulus was $1 trillion and it failed.

It did not fail, it stopped the economy from sliding deeper into recession.

It wasn't big enough. Neither is what the president plans now. We're in a make or break situation and we need to over-rule the GObP who only want to help their own foreign interests.

If we let them, the Republicans will happily push us into a full depression. That would trigger world wide chaos.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Really? The stimulus bill passed in early 2009. What was the unemployment rate in January 2010, did it go up or down? Show me the facts of the unemployment rate and UNDERemployment rate by the numbers.

Can you accurately show where those numbers would have been without the stimulus?

ROFL! Can you?

I don't have to.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The last stimulus was $1 trillion and it failed.

It did not fail, it stopped the economy from sliding deeper into recession.

Really? The stimulus bill passed in early 2009. What was the unemployment rate in January 2010, did it go up or down? Show me the facts of the unemployment rate and UNDERemployment rate by the numbers.

I can show you this:

Initial Unemployment claims:

 

[Cammmpbell]

Democrats: What do we want....
Democrats: Stimulus
Democrats : when do we want it....
Democrats: Duh...Now!
Republicans: How much should it be for:
Democrats: Trillions and Trillions and Trillions more.

Republicans: You know we don't have that kind of money.

Democrats: Do you think we care?

Do you have any idea how stupid that sounds

Reagan and Bush41 cut taxes and quadrupled the national debt
Clinton raised taxes, balanced the annual budget and generated surpluses
Bush put a stop to that by cutting taxes twice and doubled the national debt again. Can you read or is it that you only watch Fox News lies

 

[ilia25]

We have a defacto 0% Fed rate in the right here and now....According to your neo-Keynesian witch doctor "logic" (for lack of a better term), the economy should be rippin' and roarin' by now.

Not at all. Keynes was arguing precisely the opposite -- that in a deep recession lowering rates to 0 will not be enough, and printing money would not help either. He called that a "liquidity trap", and we are living it now for the first time since the Great Depression (that's why 81-82 recession is irrelevant).

Here is from Greg Mankiw's blog, we needed negative rates to pull out (still do):

Or is it just possible that Fed interest rates aren't the only thing that can cause and/or lead us out of a recession?

Of course! Recession can be caused by the private sector over-investing, aka bubble. And there are other ways to stimulate the economy at zero lower-bound -- fiscal stimulus is one of them, which was advocated by Keynes.

Or maybe all you technocratic know-it-alls can just get the fuck out of the way

... and watch the economy imploding. Great plan, genius!

 

[Cammmpbell]

The last stimulus was $1 trillion and it failed.

It did not fail, it stopped the economy from sliding deeper into recession.

So $1 trillion was just enough to stop us from diving deeper.

Do we throw $5 trillion at it to get it to climb positive?


When will you be sending in your check to pay for it?

The day Obama took over he owed an annual interest payment of $450 billion on the existing debt

Multiply that by three and kindly move $1.35 trillion from Obama to the Reagan-Bushes debt. You didn't think foreign banks loaned all that money to Reagan and the Bushes interest free did you

 

[ilia25]

The last stimulus was $1 trillion and it failed.

It did not fail, it stopped the economy from sliding deeper into recession.

Can't prove that claim.

Of course I can. If the economy went into crisis because of the insufficient demand in the private sector, then more demand from the government must help the economy to recover.

 

[Oddball]

Not at all. Keynes was arguing precisely the opposite -- that in a deep recession lowering rates to 0 will not be enough, and printing money would not help either. He called that a "liquidity trap", and we are living it now for the first time since the Great Depression (that's why 81-82 recession is irrelevant).

Here is from Greg Mankiw's blog, we needed negative rates to pull out (still do):

Of course! Recession can be caused by the private sector over-investing, aka bubble. And there are other ways to stimulate the economy at zero lower-bound -- fiscal stimulus is one of them, which was advocated by Keynes.

Or maybe all you technocratic know-it-alls can just get the fuck out of the way

... and watch the economy imploding. Great plan, genius!

Your "implosion" is the markets readjusting and finding their natural levels, after decades of meddling and bubble inflating by economic alchemists.

But no matter what happens, y'all will always be able to find some obscure algorithms and pretty three-color charts and graphs to "prove" that your are right...This what we who live in Realityville call "unfalsifiablity".

But you g'head and keep trying to make the case for throwing more vestal virgins into the volcano, so we'll be sure to have a good crop of coconuts this year.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

There is even less proof that it didn't.



The government clearly underestimated the depth of the crisis and the size of an adequate stimulus. But it does not mean that the stimulus we had was useless.

That's what Obama said "clearly underestimated the depth of the crisis" . . . that's what I would say if my policies only turned a bad economy worse.

So would I, and I have little doubt that Obama hurts himself politically by not admitting that mistake.

But it does not mean that his underpowered stimulus did not help at all, or that we do not need another stimulus now.

Unemployment went from 7.8% pre-stimulus to 10% the year following the stimulus passage. I don't see the improvement. You might also look at the duration of employment (2011 -2012) when the unemployment numbers APPEARED to show improvement.

In Jan 2011 people waiting over 15 weeks for work stood at 59.9% (seasonally adjusted)
Those unemployed who had to wait over 27 weeks were 43.9%.
Then later in Dec 2011 people waiting over 15 weeks stood at 58%
Those who had to wait 27 weeks and over accounted for 42.5% of those unemployed.

By Jan 2012 those same numbers, over 15 weeks were 58.3%, while waiting over 27 weeks accounted for 42.9% (all seasonally adjusted figures).
source: Table A-12. Unemployed persons by duration of unemployment



Then there's the UNDERemployment rate: unemployed workers who are actively looking for work, involuntarily part-time workers who want full-time work but have had to settle for part-time hours, and marginally attached workers who want and are available for a job, but are not actively looking. Together, they provide a more comprehensive measure of slack in the labor market.

As of Feb 13,2012 underemployment stands at 19.10%
In Feb 2011 underemployment was 19% with December of that year in 2011 seeing an improvement of only 18.20% underemployment rate. Jan 7 2010 that underemployment figure stood at 19.40%.

source: US Underemployment Rate Chart and Data - YCharts



October 2011 also saw a 28 year high misery index -- which is simply the sum of the country's inflation and unemployment rates -- increase to 13%.

source:
U.S. misery index rises to highest since 1983 | Reuters

The misery index for January 2012 stands at 11.23%. The lowest it has ever been under President Obama was back in July 2009 when it stood at 7.4% misery index.

source:
US Misery Index Chart and Data - YCharts


Doesn't sound like we have seen much of an improvement under President Obama, even if you DID want to include the 2009 stimulus plan to try and support the lefts concept of this administration providing any real job growth. Why does the media want to leave out all these other economic figures above, as a reliable way to piece together the TRUE state of our nation's economic recovery? Does this not support the main stream media's hope for an Obama re-election, through more deluted and misleading figures in order to misrepresent our nations jobless situation into a more "selective" positive outlook?

 

[Listening]

Not at all. Keynes was arguing precisely the opposite -- that in a deep recession lowering rates to 0 will not be enough, and printing money would not help either. He called that a "liquidity trap", and we are living it now for the first time since the Great Depression (that's why 81-82 recession is irrelevant).

Here is from Greg Mankiw's blog, we needed negative rates to pull out (still do):

Of course! Recession can be caused by the private sector over-investing, aka bubble. And there are other ways to stimulate the economy at zero lower-bound -- fiscal stimulus is one of them, which was advocated by Keynes.

Or maybe all you technocratic know-it-alls can just get the fuck out of the way

... and watch the economy imploding. Great plan, genius!

Can't prove that one either.

 

[Listening]

It did not fail, it stopped the economy from sliding deeper into recession.

Can't prove that claim.

Of course I can. If the economy went into crisis because of the insufficient demand in the private sector, then more demand from the government must help the economy to recover.

There was no more demand from the government and their involvement probably caused others to pull back.

A one line statement like that only shows just how foolishly feverent you are in your prayers to Obama.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The chart above shows a deeply depressed economy. The US still produce about 1 trillion less in annual GDP than they are capable of. Not only it results in a lot of human suffering, but it also starves the government of tax revenues, creating huge budget deficits.

Therefore we need more stimulus to help the economy closing the gap (which basically means creating more jobs) -- because it will also reduce the deficits.

The blue line show GDP after Obama is defeated in November.