Obama stimulus is failed

[Trajan]

I think its gonna be a hell of a shitty Q2, our inventories are stacked, I posted a piece a week a go as to Europe is in over inventory as well, and a falling off of orders in response to such as well...consumer confidence took another plunge and housing? its in a genuine double dip.

I would bet right now we will see another under 2% Q.

 

[boedicca]

I think its gonna be a hell of a shitty Q2, our inventories are stacked, I posted a piece a week a go as to Europe is in over inventory as well, and a falling off of orders in response to such as well...consumer confidence took another plunge and housing? its in a genuine double dip.

I would bet right now we will see another under 2% Q.

Real GDP growth will be below 2% - but inflation may create a faux sense of growth.

 

[hellofromwarsaw]

Reagan quadrupled the deficit and made morons out of 25% of the population. His legacy was mega rich pigs, the ruin of the nonrich, and the Great Depression of 2008...

 

[eflatminor]

"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.

You know I would agree with you...but you're wrong.

 

[Samson]

Once again I feel it is necessary to point out that a VERY big factor in why companies have sought to seek cheap labor is American consumer buying habits. As long as we line up day after day choosing price over value and with no regard where an item is made - we are in fact sending a loud demand to manufacturers - "if you want Americans to buy your product - you better make it a cheap price, and then make it cheaper again and again".

Consumers demand more of less expensive goods.

You got an "A" in ECON 101.

Bravo.

 

[Samson]

Sorry but Reagan isn't running this year. So it's kind of irrelevant.
What is relevant is unemployment has been stubbornly high despite trillions spent on stimulus that we were assured would keep UE below 8%. Thus Obama's polciies are failures and he deserves the blame.

That's funny, because with every single republican in the running for 2012, when the question, "Who is your idol?" is asked, they each say:

"Ronald Reagan".

So tell me, Rabbi, who is your idol?

And what is the Republican answer for our high unemployment? Why it's the exact same as Reagan's: "Lower Taxes".

So Reagan is in fact extremely relevant, thank you very much.

That's wonderful: I hope you continue to compare Obama to Reagan, especially as November 2012 draws nearer:

As you see, Reagan had the unemployment issue whipped BEFORE he was re-elected in 1984: No Doubt Obama will do much better, having spent $$Trillions in Stimulous.

 

[Samson]

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.

Ironic you would discuss, "Lefties are Fixated on Reagan," before declaring that "Reagan's achievement is obvious."

I'll remind you that Dems controlled the House, and won back the Senate during the Reagan Presidency.

However, to believe that government (R or D) is the only possible controlling element over employment is a little ridiculous; despite the earnest wish of all politicos, employment remains mainly a function of innovative products:

Ergo, during the Reagan Administration, cellular telephone technology was developed.
During the Clinton Administration, the internet developed, and continued to expand throughout the Bush Administration.

During the Obama Administration there has been a huge breakthrough in the technology used to produce oil and gas which could employ millions. Frankly, since the markets for oil and gas are notoriously volitile, I cannot blame employers for being skeptical about investing in large workforces. Of course there might be other technological breakthroughs, but none as handily on the horizon.

 

[NYcarbineer]

We are now 5 months into the Republican stimulus, the 800 billion budget busting bill passed in December. Yes, the one President Obama foolishly got railroaded into agreeing to.

The Republican Congress is now a co-owner, with the administration, of this economy.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

That's nonsense. Reagan was focused on his massive tax cut throughout the first half of 1981.

Fighting inflation was a Volcker plan. It had nothing to do with Reagan.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Can we, who man the ship of state, deny it is somewhat out of control? Our national debt is approaching $1 trillion. A few weeks ago I called such a figure, a trillion dollars, incomprehensible, and I've been trying ever since to think of a way to illustrate how big a trillion really is. And the best I could come up with is that if you had a stack of thousand-dollar bills in your hand only 4 inches high, you'd be a millionaire. A trillion dollars would be a stack of thousand-dollar bills 67 miles high.

That's Ronald Reagan complaining about the national debt...

...in February of 1981. The debt then nearly tripled over the course of his presidency.

 

[Samson]

Can we, who man the ship of state, deny it is somewhat out of control? Our national debt is approaching $1 trillion. A few weeks ago I called such a figure, a trillion dollars, incomprehensible, and I've been trying ever since to think of a way to illustrate how big a trillion really is. And the best I could come up with is that if you had a stack of thousand-dollar bills in your hand only 4 inches high, you'd be a millionaire. A trillion dollars would be a stack of thousand-dollar bills 67 miles high.

That's Ronald Reagan complaining about the national debt...

...in February of 1981. The debt then nearly tripled over the course of his presidency.

During the Reagan Presidentcy, Dems ran the HoR.

But you still get a point for consistant mindless parisanship.

 

[The T]

Bernanke is the most dangerous person to our economy right now.

He's destroying the dollar.

And the Poster Boy for why the Federal Reserve should be abolished.

 

[Too Tall]

We are 5 months into the REPUBLICAN stimulus plan, remember?

The one Obama got railroaded into signing onto? The 800 billion one, signed into law in December?

Who owns the economy now?

There was no 'stimulus plan' signed into law in December, 2010. If there had been, it couldn't have been a Republican plan since they didn't get control of the House until January, 2011.

If you are talking about an $800 billion stimulus plan, it has to be this one:

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, abbreviated ARRA (Pub.L. 111-5) and commonly referred to as the Stimulus or The Recovery Act, is an economic stimulus package enacted by the 111th United States Congress in February 2009.

The stimulus was intended to create jobs and promote investment and consumer spending during the late-2000s recession. The rationale for the stimulus comes out of the Keynesian economic tradition which argues that, during recessions, the government ought to replace a drop in private spending with an increase in public spending to save jobs and stop further economic decline. As such, the measures are nominally worth $787 billion. The Act includes federal tax incentives, expansion of unemployment benefits and other social welfare provisions, and domestic spending in education, health care, and infrastructure, including the energy sector. The Act also includes numerous non-economic recovery related items that were either part of longer-term plans (e.g. a study of the effectiveness of medical treatments) or desired by Congress (e.g. a limitation on executive compensation in federally aided banks added by Senator Dodd and Rep. Frank).

No Republicans in the House and only three Republican Senators voted for the bill. The bill was signed into law on February 17 by President Barack Obama at an economic forum he was hosting in Denver, Colorado.

 

[The T]

We are 5 months into the REPUBLICAN stimulus plan, remember?

The one Obama got railroaded into signing onto? The 800 billion one, signed into law in December?

Who owns the economy now?

There was no 'stimulus plan' signed into law in December, 2010. If there had been, it couldn't have been a Republican plan since they didn't get control of the House until January, 2011.

If you are talking about an $800 billion stimulus plan, it has to be this one:

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, abbreviated ARRA (Pub.L. 111-5) and commonly referred to as the Stimulus or The Recovery Act, is an economic stimulus package enacted by the 111th United States Congress in February 2009.

The stimulus was intended to create jobs and promote investment and consumer spending during the late-2000s recession. The rationale for the stimulus comes out of the Keynesian economic tradition which argues that, during recessions, the government ought to replace a drop in private spending with an increase in public spending to save jobs and stop further economic decline. As such, the measures are nominally worth $787 billion. The Act includes federal tax incentives, expansion of unemployment benefits and other social welfare provisions, and domestic spending in education, health care, and infrastructure, including the energy sector. The Act also includes numerous non-economic recovery related items that were either part of longer-term plans (e.g. a study of the effectiveness of medical treatments) or desired by Congress (e.g. a limitation on executive compensation in federally aided banks added by Senator Dodd and Rep. Frank).

No Republicans in the House and only three Republican Senators voted for the bill. The bill was signed into law on February 17 by President Barack Obama at an economic forum he was hosting in Denver, Colorado.

Thanks for setting Carbonated straight on his twist of facts.

 

[Too Tall]

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.

All of the women that held jobs and got laid off were counted as unemployed then just as they are now. Women who stay home and bake cookies are not eligible for unemployment if they quit baking cookies. The unemployment rate isn't determined by gender.

 

[Vast LWC]

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.

Why do the left bring up Reagan all the time? Because the right brings up Reagan all the time. You bring him up constantly as if he were the best president ever.

I LIKED Reagan. I still do.

And I have not insulted Reagan overall, I was just pointing out that he did indeed have a very weak first 3 years.

I have simply pointed out the FACT that the very thing you people consistently criticize Obama for, the high unemployment rate, is at a much better state at the moment then it was at the exact same point in the Reagan presidency.

I am pointing out that your constant criticism of Obama is ridiculous, as he's just not doing that bad of a job.

Personally I really don't think that this is an unreasonable thing to do.

The funny thing is, if Reagan were running today, he'd never win. You people would claim he was too liberal.

 

[Vast LWC]

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.

Yes, yes, Reagan got stuck with a high inflation rate. That is true.

I fully admit that Carter left Reagan with a giant bag of shit. Carter sucked as a president.

But Bush left Obama with just as big a bag of shit.

2 Wars, a collapsed stock market, a collapsed housing market, a freeze on credit, a pre-existing 1.2 Trillion dollar deficit, with tax receipts heading nowhere but down...

But while I cut Reagan slack for the ridiculous Carter idiocy, you people don't cut Obama any slack at all for the absolute disaster that was the economy of the Bush years.

And anytime anyone even brings up the subject, you all reply with some meaningless reply like "Oooh now it's time to blame Boooooooosh".

Well, if we're going to talk about this subject, then yes, there is some blaming of "Booooosh" that needs to be done, just like in a conversation about Reagan, one must lay considerable blame at Carter's feet for Reagan's failure in his first 3 years.

 

[Sallow]

I can't speak for all conservatives Huggy, but I would have loved to see the economy come roaring back and sincerely wish the policies and programs implemented by Team Obama had worked. I care far more about my countrymen than I do about politics.

But they didn't work. They have failed, and failed miserably. We have nothing to show for it but a $5T larger debt, a weakened dollar, and our citizens have an increased dependency on government.

It is time to go the other direction. Obama can save his Presidency if he makes a course correction by embracing spending cuts, entitlement reform, and tax policy simplification. He needs to abandon the Keynesian policies that have been proven failures everywhere they have been implemented.

I respectfully disagree. I suggest you step outside of the echo chamber and try to imagine if nothing had been done to shore up the financial crisis Obama and the country was heading into as he took office.

Try to consider what this country would be like today if all of the banks had failed. Consider what the world financial sector would be like if all major banks and lending institutions as well as their insurance organizations had failed. Try and consider what the U S manufacturing sector would be like if GM and Chrysler and all of their suppliers had gone bankrupt.

I believe that you and many have no idea what REAL TOTAL FAILURE looks like. I get it that we are still suffering pain and hardship. I get it that the country is getting weary of the time it is taking to put us back on a course of prosperity. I also get it that much of what happened was built on a bubble that collapsed in the value of housing just as the lending apparatus self imploded. If one is being fair and honest the country was kidding itself on the true value of equity and borrowing against a false net worth for many years based on the totally unrealistic assumption that property values would continue to rise.

I consider you a smart guy. I get it that you would like to have better opportunities. Look at it this way. You still have opportunities that have not evaporated in the wake of the greatest financial fraud ever committed in history. It could be unbelievably worse.

Strongly disagree. You have ZERO evidence that "all banks would have failed". It would NOT have happened. If Bear Sterns had been allowed to fold, I guarantee you the other banks would have made whatever changes were necessary to get their books in order. Whoever did fail would soon be replaced bu a new or smarter competitor. Similarly, if GM had gone under, Ford and other manufacturers would sell more cars. Hell, we might of actually had a NEW entrant into the auto market...wouldn't that be refreshing? Further, we did NOT need to bail out AIG. The other insurance companies would have picked up their market share, albeit with with sustainable rates and terms.

You want evidence of how this works? Look to the massive economic downturn of 1920. We don't think of it today as a "great depression" because instead of bailout and stimulus, the government at that time did two things: they cut spending in half and taxes in half. Sure some companies when under, big ones. But within a very short period of time, the economy rebounded and we had the roaring twenties.

Bail out and stimulus may delay the pain but they only make things worse when the chickens come home to roost.

I don't think you understand the the nature of the problem. We weren't talking about a few bad notes here and there...we were talking about something that had "infected" the entire American Financial system. No TARP..and there would have been anyone around to "compete". The rescue of GM was probably one of the most necessary no-brainers in history. And the stimulus..though to small and laden with 350Billion in tax cuts..averted another disaster. Why are things taking so long to fix? Conservatives, at every turn, have thwarted to the efforts of the Obama administration to set things right.

 

[Vast LWC]

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.

You can keep on saying this. You can keep on repeating it again and again.

You're mantra "Keynes is dead". That doesn't make it anymore true now than when you first started saying it.

AT... THIS... POINT... in the Reagan presidency, unemployment was at 10.1%.

If, at some point in the future Obama's numbers exceed those of Reagan, THEN you start talking, but until that point it's all just a bunch of hot air.

I swear to God, you people had ONE flipping example of a point where lower taxes coincided with strong economic growth, and you decide that lowering taxes is the answer to all economic problems.

I've got news for you, it isn't. There were MANY factors that led to the strong economy of the 1980's.

And, more importantly, the economy of the 1980's only lasted for a few years, and then burst, until a new bubble appeared in the 90's.

And when the Clinton economy took off, there were no new tax breaks.

 

[Vast LWC]

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.

Yes, of course. We should disregard the epic fail that was the first year of the Reagan presidency in any comparison altogether.

I guess he gets a "mulligan" for that year.



Also, any economic review of the Roosevelt presidency should of course begin in 1940.

And any economic review of the Hoover presidency should end in September 1929.

Right?