Republicans have a poor understanding of economics. They should have no place in making policy

[Paperman299]

the biggest problem with his stimulus package is it should have been bigger -.

dear, please explain how a liberal stimulus, like the New Deal, could help rather than harm an economy or admit to having the IQ of a typical liberal..

Don't ask me, ask economists: Poll Results IGM Forum

In a survey, the nation's top economists came back in an almost 4-to-1 ratio in favor of the idea that the stimulus's benefits had outweighed its costs, with about a quarter of respondents still uncertain. So there you go, a net beneficial economic impact stemming directly from a Democratic president.

Ta-daaa.

40 or so economists surveyed agreed with the Congressional Budget Office, known as the CBO, that the unemployment rate was lower at the end of 2010 than it would have been without the stimulus law. The survey asked a second question about whether—accounting for future costs arising from financing the stimulus with debt—its benefits would end up exceeding its costs. Here, 46 percent thought that they would and another 27 percent were uncertain, leaving only a small percentage that did not.

Yes. That is...straight-up repeating my post, right down to the part about a quarter still uncertain. Is this what agreement looks like where you come from? Are you convinced that a "liberal stimulus" has helped rather than harmed the economy, as most experts already are?

And do you remember this:

How long do you plan to avoid explaining this information?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

the biggest problem with his stimulus package is it should have been bigger -.

dear, please explain how a liberal stimulus, like the New Deal, could help rather than harm an economy or admit to having the IQ of a typical liberal..

Don't ask me, ask economists: Poll Results IGM Forum

In a survey, the nation's top economists came back in an almost 4-to-1 ratio in favor of the idea that the stimulus's benefits had outweighed its costs, with about a quarter of respondents still uncertain. So there you go, a net beneficial economic impact stemming directly from a Democratic president.

Ta-daaa.

40 or so economists surveyed agreed with the Congressional Budget Office, known as the CBO, that the unemployment rate was lower at the end of 2010 than it would have been without the stimulus law. The survey asked a second question about whether—accounting for future costs arising from financing the stimulus with debt—its benefits would end up exceeding its costs. Here, 46 percent thought that they would and another 27 percent were uncertain, leaving only a small percentage that did not.

Yes. That is...straight-up repeating my post, right down to the part about a quarter still uncertain. Is this what agreement looks like where you come from? Are you convinced that a "liberal stimulus" has helped rather than harmed the economy, as most experts already are?

And do you remember this:

How long do you plan to avoid explaining this information?

whats to explain given that presidents don't control the economy and many GOP presidents are not conservative??

See why we say liberalism is based in pure ignorance? What other conclusion is possible?

 

[JoeNormal]

Well, Edward is in a class by himself but yeah, in general if it won't fit on a bumpersticker, it won't fit in a right wingers brain.

dear, if you see anything mistaken with Aristotelian, Jeffersonian right wing thinking about freedom from govt please point out the mistake or admit you, as a typical illiterate liberal, lack the IQ to defend what you say.

Aristotelian, Jeffersonian... Big words for an imbecile. Tell me what you think Jefferson would have thought of our right wing corporatocracy.

 

[Paperman299]

the biggest problem with his stimulus package is it should have been bigger -.

dear, please explain how a liberal stimulus, like the New Deal, could help rather than harm an economy or admit to having the IQ of a typical liberal..

Don't ask me, ask economists: Poll Results IGM Forum

In a survey, the nation's top economists came back in an almost 4-to-1 ratio in favor of the idea that the stimulus's benefits had outweighed its costs, with about a quarter of respondents still uncertain. So there you go, a net beneficial economic impact stemming directly from a Democratic president.

Ta-daaa.

40 or so economists surveyed agreed with the Congressional Budget Office, known as the CBO, that the unemployment rate was lower at the end of 2010 than it would have been without the stimulus law. The survey asked a second question about whether—accounting for future costs arising from financing the stimulus with debt—its benefits would end up exceeding its costs. Here, 46 percent thought that they would and another 27 percent were uncertain, leaving only a small percentage that did not.

Yes. That is...straight-up repeating my post, right down to the part about a quarter still uncertain. Is this what agreement looks like where you come from? Are you convinced that a "liberal stimulus" has helped rather than harmed the economy, as most experts already are?

And do you remember this:

How long do you plan to avoid explaining this information?

whats to explain given that presidents don't control the economy and many GOP presidents are not conservative??

See why we say liberalism is based in pure ignorance? What other conclusion is possible?

No one is saying presidents can "control" the economy, but they do have incredible influence - something you yourself believe or else you couldn't blame 'libcommie' presidents when the economy does poorly.

But yeah. Go ahead and look at twice as many jobs being created under Democratic presidents vs Republican presidents despite having slightly fewer years in office, and tell me it's because Republican presidents keep chancing on worse economies.

 

[Faun]

So for the FOURTH time, 100% of the Repugs who supported Dubya's ADDI (40,000 a year free down payments), weren't conservatives?? lol

dear, for 23rd time, conservatives are for lower taxes, lower spending and less regulation; liberals are for opposite.

See why we are 100% positive that liberalism is based in pure ignorance?? What other conslusion is possible?

Weird, we must not have had any conservatives in the GOP for decades now, right? lol

I mean 100% of the GOP in Congress supported Dubya's dream down payment plan that helped Dubya's ponzi scheme!

dear, for 23rd time, conservatives are for lower taxes, lower spending and less regulation; liberals are for opposite.

Too funny ... Bush supported lower taxes and less regulation, yet you call him a Liberal.

Do you see now why so many on the forum think you're out of your mind?

 

[Dad2three]

Americans should keep 10% of their incomes ....
The rest can be spent by clueless bureaucrats on free programs.
Free pre school, public school, community college, housing, food stamps, commie care, municipal jobs, retirement/ss, infrastructure , and global warming.
Just think of that utopian progress comrades !!!! Lmfao

Or we could force the federal Gov't down to less than 15% of GDP, Like Dubya/GOP policies did, a drop of 25%+, how'd that work out?

Low info guys are the WORST. It's false premises, distortions or lies with right wingers, ALWAYS

Aristotle and Jefferson were lying about the value of freedom??

Gawd you're a moron

 

[Dad2three]

the biggest problem with his stimulus package is it should have been bigger -.

dear, please explain how a liberal stimulus, like the New Deal, could help rather than harm an economy or admit to having the IQ of a typical liberal..

Don't ask me, ask economists: Poll Results IGM Forum

In a survey, the nation's top economists came back in an almost 4-to-1 ratio in favor of the idea that the stimulus's benefits had outweighed its costs, with about a quarter of respondents still uncertain. So there you go, a net beneficial economic impact stemming directly from a Democratic president.

Ta-daaa.

40 or so economists surveyed agreed with the Congressional Budget Office, known as the CBO, that the unemployment rate was lower at the end of 2010 than it would have been without the stimulus law. The survey asked a second question about whether—accounting for future costs arising from financing the stimulus with debt—its benefits would end up exceeding its costs. Here, 46 percent thought that they would and another 27 percent were uncertain, leaving only a small percentage that did not.

Recently each of these eminent economists was asked whether the unemployment rate was lower at the end of 2010 than it would have been without the stimulus bill. Of the 44 economists surveyed, 37 responded, yielding a healthy response rate of 84 percent.

Among those who responded, 36 agreed that the stimulus bill had lowered the unemployment rate, while one disagreed. That lone disagreeing economist, Harvard’s Alberto Alesina (who was one of my thesis advisers), has been a virulent opponent of the stimulus, although the research that he’s based this upon has come under sustained criticism, particularly from the International Monetary Fund, which views the study as flawed.

These responses are remarkably similar to those from an earlier survey taken in 2012; not a single economist has substantially changed views since that earlier survey.

Economists Believe the Stimulus Bill Reduced Unemployment

A follow-up question posed to the same expert panel asked whether the total benefits of the stimulus bill will end up exceeding the costs. The idea was to take account of all of the consequences, both positive and negative. On this question, there’s greater modesty, but still no raging debate. Of the 37 respondents, 25 agreed that the benefits exceeded the costs, while 10 were uncertain. Only 2 disagreed that the stimulus was worth it.


These data paint a picture of a professional consensus, tempered by a degree of modesty that there’s much we don’t know. Indeed, the best research into the views of economists finds that this consensus is pervasive across a range of issues. Call it the hidden consensus in economics.


http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/30/u...s-lifted-the-economy.html?_r=0&abt=0002&abg=0

 

[Listening]

the biggest problem with his stimulus package is it should have been bigger -.

dear, please explain how a liberal stimulus, like the New Deal, could help rather than harm an economy or admit to having the IQ of a typical liberal..

Don't ask me, ask economists: Poll Results IGM Forum

In a survey, the nation's top economists came back in an almost 4-to-1 ratio in favor of the idea that the stimulus's benefits had outweighed its costs, with about a quarter of respondents still uncertain. So there you go, a net beneficial economic impact stemming directly from a Democratic president.

Ta-daaa.

40 or so economists surveyed agreed with the Congressional Budget Office, known as the CBO, that the unemployment rate was lower at the end of 2010 than it would have been without the stimulus law. The survey asked a second question about whether—accounting for future costs arising from financing the stimulus with debt—its benefits would end up exceeding its costs. Here, 46 percent thought that they would and another 27 percent were uncertain, leaving only a small percentage that did not.

Yes. That is...straight-up repeating my post, right down to the part about a quarter still uncertain. Is this what agreement looks like where you come from? Are you convinced that a "liberal stimulus" has helped rather than harmed the economy, as most experts already are?

And do you remember this:

How long do you plan to avoid explaining this information?

Who has to explain it ?

Reagan inherits a mess. You throw that on him.

He's got it so cleaned up and turned around he breezes to re-election four years later.

Obama inherits a mess. You throw that on him.

Six years later, it's still a mess.

Love how his job creation is nothing more than the recover of the jobs bush lost.

My grandmother could have done that...and she's dead.

 

[Listening]

So for the FOURTH time, 100% of the Repugs who supported Dubya's ADDI (40,000 a year free down payments), weren't conservatives?? lol

dear, for 23rd time, conservatives are for lower taxes, lower spending and less regulation; liberals are for opposite.

See why we are 100% positive that liberalism is based in pure ignorance?? What other conslusion is possible?

Weird, we must not have had any conservatives in the GOP for decades now, right? lol

I mean 100% of the GOP in Congress supported Dubya's dream down payment plan that helped Dubya's ponzi scheme!

dear, for 23rd time, conservatives are for lower taxes, lower spending and less regulation; liberals are for opposite.

Too funny ... Bush supported lower taxes and less regulation, yet you call him a Liberal.

Do you see now why so many on the forum think you're out of your mind?

You can't support lower taxes and spend money like a drunken sailor on wars (stupid ones at that) and drug programs.

Bush may have been a social conservative, but he was a dick when it came to money.

 

[Listening]

the biggest problem with his stimulus package is it should have been bigger -.

dear, please explain how a liberal stimulus, like the New Deal, could help rather than harm an economy or admit to having the IQ of a typical liberal..

Don't ask me, ask economists: Poll Results IGM Forum

In a survey, the nation's top economists came back in an almost 4-to-1 ratio in favor of the idea that the stimulus's benefits had outweighed its costs, with about a quarter of respondents still uncertain. So there you go, a net beneficial economic impact stemming directly from a Democratic president.

Ta-daaa.

40 or so economists surveyed agreed with the Congressional Budget Office, known as the CBO, that the unemployment rate was lower at the end of 2010 than it would have been without the stimulus law. The survey asked a second question about whether—accounting for future costs arising from financing the stimulus with debt—its benefits would end up exceeding its costs. Here, 46 percent thought that they would and another 27 percent were uncertain, leaving only a small percentage that did not.

Recently each of these eminent economists was asked whether the unemployment rate was lower at the end of 2010 than it would have been without the stimulus bill. Of the 44 economists surveyed, 37 responded, yielding a healthy response rate of 84 percent.

Among those who responded, 36 agreed that the stimulus bill had lowered the unemployment rate, while one disagreed. That lone disagreeing economist, Harvard’s Alberto Alesina (who was one of my thesis advisers), has been a virulent opponent of the stimulus, although the research that he’s based this upon has come under sustained criticism, particularly from the International Monetary Fund, which views the study as flawed.

These responses are remarkably similar to those from an earlier survey taken in 2012; not a single economist has substantially changed views since that earlier survey.

Economists Believe the Stimulus Bill Reduced Unemployment

A follow-up question posed to the same expert panel asked whether the total benefits of the stimulus bill will end up exceeding the costs. The idea was to take account of all of the consequences, both positive and negative. On this question, there’s greater modesty, but still no raging debate. Of the 37 respondents, 25 agreed that the benefits exceeded the costs, while 10 were uncertain. Only 2 disagreed that the stimulus was worth it.


These data paint a picture of a professional consensus, tempered by a degree of modesty that there’s much we don’t know. Indeed, the best research into the views of economists finds that this consensus is pervasive across a range of issues. Call it the hidden consensus in economics.


http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/30/u...s-lifted-the-economy.html?_r=0&abt=0002&abg=0

Same tired worn out bullshit meme.

These are academics.

Those who supported in industry only stood to gain from it.

It's been a dismal failure. Obama has barely recovered the jobs we lost in 2008/2009. Nothing to crow about.

 

[Listening]

Americans should keep 10% of their incomes ....
The rest can be spent by clueless bureaucrats on free programs.
Free pre school, public school, community college, housing, food stamps, commie care, municipal jobs, retirement/ss, infrastructure , and global warming.
Just think of that utopian progress comrades !!!! Lmfao

Or we could force the federal Gov't down to less than 15% of GDP, Like Dubya/GOP policies did, a drop of 25%+, how'd that work out?

Low info guys are the WORST. It's false premises, distortions or lies with right wingers, ALWAYS

Aristotle and Jefferson were lying about the value of freedom??

Gawd you're a moron

And you couldn't prove that if your life depended on it.

You are a bullshit artist.

 

[Dad2three]

the biggest problem with his stimulus package is it should have been bigger -.

dear, please explain how a liberal stimulus, like the New Deal, could help rather than harm an economy or admit to having the IQ of a typical liberal..

Don't ask me, ask economists: Poll Results IGM Forum

In a survey, the nation's top economists came back in an almost 4-to-1 ratio in favor of the idea that the stimulus's benefits had outweighed its costs, with about a quarter of respondents still uncertain. So there you go, a net beneficial economic impact stemming directly from a Democratic president.

Ta-daaa.

40 or so economists surveyed agreed with the Congressional Budget Office, known as the CBO, that the unemployment rate was lower at the end of 2010 than it would have been without the stimulus law. The survey asked a second question about whether—accounting for future costs arising from financing the stimulus with debt—its benefits would end up exceeding its costs. Here, 46 percent thought that they would and another 27 percent were uncertain, leaving only a small percentage that did not.

Yes. That is...straight-up repeating my post, right down to the part about a quarter still uncertain. Is this what agreement looks like where you come from? Are you convinced that a "liberal stimulus" has helped rather than harmed the economy, as most experts already are?

And do you remember this:

How long do you plan to avoid explaining this information?

Who has to explain it ?

Reagan inherits a mess. You throw that on him.

He's got it so cleaned up and turned around he breezes to re-election four years later.

Obama inherits a mess. You throw that on him.

Six years later, it's still a mess.

Love how his job creation is nothing more than the recover of the jobs bush lost.

My grandmother could have done that...and she's dead.

REAGAN UNEMPLOYMENT RATE

JAN 1981 7.5%

NOV 1984 7.2%


01/1981 - Unemployment rate 7.5% …. Reagan sworn in.
02/1981 - 7.4%
03/1981 - 7.4%
04/1981 - 7.2%
05/1981 - 7.5%
06/1981 - 7.5%
07/1981 - 7.2%
08/1981 - 7.4% * Reagan CUTS taxes for top 1% and says unemployment will DROP to 6.9%.
09/1981 - 7.6%
10/1981 - 7.9%
11/1981 - 8.3%
12/1981 - 8.5%

01/1982 - 8.6%
02/1982 - 8.9%
03/1982 - 9.0%
04/1982 - 9.3%
05/1982 - 9.4%
06/1982 - 9.6%
07/1982 - 9.8%
08/1982 - 9.8%
09/1982 - 10.1%
10/1982 - 10.4%
11/1982 - 10.8% * Unemployment HITS a post WW2 RECORD of 10.8%.
12/1982 - 10.8%

01/1983 - 10.4%
02/1983 - 10.4%
03/1983 - 10.3%
04/1983 - 10.3%
05/1983 - 10.1%
06/1983 - 10.1%
07/1983 - 9.4%
06/1983 - 9.5%
07/1983 - 9.4%
08/1983 - 9.5%
09/1983 - 9.2%
10/1983 - 8.8%
11/1983 - 8.5%
12/1983 - 8.3%

01/1984 - 8.0%
02/1984 - 7.8%


It took Reagan 28 MONTHS to get unemployment rate back down below 8 percent.

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data


AVG ANNUAL U-RATE


1978 6.1
1979 5.8
1980 7.1
1981 7.6

1982 9.7

1983 9.6

1984 7.5

1985 7.2

1986 7.0


PRIVATE SECTOR JOBS


JAN 2001 111,859,000

Jan 2008 11,5977,000 (DUBYA'S HIGH POINT 4.1 million jobs created in 7 years)


JAN 2009 111,397,000

FEB 2010 107,187,000 (DUBYA'S GREAT RECESSION LOW POINT)

Dec 2014 118,402,000

Since hitting Dubya's bottom, more than 11 million private sector jobs


Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

 

[Dad2three]

the biggest problem with his stimulus package is it should have been bigger -.

dear, please explain how a liberal stimulus, like the New Deal, could help rather than harm an economy or admit to having the IQ of a typical liberal..

Don't ask me, ask economists: Poll Results IGM Forum

In a survey, the nation's top economists came back in an almost 4-to-1 ratio in favor of the idea that the stimulus's benefits had outweighed its costs, with about a quarter of respondents still uncertain. So there you go, a net beneficial economic impact stemming directly from a Democratic president.

Ta-daaa.

40 or so economists surveyed agreed with the Congressional Budget Office, known as the CBO, that the unemployment rate was lower at the end of 2010 than it would have been without the stimulus law. The survey asked a second question about whether—accounting for future costs arising from financing the stimulus with debt—its benefits would end up exceeding its costs. Here, 46 percent thought that they would and another 27 percent were uncertain, leaving only a small percentage that did not.

Recently each of these eminent economists was asked whether the unemployment rate was lower at the end of 2010 than it would have been without the stimulus bill. Of the 44 economists surveyed, 37 responded, yielding a healthy response rate of 84 percent.

Among those who responded, 36 agreed that the stimulus bill had lowered the unemployment rate, while one disagreed. That lone disagreeing economist, Harvard’s Alberto Alesina (who was one of my thesis advisers), has been a virulent opponent of the stimulus, although the research that he’s based this upon has come under sustained criticism, particularly from the International Monetary Fund, which views the study as flawed.

These responses are remarkably similar to those from an earlier survey taken in 2012; not a single economist has substantially changed views since that earlier survey.

Economists Believe the Stimulus Bill Reduced Unemployment

A follow-up question posed to the same expert panel asked whether the total benefits of the stimulus bill will end up exceeding the costs. The idea was to take account of all of the consequences, both positive and negative. On this question, there’s greater modesty, but still no raging debate. Of the 37 respondents, 25 agreed that the benefits exceeded the costs, while 10 were uncertain. Only 2 disagreed that the stimulus was worth it.


These data paint a picture of a professional consensus, tempered by a degree of modesty that there’s much we don’t know. Indeed, the best research into the views of economists finds that this consensus is pervasive across a range of issues. Call it the hidden consensus in economics.


http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/30/u...s-lifted-the-economy.html?_r=0&abt=0002&abg=0

Same tired worn out bullshit meme.

These are academics.

Those who supported in industry only stood to gain from it.

It's been a dismal failure. Obama has barely recovered the jobs we lost in 2008/2009. Nothing to crow about.

PRIVATE SECTOR JOBS


JAN 2001 111,859,000

Jan 2008 11,5977,000 (DUBYA'S HIGH POINT 4.1 million jobs created in 7 years)


JAN 2009 111,397,000

FEB 2010 107,187,000 (DUBYA'S GREAT RECESSION LOW POINT)

Dec 2014 118,402,000

Since hitting Dubya's bottom, more than 11 million private sector jobs

NET OF 7 MILLION SINCE COMING INTO OFFICE BUBBA, LOL


Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

 

[Listening]

dear, please explain how a liberal stimulus, like the New Deal, could help rather than harm an economy or admit to having the IQ of a typical liberal..

Don't ask me, ask economists: Poll Results IGM Forum

In a survey, the nation's top economists came back in an almost 4-to-1 ratio in favor of the idea that the stimulus's benefits had outweighed its costs, with about a quarter of respondents still uncertain. So there you go, a net beneficial economic impact stemming directly from a Democratic president.

Ta-daaa.

40 or so economists surveyed agreed with the Congressional Budget Office, known as the CBO, that the unemployment rate was lower at the end of 2010 than it would have been without the stimulus law. The survey asked a second question about whether—accounting for future costs arising from financing the stimulus with debt—its benefits would end up exceeding its costs. Here, 46 percent thought that they would and another 27 percent were uncertain, leaving only a small percentage that did not.

Yes. That is...straight-up repeating my post, right down to the part about a quarter still uncertain. Is this what agreement looks like where you come from? Are you convinced that a "liberal stimulus" has helped rather than harmed the economy, as most experts already are?

And do you remember this:

How long do you plan to avoid explaining this information?

Who has to explain it ?

Reagan inherits a mess. You throw that on him.

He's got it so cleaned up and turned around he breezes to re-election four years later.

Obama inherits a mess. You throw that on him.

Six years later, it's still a mess.

Love how his job creation is nothing more than the recover of the jobs bush lost.

My grandmother could have done that...and she's dead.

REAGAN UNEMPLOYMENT RATE

JAN 1981 7.5%

NOV 1984 7.2%


01/1981 - Unemployment rate 7.5% …. Reagan sworn in.
02/1981 - 7.4%
03/1981 - 7.4%
04/1981 - 7.2%
05/1981 - 7.5%
06/1981 - 7.5%
07/1981 - 7.2%
08/1981 - 7.4% * Reagan CUTS taxes for top 1% and says unemployment will DROP to 6.9%.
09/1981 - 7.6%
10/1981 - 7.9%
11/1981 - 8.3%
12/1981 - 8.5%

01/1982 - 8.6%
02/1982 - 8.9%
03/1982 - 9.0%
04/1982 - 9.3%
05/1982 - 9.4%
06/1982 - 9.6%
07/1982 - 9.8%
08/1982 - 9.8%
09/1982 - 10.1%
10/1982 - 10.4%
11/1982 - 10.8% * Unemployment HITS a post WW2 RECORD of 10.8%.
12/1982 - 10.8%

01/1983 - 10.4%
02/1983 - 10.4%
03/1983 - 10.3%
04/1983 - 10.3%
05/1983 - 10.1%
06/1983 - 10.1%
07/1983 - 9.4%
06/1983 - 9.5%
07/1983 - 9.4%
08/1983 - 9.5%
09/1983 - 9.2%
10/1983 - 8.8%
11/1983 - 8.5%
12/1983 - 8.3%

01/1984 - 8.0%
02/1984 - 7.8%


It took Reagan 28 MONTHS to get unemployment rate back down below 8 percent.

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data


AVG ANNUAL U-RATE


1978 6.1
1979 5.8
1980 7.1
1981 7.6

1982 9.7

1983 9.6

1984 7.5

1985 7.2

1986 7.0


PRIVATE SECTOR JOBS


JAN 2001 111,859,000

Jan 2008 11,5977,000 (DUBYA'S HIGH POINT 4.1 million jobs created in 7 years)


JAN 2009 111,397,000

FEB 2010 107,187,000 (DUBYA'S GREAT RECESSION LOW POINT)

Dec 2014 118,402,000

Since hitting Dubya's bottom, more than 11 million private sector jobs


Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

Yes, we've seen this maybe 200 times already.

Somehow, you think this proves a point.

Reagan not only inherited high unemployment, he also got interest rates that would kill today's economy.

Uhhh....Duhhhh...what do I do with that ?????? You'll figure it out.

He got things going and he gave people hope (and for good reason).

Wiped out Mondale....almost pitched a shutout....

But, I know...that doesn't count.

LOL

 

[Listening]

dear, please explain how a liberal stimulus, like the New Deal, could help rather than harm an economy or admit to having the IQ of a typical liberal..

Don't ask me, ask economists: Poll Results IGM Forum

In a survey, the nation's top economists came back in an almost 4-to-1 ratio in favor of the idea that the stimulus's benefits had outweighed its costs, with about a quarter of respondents still uncertain. So there you go, a net beneficial economic impact stemming directly from a Democratic president.

Ta-daaa.

40 or so economists surveyed agreed with the Congressional Budget Office, known as the CBO, that the unemployment rate was lower at the end of 2010 than it would have been without the stimulus law. The survey asked a second question about whether—accounting for future costs arising from financing the stimulus with debt—its benefits would end up exceeding its costs. Here, 46 percent thought that they would and another 27 percent were uncertain, leaving only a small percentage that did not.

Recently each of these eminent economists was asked whether the unemployment rate was lower at the end of 2010 than it would have been without the stimulus bill. Of the 44 economists surveyed, 37 responded, yielding a healthy response rate of 84 percent.

Among those who responded, 36 agreed that the stimulus bill had lowered the unemployment rate, while one disagreed. That lone disagreeing economist, Harvard’s Alberto Alesina (who was one of my thesis advisers), has been a virulent opponent of the stimulus, although the research that he’s based this upon has come under sustained criticism, particularly from the International Monetary Fund, which views the study as flawed.

These responses are remarkably similar to those from an earlier survey taken in 2012; not a single economist has substantially changed views since that earlier survey.

Economists Believe the Stimulus Bill Reduced Unemployment

A follow-up question posed to the same expert panel asked whether the total benefits of the stimulus bill will end up exceeding the costs. The idea was to take account of all of the consequences, both positive and negative. On this question, there’s greater modesty, but still no raging debate. Of the 37 respondents, 25 agreed that the benefits exceeded the costs, while 10 were uncertain. Only 2 disagreed that the stimulus was worth it.


These data paint a picture of a professional consensus, tempered by a degree of modesty that there’s much we don’t know. Indeed, the best research into the views of economists finds that this consensus is pervasive across a range of issues. Call it the hidden consensus in economics.


http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/30/u...s-lifted-the-economy.html?_r=0&abt=0002&abg=0

Same tired worn out bullshit meme.

These are academics.

Those who supported in industry only stood to gain from it.

It's been a dismal failure. Obama has barely recovered the jobs we lost in 2008/2009. Nothing to crow about.

PRIVATE SECTOR JOBS


JAN 2001 111,859,000

Jan 2008 11,5977,000 (DUBYA'S HIGH POINT 4.1 million jobs created in 7 years)


JAN 2009 111,397,000

FEB 2010 107,187,000 (DUBYA'S GREAT RECESSION LOW POINT)

Dec 2014 118,402,000

Since hitting Dubya's bottom, more than 11 million private sector jobs


Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

Don't read to well...do you.

How many jobs did Bush/Obama lose before it turned around ?

 

[Dad2three]

Don't ask me, ask economists: Poll Results IGM Forum

In a survey, the nation's top economists came back in an almost 4-to-1 ratio in favor of the idea that the stimulus's benefits had outweighed its costs, with about a quarter of respondents still uncertain. So there you go, a net beneficial economic impact stemming directly from a Democratic president.

Ta-daaa.

40 or so economists surveyed agreed with the Congressional Budget Office, known as the CBO, that the unemployment rate was lower at the end of 2010 than it would have been without the stimulus law. The survey asked a second question about whether—accounting for future costs arising from financing the stimulus with debt—its benefits would end up exceeding its costs. Here, 46 percent thought that they would and another 27 percent were uncertain, leaving only a small percentage that did not.

Recently each of these eminent economists was asked whether the unemployment rate was lower at the end of 2010 than it would have been without the stimulus bill. Of the 44 economists surveyed, 37 responded, yielding a healthy response rate of 84 percent.

Among those who responded, 36 agreed that the stimulus bill had lowered the unemployment rate, while one disagreed. That lone disagreeing economist, Harvard’s Alberto Alesina (who was one of my thesis advisers), has been a virulent opponent of the stimulus, although the research that he’s based this upon has come under sustained criticism, particularly from the International Monetary Fund, which views the study as flawed.

These responses are remarkably similar to those from an earlier survey taken in 2012; not a single economist has substantially changed views since that earlier survey.

Economists Believe the Stimulus Bill Reduced Unemployment

A follow-up question posed to the same expert panel asked whether the total benefits of the stimulus bill will end up exceeding the costs. The idea was to take account of all of the consequences, both positive and negative. On this question, there’s greater modesty, but still no raging debate. Of the 37 respondents, 25 agreed that the benefits exceeded the costs, while 10 were uncertain. Only 2 disagreed that the stimulus was worth it.


These data paint a picture of a professional consensus, tempered by a degree of modesty that there’s much we don’t know. Indeed, the best research into the views of economists finds that this consensus is pervasive across a range of issues. Call it the hidden consensus in economics.


http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/30/u...s-lifted-the-economy.html?_r=0&abt=0002&abg=0

Same tired worn out bullshit meme.

These are academics.

Those who supported in industry only stood to gain from it.

It's been a dismal failure. Obama has barely recovered the jobs we lost in 2008/2009. Nothing to crow about.

PRIVATE SECTOR JOBS


JAN 2001 111,859,000

Jan 2008 11,5977,000 (DUBYA'S HIGH POINT 4.1 million jobs created in 7 years)


JAN 2009 111,397,000

FEB 2010 107,187,000 (DUBYA'S GREAT RECESSION LOW POINT)

Dec 2014 118,402,000

Since hitting Dubya's bottom, more than 11 million private sector jobs


Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

Don't read to well...do you.

How many jobs did Bush/Obama lose before it turned around ?

Well thanks to Dubya's policies, the 20000's were the weakest jobs decade in modern times. Is that what you want tto know? ALTHOUGH the TWO UNFUNDED tax cuts were supposed to spur job creation. Weird right? That Marxist, Socialist Obama has had 11+ million PRIVATE sector jobs created since hitting Dubya's bottom, Feb 2010. Almost like 8 years of Dubya/GOP policy did nothing but cause US to ramp up debt and create a subprime crisis/recession.


That 11+ million PRIVATE sector jobs in less than 5 years created under Obama, is on track to overtake Reagan's ENTIRE 8 year total of 14 million PRIVATE sector jobs!

 

[Dad2three]

Don't ask me, ask economists: Poll Results IGM Forum

In a survey, the nation's top economists came back in an almost 4-to-1 ratio in favor of the idea that the stimulus's benefits had outweighed its costs, with about a quarter of respondents still uncertain. So there you go, a net beneficial economic impact stemming directly from a Democratic president.

Ta-daaa.

40 or so economists surveyed agreed with the Congressional Budget Office, known as the CBO, that the unemployment rate was lower at the end of 2010 than it would have been without the stimulus law. The survey asked a second question about whether—accounting for future costs arising from financing the stimulus with debt—its benefits would end up exceeding its costs. Here, 46 percent thought that they would and another 27 percent were uncertain, leaving only a small percentage that did not.

Yes. That is...straight-up repeating my post, right down to the part about a quarter still uncertain. Is this what agreement looks like where you come from? Are you convinced that a "liberal stimulus" has helped rather than harmed the economy, as most experts already are?

And do you remember this:

How long do you plan to avoid explaining this information?

Who has to explain it ?

Reagan inherits a mess. You throw that on him.

He's got it so cleaned up and turned around he breezes to re-election four years later.

Obama inherits a mess. You throw that on him.

Six years later, it's still a mess.

Love how his job creation is nothing more than the recover of the jobs bush lost.

My grandmother could have done that...and she's dead.

REAGAN UNEMPLOYMENT RATE

JAN 1981 7.5%

NOV 1984 7.2%


01/1981 - Unemployment rate 7.5% …. Reagan sworn in.
02/1981 - 7.4%
03/1981 - 7.4%
04/1981 - 7.2%
05/1981 - 7.5%
06/1981 - 7.5%
07/1981 - 7.2%
08/1981 - 7.4% * Reagan CUTS taxes for top 1% and says unemployment will DROP to 6.9%.
09/1981 - 7.6%
10/1981 - 7.9%
11/1981 - 8.3%
12/1981 - 8.5%

01/1982 - 8.6%
02/1982 - 8.9%
03/1982 - 9.0%
04/1982 - 9.3%
05/1982 - 9.4%
06/1982 - 9.6%
07/1982 - 9.8%
08/1982 - 9.8%
09/1982 - 10.1%
10/1982 - 10.4%
11/1982 - 10.8% * Unemployment HITS a post WW2 RECORD of 10.8%.
12/1982 - 10.8%

01/1983 - 10.4%
02/1983 - 10.4%
03/1983 - 10.3%
04/1983 - 10.3%
05/1983 - 10.1%
06/1983 - 10.1%
07/1983 - 9.4%
06/1983 - 9.5%
07/1983 - 9.4%
08/1983 - 9.5%
09/1983 - 9.2%
10/1983 - 8.8%
11/1983 - 8.5%
12/1983 - 8.3%

01/1984 - 8.0%
02/1984 - 7.8%


It took Reagan 28 MONTHS to get unemployment rate back down below 8 percent.

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data


AVG ANNUAL U-RATE


1978 6.1
1979 5.8
1980 7.1
1981 7.6

1982 9.7

1983 9.6

1984 7.5

1985 7.2

1986 7.0


PRIVATE SECTOR JOBS


JAN 2001 111,859,000

Jan 2008 11,5977,000 (DUBYA'S HIGH POINT 4.1 million jobs created in 7 years)


JAN 2009 111,397,000

FEB 2010 107,187,000 (DUBYA'S GREAT RECESSION LOW POINT)

Dec 2014 118,402,000

Since hitting Dubya's bottom, more than 11 million private sector jobs


Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

Yes, we've seen this maybe 200 times already.

Somehow, you think this proves a point.

Reagan not only inherited high unemployment, he also got interest rates that would kill today's economy.

Uhhh....Duhhhh...what do I do with that ?????? You'll figure it out.

He got things going and he gave people hope (and for good reason).

Wiped out Mondale....almost pitched a shutout....

But, I know...that doesn't count.

LOL

"Reagan not only inherited high unemployment"


REALLY????




Reagan created the recession began under HIM after his disastrous tax cuts.


Supply Side Economics


supply side did not work under reagan nor bush.the worse recession happened under REAGAN not carter.sure he picked up the economy after he trashed it.


Carter 1977

Jan 7.5%
Feb 7.6
March 7.4
April 7.2
May 7.0
June 7.2
July 6.9
Aug 7.0
Sept 6.8
Oct 6.8
Nov 6.8
Dec 6.4

1978
Jan 6.4
Feb 6.3
March 6.3
Apr 6.1
May 6.0
Jun 5.9
July 6.2
Aug 5.9
Sep 6.0
Oct 5.8
Nov 5.9
Dec 6.0

1979
Jan 5.9
Feb 5.9
Mar 5.8
Apr 5.8
May 5.6
Jun 5.7
Jul 5.7
Aug 6.0
Sept 5.9
Oct 6.0
Nov 5.9
Dec 6.0

1980
Jan 6.3
Feb 6.3
Mar 6.3
Apr 6.9
May 7.5
Jun 7.6
Jul 7.8
Aug 7.7
Sept 7.5
Oct 7.5
Nov 7.5
Dec 7.2

01/1981 - Unemployment rate 7.5% …. Reagan sworn in.
02/1981 - 7.4%
03/1981 - 7.4%
04/1981 - 7.2%
05/1981 - 7.5%
06/1981 - 7.5%
07/1981 - 7.2%
08/1981 - 7.4% * Reagan CUTS taxes for top 1% and says unemployment will DROP to 6.9%.
09/1981 - 7.6%
10/1981 - 7.9%
11/1981 - 8.3%
12/1981 - 8.5%

01/1982 - 8.6%
02/1982 - 8.9%
03/1982 - 9.0%
04/1982 - 9.3%
05/1982 - 9.4%
06/1982 - 9.6%
07/1982 - 9.8%
08/1982 - 9.8%
09/1982 - 10.1%
10/1982 - 10.4%
11/1982 - 10.8% * Unemployment HITS a post WW2 RECORD of 10.8%.
12/1982 - 10.8%

01/1983 - 10.4%
02/1983 - 10.4%
03/1983 - 10.3%
04/1983 - 10.3%
05/1983 - 10.1%
06/1983 - 10.1%
07/1983 - 9.4%
06/1983 - 9.5%
07/1983 - 9.4%
08/1983 - 9.5%
09/1983 - 9.2%
10/1983 - 8.8%
11/1983 - 8.5%
12/1983 - 8.3%

01/1984 - 8.0%
02/1984 - 7.8%


It took Reagan 28 MONTHS to get unemployment rate back down below 8 percent.

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data


AGAIN, CARTER HAD 9+ MILLION PRIVATE SECTOR JOBS GROWTH IN 4 YEARS VERSUS 14 MILLION FOR REAGAN'S 8

Jan 1979 65,636,000
Jan 1981 74,677,000

INCREASE OF 9,041,000 Total private IN 4 YEARS

Jan 1981 74,677,000
Jan 1989 89,394,000

14,717,00 Total private IN 8 YEARS

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data


I THOUGH CARTER WAS HORRIBLE? LOL

 

[Listening]

40 or so economists surveyed agreed with the Congressional Budget Office, known as the CBO, that the unemployment rate was lower at the end of 2010 than it would have been without the stimulus law. The survey asked a second question about whether—accounting for future costs arising from financing the stimulus with debt—its benefits would end up exceeding its costs. Here, 46 percent thought that they would and another 27 percent were uncertain, leaving only a small percentage that did not.

Recently each of these eminent economists was asked whether the unemployment rate was lower at the end of 2010 than it would have been without the stimulus bill. Of the 44 economists surveyed, 37 responded, yielding a healthy response rate of 84 percent.

Among those who responded, 36 agreed that the stimulus bill had lowered the unemployment rate, while one disagreed. That lone disagreeing economist, Harvard’s Alberto Alesina (who was one of my thesis advisers), has been a virulent opponent of the stimulus, although the research that he’s based this upon has come under sustained criticism, particularly from the International Monetary Fund, which views the study as flawed.

These responses are remarkably similar to those from an earlier survey taken in 2012; not a single economist has substantially changed views since that earlier survey.

Economists Believe the Stimulus Bill Reduced Unemployment

A follow-up question posed to the same expert panel asked whether the total benefits of the stimulus bill will end up exceeding the costs. The idea was to take account of all of the consequences, both positive and negative. On this question, there’s greater modesty, but still no raging debate. Of the 37 respondents, 25 agreed that the benefits exceeded the costs, while 10 were uncertain. Only 2 disagreed that the stimulus was worth it.


These data paint a picture of a professional consensus, tempered by a degree of modesty that there’s much we don’t know. Indeed, the best research into the views of economists finds that this consensus is pervasive across a range of issues. Call it the hidden consensus in economics.


http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/30/u...s-lifted-the-economy.html?_r=0&abt=0002&abg=0

Same tired worn out bullshit meme.

These are academics.

Those who supported in industry only stood to gain from it.

It's been a dismal failure. Obama has barely recovered the jobs we lost in 2008/2009. Nothing to crow about.

PRIVATE SECTOR JOBS


JAN 2001 111,859,000

Jan 2008 11,5977,000 (DUBYA'S HIGH POINT 4.1 million jobs created in 7 years)


JAN 2009 111,397,000

FEB 2010 107,187,000 (DUBYA'S GREAT RECESSION LOW POINT)

Dec 2014 118,402,000

Since hitting Dubya's bottom, more than 11 million private sector jobs


Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

Don't read to well...do you.

How many jobs did Bush/Obama lose before it turned around ?

Well thanks to Dubya's policies, the 20000's were the weakest jobs decade in modern times. Is that what you want tto know? ALTHOUGH the TWO UNFUNDED tax cuts were supposed to spur job creation. Weird right? That Marxist, Socialist Obama has had 11+ million PRIVATE sector jobs created since hitting Dubya's bottom, Feb 2010. Almost like 8 years of Dubya/GOP policy did nothing but cause US to ramp up debt and create a subprime crisis/recession.


That 11+ million PRIVATE sector jobs in less than 5 years created under Obama, is on track to overtake Reagan's ENTIRE 8 year total of 14 million PRIVATE sector jobs!

You are missing the point dickweed...he created nothing.

The economy is simply recovering what it lost.

Workforce participation is at a near all time low.

 

[Listening]

40 or so economists surveyed agreed with the Congressional Budget Office, known as the CBO, that the unemployment rate was lower at the end of 2010 than it would have been without the stimulus law. The survey asked a second question about whether—accounting for future costs arising from financing the stimulus with debt—its benefits would end up exceeding its costs. Here, 46 percent thought that they would and another 27 percent were uncertain, leaving only a small percentage that did not.

Yes. That is...straight-up repeating my post, right down to the part about a quarter still uncertain. Is this what agreement looks like where you come from? Are you convinced that a "liberal stimulus" has helped rather than harmed the economy, as most experts already are?

And do you remember this:

How long do you plan to avoid explaining this information?

Who has to explain it ?

Reagan inherits a mess. You throw that on him.

He's got it so cleaned up and turned around he breezes to re-election four years later.

Obama inherits a mess. You throw that on him.

Six years later, it's still a mess.

Love how his job creation is nothing more than the recover of the jobs bush lost.

My grandmother could have done that...and she's dead.

REAGAN UNEMPLOYMENT RATE

JAN 1981 7.5%

NOV 1984 7.2%


01/1981 - Unemployment rate 7.5% …. Reagan sworn in.
02/1981 - 7.4%
03/1981 - 7.4%
04/1981 - 7.2%
05/1981 - 7.5%
06/1981 - 7.5%
07/1981 - 7.2%
08/1981 - 7.4% * Reagan CUTS taxes for top 1% and says unemployment will DROP to 6.9%.
09/1981 - 7.6%
10/1981 - 7.9%
11/1981 - 8.3%
12/1981 - 8.5%

01/1982 - 8.6%
02/1982 - 8.9%
03/1982 - 9.0%
04/1982 - 9.3%
05/1982 - 9.4%
06/1982 - 9.6%
07/1982 - 9.8%
08/1982 - 9.8%
09/1982 - 10.1%
10/1982 - 10.4%
11/1982 - 10.8% * Unemployment HITS a post WW2 RECORD of 10.8%.
12/1982 - 10.8%

01/1983 - 10.4%
02/1983 - 10.4%
03/1983 - 10.3%
04/1983 - 10.3%
05/1983 - 10.1%
06/1983 - 10.1%
07/1983 - 9.4%
06/1983 - 9.5%
07/1983 - 9.4%
08/1983 - 9.5%
09/1983 - 9.2%
10/1983 - 8.8%
11/1983 - 8.5%
12/1983 - 8.3%

01/1984 - 8.0%
02/1984 - 7.8%


It took Reagan 28 MONTHS to get unemployment rate back down below 8 percent.

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data


AVG ANNUAL U-RATE


1978 6.1
1979 5.8
1980 7.1
1981 7.6

1982 9.7

1983 9.6

1984 7.5

1985 7.2

1986 7.0


PRIVATE SECTOR JOBS


JAN 2001 111,859,000

Jan 2008 11,5977,000 (DUBYA'S HIGH POINT 4.1 million jobs created in 7 years)


JAN 2009 111,397,000

FEB 2010 107,187,000 (DUBYA'S GREAT RECESSION LOW POINT)

Dec 2014 118,402,000

Since hitting Dubya's bottom, more than 11 million private sector jobs


Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

Yes, we've seen this maybe 200 times already.

Somehow, you think this proves a point.

Reagan not only inherited high unemployment, he also got interest rates that would kill today's economy.

Uhhh....Duhhhh...what do I do with that ?????? You'll figure it out.

He got things going and he gave people hope (and for good reason).

Wiped out Mondale....almost pitched a shutout....

But, I know...that doesn't count.

LOL

"Reagan not only inherited high unemployment"


REALLY????




Reagan created the recession began under HIM after his disastrous tax cuts.


Supply Side Economics


supply side did not work under reagan nor bush.the worse recession happened under REAGAN not carter.sure he picked up the economy after he trashed it.


Carter 1977

Jan 7.5%
Feb 7.6
March 7.4
April 7.2
May 7.0
June 7.2
July 6.9
Aug 7.0
Sept 6.8
Oct 6.8
Nov 6.8
Dec 6.4

1978
Jan 6.4
Feb 6.3
March 6.3
Apr 6.1
May 6.0
Jun 5.9
July 6.2
Aug 5.9
Sep 6.0
Oct 5.8
Nov 5.9
Dec 6.0

1979
Jan 5.9
Feb 5.9
Mar 5.8
Apr 5.8
May 5.6
Jun 5.7
Jul 5.7
Aug 6.0
Sept 5.9
Oct 6.0
Nov 5.9
Dec 6.0

1980
Jan 6.3
Feb 6.3
Mar 6.3
Apr 6.9
May 7.5
Jun 7.6
Jul 7.8
Aug 7.7
Sept 7.5
Oct 7.5
Nov 7.5
Dec 7.2

01/1981 - Unemployment rate 7.5% …. Reagan sworn in.
02/1981 - 7.4%
03/1981 - 7.4%
04/1981 - 7.2%
05/1981 - 7.5%
06/1981 - 7.5%
07/1981 - 7.2%
08/1981 - 7.4% * Reagan CUTS taxes for top 1% and says unemployment will DROP to 6.9%.
09/1981 - 7.6%
10/1981 - 7.9%
11/1981 - 8.3%
12/1981 - 8.5%

01/1982 - 8.6%
02/1982 - 8.9%
03/1982 - 9.0%
04/1982 - 9.3%
05/1982 - 9.4%
06/1982 - 9.6%
07/1982 - 9.8%
08/1982 - 9.8%
09/1982 - 10.1%
10/1982 - 10.4%
11/1982 - 10.8% * Unemployment HITS a post WW2 RECORD of 10.8%.
12/1982 - 10.8%

01/1983 - 10.4%
02/1983 - 10.4%
03/1983 - 10.3%
04/1983 - 10.3%
05/1983 - 10.1%
06/1983 - 10.1%
07/1983 - 9.4%
06/1983 - 9.5%
07/1983 - 9.4%
08/1983 - 9.5%
09/1983 - 9.2%
10/1983 - 8.8%
11/1983 - 8.5%
12/1983 - 8.3%

01/1984 - 8.0%
02/1984 - 7.8%


It took Reagan 28 MONTHS to get unemployment rate back down below 8 percent.

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data


AGAIN, CARTER HAD 9+ MILLION PRIVATE SECTOR JOBS GROWTH IN 4 YEARS VERSUS 14 MILLION FOR REAGAN'S 8

Jan 1979 65,636,000
Jan 1981 74,677,000

INCREASE OF 9,041,000 Total private IN 4 YEARS

Jan 1981 74,677,000
Jan 1989 89,394,000

14,717,00 Total private IN 8 YEARS

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data


I THOUGH CARTER WAS HORRIBLE? LOL

Yes, we keep seeing this same stuff.

Somehow you think it proves something.

It doesn't. But you have not figured that out yet.

Or do you really think an economy can be described by a single independent and dependent variable.

lol.

Carter was a terrible president.

He handed Reagan huge interest rates. Everyone knew we were headed for tough times.

But in four years, things were going in the right direction. Everyone saw that. Hence his massive re-election in 1984.

Or did you forget we kicked Carter's ass out of office after four years ? Now why would that be ?

Hhhhmmmmmm......

And would you shut the **** up about 1982.

You want to blame all of Obama's ills on Bush (which many agree with) but you somehow think Reagan has to eat the shitstorm that Carter handed him.

Grow the **** up.

 

[Listening]

We threw Carter out in 1980. He got something like 42% of the popular vote. He was such a great leader.

We re-elected Reagan in 1984. Mondale got about 40% of the vote. Reagan hardly ran an ad on TV.

Figure that one out dickweed.