The Obama Recovery chuggs along

[michstfr]

Just remember what the Administration said when they pushed the stimulus in February of 2009. At that point unemployment was at 7.7%. Their own charts showed that without the stimulus the unemployment rate would go above 8%. With it they claimed the unemployment rate would be at 7.5% in the 3rd quarter of 2010, in other words NOW. I can show you their charts.

With the stimulus unemployment has already gone to 10% and don't be fooled by the fact that the unemployment rate "remained" at 9.5%. That is because an additional 380K workers just gave up looking for work. They are not included in the unemployment number thus the numerator number used to calculate the rate is misleading because it is lower.

To put it another way the economy will have to generate 13 MILLION NEW private secotr jobs to get the unemployment rate to 6% by the end of 2013, that would be Obama's first year of his second term.

Feel that stimulus

 

[HALL85]

Now be careful, by using real facts and figures to demonstrate the failure of Obama's plan and promises, you will be labeled accordingly as a naysayer and racist!!!

 

[Merge]

Originally posted by HALL85:
Now be careful, by using real facts and figures to demonstrate the failure of Obama's plan and promises, you will be labeled accordingly as a naysayer and racist!!!

Not either one of those things... but lets leave out the name calling.

The only problem with michstfr's post that I see is that it is slightly intellectually dishonest. He (and a lot of people here) love to jump on the claims by Obama when he was selling the stimulus bill.

but.. we all know that when Obama was claiming that the stimulus would prevent 8% unemployment, we were already at 8.5% by March of 2009. Before 1 penny was spent. The situation was clearly much worse at the time than anticipated.

How can the conversation still be about the 8% idea? No one knew it was as bad as it was.

We can debate how the money was spent and if it did anything or not... but talking about the 8% claim does nothing.

 

[michstfr]

Uh sorry you are wrong. Christina Romer (who is resigning) and Jared Bernstein made this statement in January of 2009. See Paul Krugman's article.

The Stimulus was signed into law on February 17th 2009. The February unemployment rate which does not come out until March was 8.1%. OK I won't kill her for February but everything after that is on them. Again they promised 3rd quarter of this year it would be back down to 7.5%, everyone agrees it is headed for 10% if not greater.

More importantly let's say she made the statement at a time when the unemployment rate was 8.5%. So in essence you are calling her a moron. Because what kind of dope says something won't happen that already has. That is like saying Lakers won't win the 2009-2010 NBA title even after it already happened. So in addition to being the worst economic team in history, they are morons.

Originally posted by Merge:

Originally posted by HALL85:
Now be careful, by using real facts and figures to demonstrate the failure of Obama's plan and promises, you will be labeled accordingly as a naysayer and racist!!!

Not either one of those things... but lets leave out the name calling.

The only problem with michstfr's post that I see is that it is slightly intellectually dishonest. He (and a lot of people here) love to jump on the claims by Obama when he was selling the stimulus bill.

but.. we all know that when Obama was claiming that the stimulus would prevent 8% unemployment, we were already at 8.5% by March of 2009. Before 1 penny was spent. The situation was clearly much worse at the time than anticipated.

How can the conversation still be about the 8% idea? No one knew it was as bad as it was.

We can debate how the money was spent and if it did anything or not... but talking about the 8% claim does nothing.

Romer

 

[HALL85]

If holding leaders accountable for their decisions is wrong, then I am guilty as charged.

 

[Merge]

Originally posted by michstfr:
Uh sorry you are wrong. Christina Romer (who is resigning) and Jared Bernstein made this statement in January of 2009. See Paul Krugman's article.

The Stimulus was signed into law on February 17th 2009. The February unemployment rate which does not come out until March was 8.1%. OK I won't kill her for February but everything after that is on them. Again they promised 3rd quarter of this year it would be back down to 7.5%, everyone agrees it is headed for 10% if not greater.

More importantly let's say she made the statement at a time when the unemployment rate was 8.5%. So in essence you are calling her a moron. Because what kind of dope says something won't happen that already has. That is like saying Lakers won't win the 2009-2010 NBA title even after it already happened. So in addition to being the worst economic team in history, they are morons.

Originally posted by Merge:

Originally posted by HALL85:
Now be careful, by using real facts and figures to demonstrate the failure of Obama's plan and promises, you will be labeled accordingly as a naysayer and racist!!!

Not either one of those things... but lets leave out the name calling.

The only problem with michstfr's post that I see is that it is slightly intellectually dishonest. He (and a lot of people here) love to jump on the claims by Obama when he was selling the stimulus bill.

but.. we all know that when Obama was claiming that the stimulus would prevent 8% unemployment, we were already at 8.5% by March of 2009. Before 1 penny was spent. The situation was clearly much worse at the time than anticipated.

How can the conversation still be about the 8% idea? No one knew it was as bad as it was.

We can debate how the money was spent and if it did anything or not... but talking about the 8% claim does nothing.

My point is that people should really not get caught up on the 8% claims.

Again. It was over 8% before 1 penny was spent. No matter what Obama did, he would not have been able to prevent 8% from happening.

I am not claiming that anyone was a moron. February unemployment figures are not final until march. That is why they were wrong. They did not anticipate how bad it was going to be with and without the stimulus.

The real debate should be if the stimulus helped at all, and what else we could have done that would have improved the jobs situation.

 

[PiratePride]

Obama made the statement about 8% unemployent based on the best economic information he had at the time. If we hold Obama to the same standard that the left held Bush with regards to weapons of mass destrction when Bush made his decision based on the best intelligence he had at the time in Iraq....... then it's simple....Obama lied.

 

[Merge]

Originally posted by PiratePride:
Obama made the statement about 8% unemployent based on the best economic information he had at the time. If we hold Obama to the same standard that the left held Bush with regards to weapons of mass destrction when Bush made his decision based on the best intelligence he had at the time in Iraq....... then it's simple....Obama lied.

Yeah.. Those are similar things.

oy...

One glaring difference is that Obama would have still made the same decision if he knew the "truth".

 

[SPK145]

SO would have Bush.

Let's face it, Obama either lied or was too stupid to understand. Based on his numerous other lies, I'd say he's both.

 

[Merge]

Originally posted by SPK145:


SO would have Bush.

Let's face it, Obama either lied or was too stupid to understand. Based on his numerous other lies, I'd say he's both.

I would say lied.

Do you really think he could have won over public opinion by saying we need to prevent 12% unemployment?

It would have either
a) caused consumer panic which would worsen the situation, and people receiving the tax cut in their paychecks would have saved that $9 per week or whatever it was.

or b) Conservatives would have had a field day saying that Obama was trying to scare people just to say that he "fixed" the economy when it never reaches 12%.

I don't agree about Bush though. I don't believe he was that evil. I think he was manipulated and mislead.

 

[HALL85]

Originally posted by Merge:

Originally posted by SPK145:


SO would have Bush.

Let's face it, Obama either lied or was too stupid to understand. Based on his numerous other lies, I'd say he's both.

I would say lied.

Do you really think he could have won over public opinion by saying we need to prevent 12% unemployment?

It would have either
a) caused consumer panic which would worsen the situation, and people receiving the tax cut in their paychecks would have saved that $9 per week or whatever it was.

or b) Conservatives would have had a field day saying that Obama was trying to scare people just to say that he "fixed" the economy when it never reaches 12%.

I don't agree about Bush though. I don't believe he was that evil. I think he was manipulated and mislead.

Suggesting that things would get even worse before they got better would have likely provided more immediate support for the stimulus. Remember, BO swept into office, had an incredible groundswell of public support and a majority in Congress. No one was listening to Conservatives right after his inauguration. Instead of doing his homework and telling the truth, we now have a public that questions everything he does and as we approach the mid-term elections, he's essentially radioactive with Democratic candidates avoiding having him campaign for them because of his meteoric drop in the public opinion polls.

 

[michstfr]

Chase is now saying that the 2.4% 2nd quarter GDP, which is weak in itself, will be revised down to possibly 1.7%. Goldman is now projecting 2011 growth at 1-1.5% which is really weak. Not nearly enough to creat serious job growth.

Keep in mind we have had unprecendted fiscal and monetary intervention. UNPRECEDENTED. And these results are really mediocre.

Reagan inherited similar situation. the unemployment rate was over 10% in mid 1982. But Reagan did not impost unbelievable obstacles on the private sector( trillions in unpaid for "stimulus," a HUGE GOVERNMENT mandate in health care reform, and now new regulations). In fact Reagan did the opposite. He chose to take government off the backs. Cut the budget, cut marginal tax rates including the top tax rate from 70% to 28%. Cut the capital gains, cut the corporate tax. The result was the from the end of '82-thru'84 you had a remarkable growth recovery. GDP exploded to 7-9%. Took the unemployment rate down to 7% and change.

It is not simply a matter of time for the President, his policies are a freaking disaster. And we have not even gotten to the really bad parts of his so called health care reform.

Remember Clinton and the Democrats like to take credit for what happened during the 90's. Fine. Forgetting that the economy took off AFTER Republicans took Congress. But I remember what did NOT happen. ClintonCare did NOT happen. The stimulus did NOT happen. In other words specifically if ClintonCare happened don't think for second we have the economy we did in the mid to late 90'2. Not even close.

Originally posted by HALL85:

Originally posted by Merge:

Originally posted by SPK145:


SO would have Bush.

Let's face it, Obama either lied or was too stupid to understand. Based on his numerous other lies, I'd say he's both.

I would say lied.

Do you really think he could have won over public opinion by saying we need to prevent 12% unemployment?

It would have either
a) caused consumer panic which would worsen the situation, and people receiving the tax cut in their paychecks would have saved that $9 per week or whatever it was.

or b) Conservatives would have had a field day saying that Obama was trying to scare people just to say that he "fixed" the economy when it never reaches 12%.

I don't agree about Bush though. I don't believe he was that evil. I think he was manipulated and mislead.

Suggesting that things would get even worse before they got better would have likely provided more immediate support for the stimulus. Remember, BO swept into office, had an incredible groundswell of public support and a majority in Congress. No one was listening to Conservatives right after his inauguration. Instead of doing his homework and telling the truth, we now have a public that questions everything he does and as we approach the mid-term elections, he's essentially radioactive with Democratic candidates avoiding having him campaign for them because of his meteoric drop in the public opinion polls.

 

[Merge]

"In other words specifically if ClintonCare happened don't think for second we have the economy we did in the mid to late 90'2. Not even close."

ClintonCare would have prevented the technology boom? Not even close.
Ever wonder if ClintonCare did happen, maybe we would have been able to control the healthcare costs and spending per capita that? The economic boom would have been the best time to implement such a program.

Clinton's budget in 1993 raised taxes for the rich. That congress was not under republican control.

Newt Gingrich predicted that "The tax increase will kill jobs and lead to a recession, and the recession will force people off of work and onto unemployment and will actually increase the deficit."

That obviously did not happen. Clinton was correct in raising taxes.

 

[SPK145]

Newt was wrong there, and the economy grew at normal levels. The economy really start to take off after the 1997 tax cuts engineered by Newt and opposed by Clinton before he finally capitulated.

Tax Cuts Not Tax Hikes

 

[Merge]

Originally posted by SPK145:
Newt was wrong there, and the economy grew at normal levels. The economy really start to take off after the 1997 tax cuts engineered by Newt and opposed by Clinton before he finally capitulated.

Just over 3 years after the tax cuts we had the first quarter of negative growth in 10 years. Not a vacuum of course, but that report seemed a bit off. Solid steady growth should be our goal. Grow to fast and you the boom will eventually burst.

Lowering the capital gains tax 8 points is one of the reasons people jumped into and severely overinflated the market. A gradual decrease could have prevented that.
This post was edited on 8/11 2:24 PM by Merge

 

[SPK145]

Didn't that recession coincide with Bush I considering raising taxes which he then subsequently did in 1990?

Read my lips: No new taxes.

 

[Merge]

Originally posted by SPK145:
Didn't that recession coincide with Bush I considering raising taxes which he then subsequently did in 1990?

Read my lips: No new taxes.

I thought we were talking about the 93 tax increase, the 97 tax cut and then negative growth for the first quarter of 2001.

 

[SPK145]

Yeah, I got confused, it's my age.

There was no negative growth in GDP in any quarter in 2001. Very small growth in Q! 2001 but not negative.

 

[Merge]

Originally posted by SPK145:
Yeah, I got confused, it's my age.

There was no negative growth in GDP in any quarter in 2001. Very small growth in Q! 2001 but not negative.

I was using the inflation adjusted GDP.

In any case... It is hard to back up the claims on the boom being better than the steady growth from 93-97 when it ended up slowing significantly.

Link

 

[HALL85]

Obama Recovery: Now if there's a pretty obvious oxymoron.

 

[Mr. G]

Nagative groath?Have we all lost our collective minds?





w