FRIHOSTFORUMSSEARCHFAQTOSBLOGSCOMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


Employment situation improving under Obama





handfleisch


The good news this month reinforced the general trend of recovery during the Obama administration.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN0216568420100402
Quote:

Obama: U.S. starting to 'turn the corner' on jobs

CHARLOTTE, N.C., April 2 (Reuters) - President Barack Obama hailed new signs of an improving U.S. labor market on Friday as proof that "we are beginning to turn the corner" but warned it would still take time to achieve sustained job growth.

Seeking to maintain momentum after lawmakers approved his cornerstone healthcare overhaul, Obama shifted focus to tackling high unemployment, a problem threatening to damage his Democratic Party's prospects in November's pivotal congressional elections.

Obama spoke after a closely watched government employment report showed that non-farm payrolls grew in March, adding 162,000 jobs, the strongest signal yet that the economic recovery is moving onto a more solid footing.

"Today is an encouraging day. We learned that the economy actually produced a substantial number of jobs instead of losing a substantial number of jobs. We are beginning to turn the corner," Obama told workers at a battery components plant in North Carolina, a key battleground state he won in the 2008 presidential election.

While welcoming the latest report as the best jobs news in more than two years, he cautioned that there was more work to be done to boost employment, his top domestic priority.

"It's not quick and it's not easy," he said. "It's important to emphasize while we've come a long way, we've still got a long way to go."

This one has the last month's jump:
ocalhoun
Confused
I knew this would happen eventually.

A recession will always be a temporary thing, and when it ends, the people in power will of course take full credit for ending it.
Moonspider
That graph is a gross misrepresentation, if I may say so. Unemployment is still 9.7%. This is a graph of "jobs lost." I can make a graph of the square footage of timber lost in a house fire over time and in the last 10 minutes of a fire less square footage will burn than say an hour prior. The graph in fact would look very similar to this one. It starts small, peaks, and then burns itself out as the fuel disappears.

Does that make the house in better shape once the fire is out?

ADDED LATER: As an example of the graph's misleading nature, the unemployment rate in January 2009 (the low point of the graph) was 7.6%. The unemployment rate at the high point of the graph (March 2010) was 9.7%.

Respectfully,
M
deanhills
One thing is for certain. When companies have to cough up big time for health care insurance, eventually when the health care reform bill is implemented, that will have to mean less jobs as well as less quality jobs, as companies will have to factor in compulsory health insurance as part of the "cost of employment", including more staff that will be needed for "administration" in HR, to figure their way through the reams of legal points and forms upon forms that will have to be completed for various Federal and State Departments. When the health care reform bill takes money and resources out of circulation, and there is only that much money going around, it is a logical consequence that there will be less permanent employees around. We may find the quality of employment deteriorating too, as your larger companies will no doubt figure out how to work their way around by creating more temporary positions and part-time positions, rather than longer term ones. Your more wealthy employee, who is professional, and was getting very good health insurance anyway, will be OK, but it will be the vulnerable ones, the ones who have been featured in all the "sad" marketing stories, that will no doubt suffer the most.

I must say I am getting more than irritated with Obama's obvious marketing and presentation of the "facts", including stories of dying babies and families who are going bankrupt because of medical bills and interpreting data from polls and graphs for obvious effect. I still wonder who gets to foot the bill for the White House releases to the media, including the massive media campaign for selling the health care reform bill to the public. And Obama and Obama's White House Staff time that have been dedicated in abundance (courtesy of the tax payer) to the campaign for more than a year of his Presidency. I wonder how many media deals have been made that we don't even know about. And I am also beginning to wonder whether we are being spammed in this forum with long quotes from useless articles, and graphs, without real nitty gritty comment and discussion accompanying those quotes, graphs and polls.
handfleisch
Moonspider wrote:
That graph is a gross misrepresentation, if I may say so. Unemployment is still 9.7%. This is a graph of "jobs lost." I can make a graph of the square footage of timber lost in a house fire over time and in the last 10 minutes of a fire less square footage will burn than say an hour prior. The graph in fact would look very similar to this one. It starts small, peaks, and then burns itself out as the fuel disappears.

Does that make the house in better shape once the fire is out?

ADDED LATER: As an example of the graph's misleading nature, the unemployment rate in January 2009 (the low point of the graph) was 7.6%. The unemployment rate at the high point of the graph (March 2010) was 9.7%.

Respectfully,
M


Your "gross misrepresentation" charge seems pretty far off the mark. Job losses is one of the basic indicators used by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. If you are saying that it is just one indicator and other signs are bad, then of course you're right. But that isn't the same as grossly misrepresenting something.

Your allegory about the house doesn't quite work, since in your example the house is completely burned down at the end and so it "burns itself out as the fuel disappears", whereas with the economy and jobs there was and is still plenty of room for it to get worse -- and yet it didn't it, it reversed in this particular trend.
jmi256
handfleisch wrote:
Moonspider wrote:
That graph is a gross misrepresentation, if I may say so. Unemployment is still 9.7%. This is a graph of "jobs lost." I can make a graph of the square footage of timber lost in a house fire over time and in the last 10 minutes of a fire less square footage will burn than say an hour prior. The graph in fact would look very similar to this one. It starts small, peaks, and then burns itself out as the fuel disappears.

Does that make the house in better shape once the fire is out?

ADDED LATER: As an example of the graph's misleading nature, the unemployment rate in January 2009 (the low point of the graph) was 7.6%. The unemployment rate at the high point of the graph (March 2010) was 9.7%.

Respectfully,
M


Your "gross misrepresentation" charge seems pretty far off the mark. Job losses is one of the basic indicators used by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. If you are saying that it is just one indicator and other signs are bad, then of course you're right. But that isn't the same as grossly misrepresenting something.

Your allegory about the house doesn't quite work, since in your example the house is completely burned down at the end and so it "burns itself out as the fuel disappears", whereas with the economy and jobs there was and is still plenty of room for it to get worse -- and yet it didn't it, it reversed in this particular trend.


A doctored image from a blog that seems to have pulled a chart from Nancy Pelosi’s office doesn't seem like the best source. I’m sure she has no reason to misrepresent the numbers, but if you want the actual numbers, the Bureau of Labor and Statistics is the better source:


Source = http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet

As you can see the unemployment rate went up following the September 11th attacks and the hit the economy took after that period, but then started to decline through most of Bush's administration before a huge uptick leading up to the Obama presidency.
handfleisch
jmi256 wrote:

As you can see the unemployment rate went up following the September 11th attacks and the hit the economy took after that period, but then started to decline through most of Bush's administration before a huge uptick leading up to the Obama presidency.


Congratulations, you have outdone yourself. This phrasing is worthy of Glenn Beck or FOX News or maybe even Orwell -- maybe you should go pro. The huge uptick was "leading up to the Obama presidency"! Not during, presided over, caused by, or as a result of the economic crisis of Bush presidency. Nah, let's not mention the tragic mismanagement and failed policies of the GOP's eight years in office that got us into this mess.

Oh and on the graph it looks like the precipitous climb also leveled off after Obama was in office for a while -- couldn't be the stimulus package working, could it? Nah.


edited to add nice image
jmi256
handfleisch wrote:
jmi256 wrote:

As you can see the unemployment rate went up following the September 11th attacks and the hit the economy took after that period, but then started to decline through most of Bush's administration before a huge uptick leading up to the Obama presidency.


Congratulations, you have outdone yourself. This phrasing is worthy of Glenn Beck or FOX News or maybe even Orwell -- maybe you should go pro. The huge uptick was "leading up to the Obama presidency"! Not during, presided over, caused by, or as a result of the economic crisis of Bush presidency. Nah, let's not mention the tragic mismanagement and failed policies of the GOP's eight years in office that got us into this mess.

Oh and on the graph it looks like the precipitous climb also leveled off after Obama was in office for a while -- couldn't be the stimulus package working, could it? Nah.


Yet another personal attack. I’ll let the Bureau of Labor and Statistics chart speak for itself and leave you to your personal attacks. But I'm interested in your argument that unemployment rising to over 10% is a sign of "the stimulus package working." Care to support that argument or is that just another talking point? You've also made the claim that Bush created the economic "crisis" and basically have said that your opinion is true because 'everyone knows it' but have never supported that claim. Exactly how did Bush's policies create an economic crisis? I believe the housing bubble and the resulting financial mess that followed were the results of improper mortgages. People who should not have had mortgages (bad credit, no credit, no job, no/low income, etc.) were getting them and then defaulting. Are you saying somehow that's Bush's fault? Do you know something the rest of us don't?
handfleisch
jmi256 wrote:
handfleisch wrote:
jmi256 wrote:

As you can see the unemployment rate went up following the September 11th attacks and the hit the economy took after that period, but then started to decline through most of Bush's administration before a huge uptick leading up to the Obama presidency.


Congratulations, you have outdone yourself. This phrasing is worthy of Glenn Beck or FOX News or maybe even Orwell -- maybe you should go pro. The huge uptick was "leading up to the Obama presidency"! Not during, presided over, caused by, or as a result of the economic crisis of Bush presidency. Nah, let's not mention the tragic mismanagement and failed policies of the GOP's eight years in office that got us into this mess.

Oh and on the graph it looks like the precipitous climb also leveled off after Obama was in office for a while -- couldn't be the stimulus package working, could it? Nah.


Yet another personal attack. I’ll let the Bureau of Labor and Statistics chart speak for itself and leave you to your personal attacks. But I'm interested in your argument that unemployment rising to over 10% is a sign of "the stimulus package working." Care to support that argument or is that just another talking point? You've also made the claim that Bush created the economic "crisis" and basically have said that your opinion is true because 'everyone knows it' but have never supported that claim. Exactly how did Bush's policies create an economic crisis? I believe the housing bubble and the resulting financial mess that followed were the results of improper mortgages. People who should not have had mortgages (bad credit, no credit, no job, no/low income, etc.) were getting them and then defaulting. Are you saying somehow that's Bush's fault? Do you know something the rest of us don't?


LOL. Showing that you said something completely ridiculous is now a "personal attack"? Nice try. But don't worry about it, blaming Obama for Bush's disasters is par for the course, it just usually isn't done so openly.

Look at your graph. Look at the steep climb in unemployment that started under Bush during his near ruin of the US economy, and see how it has leveled off under Obama's influence and his recovery measures. Now project the steep climb into present if it had kept going the Bush way, up and up. We would already be at 20 percent unemployment if it had continued the same way with the GOP. Thank god it didn't and we're not. Of course it will take a long time to get it back down, the damage Bush did is so great.
ocalhoun
handfleisch wrote:
We would already be at 20 percent unemployment if it had continued the same way with the GOP.


Really?

Prove it.

Believe it or not, much of the recession is due to non-political causes- It's likely that nothing (reasonable) done in Washington could make it deviate much from its 'natural' course.
deanhills
I find these stats about unemployment really bizarre, and perhaps distorted depending on the party who reports the data. The one day the stats are supposed to be up for employment, about two days after there is a report of many more claims for unemployment benefits, concluding that the unemployment numbers are actually up and not down. Who are we to believe in all of this?
Quote:
Initial jobless claims increase unexpectedly
The number of newly laid-off workers seeking unemployment benefits rose last week, a sign that jobs remain scarce even as the economy recovers.

The Labor Department said Thursday that first-time claims increased by 18,000 in the week ending April 3, to a seasonally adjusted 460,000. That's worse than economists' estimates of a drop to 435,000, according to a survey by Thomson Reuters.

The report covers the week that includes the Easter holiday, and a Labor Department analyst said seasonal adjustment for Easter can be difficult since the holiday occurs in different weeks each year.

California also closed its state offices for a holiday March 31, the analyst said, which likely held down the claims figures. On an unadjusted basis, claims rose by 6,500 to nearly 415,000.

Economists closely watch unemployment claims, which are seen as a gauge of layoffs and a measure of companies' willingness to hire new workers.

The four week average, which smooths volatility, rose to 450,250. Two weeks ago, the average fell to its lowest level since September 2008, when Lehman Brothers collapsed and the financial crisis intensified.

Jobless claims peaked during the recession at 651,000 in late March 2009.

The figures underscore that the job market remains weak even as the economy recovers. Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke said Wednesday that high unemployment is one of the toughest challenges the economy faces.

While layoffs have slowed, hiring is "very weak," he said. "We are far from being out of the woods. Many Americans are still grappling with unemployment or foreclosure or both
."

Yahoo!News
ocalhoun
deanhills wrote:
I find these stats about unemployment really bizarre, and perhaps distorted depending on the party who reports the data. The one day the stats are supposed to be up for employment, about two days after there is a report of many more claims for unemployment benefits, concluding that the unemployment numbers are actually up and not down. Who are we to believe in all of this?

There are quite a lot of different employment stats that can be looked at... And of course anybody with a bias will look only at the ones that agree with them at the time.

To really understand, you need to look at the trend all of them are taking, both individually, or as a group, or if you don't have time for that, at least look at the trend for one specific statistic, the same one every time.
deanhills
ocalhoun wrote:
deanhills wrote:
I find these stats about unemployment really bizarre, and perhaps distorted depending on the party who reports the data. The one day the stats are supposed to be up for employment, about two days after there is a report of many more claims for unemployment benefits, concluding that the unemployment numbers are actually up and not down. Who are we to believe in all of this?

There are quite a lot of different employment stats that can be looked at... And of course anybody with a bias will look only at the ones that agree with them at the time.

To really understand, you need to look at the trend all of them are taking, both individually, or as a group, or if you don't have time for that, at least look at the trend for one specific statistic, the same one every time.
The bottomline I am getting is that people aren't really hiring, and if they do hire, it is more like seasonal or part-time employment. For example, someone may have been hired for part temp work, but still needs unemployment benefits. Anyway, I don't understand why people think that the economy should be rebounding, the economy has just been through its worst disaster in decades. The Banks seem to have recovered within months, thanks to Obama, but no thanks to Obama, the Banks have not been as generous to its customers, especially the small business ones, in bailing them out in return.
Alaskacameradude
Well there IS the fact that a whole bunch of (temporary) census workers were just hired that will
make things look a LITTLE better. Still, 9.7% unemployment is nothing to sneeze at, and Obama's
party will see the impacts of this in November.....mark my words.
liljp617
deanhills wrote:
ocalhoun wrote:
deanhills wrote:
I find these stats about unemployment really bizarre, and perhaps distorted depending on the party who reports the data. The one day the stats are supposed to be up for employment, about two days after there is a report of many more claims for unemployment benefits, concluding that the unemployment numbers are actually up and not down. Who are we to believe in all of this?

There are quite a lot of different employment stats that can be looked at... And of course anybody with a bias will look only at the ones that agree with them at the time.

To really understand, you need to look at the trend all of them are taking, both individually, or as a group, or if you don't have time for that, at least look at the trend for one specific statistic, the same one every time.
The bottomline I am getting is that people aren't really hiring, and if they do hire, it is more like seasonal or part-time employment. For example, someone may have been hired for part temp work, but still needs unemployment benefits. Anyway, I don't understand why people think that the economy should be rebounding, the economy has just been through its worst disaster in decades. The Banks seem to have recovered within months, thanks to Obama, but no thanks to Obama, the Banks have not been as generous to its customers, especially the small business ones, in bailing them out in return.


What would you like to happen? If the money from the "bailouts" is released into the economy in large portions and unemployment decreases, fairly significant inflation is likely to arise. Who's shoulders does the inflation get put on? Ah, the same people who are being pressured to increase employment. It's always a fun game.
Moonspider
handfleisch wrote:
Moonspider wrote:
That graph is a gross misrepresentation, if I may say so. Unemployment is still 9.7%. This is a graph of "jobs lost." I can make a graph of the square footage of timber lost in a house fire over time and in the last 10 minutes of a fire less square footage will burn than say an hour prior. The graph in fact would look very similar to this one. It starts small, peaks, and then burns itself out as the fuel disappears.

Does that make the house in better shape once the fire is out?

ADDED LATER: As an example of the graph's misleading nature, the unemployment rate in January 2009 (the low point of the graph) was 7.6%. The unemployment rate at the high point of the graph (March 2010) was 9.7%.

Respectfully,
M


Your "gross misrepresentation" charge seems pretty far off the mark. Job losses is one of the basic indicators used by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. If you are saying that it is just one indicator and other signs are bad, then of course you're right. But that isn't the same as grossly misrepresenting something.


You misunderstood my point. I don't dispute the data or the graph's representation of the data whatsoever. However the graphical presentation of the data conveys are far more positive impression of U.S. employment than exists. Therefore the graph grossly misrepresents national employment and the economy.

As Taiichi Ohno said, "Data is of course important, but I place greater emphasis on facts."

Yes, job loss is tapering off. However people are not getting rehired at the same rate. The graph accurately represents the job loss data, but not employment. The data is right, but it does not reflect the facts. The difference between January 2009 and March 2010 in the graph is more than 300%. However far more Americans were unemployed in March 2010 than in January 2009.

I'm not saying that the economy may not be improving. We won't know when the recession ended/ends until probably a year after it does/did so.

handfleisch wrote:
Your allegory about the house doesn't quite work, since in your example the house is completely burned down at the end and so it "burns itself out as the fuel disappears", whereas with the economy and jobs there was and is still plenty of room for it to get worse -- and yet it didn't it, it reversed in this particular trend.


I respectfully disagree. Employment reaches a balance. It can't completely go to 100% unemployment. The bottom is the balance. That's the equivalent of the house being fully consumed. Once the balance (or unemployment bottom) is reached, it can't go higher unless the economy gets worse. President Obama himself stated that it could go as high as 10% (if we didn't pass the stimulus package, but that's neither here nor there). Thus I assume his economic advisors expected unemployment to bottom out in that region. Which is where we find oursevleves today at 9.7%. As we approached the balance one would expect job losses to taper off.

Respectfully,
M
deanhills
liljp617 wrote:
What would you like to happen? If the money from the "bailouts" is released into the economy in large portions and unemployment decreases, fairly significant inflation is likely to arise. Who's shoulders does the inflation get put on? Ah, the same people who are being pressured to increase employment. It's always a fun game.
I would have preferred the bailout money (if it is to be paid back) to be put towards decreasing the huge debt the US has and for which it is presently paying at higher rates because of the lower value of the US dollar. Bottomline, usually when the cost of the repayments of your debt have increased, priority should be in curbing costs and putting any spare cash towards getting that debt down.
handfleisch
The latest
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/22/business/economy/22jobs.html?ref=us
Quote:
Jobless Rates Decline in 34 States in April
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: May 21, 2010


WASHINGTON (AP) — Unemployment rates fell in a majority of states last month as improved economic conditions spurred hiring.

The Labor Department said Friday that 34 states and the District of Columbia reported lower jobless rates in April. Six states reported higher rates, while unemployment held steady in 10.

That was an improvement from March when 16 states and the District of Columbia reported declines in unemployment, 22 states had increases and 12 had no change, according to revised figures.

South Carolina’s rate fell to 11.6 percent in April, from 12.2 percent in March. That was the largest monthly drop of any state.

After cutting their work forces during the recession, companies are starting to increase hiring as their sales and profits improve.

Nationwide, employers added a net 290,000 job in April, the most in four years, the department reported earlier this month. The unemployment rate in the United States, though, rose to 9.9 percent as hundreds of thousands of job hunters — feeling more confident about their prospects — resumed or started searches.
deanhills
@ Handfleisch. I'm a little perplexed. The overall US unemployment percentage for April 2010 was up, not down. So one has to question the motivation of the article. According to the US Department of Labour the picture looks different to what the article wants us to believe:
handfleisch
deanhills wrote:
@ Handfleisch. I'm a little perplexed. The overall US unemployment percentage for April 2010 was up, not down. So one has to question the motivation of the article. According to the


Question the motivation of the article? No, you just have to read it. It says that due to the improving conditions, people who had given up looking for employment are now returning to the market, which causes the unemployment level to rise. It's obviously not a simple picture, but the fact is, the number of jobs created is going up in a majority of states, which is good news.
deanhills
handfleisch wrote:
Question the motivation of the article? No, you just have to read it. It says that due to the improving conditions, people who had given up looking for employment are now returning to the market, which causes the unemployment level to rise. It's obviously not a simple picture, but the fact is, the number of jobs created is going up in a majority of states, which is good news.
Well, logic says that if it is going up in a majority of states, then it has to be going down seriously in a minority of states, as the percentage of employment in overall for April was up and not down. It is almost back at its highest level of 10%.
liljp617
Razz Love people who tie generic economic occurrences to the President...
handfleisch
liljp617 wrote:
:P Love people who tie generic economic occurrences to the President...

Love glib broadsides and intellectual use of smilies
ocalhoun
handfleisch wrote:
liljp617 wrote:
Razz Love people who tie generic economic occurrences to the President...

Love glib broadsides and intellectual use of smilies


He does have a valid point.
(Similar to a point I brought up earlier)
Much of this isn't related to the actions of any politician.
The executives in charge of large corporations -- as well as consumers themselves -- have a much larger effect on economic situations than politicians usually do.
Voodoocat
Quote:
Much of this isn't related to the actions of any politician.


I disagree with you. While the economy is certainly extremely difficult to move, given an adequate amount of leverage it can be done. I believe that adding trillions to the national debt and handcuffing our future with expensive healthcare entitlements are large enough levers to affect the econony in a dangerously negative fashion.

Politicians voted to spend the trillions.

There is no escaping the arguement that the economy would be better off without the burden of trillions in additional spending.
MYP415
The real unemployment rate is above 10% still- there is nothing to brag about. And the whole comparison between administrations doesn't work considering that the actions taken before and after their time in office as well as what the Fed does has an immense impact on employment. For example, the Fed's loose monetary policy and Washington's reluctance on increasing home ownership (which was fueled by a Democrat movement over 2 decades ago which led to the extreme growth in Fannie/Freddie) arguably played a much bigger role than Bush's policies did in fueling the housing bubble, which would lead to all this unemployment.

Besides, some of Obama's strategies at tackling unemployment have been proven to not actually help- even most Democrats with econ backgrounds will admit it. A glaring example is extending unemployment insurance, which always leads to higher unemployment than without it.
Voodoocat
The title of this thread is a lie: the job market is going nowhere despite trillions spent by the current administration.

Quote:

Jun 7, 6:20 AM (ET)

By GREG KELLER

PARIS (AP) - World stock markets tumbled Monday and the euro hit a new four-year low in the wake of poor U.S. jobs figures and amid fresh fears that the debt crisis that began in Greece is spreading to Hungary.


Quote:

On Friday, stocks were hit by disappointing U.S. jobs data. A government report showed the U.S. economy created 432,000 jobs in May, far fewer than the expected 513,000. Most of the jobs were temporary hiring by the government for the U.S. census.


Let's be honest: Obama's economic policies have been an abject failure.

Source: http://apnews.myway.com/article/20100607/D9G6CFV00.html
handfleisch
Voodoocat wrote:

Let's be honest: Obama's economic policies have been an abject failure.

Source: http://apnews.myway.com/article/20100607/D9G6CFV00.html


Perfect example of the Hope-to-Fail crowd. They hope for any disaster or bad news for the USA that can be blamed on Obama. Thank god they are in the minority
Voodoocat
Quote:
Perfect example of the Hope-to-Fail crowd. They hope for any disaster or bad news for the USA that can be blamed on Obama. Thank god they are in the minority


I'm confused. My information came from an AP news feed. Are you insinuating that the AP news feed is a Hope-to-Fail crowd? How is stating an opinion backed by facts from the AP news feed hoping for disaster? The news feed itself reported that part of the world stock market tumble was due to the poor job figures. I did not make it up.
handfleisch
Voodoocat wrote:
Quote:
Perfect example of the Hope-to-Fail crowd. They hope for any disaster or bad news for the USA that can be blamed on Obama. Thank god they are in the minority


I'm confused. My information came from an AP news feed. Are you insinuating that the AP news feed is a Hope-to-Fail crowd? How is stating an opinion backed by facts from the AP news feed hoping for disaster? The news feed itself reported that part of the world stock market tumble was due to the poor job figures. I did not make it up.


Shielding yourself with the AP article won't make your far-out opinion seem any more reasonable. When I talk about hope-to-fail (started by Rush Limbaugh and his proud proclamation of the same), I am talking about the glee you have in calling Obama's policies an "abject failure". The hope-to-failers obviously are thrilled to heck to have such an opinion, and the worse the news, the happier they are. They'd love to see the country go down the toilet if they could somehow blame Obama. They refuse to admit the basic reality of the situation -- that Obama's measures have been basic sound macroeconomics which probably saved the country from a depression, and that recovering from the Bush years might take years, that the massive damage done might be semi-permanent.
ocalhoun
handfleisch wrote:
-- that Obama's measures have been basic sound macroeconomics which probably saved the country from a depression,

Maybe... (It really isn't possible to tell if it worked, or if the recession leveled off naturally.)

But even if entirely successful, all they did was spread the depression out more thinly over a longer time period --- that stimulus will have to be paid for eventually, and paying that debt will take money out of the economy without creating any jobs.
Bikerman
It isn't a zero sum gain though.
Debt incurs interest at compound - the longer the timescale the greater the eventual payback.
ocalhoun
Bikerman wrote:
It isn't a zero sum gain though.
Debt incurs interest at compound - the longer the timescale the greater the eventual payback.

True; when you adjust for loan interest, the spread-out effect is worse overall.

But alas, the short-sighted will always choose what benefits today without considering tomorrow.
Voodoocat
Quote:
that Obama's measures have been basic sound macroeconomics which probably saved the country from a depression


Sigh. You can believe what you want, but so far I have provided sources to back up my opinions. Here are some more: a recent CNN survey of economists indicates that economists believe that Obama's stimulus plan has had very little impact on unemployment, and the former Director of the Congressional Budge office agrees. These experts directly contradict your statement. Don't argue with me, argue with the sources.

Quote:
NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- The recovery is picking up steam as employers boost payrolls, but economists think the government's stimulus package and jobs bill had little to do with the rebound, according to a survey released Monday

Source: http://money.cnn.com/2010/04/26/news/economy/NABE_survey/

Quote:
Nearly 100 prominent U.S. economists including former CBO Director Douglas Holtz-Eakin, Ohio University’s Richard Vedder, and James C. Miller, III, who headed up the White House Office of Management and Budget under Ronald Reagan, are telling President Barack Obama that his economic stimulus has failed and that “immediate action is needed to rein in federal spending.

Source: http://www.usnews.com/blogs/peter-roff/2010/06/10/economists-stimulus-not-working-obama-must-rein-in-spending.html
handfleisch
Voodoocat wrote:
Quote:
that Obama's measures have been basic sound macroeconomics which probably saved the country from a depression


Sigh. You can believe what you want, but so far I have provided sources to back up my opinions.


You should take a look at your own source -- and CNN should have done their homework with their misleading article (conservative bias in the MSM?). The blog I won't waste my time on.

The CNN article is about a survey done by a single organization for its own members, not economists in general. I looked up a few of their members and got the usual libertarian/right wing welfare and propaganda machine. People who get paid by fringe organizations like the Heartland Institute, "promoting free market solutions" with Ayn Rand on their masthead, and the CATO institute, the infamous think tank that gets corporate million$ to promote extremist and rather insane economic ideas (privatizing social security, abolishing state support for poverty relief). Insane for anyone but the mega-rich, of course.

So a small organization dedicated to free market solutions and filled with libertarians surveyed themselves! It's no surprise most of those 68 members say the stimulus package isn't working. They are ideologically opposed to ever admitting the viability of anything but free market solutions (that is, the same things like wild deregulation that helped get us into this mess).

Don't be fooled -- that survey was just more corporate-funded PR designed to make it easier for the powerful and wealthy to get even more powerful and wealthy on the backs of those struggling to get by.
deanhills
handfleisch wrote:
Shielding yourself with the AP article won't make your far-out opinion seem any more reasonable. When I talk about hope-to-fail (started by Rush Limbaugh and his proud proclamation of the same), I am talking about the glee you have in calling Obama's policies an "abject failure". The hope-to-failers obviously are thrilled to heck to have such an opinion, and the worse the news, the happier they are. They'd love to see the country go down the toilet if they could somehow blame Obama. They refuse to admit the basic reality of the situation -- that Obama's measures have been basic sound macroeconomics which probably saved the country from a depression, and that recovering from the Bush years might take years, that the massive damage done might be semi-permanent.
So I guess then that being a patriot, you did not hope for Bush to fail, while he was President? You hoped he would succeed? It is OK to talk about "abject failure" when you are referring to Bush, but not to Obama? If it is Obama, a person is lacking in patriotism, if it is Bush, then it is patriotic to criticize?
Bikerman
I'm staying out of the discussion on Obama because I don't have enough data.
I do have enough on Bush to question his patriotism though.
a) Dodged active combat in Vietnam by getting daddy to enrol him in a mickey-mouse national guard program - and even went missing from that sinecure. Not the act of someone who puts his country first.
b) A number of very questionably business dealings with various saudi royals which were certainly not in the US interest and arguably actually damaging to those interests.
c) Many unresolved questions about 10/11 (such as why the Bin Laden family members were spirited out of the US by plane when there was supposed to be a no-fly ban - could it be that GW did not want his friends to be speaking to investigators and dropping him in it? And please don't think that I'm a conspiracy theorist alleging that Bush was in on 9/11 - I don't believe that for a moment. I do believe that he had very close dealings with the Bin Laden family - that is not actually a belief, since it is well documented). The allegation is not that he had something to do with 9/11 - the allegation is that he hindered the due process afterward.

This is also the man who agreed with Daddy that atheists are not proper US citizens and certainly not patriots - hypocrite.
Voodoocat
Quote:
and CNN should have done their homework with their misleading article


Are you suggesting that you are a better fact checker than CNN? I am stunned by your hubris.

Notice that I referred to two sources, both in agreement. Are both wrong? Do you know more about the economy than a former Director of the Congressional Budget office?

If you are still in doubt, here is a quote in the Wall Street Journal (maybe someone wishes to criticize their fact checking?) from a famous economist: Arthur Laffler:

Quote:
The result will be a crash in tax receipts once the surge is past. If you thought deficits and unemployment have been bad lately, you ain't seen nothing yet.

Source:http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704113504575264513748386610.html?mod=WSJ_latestheadlines
ocalhoun
handfleisch wrote:
extremist and rather insane economic ideas (privatizing social security, abolishing state support for poverty relief). Insane for anyone but the mega-rich, of course.

Insane and extremist, eh?

There's actually a very good argument for it:
These programs were started as a 'war on poverty'...
But, if it is a war, we're loosing badly, despite the enormous amount of resources and time we have devoted to it.
One might take this as evidence that we need a different strategy, hm?
handfleisch
Voodoocat wrote:
Quote:
and CNN should have done their homework with their misleading article


Are you suggesting that you are a better fact checker than CNN? I am stunned by your hubris.

Notice that I referred to two sources, both in agreement. Are both wrong? Do you know more about the economy than a former Director of the Congressional Budget office?

If you are still in doubt, here is a quote in the Wall Street Journal (maybe someone wishes to criticize their fact checking?) from a famous economist: Arthur Laffler:

Quote:
The result will be a crash in tax receipts once the surge is past. If you thought deficits and unemployment have been bad lately, you ain't seen nothing yet.

Source:http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704113504575264513748386610.html?mod=WSJ_latestheadlines


You seem unable to judge a claim on its merits. I have pointed out that your sources are not at all what you represent them to be, and even if they were, they wouldn't support your wild claim that Obama's economic policies are an "abject failure". I don't see any reason to repeat myself if you are unable to understand, but here it goes anyway.

People won't be at all convinced by your arguments if you persist saying something is what it is not. A survey by a small organization of its own members that are so-called economists, who happen to represent a fringe group, doesn't prove anything except that the group has members that support its world views. Don't you get that?

Your second source was a letter presented by the head of the Republican party listing a self-selected group of economists that represent the Republican opinion. Do you understand that because of they way it was presented (by a Republican ideologue), and because there are thousands and thousands of economists in the country, this letter represents very little but one manufactured opinion at best and a partisan whine at worst?

Now you are quoting an opinion piece by Arthur Laffer, the economist who let his theories be used by the Reagan administration to cut taxes, and there ended up being huge deficits. So what? Laffer's been caught lying in his latest round of attention-seeking and Obama-bashing, by the way. See http://mediamatters.org/research/201006100004 "Laffer continues to mislead on 2011 tax changes"

The huge number of economists in favor of Obama's stimulus package knew it was designed to keep the economic crisis from deepening and turning into a depression. It worked. Deal with it.
deanhills
handfleisch wrote:
The huge number of economists in favor of Obama's stimulus package knew it was designed to keep the economic crisis from deepening and turning into a depression. It worked. Deal with it.
I can't understand how you can say it has worked. Throwing money at the economy has worked for one year, but shouldn't you give it another year, when there is no more money available to throw around, to see whether the economy has indeed recovered? As far as I can see no one, especially those big Banks responsible for the depth of the recession have buckled up, and the party is still continuing. Everyone is getting tax rebates, yet soon that will have to stop as well, it is obvious it can't last indefinitely. I think it is only when that happens when one will be able to assess whether the economy has recovered. I can't see how it will have. If you try and solve a problem with exactly the same methods that were in place when the economy started to fail, then it is obvious that everything will revert back to the original problem, once the bail-out money has been absorbed everywhere, which as far as I can see has been mostly in the Stock Exchanges via the Banks.
Alaskacameradude
Really, it worked? What is the unemployment rate again? And if you think it's bad now, just wait
until the temporary census workers go off the books. It's staying awfully close to 10% and
because of that, the Dems are going to get killed in the November elections. Deal with it.
deanhills
Alaskacameradude wrote:
Really, it worked? What is the unemployment rate again? And if you think it's bad now, just wait
until the temporary census workers go off the books. It's staying awfully close to 10% and
because of that, the Dems are going to get killed in the November elections. Deal with it.
Right, and it will be interesting to see what the contibution in unemployment will be from the Gulf area, particularly Louisiana.
handfleisch
deanhills wrote:
Alaskacameradude wrote:
Really, it worked? What is the unemployment rate again? And if you think it's bad now, just wait
until the temporary census workers go off the books. It's staying awfully close to 10% and
because of that, the Dems are going to get killed in the November elections. Deal with it.
Right, and it will be interesting to see what the contibution in unemployment will be from the Gulf area, particularly Louisiana.

Yeah unemployment in Louisiana due to the BP oil spill will also be blamed on Obama by the wingnuts
jmi256
deanhills wrote:
Alaskacameradude wrote:
Really, it worked? What is the unemployment rate again? And if you think it's bad now, just wait
until the temporary census workers go off the books. It's staying awfully close to 10% and
because of that, the Dems are going to get killed in the November elections. Deal with it.
Right, and it will be interesting to see what the contibution in unemployment will be from the Gulf area, particularly Louisiana.


It’s going to be tough for Louisiana. Thanks to disaster and the horrible federal response, an entire industry has basically been wiped out for the foreseeable future. I feel really bad for these people because their skills are specialized within that area, and it’s not like they can pull up stakes and look for work elsewhere. And I heard tourism is down 25% in Florida, which counts on that industry for many of its jobs. It’s all a very bad situation.
handfleisch
jmi256 wrote:
deanhills wrote:
Alaskacameradude wrote:
Really, it worked? What is the unemployment rate again? And if you think it's bad now, just wait
until the temporary census workers go off the books. It's staying awfully close to 10% and
because of that, the Dems are going to get killed in the November elections. Deal with it.
Right, and it will be interesting to see what the contibution in unemployment will be from the Gulf area, particularly Louisiana.


It’s going to be tough for Louisiana. Thanks to disaster and the horrible federal response, an entire industry has basically been wiped out for the foreseeable future. I feel really bad for these people because their skills are specialized within that area, and it’s not like they can pull up stakes and look for work elsewhere. And I heard tourism is down 25% in Florida, which counts on that industry for many of its jobs. It’s all a very bad situation.


Yeah a bad situation being used by Obama-haters to gleefully score the most cynical political points possible. You'll be crowing about BP oil spill unemployment and blaming it on Obama. It's sick the way rightwingers love any tragedy they can somehow blame on the US president, while remaining silent about the reckless behaviour of BP that led to this, the need for enforced regulations on offshore drilling and the emergency necessity of starting an strong alternative energy and public transportation program in the USA
Alaskacameradude
Quote:

Yeah a bad situation being used by Obama-haters to gleefully score the most cynical political points possible. You'll be crowing about BP oil spill unemployment and blaming it on Obama. It's sick the way rightwingers love any tragedy they can somehow blame on the US president, while remaining silent about the reckless behaviour of BP that led to this, the need for enforced regulations on offshore drilling and the emergency necessity of starting an strong alternative energy and public transportation program in the USA


Well, as the president of the entire US, MAYBE he should have enforced some regulations on BP.
Believe it or not, I am NOT against making sure our environment is kept safe. I wouldn't necessarily
BAN all drilling, but putting strict regulations in place and ending the 'cozy' relationship a certain
department had with the oil industry might have been a good start.

But of course, in this tragedy (as with most) there is plenty of blame to go around. But I'd
really like it if everyone would quit assigning blame! To the right side of the aisle, quit placing
all the blame on Obama. To Obama, quit blaming BP and calling for their 'ass' Everyone
just focus on fixing the problem, and then we can all worry about figuring out whose fault
everything is AFTER we fix it and help the people in the area! It's just a waste of time and
energy to worry about blame right now,....time and energy put to better use actually dealing
with the problem.
Bikerman
I think it is relatively easy to apportion blame. It would be something like:
45% Bush/Cheney administration for manufacturing the climate and conditions where this was almost inevitable.
45% BP for exploiting that climate to the max, despite being well aware of the high-risk nature of drilling that deep.
10% Obama administration for concentrating too much on silly macho talk and, despite the shortness of time and the amount of other things needing doing, for not doing anything to reverse the Bush/Cheney agreements with the oil companies...

We can argue a few percent here and there, but that is where I see the general picture.
Not, of course, that it solves anything. What Obama should be doing now is lining up a hard-assed administrator to head up the re-negotiating of drilling agreements, regulation of off-shore rigs and a proper independant regulator/watchdog/inspection regime - probably with a large input from health and safety, environment and risk analysis experts..
jmi256
Bikerman wrote:
I think it is relatively easy to apportion blame. It would be something like:
45% Bush/Cheney administration for manufacturing the climate and conditions where this was almost inevitable.
45% BP for exploiting that climate to the max, despite being well aware of the high-risk nature of drilling that deep.
10% Obama administration for concentrating too much on silly macho talk and, despite the shortness of time and the amount of other things needing doing, for not doing anything to reverse the Bush/Cheney agreements with the oil companies...

We can argue a few percent here and there, but that is where I see the general picture.
Not, of course, that it solves anything. What Obama should be doing now is lining up a hard-assed administrator to head up the re-negotiating of drilling agreements, regulation of off-shore rigs and a proper independant regulator/watchdog/inspection regime - probably with a large input from health and safety, environment and risk analysis experts..



Your numbers seem to work, but only if you live in an alternative universe where Bush was elected for a third term instead of Obama being president for the last year and a half with full power to change federal policy and executive orders. But I do agree that Obama needs to do something. First should be working on the federal cleanup efforts instead of making speeches and sandcastles. Then he should focus on modifying safer regulations that will allow the country to satisfy its energy needs without an economic slowdown.
deanhills
Alaskacameradude wrote:
But of course, in this tragedy (as with most) there is plenty of blame to go around. But I'd
really like it if everyone would quit assigning blame! To the right side of the aisle, quit placing
all the blame on Obama. To Obama, quit blaming BP and calling for their 'ass' Everyone
just focus on fixing the problem, and then we can all worry about figuring out whose fault
everything is AFTER we fix it and help the people in the area! It's just a waste of time and
energy to worry about blame right now,....time and energy put to better use actually dealing
with the problem.

Applause Excellent point. If everyone had rallied together, instead of looking after their own interest only, they would have been much further down the road in finding solutions. If Obama had taken responsibility for the situation in saying there is a problem, let's solve the problem, rather than blaming people then that would have worked better, and preferably on Day one not during the second month after the rig had been spewing oil.
Voodoocat
Employment is not getting better. It's time for Obama to man up and admit that his policies are not working.

Quote:
The Labor Department said Thursday that new claims for jobless benefits jumped by 13,000 to a seasonally adjusted 472,000. The four-week average, which smooths fluctuations, rose by 3,250 to 466,500, its highest level since March.



http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gNiyJ905Ho0Ur96V2TQhsBX19lGwD9GM9NHG0
Alaskacameradude
Quote:
Employment is not getting better. It's time for Obama to man up and admit that his policies are not working.


Hahaha.......I'd say there's about a...umm....let's say ZERO percent chance of that ever
happening. Much more likely that it is all somehow Bush's fault.
app893
that would be the very good news for world econemy.
handfleisch
Alaskacameradude wrote:
Voodookitty wrote:
Employment is not getting better. It's time for Obama to man up and admit that his policies are not working.


Hahaha.......I'd say there's about a...umm....let's say ZERO percent chance of that ever
happening. Much more likely that it is all somehow Bush's fault.


Could either of you "man up" and tell us your simple solutions to reducing unemployment? Could either of you name the Republican proposals for the same?

I don't think so because there aren't any. You're just part of the Hope to Fail crowd, ignoring how Obama stabilized the economy and managed the recovery quite well, and how getting unemployment down is going to be a hard job. There are no easy solutions, no matter what the haters say. That's why we gotta give credit where it's due.
Bikerman
I can give you the Tory 'remedy' from the UK (it hasn't been implemented as they promised, because they had to form a coalition with the much more left-wing Liberal-democrats and this has resulted in much watering down, but I am familiar with the manifesto committments).
1) Slash the public sector. We are looking at 25% reduction - and remember that this is the watered down version. The idea is to reduce government spending by getting rid of substantial numbers of public-service workers and cutting back on the range and scope of services offered by local government.
2) Keep taxes low, but if any tax has to rise then it should be regressive taxation (ie taxation which affects everyone more or less equally) - over here that would be income tax and VAT. Your equivalent would, I believe, be Sales Tax, though it is different in a couple of important ways (in the UK every business (other than tiny one-man outfits with a gross turnover of no more than £70,000) and customer pays VAT. Some items are exempt - most basic foodstuffs, children's clothes and entertainment (lottery, sports clubs etc). The rest carries a 17.5% tax. This will be going up to 20% from January. This was the first major austerity measure in the recent budget. That is a HUGE tax rise. Also announced were the preliminary budget cut-backs for the major departments of state - defence, social security, health, education etc. An average 25% cut. Take into consideration that health has been ringfenced (ie no cut) and that means that some departments will be facing up to 40% cuts. That is massive. Preliminary work by the audit office shows that this will cost about 1.3 million jobs to be lost in the next 4 years.

At first glance it seems sensible - typical monetarist answer to recession - cut back and ride it out. The problem is that the high levels of unemployment that this generates (and be under no illusions - any monetarist solution will involve even higher levels of unemployment - that is simply a given) lead to a loss in consumer confidence which, in turn, leads to people saving and not spending.
It is ironic that capitalists often bemoan the fact that saving in the west is almost non-existent. They lecture about people being feckless because they don't put money aside for a rainy day. Sheer hypocritical cant. In any capitalist economy saving has to be discouraged. When people hang-on to money it slows growth, reduces the amount available for investment and generally acts as a brake on the whole economy. Keynes watched this happen during the great depression. It is a vicious cycle.

Unemployment -> loss of consumer confidence -> reduced spending -> contraction of the economy -> increase in unemployment : and round we go again....

This is the gamble that the right-wing solution offers - they gamble that the market will sort things out and until it does the best thing to do is reign all government spending in and wait it out.
Keynsians argue that you should actually increase government spending to reduce the amount of confidence lost and thus keep the economy ticking over, ready for recovery - at which point you pull-back the deficit because the economy can then look after itself.

So that is the choice folks. All this talk about unemployment going up under Obama misses the central and rather bleedin obvious fact that without extra Goverment deficit spending unemployment MUST rise faster - there is only so much money to pay so many people and if you reduce the amount of money you reduce the amount of people. Cutting wages works to a point - but that itself also leads to less spending which leads to .......

(You can, of course, argue that the money could be more effectively spend in this way rather than that way - but that is not a right-left argument because the right-wing monetarist solution is to not spend the money at all).
silverdown
well less ppl scream im looking for a job ill beleive it....
deanhills
Bikerman wrote:
So that is the choice folks. All this talk about unemployment going up under Obama misses the central and rather bleedin obvious fact that without extra Goverment deficit spending unemployment MUST rise faster - there is only so much money to pay so many people and if you reduce the amount of money you reduce the amount of people. Cutting wages works to a point - but that itself also leads to less spending which leads to .......
But here's the problem, did Obama not spend 1-trillion dollars to revive the economy? Where did that money go? How many jobs were created? Did his stimulus package come up with the 3 million jobs he promised?

Traditionally the private sector has always been more productive, more efficient, and showed greater skills and entrepreneurship than Government. So if we do staff cuts, do we do it on the private sector side or on the public sector side? For me it would be wiser not for Government to interfere with the economy, not to have employed a stimulus package, as all that stimulus package did was to take income from the private sector side to Government, which is not as good as the private sector in managing money.

Perhaps a better way of stimulating the economy would have been tax cuts across the board to the exact equivalent of the 1-trillion dollars that had been given to Obama.
Bikerman
[quote="deanhills"]
Quote:
Traditionally the private sector has always been more productive, more efficient, and showed greater skills and entrepreneurship than Government. So if we do staff cuts, do we do it on the private sector side or on the public sector side? For me it would be wiser not for Government to interfere with the economy, not to have employed a stimulus package, as all that stimulus package did was to take income from the private sector side to Government, which is not as good as the private sector in managing money.
The first sentence is 'common knowledge' which is usually neither. The truth is that it depends on who is judging. Productivity means doing more with less, it doesn't mean delivering a good product. The same applies to efficiency (in fact they mean the same thing in this context). The private sector were the ones who managed to get us into this financial crisis in the first place, not the government.
Efficiency is always held to be virtuous but I have never quite understood why. If you have a population of x doing an amount of work y and you then decide to do y with only 1/2 x then you have doubled productivity/efficiency but you have half the population in misery. Is that a good thing (even is we assume that y is being done to the same or better standard) ? I think not.
Machines are efficient and we measure their usefulness in that manner. Humans need to be considered a bit differently IMHO...

As for Obama's spending - you cannot look at how many jobs lost in isolation - you need to compare with what would have been the case without the spending. Go and get the projections from the official sources and do your own comparisons. It seems pretty obvious to me that if you pump money into an economy then you will have more jobs than if you don't, particularly in a time of recession.
handfleisch
deanhills wrote:
But here's the problem, did Obama not spend 1-trillion dollars to revive the economy? Where did that money go? How many jobs were created?
Well over half a million Americans can thank the recovery act for their jobs, in factories and industries across the nation; untold thousands more can be thankful for having jobs that would have disappeared if the economy had completely tanked, which it didn't thanks to the basic macroeconomics of the Obama admin. To educate yourself about "where did that money go", try http://www.recovery.gov/Pages/home.aspx

Quote:
RECOVERY FUNDED JOBS REPORTED BY RECIPIENTS
January 1 - March 31, 2010
682,370
Job calculations are based on the number of hours worked in a quarter and funded under the Recovery Act.


deanhills wrote:
Perhaps a better way of stimulating the economy would have been tax cuts across the board Obama.
Obama did give tax breaks for 90% of Americans. For the mega rich he returned rates to pre-Bush levels. Tax breaks for the extremely wealthy don't stimulate the economy. So far Obama's methods are doing quite well:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/12/business/economy/12earnings.html?_r=1&hp
Quote:
New Earnings Could Provide Some Hope for U.S. Economy
deanhills
handfleisch wrote:
deanhills wrote:
But here's the problem, did Obama not spend 1-trillion dollars to revive the economy? Where did that money go? How many jobs were created?
Well over half a million Americans can thank the recovery act for their jobs, in factories and industries across the nation; untold thousands more can be thankful for having jobs that would have disappeared if the economy had completely tanked, which it didn't thanks to the basic macroeconomics of the Obama admin. To educate yourself about "where did that money go", try http://www.recovery.gov/Pages/home.aspx
This is a Government Website Handfleisch. With respect, of course it will work on creative stats and present it to its best effect. I found the following blog article by Peter Rupert in Forbes meaningful:
Quote:
While I never bought the jobs created and jobs saved statistic, at least I understood what Team Obama was trying to get at. Although it is not really a measurable statistic, they were trying to somehow quantify the success of the Recovery Act and the effects of spending around $800 billion.

The problem I have with the new statistic is that there isn't any economically meaningful way to understand exactly what it is trying to measure. Is a higher number of jobs funded a measure of success or failure? If the economy were doing well, then shouldn't that number be close to zero? And if it is not, why are we funding them? And, if the labor market continues to decline, this statistic will likely rise--meaning what?

More importantly, just counting the number of jobs saved or created or funded is not enough to judge the efficacy of a stimulus program. Some serious ink has been used in debating the number of jobs the program has "created or saved." The estimates lie somewhere between 800,000 and 2 million. Such measurement efforts, as such, are pointless. As Robert Barro recently pointed out, it is important to examine the benefits and costs of such programs over a much longer period of time than just one year. According to his calculations, the stimulus was a bad deal. Put another way, if the Recovery Act simply hired people to dig holes in the ground and then fill them in, nothing would have been "created."


handfleisch wrote:
So far Obama's methods are doing quite well
Perhaps you need to read an article by Robert Barro, professor of economics at Harvard University:
Quote:
The Stimulus Evidence One Year On
Over five years, my research shows an extra $600 billion of public spending at the cost of $900 billion in private expenditure. That's a bad deal.

Quote:
But these calculations are not nearly the end of the story, because the added $600 billion of government spending leads to a correspondingly larger public debt. These added obligations must be paid for sometime by raising taxes (unless future government spending declines below its 2008 level, an unlikely scenario).

I suppose that the government collects an additional $300 billion of taxes in each of 2011 and 2012. The timing of the future taxes does not matter for the main calculations—the key point is that the government has no free lunch and must collect the extra taxes eventually. Since I assume a tax multiplier of minus 1.1, applying with a one-year lag, the higher taxes reduce GDP by $330 billion in each of 2012 and 2013.

We can now put the elements together to form a "five-year plan" from 2009 to 2013. The path of incremental government outlays over the five years in billions of dollars is +300, +300, 0, 0, 0, which adds up to +600. The path for GDP is +120, +180, +60, minus 330, minus 330, adding up to minus 300. GDP falls overall because the famous "balanced-budget multiplier"—the response of GDP when government spending and taxes rise together—is negative. This result accords with the familiar pattern whereby countries with larger public sectors tend to grow slower over the long term.

The projected effect on other parts of GDP (consumer expenditure, private investment, net exports) is minus 180, minus 120, +60, minus 330, minus 330, which adds up to minus 900. Thus, viewed over five years, the fiscal stimulus package is a way to get an extra $600 billion of public spending at the cost of $900 billion in private expenditure. This is a bad deal.

The fiscal stimulus package of 2009 was a mistake. It follows that an additional stimulus package in 2010 would be another mistake.
Bikerman
*sigh*..cherry picking again...it means nothing. Anyone can do it..want to see?

80% of top economists think Obama has a good grasp of economics and support his plan.

http://econ4obama.blogspot.com/2008/10/nber-for-obama.html

Leading economists back Obama plan

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2009/01/27/60859/gop-may-vote-no-but-economists.html

Professional economists back Obama
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2008/10/the_economist_endorses


Leading economists say Obama plan is working but does not go far enough

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/25/top-economists-obama-stim_n_435322.html

World's leading economist backs Obama
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123057112442239827.html

and so on....yawn
deanhills
Exactly, including the US Government when it presents its statistics.
Alaskacameradude
Quote:
As for Obama's spending - you cannot look at how many jobs lost in isolation - you need to compare with what would have been the case without the spending. Go and get the projections from the official sources and do your own comparisons. It seems pretty obvious to me that if you pump money into an economy then you will have more jobs than if you don't, particularly in a time of recession.


Well the problem with that of course is WE DON'T KNOW! How many jobs would have been lost
without his spending? According to Obama's OWN projections, if we DIDN'T spend the money,
unemployment would rise to 8%! And then we DID spend the money and it rose to 10%....
and this is going by Obama's OWN NUMBERS! So did his spending make it worse? There
is no real way to know, only conjecture.

Quote:
It seems pretty obvious to me that if you pump money into an economy then you will have more jobs than if you don't, particularly in a time of recession.


Well, as you said above, 'common knowledge' is usually neither, and it depends on who is judging.
Some financial experts said spending the money would help. Others said it would hurt
(driving our national debt up to a higher level of our GDP and harming the world's
economic confidence in the US). I don't think there can be much certainty, because
our countries leaders made a decision and not another. We will never know what would
have happened if they had made the opposite choice. All I know for certain, is that Obama
himself expected the spending to help the economy MUCH more than it actually helped it,
according to his own statements.
Bikerman
I don't think you will find any expert who would say that pumping money into the economy does not generate jobs. Even right-wing economists concede that point. Their argument is that the payback will not justify it later on.
handfleisch
Alaskacameradude wrote:

Well the problem with that of course is WE DON'T KNOW! How many jobs would have been lost
without his spending? According to Obama's OWN projections, if we DIDN'T spend the money,
unemployment would rise to 8%!

Please enlighten us all with exactly where you got this factoid. It is suddenly cropped up all over the internet. Did Glenn Beck or someone on FOX News repeat it over and over, drumming it into susceptible minds?

On edit: I did your homework for you. What you are repeating is the party line nonsense by Republicans such as Issa, Boehner as well as Hannity of the FOX propaganda agency. Politifact already debunked it:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/jul/09/eric-cantor/Cantor-and-other-republicans-say-obama-promised-s/

Quote:
What we can rule on, however, is whether the Obama administration "promised" that unemployment rates would not rise above 8 percent if the stimulus were passed. We could find no instance of anyone in the administration directly making such a public pledge.

What we saw from the administration in January was a projection, not a promise. And it was a projection that came with heavy disclaimers.

"It should be understood that all of the estimates presented in this memo are subject to significant margins of error," the report states. "There is the more fundamental uncertainty that comes with any estimate of the effects of a program. Our estimates of economic relationships and rules of thumb are derived from historical experience and so will not apply exactly in any given episode. Furthermore, the uncertainty is surely higher than normal now because the current recession is unusual both in its fundamental causes and its severity."


Please, try to do a little original thinking and research, instead of just repeating talking points.
silverdown
I think it's improving, not as fast as expected but I do believe is moving for the better. One dude can make a diffrence but not with everything in 1 day!
Alaskacameradude
Oh my freaking gosh! Let's look at this for a second.....

I say the following

Quote:
Well the problem with that of course is WE DON'T KNOW! How many jobs would have been lost
without his spending? According to Obama's OWN projections, if we DIDN'T spend the money,
unemployment would rise to 8%!


You then counter with this
Quote:
Please enlighten us all with exactly where you got this factoid. It is suddenly cropped up all over the internet. Did Glenn Beck or someone on FOX News repeat it over and over, drumming it into susceptible minds?

On edit: I did your homework for you. What you are repeating is the party line nonsense by Republicans such as Issa, Boehner as well as Hannity of the FOX propaganda agency. Politifact already debunked it:
Quote:
What we can rule on, however, is whether the Obama administration "promised" that unemployment rates would not rise above 8 percent if the stimulus were passed. We could find no instance of anyone in the administration directly making such a public pledge.

What we saw from the administration in January was a projection, not a promise. And it was a projection that came with heavy disclaimers.

"It should be understood that all of the estimates presented in this memo are subject to significant margins of error," the report states. "There is the more fundamental uncertainty that comes with any estimate of the effects of a program. Our estimates of economic relationships and rules of thumb are derived from historical experience and so will not apply exactly in any given episode. Furthermore, the uncertainty is surely higher than normal now because the current recession is unusual both in its fundamental causes and its severity.


Now I am FAIRLY SURE, that if you read my quote.....I said Obama's PROJECTIONS, I said NOTHING about any promises!!! And then you 'rebutt' (I am using this term very loosely here) my quote by
showing that this claim from the administration in January was 'a projection and not a promise'.
Hmmmm.......which is EXACTLY what I CLAIMED it was....a PROJECTION!!! Maybe you should
read your own posts before you post them to try and 'prove' that I am 'claiming some sort of
public pledge' by Obama. I said that Obama PROJECTED that unemployment would not go
above 8%. I said it then DID go above 8%. I stand by my claims. Go back and read my quote
in your OWN post and you will see the word PROJECTION in your quote of my post. Wow just wow!
handfleisch
Alaskacameradude wrote:
Oh my freaking gosh! Let's look at this for a second.....
...
Now I am FAIRLY SURE, that if you read my quote.....I said Obama's PROJECTIONS, I said NOTHING about any promises!!! And then you 'rebutt' (I am using this term very loosely here) my quote by
showing that this claim from the administration in January was 'a projection and not a promise'.
Hmmmm.......which is EXACTLY what I CLAIMED it was....a PROJECTION!!! Maybe you should
read your own posts before you post them to try and 'prove' that I am 'claiming some sort of
public pledge' by Obama. I said that Obama PROJECTED that unemployment would not go
above 8%. I said it then DID go above 8%. I stand by my claims. Go back and read my quote
in your OWN post and you will see the word PROJECTION in your quote of my post. Wow just wow!

OMfreaking Gosh and a double wow? You don't get out much, do you? Yes you are right, there were right wingers who were using the term "promise" in their lies, and since you were harping on this, I got you mixed up with them. Funny how that happens.

back on topic:
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5juui7didNwh_vzBmJyrbjxkeF-IgD9H98KQO1
Quote:
Obama to sell auto bailout good news in Michigan

By CHARLES BABINGTON (AP) – 5 days ago

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama travels to the heart of the U.S. auto industry on Friday.

The president will push an important election-year claim: his administration's unpopular auto industry bailout has turned into an economic good-news story.

With Americans facing a limping economy and potentially pivotal congressional elections in three months, the White House sees progress in the auto industry.

To highlight that progress, which presidential aides believe has received too little attention, Obama will stop at three auto plants over the next several days.
Bikerman
Hmmm....I have to say a little more graciousness in error is something I believe aids discussion generally....just my own POV.....
Related topics
Rain Disaster in Mumbai (India)
All About WoW
What are the chances of a currency to go from low to high?
 EASY 40 frih$ IF YOU KNOW PHP+MySQL 
intersting little situation
Go Sarah, Go
Americans want universal health care. Why can't we get it?
Obama's Unemployment Numbers Keep Going Up
Thanks Obama for the working class tax cuts
Personal Income Lower Under Obama
Legal Extortion
Gadhafi vs. Obama doctrine
Coming out and the people that come with it
Is america better off under obama
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Politics

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.