I lose my job in a few weeks...sorta...

If you get down to it, and really examine it through the lens of the Keynesian ideology, for your statement to make sense (and still account for what occured) we would have been in a massive recession -- with growth rates far below what anyone was predicting at the time.

Let's face it, we got it wrong with the stimulus
.

That's the point: WE WERE in a massive recession with growth rate far below what anyone was predicting at the time. . .and to make it worse, Wall Street and our bankers like of ethics made it into a GLOBAL recession, which didn't help take our country out of the recession any faster either!


Do tell where it came from? Bush tax cuts almost a decade before? Yea right
.

As I said before, three elements of the Bush administration combined to create this massive recession:
Bush's two long, expensive wars
Bush tax cuts for that benefitted mostly the wealthy (supposedly "job creators" who stopped "creating jobs!")
Bush's era deregulation policies that led to unethical practices for Wall Street and the Banks and led to the WORLD WIDE recession.


There are facts out there to be debated, but you are simply repeating the D party line, and trying to pass it off as the rational moderate centrist.
[/QUOTE]

So. . .we both take the "party line." What makes yours better than mine?
 
Werbung:
.

That's the point: WE WERE in a massive recession with growth rate far below what anyone was predicting at the time. . .and to make it worse, Wall Street and our bankers like of ethics made it into a GLOBAL recession, which didn't help take our country out of the recession any faster either!

From the Wall Street Journal:

Consider next the government-spending part of the stimulus package. The Obama administration points to the sharp reduction in the decline in real GDP from the first to the second quarter of 2009 as evidence that the package is working. Economic growth was minus 6.4% in the first quarter and minus 1% in the second quarter, so the implied improvement of 5.4 percentage points is indeed big. But how much of that improved growth rate can be attributed to higher government spending due to the stimulus? If we rely on predictions of models, again we see disagreement and debate. According to our research with modern macroeconomic models, the increase in government spending would add less than a percentage point, a relatively small portion. The model predictions cited by the administration's economists suggest a much larger portion: two to three percentage points. Prof. Barro's model predicts zero.

So let's look at the data on the contributions of government spending and other components of GDP to the 5.4 percentage-point improvement. By far the largest positive contributor to the improvement was investment--which went from minus 9% to minus 3.2%, an improvement of 5.8% and more than enough to explain the improved GDP growth. Investment by private business firms in plant, equipment and inventories, rather than residential investment, were the major contributors to the investment improvement. In contrast, consumption was a negative contributor to the change in GDP growth, because consumption growth declined following the passage of the stimulus package.

One is hard put to see what specific items in the stimulus act could have arrested the decline in business investment by such a magnitude. When one looks at monthly investment indicators--such as new orders for nondefense capital goods--one sees a flattening out starting early in the first quarter of 2009, well before the package went into operation. The free fall of investment orders caused by the financial panic last fall stabilized substantially by January, and investment has remained relatively stable since then. This created the residue of a very large negative growth rate from the fourth quarter of 2008 to the first quarter of 2009, and then moderation from the first quarter to the second of 2009. There is no plausible role for the fiscal stimulus here.

Direct evidence of an impact by government spending can be found in 1.8 of the 5.4 percentage-point improvement from the first to second quarter of this year. However, more than half of this contribution was due to defense spending that was not part of the stimulus package. Of the entire $787 billion stimulus package, only $4.5 billion went to federal purchases and $17.7 billion to state and local purchases in the second quarter. The growth improvement in the second quarter must have been largely due to factors other than the stimulus package.


As I said before, three elements of the Bush administration combined to create this massive recession:
Bush's two long, expensive wars
Bush tax cuts for that benefitted mostly the wealthy (supposedly "job creators" who stopped "creating jobs!")
Bush's era deregulation policies that led to unethical practices for Wall Street and the Banks and led to the WORLD WIDE recession.

It is entirely laughable that you blame Bush for the creation of subprime lending, credit default swaps, etc.

As for the wars, the total cost of both is under $1.5 trillion. Break that down over a ten year period and we are looking at a mere $150 billion a year...surely you are not arging that is what caused the recession?

Bush's tax cuts again are estimated by AP to have added 1.6 trillion to the deficit over ten years. Keep in mind of course there was a $9 trillion dollar increase in the deficit over this time. You will of course argue that the tax cuts created lower revenues for the government. This is again false. The CBO incorrectly calculated that the post-March 2003 tax cuts would lower 2006 revenues by $75 billion. Revenues for 2006 came in $47 billion above the pre-tax cut baseline.

What really caused the recession, was the housing bubble exploded. It had nothing to do with much else.

So. . .we both take the "party line." What makes yours better than mine?

Mine is backed up with more than simply talking points. Additionally, I can accept what the party line is, and that it has flaws. You seem unable to do that with your own party line.
 
The stimulus did work, or we would have been in deep depression.

This is nothing but BS. BO, Dems, and their media claim this over and over (you dutifully believe it), but it is a complete and total LIE.

The stim money was given to states and unions to keep their employees employed. Those employees do nothing to help the economy. They are merely a drag on the economy...but the funny thing is they vote D ever election. Now those same employees are being cut across the country. Are we in a 'deep depression?'

The stim money was wasted and did NOTHING to help the economy or prevent a depression. But, some Americans believe in fairy tales and kissing frogs. And, no amount of facts will ever change them.
 
This is nothing but BS. BO, Dems, and their media claim this over and over (you dutifully believe it), but it is a complete and total LIE.

The stim money was given to states and unions to keep their employees employed. Those employees do nothing to help the economy. They are merely a drag on the economy...but the funny thing is they vote D ever election. Now those same employees are being cut across the country. Are we in a 'deep depression?'

The stim money was wasted and did NOTHING to help the economy or prevent a depression. But, some Americans believe in fairy tales and kissing frogs. And, no amount of facts will ever change them.

That is your opinion, and I think IT is BS and Fox News propaganda.

The Stimulus money was intended to put more money in circulation to people who would actually SPEND it, creating demand. And it did happen. Without it, we would have fallen in deep depression.

If the stimulus had been greater, and directed even more towards the pool of people who do not have a choice to "save" or "spend," it would have been even more successful.

I believe you think you're the prince, when you're actually the frog!
 
The stimulus did work, or we would have been in deep depression.

Stimulus_Worked.gif
 

Instead of posting backward charts, you may want to read FACTUAL information:

At best, the stimulus worked great. At worst, it works only to a small POSITIVE extend. . .which is a lot better (in the worse case) than not working at all!

Did the stimulus work? A review of the nine best studies on the ... www.washingtonpost.com/.../did-the-stimulus-work.../gIQA...You +1'd this publicly. Undo
by Ezra Klein -
Aug 24, 2011 – Since the stimulus took effect, nine studies of note have been conducted to try to determine the legislations's effects on employment and output.

"The truth is, both studies of the type Barro prefers, and studies using models, which he criticizes, have been conducted to determine the effect of the stimulus on employment and output. Of the nine studies I’ve found, six find that the stimulus had a significant, positive effect on employment and growth, and three find that the effect was either quite small or impossible to detect. Five studies use econometric ”experiments,” which attempt to, as Barro encourages, sort out the effect of the stimulus from other factors using empirical data. Four use modeling instead."
 
That is your opinion, and I think IT is BS and Fox News propaganda.

The Stimulus money was intended to put more money in circulation to people who would actually SPEND it, creating demand. And it did happen. Without it, we would have fallen in deep depression.

If the stimulus had been greater, and directed even more towards the pool of people who do not have a choice to "save" or "spend," it would have been even more successful.

I believe you think you're the prince, when you're actually the frog!

I guess you didn't read my WSJ article....that is disappointing..if you did, you would see:

The nearby chart reviews income and consumption through July, the latest month this data is available for the U.S. economy as a whole.

Consider first the part of the chart pertaining to the spring of this year and observe that disposable personal income (DPI)--the total amount of income people have left to spend after they pay taxes and receive transfers from the government--jumped. The increase is due to the transfer and rebate payments in the 2009 stimulus package. However, as the chart also shows, there was no noticeable impact on personal consumption expenditures. Because the boost to income is temporary, at best only a very small fraction was consumed.

This is exactly what one would expect from "permanent income" or "life-cycle" theories of consumption, which argue that temporary changes in income have little effect on consumption. These theories were developed by Milton Friedman and Franco Modigliani 50 years ago, and have been empirically tested many times. They are much more accurate than simple Keynesian theories of consumption, so the lack of an impact should not be surprising.

Indeed, one need not have looked any further than the Bush administration's Economic Stimulus Act of 2008 to find plenty of evidence that temporary payments of this kind would not jump-start consumption. That package made one-time payments and rebates to people in the spring of 2008, but, as the chart shows, failed to stimulate consumption as had been hoped. Some argued that other factors such as high oil and gasoline prices caused consumption to fall during this period and that consumption would have been even lower without the stimulus, but no significant impact of these rebates is found even after controlling for oil prices.
 
Instead of posting backward charts, you may want to read FACTUAL information:

At best, the stimulus worked great. At worst, it works only to a small POSITIVE extend. . .which is a lot better (in the worse case) than not working at all!

If the stimulus worked great as you say and yet, we still have high unemployment, little GDP growth, a dead real estate market, little business investment, and most Americans think we are a nation in decline, etc...................., what went wrong?

I bet you believe the answer to too much spending, is more spending. Too much national debt, means we need MORE debt. Makes sense if you are senseless.

I suggest you consider taking several elementary courses on LOGIC.
 
If the stimulus worked great as you say and yet, we still have high unemployment, little GDP growth, a dead real estate market, little business investment, and most Americans think we are a nation in decline, etc...................., what went wrong?

I bet you believe the answer to too much spending, is more spending. Too much national debt, means we need MORE debt. Makes sense if you are senseless.

I suggest you consider taking several elementary courses on LOGIC.


if you don't learn from history you are doomed to repeat it.

“We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work.”


Sound like, oh, Rep. John Boehner of Ohio or some other exasperated Republican stalwart lamenting proposals to spend our way out of the recession?


Listen again:
“I want to see this country prosperous. I want to see people get a job. I want to see people get enough to eat. We have never made good on our promises.”


Sound more like a liberal Democrat pushing job creation — say, Harlem’s Rep. Charlie Rangel?


What about this:
“I say after eight years of this Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started. … And an enormous debt to boot!”


Surely this must be House Speaker Nancy Pelosi or another leading Democrat denouncing President Bush’s economic policies.
Wrong. Wrong. And wrong again.


The words are those of none other than Henry Morgenthau Jr. — close friend, lunch companion, loyal secretary of the Treasury to President Franklin D. Roosevelt — and key architect of FDR’s New Deal.


The date: May 9, 1939. The setting: Morgenthau’s appearance in Washington before less influential Democrats on the House Ways and Means Committee.
 

so, you are demonstrating that our situation today is eqjuivalent to that inthe 30's? Is that news?

what are you trying to say? It is the huge spending on public work and later the war that got us out of that depression, and it is the dHUGE taxes that allowed it.

No one is advocating for HUGE taxes, just a temporary increase on people who CAN afford it, and who have been benefitting greatly even intime of downturn inthe economy.
 
so, you are demonstrating that our situation today is eqjuivalent to that inthe 30's? Is that news?

what are you trying to say? It is the huge spending on public work and later the war that got us out of that depression, and it is the dHUGE taxes that allowed it.

No one is advocating for HUGE taxes, just a temporary increase on people who CAN afford it, and who have been benefitting greatly even intime of downturn inthe economy.


maybe thats why Obama is breaking bad all over... hadn't thought of that.

But as Morganthal pointed out, public works spending was useless. Its a sugar high at the very best.
 
maybe thats why Obama is breaking bad all over... hadn't thought of that.

But as Morganthal pointed out, public works spending was useless. Its a sugar high at the very best.

A sugar high? I prefer to think of it as an insuline shot to prevent a diabetic economy to go into shock !


And, I don't think any reasonable person would say that infrastructure spending is unnecessary or that it is not long overdue, unlike military spending that has been overdone and is overdue for cuts!
 
Openmind...you keep talking about a temporary tax increase...what date do you envision that it ends?
 
A sugar high? I prefer to think of it as an insuline shot to prevent a diabetic economy to go into shock !


And, I don't think any reasonable person would say that infrastructure spending is unnecessary or that it is not long overdue, unlike military spending that has been overdone and is overdue for cuts!


As it was with FDR and aped by Obama, infrastructure spending AS A STIMULUS is useless. did nothing then, did nothing this time either.
 
Werbung:
As it was with FDR and aped by Obama, infrastructure spending AS A STIMULUS is useless. did nothing then, did nothing this time either.

So. . ..how do you think we got out of the great depression???

Wikepedia:
British economist John Maynard Keynes argued in General Theory of Employment Interest and Money that lower aggregate expenditures in the economy contributed to a massive decline in income and to employment that was well below the average. In such a situation, the economy reached equilibrium at low levels of economic activity and high unemployment. Keynes' basic idea was simple: to keep people fully employed, governments have to run deficits when the economy is slowing, as the private sector would not invest enough to keep production at the normal level and bring the economy out of recession. Keynesian economists called on governments during times of economic crisis to pick up the slack by increasing government spending and/or cutting taxes.

As the Depression wore on, Franklin D. Roosevelt tried public works, farm subsidies, and other devices to restart the US economy, but never completely gave up trying to balance the budget. According to the Keynesians, this improved the economy, but Roosevelt never spent enough to bring the economy out of recession until the start of World War II.[15]
 
Back
Top