»
Discussion
»
The Alley
»
Stimulating News of the Day...
| The Alley |
|
Stimulating News of the Day... |
|
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA 
|
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – President Barack Obama met on Wednesday with the two top Democrats in Congress to discuss ways to spur the economy and reverse a climb in the U.S. unemployment rate, which is now at a 26-year-high. So much for bi-partisanship. Guess no Republicans have any ideas... Obama has touted the unprecedented $787 billion economic stimulus package passed by Congress earlier this year as having helped to rescue the economy from its worst crisis since the Great Depression. Really? Where? How? When? While some Democrats are pushing for additional measures to boost growth, Republicans have taken aim at the stimulus package. They contend it has done little jump-start growth but has added massively to the U.S. budget deficit. Republicans stepped up their criticism of Obama's handling of the economy after government figures showed the unemployment rate inched upward to 9.8 percent, the highest since 1983. Go figure them Republicans! Just because the unemployment rate went to a new high since the stimulus plan went into effect, they think it didn't help. The nerve!!!! "Today's meeting with the president reinforces our shared commitment to creating more jobs and providing relief to the millions of Americans who are out of work," Reid said in a statement. I agree. Reid SHOULD be committed! A day after the jobs report was released, Obama said in his weekly radio and Internet address that he and his economic team would "explore additional options to promote job creation," a comment that spurred speculation that a second stimulus package was in the works. Additional options? How about original ones? By all means, bring on a second stimulus plan since the first one has worked so well. The printing presses at the Treasury still have some ink left. But the White House has emphasized that no decisions have been made. Which, translated into plain English, means stock up on Preparation H, America. Democrats are eager to put the economy on a sounder footing before next year's congressional election. I KNEW there had to be some reason! "Republicans are on the side of the American people," said Representative Mike Pence, a member of the House Republican leadership. "We are demanding that this administration and Democrats in Congress focus on more jobs." You're asking for a lot, Mike. http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20091007/pl_nm/us_obama_economy_5 WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama is spending much of the day in private, with closed-door meetings scheduled with senior advisers and officials such as Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton. The president also will be spending time on the White House basketball court. He'll drop by to watch the National Naval Medical Center's Marine Wounded Warrior basketball team play. And later in the day, the president himself will shoot some hoops with Cabinet secretaries and members of Congress. At least his time will be well-spent. There will be a lot of dribbling on that court!. I'm trying hard to picture members of Congress shooting hoops but it just isn't coming  Good thing Bush didn't try to play golf orr anything while any crisis was going on. The press would have butchered him.....oh, wait. They DID!  http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091008/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_obama_preview_1 |
||
| © Copyright 2009 Michael Mack - All Rights Reserved | |||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
I heard on the news that the bulk of the stimulus money is to be infused into the economy just prior to the 2010 elections. Imagine that. |
||
|
threadbear Senior Member
since 2008-07-10
Posts 817Indy |
8 months later, and only 15% of the stimulus IMMEDIATE need funds are spent. Remember when I told you this would happen 8 months ago, and was laughed at. I said at the time that there would not be an immediate infusion of cash, or that the parts that were infused (like banks ie) wouldn't spend the money (TARP or Stimulus) and transfer their windfall into their 'profit' sides of the ledgers without granting loans. I called into C-SPAN and had a mini-debate with the Transportation Chairman (Jay Rockefeller) and expressed my lack of confidence that even road works projects or infrastructure repair (roads, bridges, etc- another broken Obama Promise) wouldn't happen for at least a year until the bid process was done. He politely told me I was nuts. That the stimulus WOULD create jobs. Un huh. Well, we have a jobless recovery- no new net jobs, as a matter of fact, a net loss. NOTHING ever happens quickly in Washington. Now, because this stimulus isn't working quickly enough, there is major talk of STIMULUS III (remember: Stimulus I was the Bush Stimulus.) Don't they EVER learn? Let me go through the checklist of things I mentioned almost a year ago here: -The crash of the dollar - check - ACORN being a huge news story - check - ACORN was/is corrupt thru and thru - check - That the Stimulus bill wouldn't see gains for a year - check - That the Stimulus bill wouldn't see job gains - check - That the TARP funds wouldn't see gains in the private sector- check (no new small business loans granted) - That Obama's questionable friends would be an issue for him - megacheck |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
I don't think it's a matter of them learning, I think everything is going exactly according to their plans. I also heard that Congress will be granting ACORN funding again at the end of the month. What's up with that?! So the vote to defund was only good for a month?! |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: Clearly, then, we didn't need to do anything. Just like we didn't need to react to 911 by increasing security measures and attacking the perpetrators (those we could find). After all, there hasn't been any planes hijacked or towers destroyed in the last eight years? p.s. I could spend several hours looking up and reporting the road and infrastructure repairs just in my little corner of Michigan, and the jobs that relied on them, but frankly I get detoured around them or delayed by them so much that I think I've invested enough time already. Oh, and that state trooper who gave me a ticket last week for not buckling my seat belt? Yep, he and 49 other troopers laid off last year were brought back as a direct result of Federal money. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Tell that trooper to save his money, Ron. When the stimulus handout doesn't keep coming, he'll need it. ...and tell the construction boys to do the same, just in case. |
||
|
threadbear Senior Member
since 2008-07-10
Posts 817Indy |
Ron, this is tricky to explain, but the money you see for Michigan road works projects was actually due to two things: 1) State funds from Michigan 2) Result 10 months later from Stimulus I, which was Bush's stimulus plan that got the bid contracts worked out and put people to work. Passed a year ago, ratified only a few months ago, and from what I hear, the governors of most states are pretty happy with their individual state bailouts, which all came from Stimulus I. The tricky part is that the government stimulus money allowed many states (not Michigan, tho) to keep from going in the red as they diverted their states funds back into their state coffers when they received the Fed bailout money. Why is this important? Because the state 'Payback' rate for municipal bonds that fund spending are largely based upon the amount of faith people have in that state's ability to payback loaned money. Show a deficit, bonds don't sell, and states have to offer a HIGHER interest rate to attract lenders. Show an improvement on your books thru stimulus, and you get to offer attractive low-interest loans to support infrastructure repairs. Last time I looked, State troopers are not shovel ready, but i could be wrong..... Like I said earlier: government associated programs and jobs would be the FIRST to see results, and they were. What part of that don't you agree with? My contention all along is that Stimulus II wasn't needed, and it wouldn't do anything for shovel-ready jobs until the Feds red-taped it to death a year later after they reviewed ALL the contract bids. None of these projects EVER goes into shovel-digging until a year AFTER they are passed. Bureauacracy, pure and simple. Bottom line, if you think there is gain to your state from the Stimulus, then thank George Bush. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: Mike, I tell everyone to save money. If someone isn't setting aside at least ten percent of their net income they're needlessly risking their future. It doesn't matter how much a person makes; the only thing that ever matters is how much a person keeps. You're right, of course. There's no guarantee the troopers or construction workers will continue being paid. I'm just guessing here, Mike, but I have to suspect you don't have too many ironclad guarantees either? I know I sure don't. quote: Really? Was that particular George Bush in the Senate or the House, TB? FTR, and for those who don't remember, I wasn't a big proponent of a government stimulus program. I thought it was a very expensive way to instill confidence in the American economy. And, of course, that's exactly what it was all about. The government money spent in the last year has helped a lot of individuals, especially in hard-hit areas like Michigan, but it has done very little for or to our economy. I don't think it matters how much has been spent, nor how much remains to be spent. The only thing that has really mattered is consumer confidence. With 90 percent of America still drawing paychecks, the greatest danger was always fear and diffidence. What our government did was less important than our government doing something. In my opinion, the stimulus program has been shock and awe all over again. It was a lot more than necessary, but it's hard to argue it didn't do the job. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: I think you're spot on. Nothing to fear but fear itself. . |
||
|
threadbear Senior Member
since 2008-07-10
Posts 817Indy |
I have to admit, Ron, that for the most part, Stimulus I was a success. Perception of good financial shape colors many things: - interest rates - Dow Jones Averages (actually over 10,000 for the first time in a year today) - Muni-bonds being able to be sold for state works projects - Bank liquidity for interest loans - Wall street in the form of higher value stock prices due to consumer confidence The financial system, Wall Streets and the value of the dollar is all held together with 'mirrors, wires and airplane glue' (to quote my Econ prof). You asked, Ron, whether Bush was in the Senate or House, but if you remember right in his lame-duck years, he was bucked by most of his own party on the Stimulus project that his administration and FED Reserve Bernancke introduced (not the Senate, not the House, and not the Republicans), and was soundly criticized for adding to the 'deficit' (remember all that hang-wringing?) The argument FOR the Stimulus Act of 2008 was to stem off further deepening of the Recession. In that respect, it appears it is a success...if...the dollar can be stabilized. What I don't agree with is Stimulus II has anything at all to do with our recovery....yet. It could have, but the results won't really bear out for another 3-6 months. These trillion dollar bailouts are like killing a mosquito with a bazooka. You're guaranteed to bag at least a few of the buggers. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: Thanks, Grinch. Apparently, TB doesn't agree however. His post suggests he continues to believe the money, spent in 3-6 months or a few years from now, is the critical issue. Only when the money is spent will the value be realized? I believe the value started accruing the instant our government stepped up to the plate, bat in hand. They didn't have to hit a home run; they just had to be seen to be willing to swing. p.s. This just in, courtesy my local six o'clock news: Home sales in Grand Rapids, second largest city in Michigan, were up 37 percent for September. Couple consumer confidence with an $8,000 tax credit and even the most broke state in the union (excuse the hyperbole) can feel like it's rallying. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
I'm just guessing here, Mike, but I have to suspect you don't have too many ironclad guarantees either? I know I sure don't. No, I don't, Ron, but I feel that I can state my scenario with more conviction than you can. That's why some states refused stimulus money. They knew the bind it would put them in when the free dollars stopped coming. What our government did was less important than our government doing something. I'd never considered you an advocate of "Do something, even if it's wrong", Ron. Guess I was wrong? but it's hard to argue it didn't do the job. I don't find it hard at all. It can all be measured by one thing....unemployment. Stimulus didn't lower unemployment. Actually, it kept rising. Unemployment is the key and has to logically be the main target of any stimulus plan. The plan has failed miserably in that regard. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Contractors kept or created 30,000 jobs because of stimulus The impact varied widely from state to state. The reports, released by the administration's Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board, identified almost 4,700 full-time jobs in Colorado, but fewer than six in Rhode Island, which had the nation's third-worst unemployment rate in August. In Michigan, which had the nation's highest unemployment rate, the contracts created or saved fewer than 400 full-time jobs. Obama has said the stimulus will create or save 3.5 million jobs by the end of next year, but measuring that impact has been difficult. The White House Council of Economic Advisors estimated last month that the stimulus had retained 1 million jobs that otherwise would have been lost. Overall, the economy has shed more than 2 million jobs since Obama signed the stimulus package in February. The contractors' reports "don't answer the question of what the overall impact of the stimulus is on jobs in the economy," said University of Chicago economist Steven Davis. For example, the recipient reports do not say whether those employed on stimulus projects would have had jobs anyway, he said. http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/2009-10-15-stimulus-jobs_N.htm?csp=34 |
||
|
threadbear Senior Member
since 2008-07-10
Posts 817Indy |
From what I can gather, I averaged together about 10 of the 'costs per job' estimates and the average is approximately $165,000 per job. Roughly, the public gets about 4-5 jobs per million spent by the stimulus. That's pretty awful, but consider this: if the jobs are government sector, then NOTHING is produced, and no financial value added to the market. In Ron's home state of Michigan, $3.7 billion was spent in stimulus money, and resulted in 19,500 jobs. That is a cost-per-job ratio of $190,000 per job. Ah, now the BAD news for Michigan: they hemorrhaged 33,000 per month for the first six months and 20,000 EACH month after. Total yearly net loss of jobs:.... 318,000 Total jobs gained by stimulus in year: 19,500 |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: Really? Isn't that about like refusing to go to work because no one will guarantee you a job for the rest of your life? Why take a job that might not last forever, after all? I prefer to think that some states refuse Federal money because they don't like the inevitable conditions that are tied to the money. The Feds, for example, can't Constitutionally regulate traffic laws; they can and have, however, tied a 55 mph speed limit to Federal funding of roads. State Rights haven't just been eroded, they've been bought on the open market. That at least a few states aren't selling is good news. quote: Define "wrong," Mike. If you see a guy laying face down in a deep mud puddle, there's not a whole lot of things you can for him that would be wrong. There might be some things I'd like to see more than others, but I'm not really going to fault you for saving his life. The one thing you don't want to do, of course, is stand there for fifteen minutes thinking about what you should do. quote: I have two words for you, Mike: Lagging indicator. Measuring the success or failure of an economic policy by unemployment figures is a bit like a night out with the boys. Just because you're not currently standing at the urinal, doesn't mean you necessarily have to still be thirsty? Your trips to the bathroom are a lagging indictor of how much you drank. The falling down parts are even more of a lagging indicator. quote: Let's not tell just part of the story, Mike. That 30K number represents the results of only 2 percent of reporting and that only for government construction contracts. Two percent obviously isn't going to represent a valid cross section, so a comparison between Rhode Island and Colorado is probably a little premature. The Administration would like us to do the math (30,383 jobs divided by 2.03 percent) and predict a job savings of 1,494,463 -- but personally I think that prediction would also be premature. We don't have enough data yet to do more than hope. The more important point to keep in mind is that this report targets only direct jobs. That construction worker whose salary came out of government coffers worked only about forty hours a week. The rest of the time, he was probably out spending money that kept several other people working to service his needs. The single mom working lunches at his local dinner is every bit as much a recipient of Federal money as the construction worker. But she doesn't get counted in this report. And the landlord she pays with her tips? He doesn't get counted, either. BTW, threadbear -- the roads and high rises being built by stimulus dollars hardly qualify as nothing being produced. It's called infrastructure for good reason? If you really want to see no financial value added to the market, you might want to explore what happens without transportation. It ain't pretty. In my opinion, the success or failure of Federal stimulus can only be measured by consumer confidence. Not unemployment, which notoriously lags economic realities. But if you really insist on looking at unemployment numbers, please, let's look at the full picture instead of just a sliver of it. Unemployment ain't great. Even that, however, is at least headed in the right direction. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Really? Isn't that about like refusing to go to work because no one will guarantee you a job for the rest of your life? No, Ron. It's like the government saying here's money to hire 100 police officers but there's no guarantee it will be there next year so hire them, knowing their salaries may be on YOUR head in the future. Define "wrong," Mike. Wrong would be stepping on the man's head until he drowns to save him the agony of a prolonged death. Wrong would be quadrupling the national debt because you "gotta do something". Wrong would be completely dismantling the health care system and putting it under government control because you "gotta do something". That was the answer many of the politicians gave when negative points came up about the government-proposed health care takeover..."Well, we gotta do something!" I have two words for you, Mike: Lagging indicator. Lagging indicator, Ron? Obama said nothing about lagging indicators when he predicted unemployment would fall by end of summer. There was no lagging indicator mentioned when he spoke of the shovel-ready jobs, ready to put Americans back to work. NOW, since unemployment has continued to rise and the number of jobs nowhere near what Obama had predicted, now we hear of lagging indicators, which sounds like nothing more than a pathetic excuse to me. What is lagging is Obama's follow-through with his promises, which were obviously unrealistic when he made them. The single mom working lunches at his local dinner is every bit as much a recipient of Federal money as the construction worker. But she doesn't get counted in this report. And the landlord she pays with her tips? He doesn't get counted, either. You mean the tips she got from the construction worker's salary from his 40 hour job let her keep her job and pay her rent and save her landlord? Thos construction workers must be some real tippers! (At least for a week) Ron, it almost sounds like you are applauding trickle-down economics! Not unemployment, which notoriously lags economic realities. Tell that to the unemployed. They find a lot of reality to it. Tell it to their landlords and the waitresses they tip and the stores where they buy groceries and the barbers who cut their hair and their kids they can't buy things for. Try to explain the lag to them. Unemployment ain't great. Even that, however, is at least headed in the right direction. Since when is up the right direction for unemployment? |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
"In my opinion, the success or failure of Federal stimulus can only be measured by consumer confidence. " Well then, let's take a look.... The Conference Board Consumer Confidence Index® Dips in September September 29, 2009 The Conference Board Consumer Confidence Index®, which had improved in August, dipped in September. The Index now stands at 53.1 (1985=100), down from 54.5 in August. The Present Situation Index decreased to 22.7 from 25.4. The Expectations Index declined to 73.3 from 73.8 last month. The Consumer Confidence Survey® is based on a representative sample of 5,000 U.S. households. The monthly survey is conducted for The Conference Board by TNS. TNS is the world's largest custom research company. The cutoff date for September's preliminary results was September 22nd. Says Lynn Franco, Director of The Conference Board Consumer Research Center: "Consumer Confidence, which had improved in August, retreated slightly in September. The Present Situation Index decreased, as consumers viewed both current business conditions and the labor market less favorably than last month. While not as pessimistic as earlier this year, consumers remain quite apprehensive about the short-term outlook and their incomes. With the holiday season quickly approaching, this is not very encouraging news." Consumers' assessment of current conditions was less favorable in September. Those claiming business conditions are "bad" increased to 46.3 percent from 44.6 percent, while those claiming conditions are "good" increased to 8.7 percent from 8.5 percent. Consumers' appraisal of the job market was also less favorable. Those claiming jobs are "hard to get" increased to 47.0 percent from 44.3 percent, while those claiming jobs are "plentiful" decreased to 3.4 percent from 4.3 percent. Consumers' short-term outlook was also slightly more pessimistic. Those anticipating an improvement in business conditions over the next six months decreased to 21.3 percent from 22.2 percent, while those expecting conditions to worsen decreased to 15.0 percent from 15.2 percent. The labor market outlook was virtually unchanged. Those expecting more jobs in the months ahead edged down to 17.9 percent from 18.0 percent, while those expecting fewer jobs remained the same at 23.1 percent. The proportion of consumers expecting an increase in their incomes increased slightly to 11.2 percent from 10.8 percent. http://www.conference-board.org/economics/ConsumerConfidence.cfm |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
What Happened (Week Ending Oct. 4) * Consumer Confidence took a tumble after three good weeks as Gallup's Consumer Confidence Index worsened to -29 from its highs of the year. Consumer confidence now stands essentially where it stood a month ago. A year ago, as the financial crisis deepened, the Index was at -61. The percentage of Americans saying the economy is "getting better" fell 7 percentage points to 36%, essentially matching its level of a month ago. The percentage saying the economy is "getting worse" fell as well (falling 6 points from a week ago), matching its level of a month ago at 58%. The sharp drop in consumer confidence after enjoying three weeks of new highs reflects the fragile nature of consumer perceptions at this point in time. * Job Creation also tumbled as Gallup's Job Creation Index fell to zero from the prior week's high of +3. The percentage of employees saying their companies are hiring is at 26% -- up from 22% a month ago but down from 32% a year ago. The percentage of workers saying their companies are letting people go is also at 26% -- the same as a month ago and 5 points higher than a year ago. This decline in the Job Creation Index suggests the prior week's improvement may once again be more of a blip than a trend as was the case in mid-May. * Consumer Spending increased as self-reported daily spending in stores, restaurants, gas stations, and online averaged $67 -- up from the previous week's $60-per-day spending level -- but remaining in the range of recent weeks ($60-$72). Some of this uptick in spending may result from the fact that this is one of those weeks that encompasses a payday for many consumers. Spending continues to reflect the "new normal," remaining down 30% from spending during the same week a year ago. http://www.gallup.com/poll/123476/gallup-economic-weekly-consumer-confidence-tumbles.aspx |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: LOL. Mike, you just defined capitalism. I don't know of any successful business that refuses to hire people because they don't have a guarantee they can afford them next year. Get used to it, Mike; there are no guarantees. Not in business, not in government, and certainly not in life. quote: Good thing no one did that, then, isn't it? Morally, though, I wonder if it would be all that much worse than simply doing nothing? Or, worse, actively preventing someone else from helping the guy because you don't like the way they intend to do it? quote: I don't disagree, Mike. Political promises are almost always unrealistic. That's probably because people expect guarantees? Like you, I would have preferred realistic goals. Still, I think goals you can't possibly reach are better than no goals at all. quote: Applauding? I certainly acknowledge the reality that economics, by its very nature, doesn't exist in a vacuum. And, no, one construction worker isn't going to pay anyone's rent. Fortunately, you don't see too many job sites with just one guy working. quote: When unemployment reaches zero percent, Mike, that argument might work for you. Unfortunately, the guy who is unemployed today is facing almost exactly the same problems as the guy who couldn't find work during the boom years. I certainly won't disagree that individuals are hurting. I just don't find it relevant to your argument that unemployment is the only indicator that matters. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
I like figures. Sometimes they can really tell you things. 10% is less than 20% of a given number for instance and +6 is more than -6. Sometimes though they're a complete waste of time, this is one of those. Unless you can tell me what the unemployment rate would have been without the stimulus package Mike none of your figures are worth a bean. For all I know it could have been 20% or 30% without the stimulus - in which case the stimulus package starts to look like a really good idea. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
the guy who is unemployed today is facing almost exactly the same problems as the guy who couldn't find work during the boom years. True enough, Ron, but there are so many more of them and, because there are more of them, there is less money circulating and being spent and less being paid in taxes for governmental use. I just don't find it relevant to your argument that unemployment is the only indicator that matters. Not the only, Ron, but the most important. When people are working, things work out a lot better. If you want to hold on to the premise that consumer confidence is the most important indicator, then we are in REAL trouble. Obama can talk until he is blue in the face on how the stimulus plan is working but, for as long at the unemployment percentage keeps rising, it's all hot air. Grinch, yes, the democrats tried to use that same excuse. It didn't work for them, either. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
I don't know of any successful business that refuses to hire people because they don't have a guarantee they can afford them next year. Get used to it, Mike; there are no guarantees. Not in business, not in government, and certainly not in life. True enough, Ron, but that's not what we have here (as I think you know). You are a fellow living on a fairly strict budget. You live in a house with the basics in furniture, nothing more...a chair, a small couch, no tv...just the basics because that's all you can afford. Your rich uncle (me) comes in one day and says, "Ron, it pains me to see you living like this. I'm going to furnish your house and make the payments for you." So I get you a nice fluffy couch, some pictures on the wall, a big- screen tv and other items to make your existence a lot more bearable. Problem is, I come back a year later and say "Ron, I've fallen on a bit of hard times and I'm not making the payments any more". You are now scrambling to either find a way to pay for all of the things I gave you or letting them go and going back to the way you were. That has nothing to do with capitalism, Ron |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: I've no idea why it wouldn't work Mike - because it happens to be the truth. I'm not saying that the effect has been positive or negative; all I'm saying is that it's a fallacy to believe that you can measure the effect one way or the other without knowing what the effect of not implementing the package would have been. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: Bingo. And, I might add, no worse off than before either. quote: Absolutely, Mike. Absolutely. But what do you want to have them doing? Who's supposed to pay them for their work? It's probably not going to be a business that can't make any money because they can't sell anything. It's not going to be a corporation whose stock just plummeted. And it's almost certainly not going to be the guy who couldn't start a new business because the bank wouldn't cover his loan. Capitalism ends at the happy worker, Mike. That's not where it starts. The stock market is going up. Housing is starting to look better. Advertising is finally starting to rebound (Google made $1.6 billion last quarter). It takes money to make money, Mike. That's true for business and it's equally true for the worker. We're not out of the woods yet, in my opinion, but I can guarantee you that employment will follow profit. It always has, it always will. It's called the stimulus plan, Mike. Far as I know, it never was called the employment plan. quote: What does that kind of logic say about terrorists, Mike? So long as the loss of American lives continues to rise? What does that mean? Winning a battle is a process. Crying Uncle 'cause victory didn't come as quickly as you'd hoped has never been our way. Especially when victory is clearly in sight. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Tell that to Obama, grinch, because they ARE measuring effects one way or another...their way. What you are saying is that Democrats can no more say that the stimulus plan is working than the Republicans can say it isn't. Reid said he's convinced the stimulus package helped save the world's economy. "Times are tough. We know how high unemployment is. And I want you all to focus on how much worse things would have been had we not acted," Reid said. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
And, I might add, no worse off than before either. You really believe that, Ron? The police departments buy new equipment which greatly enhances their ability to catch the bad guys but can't maintain it when uncle cuts their allowance. The rezoning they did to hire officers to show greater presence in troubled areas have to be eliminated andthe bad guys know it. It's not always that easy putting the genie back in the bottle, Ron. Who's supposed to pay them for their work? Easy enough to answer....the rich guys, Ron, the evil ones that Obama lays the blame on for everything, the ones that create businesses, hire people.... and make profits. They are not hiring...and why should they? Obama has labeled them the enemy. They are the ones who are first in line to be taxed heavily any time Obama needs money. Why should they hire, expand, make money when Obama is simply going to take it? They are holding a world bearing down on them on their shoulders...and they are shrugging. What does that kind of logic say about terrorists, Mike? So long as the loss of American lives continues to rise? What does that mean? When the loss becomes less than it was, we are winning. When the rate of loss continues to grow higher, we are losing. Unemployment continues to rise. We are losing. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: That's exactly what I'm saying. Reid's statement that he's convinced the stimulus worked is just an opinion, in the same way that Ron's argument that something had to be done is just an opinion - nobody knows for sure one way or the other what would have happened without the stimulus. People just have opinions. You can surmise, calculate or just plain guess but the truth is that the economy could have been a lot better or it could have been a lot worse without the stimulus, it might even have ended up in exactly the same situation it's in now. My opinion is that it the very real possibility of it being a whole lot worse had to be avoided at all costs. The stimulus package was an attempt to do just that. I can't give you a cast iron guarantee that it worked - all I can say is that, so far, it isn't a whole lot worse than it could have been, which is the one thing that had to be avoided. . |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
all I can say is that, so far, it isn't a whole lot worse than it could have been, Then you are contradicting yourself. You can't know that it isn't worse for certain, according to you. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Mike, How did you explain the jobless recovery at the end of the 1990-1991 Bush administration, when the market and business was coming out of the recession and the job market had not yet recovered. Were you blaming it on Bush or on Reagan, or were you actually trying to offer some other possible explanation for why the job market was lagging behind? Other than the fact that this recession was considerably worse to start out with (because of the what I believe to be the hole that the Republicans dug for us during the previous eight years (and which I understand you don't believe at all), why do you believe that a stimulus package like that George Bush Senior used to get the country out of the 1990 recession would be a failure in this recession? It may have cost George Bush Senior a second term, but it laid the groundwork for a period of extraordinary prosperity over the next eight years. Curiously, Bob Kaven |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
"the previous eight years"...number 26. Pardon me if I don't respond to the stuck record, Bob...it gets a little too tiresome for me. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: Mike, That would be true if I were making a prediction of what it could have been but I wasn't. I was referring to the relative assessments of the three possible states based on what is, then stating the blindingly obvious. "it isn't a whole lot worse than it could have been" To see the logic of the statement all you need to do is ask yourself if it could have been worse then ask yourself if it is worse. If it helps I'll give you another non-contradictory statement to balance it out: It isn't a whole lot better than it could have been either. [This message has been edited by Grinch (10-17-2009 09:30 AM).] |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Can't buy that twist, grinch. "it isn't a whole lot worse is a definitive statement. It's not conditional in that form and it's not presented as an opinion. It's not something you can know or state with validity or proof. It could be a whole lot worse or a whole lot better...there's no way to know. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: So is it isn't a whole lot better either. Both are logically correct as long as we don't know what they could have been, which was my original point - we can't ever know what they would have been without the stimulus. You look at bad figures and equate it to a bad economic strategy, what you can't seem to accept is that those figures could have been a whole lot worse and that a good economic strategy kept the economy from getting into that worse state. I've no problem accepting the alternative, that the economy could have been better and was actually suppressed by the stimulus - I can accept it but I can't prove it because I don't know how much better it would have been without the stimulus. It could have been a whole lot better than it is - but it isn't - and it isn't a whole lot worse than it could have been. As I said at the start - there's no way to know. quote: . |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
True enough.,..tell it to Obama |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Mike, Not a stuck record, Mike. Not even the same eight years. Not even the same President Bush. This must play havoc with you and your billing and income taxes, this automatic shutoff of your brain when you see the number. Since the words were the last two in the post, and despite the impression you sometimes give me of doing things completely backwards, I don't actually believe that to be the case. I asked about the way you dealt with the Republican Jobless recession in the early 90's. I think your unwillingness to grapple with the inconvenience of the question does not mean that there aren't issues with this jobless recovery. I also think that it's worth the trouble of figuring what the difference is between this one and the last one, so that we can talk about whatever the actual problems are in a way that reaches beyond partisan concerns. I think that would be in everybody's interest. If there are authentic problems here, I want to be able to think about them too, and I don't want to be distracted by issues that we could simply alternate sides on, depending upon who's in power. Yours, Bob Kaven |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Were you blaming it on Bush or on Reagan, LOL! You give me a choice between two Republican presidents.....nice Actually, Bob, you would be amazed at my lack of interest in politics 20 years ago. Besides, I just found out through Ron's explanation of "lagging indicators" that George Bush must have been responsible for Clinton's era of prosperity....a nice thought |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Mike, If you'd actually have read the post I'd written, you might have seen something very close to the same thing, as well as some qualified praise of Bush senior. It's still there. You seem to be in such a hurry to see me on one way that you blank out on evidence that doesn't support you opinion. I gave you the choice of two Republican Presidents because; a) there was a Republican President in office at the time, and there had been for the entire term of office; and, 2) the President in office before that was Ronald Reagan, for eight years, who had handed him the economy that Republicans ever since had spoken of in plummy golden tones. The choice is even less ambiguous than the one presented now, isn't it? The choice is presented by history. Once again, you've gotten out that old Republican six shooter to murder the messenger, so that you can pretend the news doesn't exist. For somebody who couldn't be interested in history, you were sure quick to bring up a lot of it during the last Bush administration, and use the finger-pointing technique that you so loathe now to take the heat off Bush junior. You are perhaps telling me that I was foolish to take your references to past history seriously at that time? That you were only trying to change the subject to get away from dealing with the poverty of Bush's position at the time? Nevertheless, I attempted to answer most of those questions as best I could. If you felt that material was interesting enough to bring up, including material about Hillary's health care initiatives in '92 and '93, I find your sudden shift in attitude about the material from 90-and '91 as ancient history to ring hollowly indeed. I believe you probably defended Bush Senior's Jobless recovery during the '92 Presidential campaign with as much fervor as you are attacking this jobless recovery. I make no attempt to say Jobless recoveries are good or bad because I simply don't know. What I am interested in is how the two jobless recoveries are different, and in what we can learn by looking at the differences and the similarities between them. For all I know you may be correct in condemning the democrats on both occasions. What I want to know is what have we learned? If Obama made a mistake here, exactly what is it? If it's the same thing that Bush senior did, what makes Bush Senior's tactics a good one (and I think it was) and what makes Obama's tactic a bad one. I think it wasn't, but I want to learn about it. In order to do that we need to get beyond this partisan twaddle — and it is twaddle — and start thinking. Together. Is that asking too much? Sincerely, Bob Kaven [This message has been edited by Bob K (10-18-2009 12:19 AM).] |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
I also think that it's worth the trouble of figuring what the difference is between this one and the last one, so that we can talk about whatever the actual problems are in a way that reaches beyond partisan concerns. Yes, Bob, that could be a way to see the similarities and differences. Unfortunately, I'm not up to going back investigating all of the reasons and facts concerning the 90-91 recession and also the current one for comparison purposes. There is simply not enough free time in my day for that. Besides, I doubt anything would be resolved by it. You stated once that you felt Clinton had a large part of the blame for the housing crisis. Then you blamed it on republicans. When I reprinted your statement about Clinton, you accused me of taking your statement out of context. I have a feeling that same type of rapport would happen in this case so it would probably be a waste of time for both of us....I'd rather play poker. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
I believe you probably defended Bush Senior's Jobless recovery during the '92 Presidential campaign with as much fervor as you are attacking this jobless recovery. Then your belief would be wrong. I actually had no feelings one way or another about the '92 campaign. It didn't bother me when Clinton won at all. I actually didn't get interested in politics, or at least Clinton, when I started seeing some of the shoddy things he and Hillary were doing and wondering how they were getting away with it...like the White House travel office, the missing FBI files that magically showed up on Hillary's desk and other items like that. It made me wonder why the press turned a blind eye to all of those things and caused me to see the connection between the press and democrats...and it bothered me. I started paying attention to politics after that and began seeing the double standard and all of the sleazy things democrats were getting away with. What is Obama doing wrong? He's strangling the geese that lay the golden eggs. He's going after those "evil rich" who provide jobs to the point they are not providing jobs and he's complaining that there are not enough jobs. He's thrown the economy into a debt that can't be repaid for generations. He's trying to raise taxes at a time people are having a hard time existing. He has gone against all evidence that one doesn't tax oneself out of debt and turned his back on JFK wisdom. He is increasing government controls at a time there should be less. His plans for redistribution of wealth will have grave consequences. He will not allow businesses to get us out of this recession because he is anti-business. Those are my opinions of Obama's policies and their repercussions. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Well, Mike, I see that you're making an effort here. I still believe that Clinton had some things to do with the housing crisis. I don't believe his role was large, but I believe that there was some role. I also believe that the Bush Senior tax cut did help the jobless recovery at that time. I believe it did help lay the groundwork for the prosperity for the 90's, though was not solely responsible for it. I do believe it's important to look at these two Jobless recovery situations and try to understand the differences and the similarities between them. I wrote a bit about that in another thread just a little while ago, and I don't want to repeat myself. I think that it will save us a lot of high blood pressure and let us do some thinking together, always a useful exercise. Mostly I'm concerned about your gut and hope that things are going to go well for you. I watched a Saturday night live skit last night with The Rock — who used to be the pro wrestler — playing Barack Obama confronting a group of Republican senators and then Joe Biden in the Oval Office. I think you can probably find it on the net. With your generous sense of humor, you'd probably have hysterics the whole way through it. Obama got angry and turned into Hulk/Obama. Best to you, Bob Kaveb |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Yes, George S. showed it on This Week this morning...and it IS hilarious  |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
