A no BS, non partisan examination of the success of Obama's stimulus package

[bendog]

Here is the real dollars per capita for the federal budget.



The blue line is revenue or receipt.

At best, assuming that the bump during the Bush admin was caused by the Bush era tax cuts, then the may have had some effect.

But, at best, it was no better than the level in 2000.

Then there is the problem that spending was also increased starting in 2001 (abouts).

Then there is the issue that it subsequently fell after the max, right into a recession of major proportions. And all of the gains, if they can be called that, were lost to a massive recession that devistated revenues even as spending went to all time highs.

It's just not there.

I'm not sure what we are arguing. If you took my posts to mean that I thought the recession was a result of W's deficits, either I was unclear or you misread. I do think the credit bubble was a direct result of Greenspan not regulating lenders and keeping rates low, while W increased govt spending by about 1.2 trillion. The chinese demand for debt was not satisfied by TBills, and that led, indirectly, to demand for US real estate debt obligations.

While I'm not a fan of Obama, it is true that he increased spending "only" by around 700 billion, despite the recession.

The debt increase is, as I think you say, the result of funding that 1.2 trillion when "the bottom fell out" of revenues. However, I would disagree if you contend any real econ gain was made during the W years.

Regardless, my original pt was intended to argue that, with 17 trillion in debt and a ration of around 75% (or 100%) debt gnp, there's no good arugment for another budget stimulus.

You really need to check your math, or your baseline assumptions.

Tell you what, explain to me how TARP, demerits aside, a one time loan which was repaid, counts as deficit spending debt for Bush and baseline spending for Obama.

ofay, lets for the sake of discussion eliminate TARP and say Bush "only" increased spending by 1.2 trillion minus the400-450 billion of tarp. happy now?

 

[francoHFW]

Without the stimulus and 600 billion a year for UE and welfare for the victims- try 1930-33... Thank god Dems were there this time FAST, because Pubs are greedy MORONS...WAY TO WRECK THE RECOVERY SINCE 2/4/2010, MINDLESS OBSTRUCTIONIST A-HOLES...LOL

 

[itfitzme]

Obama could of given that 800 billion dollars back to every citizen in the country and they could of used to pay bills, buy a car, etc etc and STIMULATE the economy that way, but instead he took it and we have no frikken idea where it went and how it was spent and we STILL have over 7% unemployment after 5 frikken years of this failure

the Op is determined to make Obama out to be some brilliant hero when nearly 60% who disapprove of him disagree

petty pathetic if you ask me

If you knew how the stimulus worked you would know the money generated demand. A ripple effect. It wasn't zero sum.

WHAT is the ZERO SUM GAME, Billy? YOU don't have a clue, do you?

HINT? Our system ISN'T...you and Statists believe it is, and are making it so BY policy, and too much spending BY government.

And you base your unqualified opinion on what? Your feelings, vauge ideas, and how upset you get when you have one of your paranoid delusional hallucinations?

Do you even know what a "zero sum game" means?

 

[Stephanie]

Without the stimulus and 600 billion a year for UE and welfare for the victims- try 1930-33... Thank god Dems were there this time FAST, because Pubs are greedy MORONS...WAY TO WRECK THE RECOVERY SINCE 2/4/2010, MINDLESS OBSTRUCTIONIST A-HOLES...LOL

Obama and Democrats has magic money trees they just grow monies and pluck it to SAVE US ALL
all HAIL the democrats

 

[francoHFW]

WHAT WE NEED NOW IS AN INFRASYRUCTURE/JOBS ACT, duh, which Pubs have blocked since 2/2010...ACTUALLY, no more PHONY CRISES WOULD DO IT...0.6 CUT IN GROWTH EVERY TIME...

 

[bendog]

Without the stimulus and 600 billion a year for UE and welfare for the victims- try 1930-33... Thank god Dems were there this time FAST, because Pubs are greedy MORONS...WAY TO WRECK THE RECOVERY SINCE 2/4/2010, MINDLESS OBSTRUCTIONIST A-HOLES...LOL

I don't really blame or credit either party with the "after" bubble burst responses. Both W (Paulson) and Obama weren't horrible, AFTER the burst. But, I think you should give the Bernanke some credit. He followed Milton Friedman's book to the tee. Friedman is summarized as saying "ok we bankers caused the great depression, and we promise to never do it again."

Rather than reducing the amount of credit in response to historical levels of default, he shoved more liquidity down the markets' throat than a frenchman with a goose for pate.

 

[Faun]

Excuse me, we are talking TODAY...not 20 something years ago

A seven percent rate of unemployment is understood to be on the high side of natural rate of unemployment. 5% is standard, 7% on the high side.

During the Carter admin, the gov attempted to drive the 7% rate down to five. It was a big mistake and caused inflation. The trade of is always the unemployment rate vs inflation.

At this point, complaints about the unemployment rate specifically are ill advised.

_____________

"Natural rate of employment is the rate of unemployment at which the economy is said to be in practically full employment situation with regard "

"The natural rate and the Phillips curve"

Natural rate of unemployment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Many estimates suggest that the long-run normal level of the unemployment rate--the level that the unemployment rate would be expected to converge to in the next 5 to 6 years in the absence of shocks to the economy--is in a range between 5 and 6 percent. Policymakers' judgments about the long-run normal rate of unemployment in the Summary of Economic Projections are generally in this range as well. For example, in the most recent projections, FOMC participants' estimates of the longer-run normal rate of unemployment had a central tendency of 5.2 percent to 5.8 percent."

FRB: What is the lowest level of unemployment that the U.S. economy can sustain?

I don't care about all that crap...Obama promised with his 800 billion dollars he stole from us taxpayers and called a stimulus it would DROP unemployment to below 7%
get real we heard from Democrats how 6% was devastating under Bush..

wiki is now our sources for unemployment...lovely

You're a rightard .... Obama made no such promise.

 

[Stephanie]

A seven percent rate of unemployment is understood to be on the high side of natural rate of unemployment. 5% is standard, 7% on the high side.

During the Carter admin, the gov attempted to drive the 7% rate down to five. It was a big mistake and caused inflation. The trade of is always the unemployment rate vs inflation.

At this point, complaints about the unemployment rate specifically are ill advised.

_____________

"Natural rate of employment is the rate of unemployment at which the economy is said to be in practically full employment situation with regard "

"The natural rate and the Phillips curve"

Natural rate of unemployment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Many estimates suggest that the long-run normal level of the unemployment rate--the level that the unemployment rate would be expected to converge to in the next 5 to 6 years in the absence of shocks to the economy--is in a range between 5 and 6 percent. Policymakers' judgments about the long-run normal rate of unemployment in the Summary of Economic Projections are generally in this range as well. For example, in the most recent projections, FOMC participants' estimates of the longer-run normal rate of unemployment had a central tendency of 5.2 percent to 5.8 percent."

FRB: What is the lowest level of unemployment that the U.S. economy can sustain?

I don't care about all that crap...Obama promised with his 800 billion dollars he stole from us taxpayers and called a stimulus it would DROP unemployment to below 7%
get real we heard from Democrats how 6% was devastating under Bush..

wiki is now our sources for unemployment...lovely

You're a rightard .... Obama made no such promise.

I don't play lefttards games...go research yourself...at least you're back into the here and now

 

[bendog]

93% of Economists Agree Obama Stimulus Helped Economy ? I Acknowledge Class Warfare Exists

why didn't they just make 100% it agree?

Hah, you want economists to agree. And world peace, and end to hunger and death, and ... free beer? (-:

 

[itfitzme]

Here is the real dollars per capita for the federal budget.



The blue line is revenue or receipt.

At best, assuming that the bump during the Bush admin was caused by the Bush era tax cuts, then the may have had some effect.

But, at best, it was no better than the level in 2000.

Then there is the problem that spending was also increased starting in 2001 (abouts).

Then there is the issue that it subsequently fell after the max, right into a recession of major proportions. And all of the gains, if they can be called that, were lost to a massive recession that devistated revenues even as spending went to all time highs.

It's just not there.

I'm not sure what we are arguing. If you took my posts to mean that I thought the recession was a result of W's deficits, either I was unclear or you misread. I do think the credit bubble was a direct result of Greenspan not regulating lenders and keeping rates low, while W increased govt spending by about 1.2 trillion. The chinese demand for debt was not satisfied by TBills, and that led, indirectly, to demand for US real estate debt obligations.

While I'm not a fan of Obama, it is true that he increased spending "only" by around 700 billion, despite the recession.

The debt increase is, as I think you say, the result of funding that 1.2 trillion when "the bottom fell out" of revenues. However, I would disagree if you contend any real econ gain was made during the W years.

Regardless, my original pt was intended to argue that, with 17 trillion in debt and a ration of around 75% (or 100%) debt gnp, there's no good arugment for another budget stimulus.

I don't think we are aguing about anything. I can't justify any stimulous at an unemployment rate of ~7%.

I think we pretty much have the same conclusion. I am under the impression that all the tax cuts did what provide monies that could be used for the only available investment opportunity, a housing bubble.

 

[The T]

A seven percent rate of unemployment is understood to be on the high side of natural rate of unemployment. 5% is standard, 7% on the high side.

During the Carter admin, the gov attempted to drive the 7% rate down to five. It was a big mistake and caused inflation. The trade of is always the unemployment rate vs inflation.

At this point, complaints about the unemployment rate specifically are ill advised.

_____________

"Natural rate of employment is the rate of unemployment at which the economy is said to be in practically full employment situation with regard "

"The natural rate and the Phillips curve"

Natural rate of unemployment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Many estimates suggest that the long-run normal level of the unemployment rate--the level that the unemployment rate would be expected to converge to in the next 5 to 6 years in the absence of shocks to the economy--is in a range between 5 and 6 percent. Policymakers' judgments about the long-run normal rate of unemployment in the Summary of Economic Projections are generally in this range as well. For example, in the most recent projections, FOMC participants' estimates of the longer-run normal rate of unemployment had a central tendency of 5.2 percent to 5.8 percent."

FRB: What is the lowest level of unemployment that the U.S. economy can sustain?

I don't care about all that crap...Obama promised with his 800 billion dollars he stole from us taxpayers and called a stimulus it would DROP unemployment to below 7%
get real we heard from Democrats how 6% was devastating under Bush..

wiki is now our sources for unemployment...lovely

You're a rightard .... Obama made no such promise.

Team Obama said in ’09 stimulus would have unemployment below 6% by 2012

Obamanomics 101 – The Stimulus Package Will Keep Unemployment Under 8%

Keep unemployment under 8% — This is the one of the better known selling points. So, how did that work?
The unemployment rate when Obama took office was 7.6%. The stimulus was passed in February 2009. According to Obama, it was never supposed to go above 8% — well, it was already at 8.1% when the stimulus became a law. And it never got any better. According to the Bureau of Labor & Statistics, the unemployment rate remained high. There were some predictions that it would stay above 9% until 2012 (and this was from the White House no less). The CBO also predicts that the unemployment rate would be 8.2% come November 2012 which is higher than when he took office.
If you look at the chart provided by the DOL, there was some decline from January 2010 to approximately September 2010. The Obama Administration hailed this as a success for the stimulus package. However, the census was being done at that time which allowed the numbers to remain artificially propped up during this time frame. Once these jobs were completed, these people returned once again to the unemployment line.

 

[bendog]

Here is the real dollars per capita for the federal budget.



The blue line is revenue or receipt.

At best, assuming that the bump during the Bush admin was caused by the Bush era tax cuts, then the may have had some effect.

But, at best, it was no better than the level in 2000.

Then there is the problem that spending was also increased starting in 2001 (abouts).

Then there is the issue that it subsequently fell after the max, right into a recession of major proportions. And all of the gains, if they can be called that, were lost to a massive recession that devistated revenues even as spending went to all time highs.

It's just not there.

I'm not sure what we are arguing. If you took my posts to mean that I thought the recession was a result of W's deficits, either I was unclear or you misread. I do think the credit bubble was a direct result of Greenspan not regulating lenders and keeping rates low, while W increased govt spending by about 1.2 trillion. The chinese demand for debt was not satisfied by TBills, and that led, indirectly, to demand for US real estate debt obligations.

While I'm not a fan of Obama, it is true that he increased spending "only" by around 700 billion, despite the recession.

The debt increase is, as I think you say, the result of funding that 1.2 trillion when "the bottom fell out" of revenues. However, I would disagree if you contend any real econ gain was made during the W years.

Regardless, my original pt was intended to argue that, with 17 trillion in debt and a ration of around 75% (or 100%) debt gnp, there's no good arugment for another budget stimulus.

I don't think we are aguing about anything. I can't justify any stimulous at an unemployment rate of ~7%.

I think we pretty much have the same conclusion. I am under the impression that all the tax cuts did what provide monies that could be used for the only available investment opportunity, a housing bubble.

yeah. In retrospect Gore probably had the better idea that if you want to have a tax cut, require the tax cut to go into savings rather than consumption, because at the time we were refinancing houses to buy duck dynasty four wheelers and take the kids to Disneyworld.

And given the sad reality of so many older workers losing jobs that won't be theirs again, 7% may well be full employment at this time. The gop may have the better arguement that it's better to force these folks into lousy and part-time jobs. Personally, I'd add that we as a society need to make sure they have health care too, be it from Obamacare or the gop's now discarded proposals for using tax money in private markets

 

[itfitzme]

I thought this thread title said no B.S.

Can we put this is the "fib forum" ?

More like the shithead forum.

all of his are that he post trying to make excuses for Obama and make him some hero instead of the LIAR and failure he has been to us and our country...Too bad for him almost 60% of the people see's Obama for what he is...that 30 percent is where Billy fall's, hard core cult members...

we can serf the net and come up with links that says the stimulus was a failure...

Problem is that 50% of the people have a below average IQ and reading comprehension.

And you can't come up with any links that are based on real empirical data or sound theory and deductive arguement.

You have to be pretty ignorant to not clearly see the tragectory of the resession what going down and fast. It really is pretty obvious. So what do you think happened then, it just stopped all magically by itself? Suddenly the entire economy of consumers and businesses turned around and began borrowing again? Really, what is your objective explaination for why it stopped falling?

 

[francoHFW]

Without the stimulus and 600 billion a year for UE and welfare for the victims- try 1930-33... Thank god Dems were there this time FAST, because Pubs are greedy MORONS...WAY TO WRECK THE RECOVERY SINCE 2/4/2010, MINDLESS OBSTRUCTIONIST A-HOLES...LOL

Obama and Democrats has magic money trees they just grow monies and pluck it to SAVE US ALL
all HAIL the democrats

aND pUBS AND THEIR BRAINWASHED DUPES HAVE BEEN A DISASTER SINCE rAYGUN, rUSHBOT- SORRY ABOUT THE TRUTH. And a catastrophe since W...

The S and L and 2008 meltdown, with huge bubbles, deficits and gigantic scams, show without a doubt who has the magic money trees. Dems rely on intelligent investment- Under voodoo the nonrich and the country have gone to hell. WAKE UP, WHITE GIRL LOL...

Voodoo wrecked and IS WRECKING the nonrich to the point where demand for products and services has dried up, along with their savings...before the corruption and cronyism housing and credit meltdown of 2008- while the rich have quadrupled their wealth...

Memorize the facts, hater dupes:

1. WORKERS past 63 years worker productivity has grown by 2.0% per year.But after 1980, workers received a smaller share every year. Labor’s share of income (1992 = 100%):1950 = 101%1960 = 105%1970 = 105%1980 = 105% – Reagan1990 = 100%2000 = 96%2007 = 92%A 13% drop since 1980A 13% drop since 1980

2. THE TOP 10% GET A LARGER SHARE.Share of National Income going to Top 10%:1950 = 35%1960 = 34%1970 = 34%1980 = 34% – Reagan1990 = 40%2000 = 47%2007 = 50% TO MAKE UP FOR THE LOSS.Household Debt as percentage of GDP:1965 = 46%1970 = 45%1980 = 50% – Reagan1990 = 61%2000 = 69%2007 = 95% An increase of 16% since Reagan.

3. WORKERS COMPENSATED FOR THE LOSS OF INCOME BY SPENDING THEIR SAVINGS.The savings Rose up to Reagan and fell during and after.1950 = 6.0%1960 = 7.0%1970 = 8.5%1980 = 10.0% – Reagan1982 = 11.2% – Peak1990 = 7.0%2000 = 2.0%2006 = -1.1% (Negative = withdrawing from savings)

4. Household Debt as percentage of GDP:1965 = 46%1970 = 45%1980 = 50% – Reagan1990 = 61%2000 = 69%2007 = 95%A 45% increase after 1980.

5. SO THE GAP BETWEEN THE RICHEST AND THE POOREST HAS GROWN.Gap Between the Share of Capital Income earned by the top 1%and the bottom 80%:1980 = 10%2003 = 56%A 5.6 times increase.

6. AND THE AMERICAN DREAM IS GONE.The Probabilityy of Moving Up from the Bottom 40% to the Top 40%:1945 = 12%1958 = 6%1990 = 3%2000 = 2%A 10% Decrease.

Links:1 = ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/pf/totalf1.txt1 = https://www.clevelandfed.org/Researc...s/No7Nov04.pdf1 = Clipboard01.jpg (image)2 – Congratulations to Emmanuel Saez | The White House3 = http://www.demos.org/inequality/imag...ving_thumb.gif3 = http://www.bea.gov/national/nipaweb/...&LastYear=20104 = http://www.prudentbear.com/index.php...or-debt-of-gdp4 = FRB: Z.1 Release--Financial Accounts of the United States--June 6, 20135/6 = Wealth And Inequality In America - Business Insider

OF COURSE THE STIMULUS WORKED, dupes- READ something...

 

[itfitzme]

Without the stimulus and 600 billion a year for UE and welfare for the victims- try 1930-33... Thank god Dems were there this time FAST, because Pubs are greedy MORONS...WAY TO WRECK THE RECOVERY SINCE 2/4/2010, MINDLESS OBSTRUCTIONIST A-HOLES...LOL

Obama and Democrats has magic money trees they just grow monies and pluck it to SAVE US ALL
all HAIL the democrats

Well, in fact, money is make out of cottn. So, yeah, it does grow on cotton plants and is plucked. That is for currency denominations from $1 up.

Coins are made out of metals and stamped.

These days, though, it is simply an electronic state of some transistor in a computer.

So, for all practical purposes, yeah, it is "grown on trees". But it isn't "magic".

 

[itfitzme]

A seven percent rate of unemployment is understood to be on the high side of natural rate of unemployment. 5% is standard, 7% on the high side.

During the Carter admin, the gov attempted to drive the 7% rate down to five. It was a big mistake and caused inflation. The trade of is always the unemployment rate vs inflation.

At this point, complaints about the unemployment rate specifically are ill advised.

_____________

"Natural rate of employment is the rate of unemployment at which the economy is said to be in practically full employment situation with regard "

"The natural rate and the Phillips curve"

Natural rate of unemployment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Many estimates suggest that the long-run normal level of the unemployment rate--the level that the unemployment rate would be expected to converge to in the next 5 to 6 years in the absence of shocks to the economy--is in a range between 5 and 6 percent. Policymakers' judgments about the long-run normal rate of unemployment in the Summary of Economic Projections are generally in this range as well. For example, in the most recent projections, FOMC participants' estimates of the longer-run normal rate of unemployment had a central tendency of 5.2 percent to 5.8 percent."

FRB: What is the lowest level of unemployment that the U.S. economy can sustain?

I don't care about all that crap...Obama promised with his 800 billion dollars he stole from us taxpayers and called a stimulus it would DROP unemployment to below 7%
get real we heard from Democrats how 6% was devastating under Bush..

wiki is now our sources for unemployment...lovely

You're a rightard .... Obama made no such promise.

I've been trying to find it. I'd have asked for a definitive link but you know how that goes.

 

[bendog]

Without the stimulus and 600 billion a year for UE and welfare for the victims- try 1930-33... Thank god Dems were there this time FAST, because Pubs are greedy MORONS...WAY TO WRECK THE RECOVERY SINCE 2/4/2010, MINDLESS OBSTRUCTIONIST A-HOLES...LOL

Obama and Democrats has magic money trees they just grow monies and pluck it to SAVE US ALL
all HAIL the democrats

Well, in fact, money is make out of cottn. So, yeah, it does grow on cotton plants and is plucked. That is for currency denominations from $1 up.

Coins are made out of metals and stamped.

These days, though, it is simply an electronic state of some transistor in a computer.

So, for all practical purposes, yeah, it is "grown on trees". But it isn't "magic".

shhh, Rand Paul's liable to decide tying the value of the dollar to the price of cotton is the way to go.

 

[itfitzme]

I don't care about all that crap...Obama promised with his 800 billion dollars he stole from us taxpayers and called a stimulus it would DROP unemployment to below 7%
get real we heard from Democrats how 6% was devastating under Bush..

wiki is now our sources for unemployment...lovely

You're a rightard .... Obama made no such promise.

I don't play lefttards games...go research yourself...at least you're back into the here and now

I did and proved it doesn't exist.

I even recall, specifically, when it wasn't said.

 

[Stephanie]

I don't care about all that crap...Obama promised with his 800 billion dollars he stole from us taxpayers and called a stimulus it would DROP unemployment to below 7%
get real we heard from Democrats how 6% was devastating under Bush..

wiki is now our sources for unemployment...lovely

You're a rightard .... Obama made no such promise.

Team Obama said in ’09 stimulus would have unemployment below 6% by 2012

Obamanomics 101 – The Stimulus Package Will Keep Unemployment Under 8%

Keep unemployment under 8% — This is the one of the better known selling points. So, how did that work?
The unemployment rate when Obama took office was 7.6%. The stimulus was passed in February 2009. According to Obama, it was never supposed to go above 8% — well, it was already at 8.1% when the stimulus became a law. And it never got any better. According to the Bureau of Labor & Statistics, the unemployment rate remained high. There were some predictions that it would stay above 9% until 2012 (and this was from the White House no less). The CBO also predicts that the unemployment rate would be 8.2% come November 2012 which is higher than when he took office.
If you look at the chart provided by the DOL, there was some decline from January 2010 to approximately September 2010. The Obama Administration hailed this as a success for the stimulus package. However, the census was being done at that time which allowed the numbers to remain artificially propped up during this time frame. Once these jobs were completed, these people returned once again to the unemployment line.

You have more patience with their games than I do
don't worry, they'll just ignore it anyway

 

[Faun]

so when does the DEAR LEADER give back that 800 Billion TO US TAXPAYERS he stole from us that supposedly stopped all this free falling?

And another lie from him how this theft of almost a trillion dollars would bring UNEMPLOYMENT below 7%

OVER 7% now for five frikken years

sheeesh, another joke he played on us

Funny how the unemployment rate was over 7% during Reagan's first five frikken years and he was a god to Conservatives.

Funny how Reagan was also dealing with inflation, interest rates thru the roof, a military that was gutted, outrageous taxation that hindered business, etc... and slowly but surely helped implement policies that helped (not just in the short term) but in the long term as well.. Look, Reagan was no god, just a much better president than we have had recently and thru most of the 20th century.. he made mistakes, as every president does.. just not to the outrageous levels of an Obamalama, Bush II, Carter, etc

So what? Obama had to deal a collapsed housing market, a frozen credit market, a stock market in free fall, a trillion dollar deficit, a huge drop in GDP.


The point is, it took both presidents more than 5 years for the job market to fall below 7% unemployment. Yet while Conservatives bash Obama daily for it, they get on their prayer carpets and face Reagan's tomb in respect to him even though it also took him more than 5 years to get unemployment under 5%.

But that's ok, I expect nothing less than orgasmic hypocrisy from America's brain-dead right.