How Much Credit Should Obama Get For The Recovery?

[Chris]

I didn't say the Obama stimulus didn't create jobs...what I said is that it didn't create long term jobs. Those firemen, police and teacher's jobs that you mention were "saved" yet as soon as the stimulus ran out then those jobs were once again in danger of being cut...hence the need for Stimulus 2 AKA the Obama Jobs Bill. Quite obviously that isn't job "creation". Did you not want to share with us what your job was that was "saved" by the Obama stimulus?

I'm a realtor.

And reversing a deflationary spiral not only created jobs, it saved the entire economy.

I just about fell off my chair here, Chris. You're a Realtor and you think something in the Obama stimulus "saved" your job? Quite a concept. Down here in Florida the biggest job loses were tied into the housing market. Builders, bankers and real estate professionals lost jobs like no other job sector. What part of the Obama Stimulus do you think "saved" your job?

First time home buyer tax incentive.

You really don't know much about economics, do you?

 

[Sundial]

I made a mistake.

Actually, the Republican plan would destroy jobs.

I misread the part about setting aside that part of the plan that would destroy millions of jobs.

So, in truth, the Republican plan is a Jobs Destruction plan, not a Job Creation plan.

Because as we all know cutting governmental regulations that make it more difficult for businesses to operate is a "job killer"...right, Sun? (eye-roll)

Hate to point out the obvious here, Wry but you Progressives are so confused with regards to economics that you think the original Obama Stimulus "worked" to create jobs while bills to cut red tape and regulations will cost jobs.

No. Cutting Federal spending would kill jobs.

large and sudden cuts in federal spending would hurt growth in the near term, he and other economists warn. A move to balance the federal budget in the next year, for example, "would quickly destroy millions of jobs while creating enormous economic and social upheaval," says a recent analysis by Macroeconomic Advisers, a forecasting firm in St. Louis and Washington.

Repealing laws regulating banks would merely set us up for another financial crisis.

 

[Oldstyle]

I'm a realtor.

And reversing a deflationary spiral not only created jobs, it saved the entire economy.

I just about fell off my chair here, Chris. You're a Realtor and you think something in the Obama stimulus "saved" your job? Quite a concept. Down here in Florida the biggest job loses were tied into the housing market. Builders, bankers and real estate professionals lost jobs like no other job sector. What part of the Obama Stimulus do you think "saved" your job?

First time home buyer tax incentive.

You really don't know much about economics, do you?

Now, Chris...if you really were a Realtor then you'd know that the first time home buyer tax incentive essentially worked the same as the cash for clunkers incentive worked for the car dealers...namely a surge followed by an abrupt decline in demand. So how has Obamanomics been working for your real estate sales since that program ended?

 

[Sundial]

I'm afraid the reality here, Sun...is that this President never HAD a real jobs plan. All those promises he made us that he was working on one while he was on vacation? That was all bullshit. What he came back with was a plan that he KNEW wouldn't be passed by either the House or the Senate because it was a repeat of something that already failed.

The Republican proposal

Key elements of the proposed Jobs Through Growth Act include reducing US budget deficits (through a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution), revenue-neutral income-tax reform, and regulatory easing – for example, repealing Obama's health-care and banking reforms and paving the way for more fossil-fuel development. As with Obama's proposals, economists have mixed views on the merits of these ideas...

At the same time, large and sudden cuts in federal spending would hurt growth in the near term, he and other economists warn. A move to balance the federal budget in the next year, for example, "would quickly destroy millions of jobs while creating enormous economic and social upheaval," says a recent analysis by Macroeconomic Advisers, a forecasting firm in St. Louis and Washington.

Setting aside that idea as a political nonstarter, the firm sees the GOP plan as relatively neutral for US job creation next year. By contrast, it sees the Obama plan adding 1.3 million jobs...



Obama jobs plan vs. GOP's: Which ideas will yield most jobs soonest? - CSMonitor.com

The Republican plan is a jobs plan that doesn't actually create jobs... meanwhile, it attempts to eliminate Obamacare, banking regulations, and to amend the Constitution...

Cynicism among Republicans knows no bounds.

And what happens when this latest "stimulus" runs out? The jobs that have been "saved" will once again be lost...just as they did following the first "stimulus". So what do we do then, Wry? Stimulus 3? Then Stimulus 4? 5? 6?

Meanwhile the Republicans are proposing things that will be good for the US in THE LONG RUN but you focus on the pain those proposals will cost in the short term. There is actually a SOLUTION to the problems we face in the Republican proposals...in the joke of a "jobs bill" that Obama submitted there is no solution to any of our problems. It's simply asking us to continue to borrow trillions to prop up a system that's failed.

When the Federal government spends money to (for example) replace or repair bridges, the money doesn't disappear when the work is done. The men and women who do the work spend their wages on things like food and clothing and having a place to live.

The money they spend on things like food and clothing and having a place to live means there's more demand for those things, which means employers need to hire more people. Those people, in turn, also go out and spend their wages on food and clothes and other things.

Capitalism hasn't "failed". The business cycle - the cycle of boom and bust - has been part of capitalism since forever. The role - the necessary role - that government must play is to act as a kind of buffer, so that when things go bad there's something there to turn the cycle around. When no one else wants to spend, or lend, or buy, the government needs to be the spender and lender and job creator of last resort.

Once the cycle has turned positive - the "boom" part of it - the government isn't needed anymore. That's when it should raise taxes and pay down debt.

Unfortunately, during the last boom, George Bush did the opposite - he lowered taxes and increased debt.

 

[Oldstyle]

I made a mistake.

Actually, the Republican plan would destroy jobs.

I misread the part about setting aside that part of the plan that would destroy millions of jobs.

So, in truth, the Republican plan is a Jobs Destruction plan, not a Job Creation plan.

Because as we all know cutting governmental regulations that make it more difficult for businesses to operate is a "job killer"...right, Sun? (eye-roll)

Hate to point out the obvious here, Wry but you Progressives are so confused with regards to economics that you think the original Obama Stimulus "worked" to create jobs while bills to cut red tape and regulations will cost jobs.

No. Cutting Federal spending would kill jobs.

large and sudden cuts in federal spending would hurt growth in the near term, he and other economists warn. A move to balance the federal budget in the next year, for example, "would quickly destroy millions of jobs while creating enormous economic and social upheaval," says a recent analysis by Macroeconomic Advisers, a forecasting firm in St. Louis and Washington.

Repealing laws regulating banks would merely set us up for another financial crisis.

Sun? If we "don't" make cuts in Federal spending then we will shortly have our credit rating downgraded for the second time (quite an accomplishment for this Administration by the way since we managed to go almost three hundred years through numerous wars AND the Great Depression without that happening!). This isn't a "choice" thing. We are spending money at an unsustainable rate. Government has to be cut.

 

[Oldstyle]

The Republican proposal

Key elements of the proposed Jobs Through Growth Act include reducing US budget deficits (through a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution), revenue-neutral income-tax reform, and regulatory easing – for example, repealing Obama's health-care and banking reforms and paving the way for more fossil-fuel development. As with Obama's proposals, economists have mixed views on the merits of these ideas...

At the same time, large and sudden cuts in federal spending would hurt growth in the near term, he and other economists warn. A move to balance the federal budget in the next year, for example, "would quickly destroy millions of jobs while creating enormous economic and social upheaval," says a recent analysis by Macroeconomic Advisers, a forecasting firm in St. Louis and Washington.

Setting aside that idea as a political nonstarter, the firm sees the GOP plan as relatively neutral for US job creation next year. By contrast, it sees the Obama plan adding 1.3 million jobs...



Obama jobs plan vs. GOP's: Which ideas will yield most jobs soonest? - CSMonitor.com

The Republican plan is a jobs plan that doesn't actually create jobs... meanwhile, it attempts to eliminate Obamacare, banking regulations, and to amend the Constitution...

Cynicism among Republicans knows no bounds.

And what happens when this latest "stimulus" runs out? The jobs that have been "saved" will once again be lost...just as they did following the first "stimulus". So what do we do then, Wry? Stimulus 3? Then Stimulus 4? 5? 6?

Meanwhile the Republicans are proposing things that will be good for the US in THE LONG RUN but you focus on the pain those proposals will cost in the short term. There is actually a SOLUTION to the problems we face in the Republican proposals...in the joke of a "jobs bill" that Obama submitted there is no solution to any of our problems. It's simply asking us to continue to borrow trillions to prop up a system that's failed.

When the Federal government spends money to (for example) replace or repair bridges, the money doesn't disappear when the work is done. The men and women who do the work spend their wages on things like food and clothing and having a place to live.

The money they spend on things like food and clothing and having a place to live means there's more demand for those things, which means employers need to hire more people. Those people, in turn, also go out and spend their wages on food and clothes and other things.

Capitalism hasn't "failed". The business cycle - the cycle of boom and bust - has been part of capitalism since forever. The role - the necessary role - that government must play is to act as a kind of buffer, so that when things go bad there's something there to turn the cycle around. When no one else wants to spend, or lend, or buy, the government needs to be the spender and lender and job creator of last resort.

Once the cycle has turned positive - the "boom" part of it - the government isn't needed anymore. That's when it should raise taxes and pay down debt.

Unfortunately, during the last boom, George Bush did the opposite - he lowered taxes and increased debt.

An interesting premise, Sun... I'm curious...prior to Keynesian theory? How DID the cycle complete itself?

 

[Sundial]

And what happens when this latest "stimulus" runs out? The jobs that have been "saved" will once again be lost...just as they did following the first "stimulus". So what do we do then, Wry? Stimulus 3? Then Stimulus 4? 5? 6?

Meanwhile the Republicans are proposing things that will be good for the US in THE LONG RUN but you focus on the pain those proposals will cost in the short term. There is actually a SOLUTION to the problems we face in the Republican proposals...in the joke of a "jobs bill" that Obama submitted there is no solution to any of our problems. It's simply asking us to continue to borrow trillions to prop up a system that's failed.

When the Federal government spends money to (for example) replace or repair bridges, the money doesn't disappear when the work is done. The men and women who do the work spend their wages on things like food and clothing and having a place to live.

The money they spend on things like food and clothing and having a place to live means there's more demand for those things, which means employers need to hire more people. Those people, in turn, also go out and spend their wages on food and clothes and other things.

Capitalism hasn't "failed". The business cycle - the cycle of boom and bust - has been part of capitalism since forever. The role - the necessary role - that government must play is to act as a kind of buffer, so that when things go bad there's something there to turn the cycle around. When no one else wants to spend, or lend, or buy, the government needs to be the spender and lender and job creator of last resort.

Once the cycle has turned positive - the "boom" part of it - the government isn't needed anymore. That's when it should raise taxes and pay down debt.

Unfortunately, during the last boom, George Bush did the opposite - he lowered taxes and increased debt.

An interesting premise, Sun... I'm curious...prior to Keynesian theory? How DID the cycle complete itself?

The Great Depression is an example of what happens when there's a financial panic, and government fails to provide an adequate safety net.

 

[Oldstyle]

When the Federal government spends money to (for example) replace or repair bridges, the money doesn't disappear when the work is done. The men and women who do the work spend their wages on things like food and clothing and having a place to live.

The money they spend on things like food and clothing and having a place to live means there's more demand for those things, which means employers need to hire more people. Those people, in turn, also go out and spend their wages on food and clothes and other things.

Capitalism hasn't "failed". The business cycle - the cycle of boom and bust - has been part of capitalism since forever. The role - the necessary role - that government must play is to act as a kind of buffer, so that when things go bad there's something there to turn the cycle around. When no one else wants to spend, or lend, or buy, the government needs to be the spender and lender and job creator of last resort.

Once the cycle has turned positive - the "boom" part of it - the government isn't needed anymore. That's when it should raise taxes and pay down debt.

Unfortunately, during the last boom, George Bush did the opposite - he lowered taxes and increased debt.

An interesting premise, Sun... I'm curious...prior to Keynesian theory? How DID the cycle complete itself?

The Great Depression is an example of what happens when there's a financial panic, and government fails to provide an adequate safety net.

The problem with that theory, Sun is that many economists believe that the the reason the Great Depression was so prolonged was BECAUSE of efforts by the Federal Government to provide a "safety net" and that the only reason we eventually came out of the Great Depression was demand generated by WWII not any Keynesian policy of FDR.

 

[Sundial]

Because as we all know cutting governmental regulations that make it more difficult for businesses to operate is a "job killer"...right, Sun? (eye-roll)

Hate to point out the obvious here, Wry but you Progressives are so confused with regards to economics that you think the original Obama Stimulus "worked" to create jobs while bills to cut red tape and regulations will cost jobs.

No. Cutting Federal spending would kill jobs.

large and sudden cuts in federal spending would hurt growth in the near term, he and other economists warn. A move to balance the federal budget in the next year, for example, "would quickly destroy millions of jobs while creating enormous economic and social upheaval," says a recent analysis by Macroeconomic Advisers, a forecasting firm in St. Louis and Washington.

Repealing laws regulating banks would merely set us up for another financial crisis.

Sun? If we "don't" make cuts in Federal spending then we will shortly have our credit rating downgraded for the second time (quite an accomplishment for this Administration by the way since we managed to go almost three hundred years through numerous wars AND the Great Depression without that happening!). This isn't a "choice" thing. We are spending money at an unsustainable rate. Government has to be cut.

The day after Standard & Poor's downgraded U.S. Treasuries was the second best day for Treasuries in modern history.

---50 Amazing Numbers About the Economy

The 5 year Treasury is yielding 0.89% - approximately two percent less than inflation. If the government is in such dire financial straights, why are investors charging us so little to lend us money?

 

[Sundial]

An interesting premise, Sun... I'm curious...prior to Keynesian theory? How DID the cycle complete itself?

The Great Depression is an example of what happens when there's a financial panic, and government fails to provide an adequate safety net.

The problem with that theory, Sun is that many economists believe that the the reason the Great Depression was so prolonged was BECAUSE of efforts by the Federal Government to provide a "safety net" and that the only reason we eventually came out of the Great Depression was demand generated by WWII not any Keynesian policy of FDR.

WWII did put an end to the Great Depression - but it wasn't the war that did it.

It was the massive amount of government spending.

If the government had spent all that money in 1930, instead of 1942-45, it would have achieved the same result, without all the dead people.

 

[LoneLaugher]

The Great Depression is an example of what happens when there's a financial panic, and government fails to provide an adequate safety net.

The problem with that theory, Sun is that many economists believe that the the reason the Great Depression was so prolonged was BECAUSE of efforts by the Federal Government to provide a "safety net" and that the only reason we eventually came out of the Great Depression was demand generated by WWII not any Keynesian policy of FDR.

WWII did put an end to the Great Depression - but it wasn't the war that did it.

It was the massive amount of government spending.

If the government had spent all that money in 1930, instead of 1942-45, it would have achieved the same result, without all the dead people.

Do you think that will be accepted as fact?

 

[Listening]

WWII did put an end to the Great Depression - but it wasn't the war that did it.

It was the massive amount of government spending.

If the government had spent all that money in 1930, instead of 1942-45, it would have achieved the same result, without all the dead people.

Please provide a good argument as to why you think this was the case.

You can't justify such a conclusion on timing alone.

 

[Listening]

The Republican proposal

Key elements of the proposed Jobs Through Growth Act include reducing US budget deficits (through a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution), revenue-neutral income-tax reform, and regulatory easing – for example, repealing Obama's health-care and banking reforms and paving the way for more fossil-fuel development. As with Obama's proposals, economists have mixed views on the merits of these ideas...

At the same time, large and sudden cuts in federal spending would hurt growth in the near term, he and other economists warn. A move to balance the federal budget in the next year, for example, "would quickly destroy millions of jobs while creating enormous economic and social upheaval," says a recent analysis by Macroeconomic Advisers, a forecasting firm in St. Louis and Washington.

Setting aside that idea as a political nonstarter, the firm sees the GOP plan as relatively neutral for US job creation next year. By contrast, it sees the Obama plan adding 1.3 million jobs...



Obama jobs plan vs. GOP's: Which ideas will yield most jobs soonest? - CSMonitor.com

The Republican plan is a jobs plan that doesn't actually create jobs... meanwhile, it attempts to eliminate Obamacare, banking regulations, and to amend the Constitution...

Cynicism among Republicans knows no bounds.

And what happens when this latest "stimulus" runs out? The jobs that have been "saved" will once again be lost...just as they did following the first "stimulus". So what do we do then, Wry? Stimulus 3? Then Stimulus 4? 5? 6?

Meanwhile the Republicans are proposing things that will be good for the US in THE LONG RUN but you focus on the pain those proposals will cost in the short term. There is actually a SOLUTION to the problems we face in the Republican proposals...in the joke of a "jobs bill" that Obama submitted there is no solution to any of our problems. It's simply asking us to continue to borrow trillions to prop up a system that's failed.

When the Federal government spends money to (for example) replace or repair bridges, the money doesn't disappear when the work is done. The men and women who do the work spend their wages on things like food and clothing and having a place to live.

The money they spend on things like food and clothing and having a place to live means there's more demand for those things, which means employers need to hire more people. Those people, in turn, also go out and spend their wages on food and clothes and other things.

Capitalism hasn't "failed". The business cycle - the cycle of boom and bust - has been part of capitalism since forever. The role - the necessary role - that government must play is to act as a kind of buffer, so that when things go bad there's something there to turn the cycle around. When no one else wants to spend, or lend, or buy, the government needs to be the spender and lender and job creator of last resort.

Once the cycle has turned positive - the "boom" part of it - the government isn't needed anymore. That's when it should raise taxes and pay down debt.

Unfortunately, during the last boom, George Bush did the opposite - he lowered taxes and increased debt.

We all know what Keynesian economics sounds like.

And we know what it works like (or does not).

Was this supposed to make a point ?

 

[Listening]

Do you think that will be accepted as fact?

Not a freaking chance.

 

[Sundial]

WWII did put an end to the Great Depression - but it wasn't the war that did it.

It was the massive amount of government spending.

If the government had spent all that money in 1930, instead of 1942-45, it would have achieved the same result, without all the dead people.

Please provide a good argument as to why you think this was the case.

You can't justify such a conclusion on timing alone.

Which part?

That WWII ended the Great Depression, or that it was the spending on the war that did it, rather than the killing of the people?

 

[LoneLaugher]

Do you think that will be accepted as fact?

Not a freaking chance.

Of course not. This is where nutters go off the tracks. They are unwilling to accept things that are unquestionably true as fact.

We spend an incredible amount of time here arguing about what is and is not factual information.....as though facts are always open to dispute.

Once upon a time....on another forum....I challenged people to submit statements of fact. I was hoping to form a basis for productive discussion of issues USING DATA/FACTS that all persons involved accepted as truth.

Anything was acceptable......as long as it was undisputed fact. For example:

Human beings need oxygen in order to live. Fact.

America is the wealthiest nation in the world. Fact

Homosexuality is not a choice. Fact.


Needless to say, this attempt fell right on it's fucking face because people could not agree on even simple, basic facts. Too many nutters have been lied to for too long..........they just don't work with facts.

 

[Chris]

I just about fell off my chair here, Chris. You're a Realtor and you think something in the Obama stimulus "saved" your job? Quite a concept. Down here in Florida the biggest job loses were tied into the housing market. Builders, bankers and real estate professionals lost jobs like no other job sector. What part of the Obama Stimulus do you think "saved" your job?

First time home buyer tax incentive.

You really don't know much about economics, do you?

Now, Chris...if you really were a Realtor then you'd know that the first time home buyer tax incentive essentially worked the same as the cash for clunkers incentive worked for the car dealers...namely a surge followed by an abrupt decline in demand. So how has Obamanomics been working for your real estate sales since that program ended?

Like I said, you don't know much about economics.

We were in a deflationary spiral.

The stimulus stopped that and turned us around.

The stock market doubled, GDP grew, and we had 19 straight months of private sector job growth.

And I am making more money than I ever have.

 

[Listening]

Do you think that will be accepted as fact?

Not a freaking chance.

Of course not. This is where nutters go off the tracks. They are unwilling to accept things that are unquestionably true as fact.

There is nothing unquestionably true in the assertion that was made.

As usual, you are right on cue with a tirade that sounds like a hissy fit.

When you can provide a rock solid argument for the assertion that is made.....I'll listen.

Just to say "It's a fact" and then use the term "nutter" when someone says "the hell it is." just doesn't cut it.

 

[Listening]

Like I said, you don't know much about economics.

We were in a deflationary spiral.

The stimulus stopped that and turned us around.

The stock market doubled, GDP grew, and we had 19 straight months of private sector job growth.

And I am making more money than I ever have.

Please provide evidence that we were in a deflationary spiral. I don't believe I saw many prices go down.

The one exception was the bloated housing market which needed a major correction...and got it.

The stimulus didn't do squat. It didn't stop any kind of spiral.

The stock market recovery was from the entrance of a different type of investor (BTW we are still below where we were 10 years ago). The GDP growth is slow for a "recovery) and the 19 months is also way below where it needs to be.

And none of this can be correlated to the stimulus in a way that shows a relationship.

I am happy for you. Five people I know recently lost their jobs. Maybe you could tell them we are doing so well.

 

[LoneLaugher]

"WWII did put an end to the Great Depression - but it wasn't the war that did it.

It was the massive amount of government spending."

The above comments are factual.