More Myths of Obamanomics

[Jarhead]

No. It's not just Bush's fault. It's the Republicans' fault, too. They obstructed the recovery measures the Democrats tried to implement. Don't blame only George Bush.

By the way, the article you linked is behind a pay wall. What's the point of linking it?

Um, Democrats controlled Congress starting in 2007. Democrats had a filibuster proof majority from 2009 to 2011. What kind of obstruction could they possibly have done?

Another talking point bites the dust.

Yes. Yours.

The Democrats never really had a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate. Joe Liberman and Ben Nelson were unreliable.

I had no problem finding the complete article (I read it in the newspaper this morning). Maybe you can get someone to teach you how to use Google?

I know how to use Google. Do you understand the point of linking an article? The link is supposed to support your point. When you link to a restricted article, you lose credibility.

Now, give me a link to one of the articles you found so easily using Google or I won't be able to believe you.

So what efforts did Liberman and Nelson vote against while siding with the GOP?

Or are you simply regurgitating left wing talking points without actually confirming their validity

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The economy blows BECAUSE Obama got his entire agenda: Failed Stimulus, Dodd-Frank, ObamaCare

 

[The Rabbi]

Rabbi doesn't actually read the articles he posts. It's why he has posted links to The Onion simply based on the headline, he thought it was a real story.

This is what shallow people with little depth to their thought process do.

Did you read the article? No, of course not. Go do something useful. Like hanging yourself, you liar.

Of course I didn't....It's behind a pay wall. Just like you didn't read it. Copy and paste the last 3 paragraphs if you read it. Prove me wrong.

Wow are you stupid. Like that's news.
First, I wrote I read it in the newspaper. You know, that thing printed on paper where you turn the pages?
Second, here. You are a liar. You are chief liar of this site.

Moreover, there is little direct evidence for a saving glut. During this recovery, the personal saving rate is well below what it was during the 1980s rapid recovery from a deep recession; 5.5% now versus 9.2% then. In my 2009 book on the crisis, "Getting Off Track," I examined the claim that there was a global savings glut and found evidence to the contrary: In the past decade global savings rates fell below what they were in the 1980s and 1990s. The U.S. has been running a current account deficit, which means national saving is below investment.

In the current era, business firms have continued to be reluctant to invest and hire, and the ratio of investment to GDP is still below normal. That is most likely explained by policy uncertainty, increased regulation, including through the Dodd Frank and Affordable Care Act, about which there is plenty of evidence, especially in comparison with the secular stagnation hypothesis.

I suppose the emergence of the secular stagnation hypothesis shouldn't be surprising. As long as there is a demand to pin the failure of bad government policies on the market system or exogenous factors, there will be a supply of theories. The danger is that this leads to more bad government policy.

Mr. Taylor is a professor of economics at Stanford University, a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, and a former Treasury undersecretary for international affairs.

 

[RDD_1210]

Did you read the article? No, of course not. Go do something useful. Like hanging yourself, you liar.

Of course I didn't....It's behind a pay wall. Just like you didn't read it. Copy and paste the last 3 paragraphs if you read it. Prove me wrong.

Wow are you stupid. Like that's news.
First, I wrote I read it in the newspaper. You know, that thing printed on paper where you turn the pages?
Second, here. You are a liar. You are chief liar of this site.

Moreover, there is little direct evidence for a saving glut. During this recovery, the personal saving rate is well below what it was during the 1980s rapid recovery from a deep recession; 5.5% now versus 9.2% then. In my 2009 book on the crisis, "Getting Off Track," I examined the claim that there was a global savings glut and found evidence to the contrary: In the past decade global savings rates fell below what they were in the 1980s and 1990s. The U.S. has been running a current account deficit, which means national saving is below investment.

In the current era, business firms have continued to be reluctant to invest and hire, and the ratio of investment to GDP is still below normal. That is most likely explained by policy uncertainty, increased regulation, including through the Dodd Frank and Affordable Care Act, about which there is plenty of evidence, especially in comparison with the secular stagnation hypothesis.

I suppose the emergence of the secular stagnation hypothesis shouldn't be surprising. As long as there is a demand to pin the failure of bad government policies on the market system or exogenous factors, there will be a supply of theories. The danger is that this leads to more bad government policy.

Mr. Taylor is a professor of economics at Stanford University, a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, and a former Treasury undersecretary for international affairs.

So why didn't you link to something we all could read the first time? Because you're a lazy fuck who got called out for not reading the shit you post. And then had to back track and pretend like you read it in the newspaper. Who are you trying to fool that with that excuse?

 

[Jarhead]

You're stupid!

Oh yeah? Well, you're stupider!

Get it?

 

[The Rabbi]

Of course I didn't....It's behind a pay wall. Just like you didn't read it. Copy and paste the last 3 paragraphs if you read it. Prove me wrong.

Wow are you stupid. Like that's news.
First, I wrote I read it in the newspaper. You know, that thing printed on paper where you turn the pages?
Second, here. You are a liar. You are chief liar of this site.

Moreover, there is little direct evidence for a saving glut. During this recovery, the personal saving rate is well below what it was during the 1980s rapid recovery from a deep recession; 5.5% now versus 9.2% then. In my 2009 book on the crisis, "Getting Off Track," I examined the claim that there was a global savings glut and found evidence to the contrary: In the past decade global savings rates fell below what they were in the 1980s and 1990s. The U.S. has been running a current account deficit, which means national saving is below investment.

In the current era, business firms have continued to be reluctant to invest and hire, and the ratio of investment to GDP is still below normal. That is most likely explained by policy uncertainty, increased regulation, including through the Dodd Frank and Affordable Care Act, about which there is plenty of evidence, especially in comparison with the secular stagnation hypothesis.

I suppose the emergence of the secular stagnation hypothesis shouldn't be surprising. As long as there is a demand to pin the failure of bad government policies on the market system or exogenous factors, there will be a supply of theories. The danger is that this leads to more bad government policy.

Mr. Taylor is a professor of economics at Stanford University, a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, and a former Treasury undersecretary for international affairs.

So why didn't you link to something we all could read the first time? Because you're a lazy fuck who got called out for not reading the shit you post. And then had to back track and pretend like you read it in the newspaper. Who are you trying to fool that with that excuse?

Why didnt you look up the article? Ohj yeah. Because you're a lazy worthless piece of shit who couldn't debate what to have for dinner with himself and still win.

 

[RDD_1210]

Wow are you stupid. Like that's news.
First, I wrote I read it in the newspaper. You know, that thing printed on paper where you turn the pages?
Second, here. You are a liar. You are chief liar of this site.

So why didn't you link to something we all could read the first time? Because you're a lazy fuck who got called out for not reading the shit you post. And then had to back track and pretend like you read it in the newspaper. Who are you trying to fool that with that excuse?

Why didnt you look up the article? Ohj yeah. Because you're a lazy worthless piece of shit who couldn't debate what to have for dinner with himself and still win.

LOL, it's not my thread. I should have to provide proof for the nonsense that YOU post? In what world does that make any sense?

 

[ron4342]

So the alleged recovery has been pitiful. The economyhas limped along for 5 years since Maobama took power. It's Bush's fault, right? A financial recession takes longer to recover from, right? Or maybe we're in a secular recession, a slow growth period that just sort of happens, right? It isn't Obama's fault or the Democrats'. Must be Bush's fault. ...

No. It's not just Bush's fault. It's the Republicans' fault, too. They obstructed the recovery measures the Democrats tried to implement. Don't blame only George Bush.

By the way, the article you linked is behind a pay wall. What's the point of linking it?

What were the recovery efforts from the democrats? Obamacare? Because that was the only thing they were working on, not trying to fix the economy.
Maybe you were talking about the stimulus bill....you know the one that Obama said failed and that there wasn't the shovel ready jobs. Maybe it was the cash for clunkers, or bailing out the auto industry. How much of the efforts made by democrats tried to implement ended up overseas?

But, please be more specific in your post.

Think of the people who believed the earth was flat. They KNEW it was flat because they had been told it was flat. Now think of the people who believed Obama's stimulus failed. Just like the people who believed the earth was flat, the people who believe the stimulus failed believe it failed because THEY HAD BEEN TOLD IT FAILED.
Consider the following:
"On the most basic level, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act is responsible for saving and creating 2.5 million jobs. The majority of economists agree that it helped the economy grow by as much as 3.8 percent, and kept the unemployment rate from reaching 12 percent.

The stimulus is the reason, in fact, that most Americans are better off than they were four years ago, when the economy was in serious danger of shutting down.

But the stimulus did far more than stimulate: it protected the most vulnerable from the recession’s heavy winds. Of the act’s $840 billion final cost, $1.5 billion went to rent subsidies and emergency housing that kept 1.2 million people under roofs. (That’s why the recession didn’t produce rampant homelessness.) It increased spending on food stamps, unemployment benefits and Medicaid, keeping at least seven million Americans from falling below the poverty line.
And as Mr. Grunwald shows, it made crucial investments in neglected economic sectors that are likely to pay off for decades. It jump-started the switch to electronic medical records, which will largely end the use of paper records by 2015. It poured more than $1 billion into comparative-effectiveness research on pharmaceuticals. It extended broadband Internet to thousands of rural communities. And it spent $90 billion on a huge variety of wind, solar and other clean energy projects that revived the industry. Republicans, of course, only want to talk about Solyndra, but most of the green investments have been quite successful, and renewable power output has doubled."
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/16/opinion/sunday/dont-tell-anyone-but-the-stimulus-worked.html?_r=0What is sad is that even though there is proof that the stimulus DID NOT fail the wingnuts will immediately dismiss that proof. After all, they had been told it failed, therefore it must have failed.

 

[Jarhead]

No. It's not just Bush's fault. It's the Republicans' fault, too. They obstructed the recovery measures the Democrats tried to implement. Don't blame only George Bush.

By the way, the article you linked is behind a pay wall. What's the point of linking it?

What were the recovery efforts from the democrats? Obamacare? Because that was the only thing they were working on, not trying to fix the economy.
Maybe you were talking about the stimulus bill....you know the one that Obama said failed and that there wasn't the shovel ready jobs. Maybe it was the cash for clunkers, or bailing out the auto industry. How much of the efforts made by democrats tried to implement ended up overseas?

But, please be more specific in your post.

Think of the people who believed the earth was flat. They KNEW it was flat because they had been told it was flat. Now think of the people who believed Obama's stimulus failed. Just like the people who believed the earth was flat, the people who believe the stimulus failed believe it failed because THEY HAD BEEN TOLD IT FAILED.
Consider the following:
"On the most basic level, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act is responsible for saving and creating 2.5 million jobs. The majority of economists agree that it helped the economy grow by as much as 3.8 percent, and kept the unemployment rate from reaching 12 percent.

The stimulus is the reason, in fact, that most Americans are better off than they were four years ago, when the economy was in serious danger of shutting down.

But the stimulus did far more than stimulate: it protected the most vulnerable from the recession’s heavy winds. Of the act’s $840 billion final cost, $1.5 billion went to rent subsidies and emergency housing that kept 1.2 million people under roofs. (That’s why the recession didn’t produce rampant homelessness.) It increased spending on food stamps, unemployment benefits and Medicaid, keeping at least seven million Americans from falling below the poverty line.
And as Mr. Grunwald shows, it made crucial investments in neglected economic sectors that are likely to pay off for decades. It jump-started the switch to electronic medical records, which will largely end the use of paper records by 2015. It poured more than $1 billion into comparative-effectiveness research on pharmaceuticals. It extended broadband Internet to thousands of rural communities. And it spent $90 billion on a huge variety of wind, solar and other clean energy projects that revived the industry. Republicans, of course, only want to talk about Solyndra, but most of the green investments have been quite successful, and renewable power output has doubled."
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/16/opinion/sunday/dont-tell-anyone-but-the-stimulus-worked.html?_r=0What is sad is that even though there is proof that the stimulus DID NOT fail the wingnuts will immediately dismiss that proof. After all, they had been told it failed, therefore it must have failed.

use your logic and apply it to yourself....and see what happens.

You are convinced it worked based on the data presented to you in the way it was presented giving you reason to believe it worked.

However...

Now add in things like...l;

"it created "x" amount of jobs, but there are still fewer people in the workforce now than there were before the stimulus was enacted.

Here is an example....

X amount of stimulus cash is given to company "A".

Company "A" can now underbid for a job over company "B" because company "B" is still reeling from 2 years of recession and does not have the cash that company "A" has thanks to the stimulus cash.

Company "A" gets the job and company "B" goes out of business....30 jobs lost

Company "A" needs to hire 20 more employees to meet the demand of the contract.

20 jobs created while 30 jobs were lost.

Net loss 10 jobs.

But.....20 jobs created!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Meister]

No. It's not just Bush's fault. It's the Republicans' fault, too. They obstructed the recovery measures the Democrats tried to implement. Don't blame only George Bush.

By the way, the article you linked is behind a pay wall. What's the point of linking it?

What were the recovery efforts from the democrats? Obamacare? Because that was the only thing they were working on, not trying to fix the economy.
Maybe you were talking about the stimulus bill....you know the one that Obama said failed and that there wasn't the shovel ready jobs. Maybe it was the cash for clunkers, or bailing out the auto industry. How much of the efforts made by democrats tried to implement ended up overseas?

But, please be more specific in your post.

Think of the people who believed the earth was flat. They KNEW it was flat because they had been told it was flat. Now think of the people who believed Obama's stimulus failed. Just like the people who believed the earth was flat, the people who believe the stimulus failed believe it failed because THEY HAD BEEN TOLD IT FAILED.
Consider the following:
"On the most basic level, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act is responsible for saving and creating 2.5 million jobs. The majority of economists agree that it helped the economy grow by as much as 3.8 percent, and kept the unemployment rate from reaching 12 percent.

The stimulus is the reason, in fact, that most Americans are better off than they were four years ago, when the economy was in serious danger of shutting down.

But the stimulus did far more than stimulate: it protected the most vulnerable from the recession’s heavy winds. Of the act’s $840 billion final cost, $1.5 billion went to rent subsidies and emergency housing that kept 1.2 million people under roofs. (That’s why the recession didn’t produce rampant homelessness.) It increased spending on food stamps, unemployment benefits and Medicaid, keeping at least seven million Americans from falling below the poverty line.
And as Mr. Grunwald shows, it made crucial investments in neglected economic sectors that are likely to pay off for decades. It jump-started the switch to electronic medical records, which will largely end the use of paper records by 2015. It poured more than $1 billion into comparative-effectiveness research on pharmaceuticals. It extended broadband Internet to thousands of rural communities. And it spent $90 billion on a huge variety of wind, solar and other clean energy projects that revived the industry. Republicans, of course, only want to talk about Solyndra, but most of the green investments have been quite successful, and renewable power output has doubled."
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/16/opinion/sunday/dont-tell-anyone-but-the-stimulus-worked.html?_r=0What is sad is that even though there is proof that the stimulus DID NOT fail the wingnuts will immediately dismiss that proof. After all, they had been told it failed, therefore it must have failed.

Seeing how you really don't want to talk about the stimulus funds going to financial cronies and labor unions, I won't either, but do want to mention it does go far beyond your Solyndra.

In all due respect I remind the secretary (of Energy) there is a four-letter word associated with the stimulus -- J-O-B-S,” Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., told ABC News who interviewed him for a report done in coordination with the Workshop’s ongoing investigation. “Very few jobs here, lots of jobs in China. That is not what I intended or any other legislator who voted for the stimulus intended.”

If companies want to buy Chinese turbines, they can, Schumer said, but they shouldn’t do it with tax dollars that were earmarked for jumpstarting an American industry.

“It is fine that the Chinese make them. But why don’t we use the stimulus money to start building up an industry to build them here, that was the very point of the stimulus,” Schumer told ABC. “No one even imagined, given how strongly the stimulus advertised jobs in America, that this would happen. I am befuddled that it happened and even more befuddled that the Energy Department is not backing off.”

Renewable energy money still going abroad, despite criticism from Congress - Blown Away: Tracking stimulus grants for renewable energy | Investigative Reporting Workshop

 

[AceRothstein]

So the alleged recovery has been pitiful. The economyhas limped along for 5 years since Maobama took power. It's Bush's fault, right? A financial recession takes longer to recover from, right? Or maybe we're in a secular recession, a slow growth period that just sort of happens, right? It isn't Obama's fault or the Democrats'. Must be Bush's fault. ...

No. It's not just Bush's fault. It's the Republicans' fault, too. They obstructed the recovery measures the Democrats tried to implement. Don't blame only George Bush.

By the way, the article you linked is behind a pay wall. What's the point of linking it?

Um, Democrats controlled Congress starting in 2007. Democrats had a filibuster proof majority from 2009 to 2011. What kind of obstruction could they possibly have done?
Another talking point bites the dust.
I had no problem finding the complete article (I read it in the newspaper this morning). Maybe you can get someone to teach you how to use Google?

No they didn't.

 

[Meister]

No. It's not just Bush's fault. It's the Republicans' fault, too. They obstructed the recovery measures the Democrats tried to implement. Don't blame only George Bush.

By the way, the article you linked is behind a pay wall. What's the point of linking it?

Um, Democrats controlled Congress starting in 2007. Democrats had a filibuster proof majority from 2009 to 2011. What kind of obstruction could they possibly have done?
Another talking point bites the dust.
I had no problem finding the complete article (I read it in the newspaper this morning). Maybe you can get someone to teach you how to use Google?

No they didn't.

(2 Independents that were liberals)
symantics

 

[AceRothstein]

Um, Democrats controlled Congress starting in 2007. Democrats had a filibuster proof majority from 2009 to 2011. What kind of obstruction could they possibly have done?
Another talking point bites the dust.
I had no problem finding the complete article (I read it in the newspaper this morning). Maybe you can get someone to teach you how to use Google?

No they didn't.

(2 Independents that were liberals)
symantics

No.

The Democrats didn't have 60 seats, counting the two I's, until Al Franken was seated on July 7th, 2009. At the same time, Ted Kennedy was not voting because of his medical issues. Once Kennedy passed, Paul Kirk was seated on Sept 24th, 2009 to give the Democrats 60 votes which they held until Scott Brown was seated on Feb 4th, 2010.

The Democrats had 60 votes for about 19 weeks which includes a 2 week break between sessions.

 

[Joe Steel]

... Those two caucused with the democrats. Leiberman voted along party lines over 90% of the time. Unreliable?

100% is reliable. 90% isn't.

 

[The Rabbi]

No they didn't.

(2 Independents that were liberals)
symantics

No.

The Democrats didn't have 60 seats, counting the two I's, until Al Franken was seated on July 7th, 2009. At the same time, Ted Kennedy was not voting because of his medical issues. Once Kennedy passed, Paul Kirk was seated on Sept 24th, 2009 to give the Democrats 60 votes which they held until Scott Brown was seated on Feb 4th, 2010.

The Democrats had 60 votes for about 19 weeks which includes a 2 week break between sessions.

You're splitting hairs. The truth is the Dems controlled the instruments of power in toto. They passed all the legislation they wanted with zero input from the GOP. So any claims that things suck because of teh GOP is simply a lie.

 

[Joe Steel]

No. It's not just Bush's fault. It's the Republicans' fault, too. They obstructed the recovery measures the Democrats tried to implement. Don't blame only George Bush.

By the way, the article you linked is behind a pay wall. What's the point of linking it?

Which recovery efforts did they obstruct?

Certainly none during the first two years of the recovery.

But since then?

What efforts?

The stimulus. It was far smaller than it had to be.

 

[Indeependent]

(2 Independents that were liberals)
symantics

No.

The Democrats didn't have 60 seats, counting the two I's, until Al Franken was seated on July 7th, 2009. At the same time, Ted Kennedy was not voting because of his medical issues. Once Kennedy passed, Paul Kirk was seated on Sept 24th, 2009 to give the Democrats 60 votes which they held until Scott Brown was seated on Feb 4th, 2010.

The Democrats had 60 votes for about 19 weeks which includes a 2 week break between sessions.

You're splitting hairs. The truth is the Dems controlled the instruments of power in toto. They passed all the legislation they wanted with zero input from the GOP. So any claims that things suck because of teh GOP is simply a lie.

Things sucked starting in Sep 2008.
Republicans love revising history.

The Democrats didn't make it better.

 

[Joe Steel]

... The Democrats never really had a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate. Joe Liberman and Ben Nelson were unreliable. ...

So what efforts did Liberman and Nelson vote against while siding with the GOP?

Or are you simply regurgitating left wing talking points without actually confirming their validity

They didn't have to vote against anything. The mere threat was enough. Why spend a lot of time on legislation when you know the Republicans will filibuster and two Democrats will join with them?

 

[AceRothstein]

(2 Independents that were liberals)
symantics

No.

The Democrats didn't have 60 seats, counting the two I's, until Al Franken was seated on July 7th, 2009. At the same time, Ted Kennedy was not voting because of his medical issues. Once Kennedy passed, Paul Kirk was seated on Sept 24th, 2009 to give the Democrats 60 votes which they held until Scott Brown was seated on Feb 4th, 2010.

The Democrats had 60 votes for about 19 weeks which includes a 2 week break between sessions.

You're splitting hairs. The truth is the Dems controlled the instruments of power in toto. They passed all the legislation they wanted with zero input from the GOP. So any claims that things suck because of teh GOP is simply a lie.

Splitting hairs? No. You said they had a filibuster proof majority for 2 years when they didn't. They didn't pass all the legislation they wanted to because they couldn't get it through the Senate for most of those 2 years.

 

[Joe Steel]

... Second, here. You are a liar. You are chief liar of this site.

Moreover, there is little direct evidence for a saving glut. During this recovery, the personal saving rate is well below what it was during the 1980s rapid recovery from a deep recession; 5.5% now versus 9.2% then. In my 2009 book on the crisis, "Getting Off Track," I examined the claim that there was a global savings glut and found evidence to the contrary: In the past decade global savings rates fell below what they were in the 1980s and 1990s. The U.S. has been running a current account deficit, which means national saving is below investment.

In the current era, business firms have continued to be reluctant to invest and hire, and the ratio of investment to GDP is still below normal. That is most likely explained by policy uncertainty, increased regulation, including through the Dodd Frank and Affordable Care Act, about which there is plenty of evidence, especially in comparison with the secular stagnation hypothesis.

I suppose the emergence of the secular stagnation hypothesis shouldn't be surprising. As long as there is a demand to pin the failure of bad government policies on the market system or exogenous factors, there will be a supply of theories. The danger is that this leads to more bad government policy.

Mr. Taylor is a professor of economics at Stanford University, a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, and a former Treasury undersecretary for international affairs.

So why didn't you link to something we all could read the first time? Because you're a lazy fuck who got called out for not reading the shit you post. And then had to back track and pretend like you read it in the newspaper. Who are you trying to fool that with that excuse?

I still need a link. Three paragraphs, out of context, just isn't enough to make a credible argument.