Republicans are clueless when it comes to fixing the economy

[Listening]

It certainly is.

But your head up the ass hero worship isn't.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

The connection is undeniable.



CBO: Stimulus Supports 2.9 Million Jobs Today | FDL News Desk

EQUALS THIS:

You seriously need to change your avatar from a blue brain to a pile of blue dog shit.

 

[Billy000]

The connection is undeniable.



CBO: Stimulus Supports 2.9 Million Jobs Today | FDL News Desk

EQUALS THIS:

You seriously need to change your avatar from a blue brain to a pile of blue dog shit.

Prove me wrong.

 

[The Rabbi]

The connection is undeniable.



CBO: Stimulus Supports 2.9 Million Jobs Today | FDL News Desk

EQUALS THIS:

You seriously need to change your avatar from a blue brain to a pile of blue dog shit.

Prove me wrong.

The administration made predictions for how the stimulus would affect unemployment. They were completely wrong. The stimulus ran short by millions of jobs.
Review & Outlook:Why the Stimulus Failed - WSJ.com

In the first paper, the authors survey 85 different businesses, nonprofits and local governments across the country and conclude that "As is often the case when economic models are transferred from the blackboard to actual public policy, there was a gap between theory and practice."

One of the major patterns Messrs. Jones and Rothschild uncovered was that the top-down stimulus was poorly targeted. In one redolent example, a federal contractor said he was told to use smaller, nonstandard tiles that are harder and more expensive to install in order to increase the cost of the project. That way, the government could claim the money was moving out the door faster. The famous Milton Friedman line about government ordering people to dig with spoons to employ more people comes to mind.

In another case study, a budget shortfall forced a mid-size city to lay off 185 public workers—but the city received a $4 million stimulus grant to improve municipal energy efficiency. The manager of a construction company received funds for "the last thing on our list; and truthfully, the least useful thing." It happened to be a crane and a forklift.


The authors are careful to note that such anecdotes do not mean that all of the stimulus was a waste, and they did find some success stories. The problem is that all but the most reductionist Keynesians of the Paul Krugman school believe it matters what the government spends money on. A dollar that eventually will be taken out of the private economy through borrowing or higher taxes to fund pointlessly expensive projects—a la the tiny tiles—is not the way to nurture a recovery.

The second paper suggests that the stimulus did not "create or save" nearly as many jobs as the models indicate. On the basis of 1,300 interviews, Messrs. Jones and Rothschild estimate that merely 42.1% of the firms that received grants hired people who were unemployed. Instead, they poached workers from their competitors.

"This suggests just how hard it is for Keynesian job creation to work in a modern, expertise-based economy," they write. The stimulus "was implemented at a time when the Keynesian model had every chance of succeeding on its own terms. The high level of unemployment and the rapid deadline for spending created both the supply of workers and the demand for workers. If the job market results are so lackluster in this setting, economists should expect even weaker stimulative results during more modest recessions."

The lesson of such on-the-ground knowledge is that the stimulus was a lost opportunity. In practice it became a shotgun marriage between an economic theory justified by computer models and 40 years of liberal social priorities (clean energy, Medicaid expansions and the rest). This produced the 9.1% unemployment we now have.

The economy would have benefitted far more if the government had instead improved the incentives for people and businesses to invest, produce and grow. The President probably won't mention any of this, but it does explain why he has to give his latest speech.

 

[Andylusion]

Prove that $1 taxed away from a productive member of our economy and given to someone unemployed produces $1.64 in GDP.

And then subtract out the GDP lost because government took the money out of the taxpayer's wallet in the first place. With all the lost efficiency that comes with government.
Try to use facts, not feelings. Thanks!!!

There's probably some type of Fractional Spending effect that occurs.
Just like the clown like notion that Institutional Fractional Reserves allow a $1.00 to equal something like a gazillion dollars in the real world.

It works because when poor people receive money they spend it immediately on basic necessities like food clothing and shelter. That is what makes the economic growth so effective.

First, like the other people have suggested, the theory of economic stimulus as an economic multiplier, is at best ambiguous. Some models show the economic multiplier as being negative. Others show it positive.

For me, I always like to go back to the historical evidence, which in my professional opinion, is fairly clean cut.

In 1920s, Calvin Coolidge was faced with a steeper recession than what we faced in 2008. His response was to cut taxes, and cut government spending. Result? In under two years, the economy had completely recovered.

In the early 1930s, Herbert Hoover faced with a similar recession, engaged in stimulus, and government spending plans, and so on. All of his policies were continued by FDR. Result? An entire decade of depression, and then an additional recession in 1936,

Bush in 2001, was faced with a recession, and only cut taxes, no real additional spending. Result? In under two years, the recession was over, and lasted up till 2007.

Bush, in 2009, faced with a recession engaged in stimulus and bank bailouts, and other programs, all of which were continued and expended under Obama. (and all ironically, exactly what we did in the 1930s). Result? 5 years of stagnate growth.

So we repeated in 2001, what happened in 1920s, and had the same result.

Then we repeated in 2009, what happened in 1930s, and we are having the same result.

See a pattern here?

The problem with the leftist belief in moving money around, is that you are ignoring wealth creation.

If simply moving money around, made us more wealthy, then we should just have the government given everyone money for everything, and we'll be the most wealthy country on Earth. Name a country that has done then, and several have, that ended up wealthy?

See the problem is, if we all just bought and sold stuff, we'd all end up poor, because it isn't buy and selling that makes us wealthy... it's producing.

Producing wealth, is what makes us wealthy. If you have the government give me money, and buy food, and I eat the food. I am producing no wealth, but I am consuming wealth. The food is consumed. It's value in our economy is gone. But I'm not producing any wealth. Society would be more wealthy if I didn't exist.

Paying people to not work, will not result in long term economic growth. In the short term, you can record higher economic numbers. But when as more people are consuming and producing nothing, the numbers hide a decline in the wealth of society.

World War 2, was a perfect example of this. When government spending peaked, the GDP numbers were impressive.

But in reality, the standard of living among the citizens had drastically declined. Cars were scarce. Food was rationed. Housing was limited. Even the availability of cloth and thread, for making clothes, was limited and scarce.

So even while GDP numbers were going up, the public was getting poorer.

Again, moving money around, doesn't make us wealthy. And by the way, the cut in government spending in the early 1920s resulted in the roaring 20s. Similarly, after the drastic cut in government spending after WW2, resulting in the decade of the 1950s with strong stable economic growth.

Not a massive drop in growth. The pattern to me is clear.

 

[bedowin62]

THE ECONOMY WAS MUCH BETTER when Republicans ran things



true story

libs are losers who lie to themselves

 

[Oldstyle]

John Maynard Keynes would be shocked to see what liberals have done with his economic theory. His idea was that government spending done with borrowed monies could briefly jump start the economy during downturns and that the money that was borrowed would then be paid down when the economy recovered. He didn't advocate running up huge mountains of debt like we and many other nations have done. Big Government advocates love the spending part of the Keynesian equation...they just don't like the paying down the debt part later.

 

[Andylusion]

Here it is again so you all can drown in your ignorance.

Wilbur.......that graph is gay. It starts in 2007. Its a phoney graph.

And like I said earlier.......this is a POLITICS forum......nobody thinks Obama has overseen a strong economy except the internet k00ks. Go check any poll......you pick it s0n. Gallup.....Rassmussen.......USAToday........

Go.....go.....go.......

The graph tells the story of a bi-partisan Bubble bursting and the fact that neither party will fix it.

I agree with the bi-partisan bubble.

The only real point that graph made is that partisan idiots are too dumb to figure out correlation does not equal causation. Funny how a concept well known since the 1880s, is still having to be taught again on forums in 2014.

Under Bush, the average number of sunny days a year in Ohio was up near 71. Over the past 5 years, the number of sunny days a year in Ohio, has fallen to about 68.

Obviously Obama is responsible for the drop in sunny days in Ohio.

Clearly Obama's environmental policy is ruining sunny days in Ohio.

Correlation does not equal causation. Just because Obama happen to be in office, while the economy recovered from an economic down turn, does not magically mean that it was exclusively due to Obama the Jobs have extremely slowly recovered.

Nor does a economic crash caused by a sub-prime bubble, mean that Bush is magically responsible for the bubble.

Lastly, a bubble can not be 'fixed'. You can't 'FIX' a price bubble. There is only one possible solution to a price bubble once it is created..... it pops.

The only possible thing that Bush could do to 'fix' a price bubble would be to intentionally pop the bubble early. Granted that would have reduced the fallout from the pop, but it would have been an even greater political suicide.

If Bush had pushed a policy to pop the bubble early, these same idiotic brainless leftist morons, would be on this forum screaming "Everything was fine, until Bush popped the sub-prime market!"

And they know it.

So this idea that "no one wants to 'fix' it".... no, they can't fix it. The only thing they could do is commit political suicide. That's not going to happen.

The only thing government can do is break stuff, and ruin things, and/or drag out the recovery.

That is what is happening now.... nearly every policy enacted has served to drag out the recovery.

 

[bedowin62]

about one MILLION fewer Americans have jobs than at the HEIGHT of the "Bush recession" let alone
Bush's average economy; which was MUCH BETTER THAN OBAMA'S


yes RECORD WELFARE AND FOOD STAMPS IN OBAMA'S SIXTH YEAR is his legacy....

and every one of the 16 MILLION NEW FOOD STAMP RECIPIENTS UNDER OBAMA; that werent on food stamps under Bush; really needs the help; because almost nobody is gaming the system to hear the Left tell it

SO; things just cant be as good as the Left says they are now isnt that right/



libs are losers who lie to themselves

 

[editec]

It's impossible to explain much to a dumbass like you! Period!

How about you try? Go ahead. Humor me. Why am I wrong?

The problem is they think all government is bad and the other side thinks it can only do good. There's no reasonable middle ground like we once had.

That's where the honest conservatives among us need to educate themselves

The other side (the REAL other side, not the DEMS, you ninnies) no more trust this government than you guys do.

But since you guys insist that the DEM TOOLS IN GOVERNMENT today are all "the left" you will continue to be set up as TOOLS for the government that you clearly (and correctly) loathe.

ASk yourself this..did I hate government when BUSH II was running it?

If yes, then there is hope for you.

If no, then you are still a tool for the masters.

 

[Andylusion]

How about you try? Go ahead. Humor me. Why am I wrong?

The problem is they think all government is bad and the other side thinks it can only do good. There's no reasonable middle ground like we once had.

That's where the honest conservatives among us need to educate themselves

The other side (the REAL other side, not the DEMS, you ninnies) no more trust this government than you guys do.

But since you guys insist that the DEM TOOLS IN GOVERNMENT today are all "the left" you will continue to be set up as TOOLS for the government that you clearly (and correctly) loathe.

ASk yourself this..did I hate government when BUSH II was running it?

If yes, then there is hope for you.

If no, then you are still a tool for the masters.

Yes of course I did. Ronald Reagan said the most scary nine words are "I'm from the government, and I'm here to help".

A lot of people don't seem to remember, he said that when he was in the presidency.

Reagan, and similar conservatives, do not magically think differently about government because "their guy is in office". That's what Democraps and leftists do.

I can still remember in 2009, when the re-authorization for domestic spying, and armed drone attacks, and the patriot act, and a dozen other similar policies that the left was screaming and yelling about, came up and Obama signed it.

All the leftards were running around "yeah well.... we trust Obama".

That's what you people do. I don't meet right-wingers who do that. Don't get me wrong, I'm sure they exist, but as a general rule I simply don't find right-leaning people doing that.

When Romney came up for election, a number of right-wingers were screaming about Romney Care in Massachusetts. Why? Because we're against government run health care, and it doesn't matter that Romney was a Republican. We didn't go... well I don't trust government with my health care.... UNLESS.... Romney is doing it, then it's fine.

That's what you people do, not us. We don't want government health care, no matter who is pushing it.

The left on the other hand, you judge everything by who did it. If Obama was in Massachusetts, and Romney was in the White House, and the policies were exactly the same, you'd be screaming about Romney's government health care, and claiming Massachusetts was a model for the nation.

Instead, you say Romney Massachusetts deficit is $80 Billion, second largest in the country, and is top 20% of the states GDP, and.... (blaw blaw blaw). And look how great Obama Care is! (conveniently ignoring debt, and ignoring that the Massachusetts deficit is directly caused by the Romney Care, that Obama Care is based on.... but whatever)

Seriously? You people on the left, are the most consistent hypocritical group of people on the planet. It's amazing how often you try and imply others are hypocrites, without realizing the irony.

 

[elektra]

Moron says "Republicans" are clueless, sure, but Conservatives are not.

Get government the fuck out of my way and I will work! Let industry grow in the USA! And I will Work!

Build Nuclear power plants, develop oil, bring back industry and manufacturing, revitalize steel, reduce the size of government by 95%, start one simple tax on a a buck when its spent.

Make the best cotton in the world here in the USA
Build the best computers
Don't waste money on stuff that does not work like solar and wind.
End Government control of everything, even marriage, let the church handle marriage
Stop the out of control Judicial System that hears all these ridiculous civil suits from the Lawyers.

yep, republicans are clueless, Us Conservatives, are not.