Why we want stimulus now and worry about deficits later

[hortysir]

I can show you this:

Initial Unemployment claims:

Ooooooh!!!


That's pretty!


Do you still have the crayons so you can write down the source data for that?

 

[bripat9643]

Reagan and Bush41 quadrupled the national debt because they reduced taxes for their rich friends and never cut a dime from spending. Give me three trillion 1980's dollars and by god I can solve problems with the economy.........or anything else I might want to do.

They did not quadruple the national debt, but Obama will more than double it at the rate he's going.

The debt increased under Reagan and Bush because the Democrats in Congress refused to even consider reductions in the rate of growth of social spending.

Presidents cannot unilaterally cut spending. It all has to be passed by the House, and the DimoRATs ran that.

 

[Too Tall]

You are just making things up.

You don't know that there was a depression in the 20's. The government did nothing and it was over in a year.

fdr was a tyrant that made things worse to keep himself in power. It was our entrance into the war that brought us out of the GD

If WWII brought us out of the great depression, as you claim, then it was an unprecedented government spending program (for the war) financed with borrowed money that did it.

That, by definition, is what a stimulus is.

That, by definition, is called a World War. Are you suggesting that we can lower the unemployment rate by drafting the unemployed into the Army?

 

[Cammmpbell]

Really? The stimulus bill passed in early 2009. What was the unemployment rate in January 2010, did it go up or down? Show me the facts of the unemployment rate and UNDERemployment rate by the numbers.

I can show you this:

Initial Unemployment claims:

Only an idiot would post such nonsense...

Why don't you provide a graph that shows how the workforce is shrinking????

Unemployment is only measured by workforce (which is shrinking at an epidemic rate) and those actively receiving unemployment..

Those who have exhausted their benefits and remain jobless are NOT factored into the equation - and that number is GROWING EVERYDAY.

You remember those 99er's??? now they've all been eaten by the unemployment singularity...

They'll finally be satisfied when what used to be the middle class has been reduced to the equivalant of a Malaysian day laborer. In other words financial slavery.

 

[Too Tall]

Those born in 1946 are reaching the full retirement age in 2012. They are retiring, so it is understandable that they stopped looking fro work. And in 1946 the population grew by 7.5 millions.

You do realize that your "baby boomer" argument holds ZERO water considering that only the VERY FIRST OF THE FIRST Baby Boomers only now qualify for Social Security..

No I don't. If you are going to retire in 6 month, or even a year anyway, why would you be looking for a job? And what would you tell to a perspective employer -- please hire me, but keep in mind that I will be gone soon after I finish the orientation?

People that are currently employed are not counted in the 'not looking for a job' statistic.

 

[Skull Pilot]

That's a damn lie. This downturn was absolutely and without question the worst thing that's happened in America since the early 30's. I'm surprised even a hard Right prick would assert such horse shit.

Compare the numbers little sheep.

In 81 the unemployment rate was higher, nearly 11% therefore the recession was worse.

In 82 when we came out of the recession unemployment was in the mid 7% range and GDP was 12% over pre-recession numbers.

Currently even with all the so called stimulus we are still over 8% unemployment and GDP is a pathetic .04% over pre-recession numbers.

So to recap 1981 had higher unemployment but we came out of the recession faster and with more momentum than this current recession despite your claims that government spending improved our recovery.

Where'd you get that load of shit....Fox News


United States Unemployment Rate
Here's a look at the U.S. unemployment rate for selected years from 1920 to 2010.

Year Rate
1920 5.2 %
1928 4.2
1930 8.7
1932 23.6
1934 21.7
1936 16.9
1938 19.0
1940 14.6
1942 4.7%
1944 1.2
1946 3.9
1948 3.8
1950 5.3
1952 3.0
1954 5.5
1956 4.1
1958 6.8%
1960 5.5
1962 5.5
1964 5.2
1966 3.8
1968 3.6
1970 4.9
1972 5.6
1974 5.6%
1976 7.7
1978 6.1
1980 7.1
1982 9.7
1984 7.5
1986 7.0
1987 6.2
1988 5.5
1989 5.3
1990 5.6%
1991 6.8
1992 7.5
1993 6.9
1994 6.1
1995 5.6
1996 5.4
1997 4.9
1998 4.5
1999 4.2
2000 4.0
2001 4.7
2002 5.8
2003 6.0%
2004 5.5
2005 5.1
2006 4.6
2007 4.6
2008 5.8
2009 9.3
2010 9.6



Source: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. Web: stats.bls.gov .

so you're calling the average unemployment the highest unemployment? Where did you go to school, Flock University?

In December of 1982 unemployment was 10.8%

Is Unemployment the Worst Since the Great Depression? - US News and World Report

The unemployment rate is a murky number. It seems simple enough to look at the national unemployment figures released every month by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. In July, that number was 9.4 percent. At the peak of the early '80s recession—December 1982—unemployment hit 10.8 percent.

 

[Skull Pilot]

2008 5.8
2009 9.3
2010 9.6

You do realize that the average for an entire year is not necessarily the peak don't you?

 

[Skull Pilot]

Again, there are different kind of recessions. Some are deliberately caused by Fed to bring down inflation -- those (even severe ones) end right after Fed loosens the monetary policy. The recessions of early 20s or early 80s are the examples.

Other recessions are caused by a bubble bursting -- like dot-com, or the retail one. Fed can lower rates to fight it, but it only can can go as far as zero. And if zero rate is not enough, then economy gets in a prolonged slump -- unless the government rises spending enough.

Again, you're flat out wrong about Bam Bam spending us out of a recession.

The fact is that the recession of 81-82 was more severe than this one and we came out of it faster and stronger than we are coming out of this one.

Did you read my post? I told you that 82-82 recession was deliberately created by the government. Read again: 82-82 recession was deliberately created by the government. Get it? Got it?

Now since it was the government that created the conditions for 81-82 recession (by tightening money supply), the government could quickly end the recession at will by removing those conditions (by loosening money supply).

And all of this has nothing to do with 2008, when the economy went into a deep recession against the will of the government, so the usual loosening the money supply was not enough to pull the economy out of it.

It was actually 2 recessions the raising of interest rates was only part of the equation. the Oil embargo had a huge impact on the economy as well to say it was caused solely by the government is too simplistic but then again....

 

[Cammmpbell]

Compare the numbers little sheep.

In 81 the unemployment rate was higher, nearly 11% therefore the recession was worse.

In 82 when we came out of the recession unemployment was in the mid 7% range and GDP was 12% over pre-recession numbers.

Currently even with all the so called stimulus we are still over 8% unemployment and GDP is a pathetic .04% over pre-recession numbers.

So to recap 1981 had higher unemployment but we came out of the recession faster and with more momentum than this current recession despite your claims that government spending improved our recovery.

Where'd you get that load of shit....Fox News


United States Unemployment Rate
Here's a look at the U.S. unemployment rate for selected years from 1920 to 2010.

Year Rate
1920 5.2 %
1928 4.2
1930 8.7
1932 23.6
1934 21.7
1936 16.9
1938 19.0
1940 14.6
1942 4.7%
1944 1.2
1946 3.9
1948 3.8
1950 5.3
1952 3.0
1954 5.5
1956 4.1
1958 6.8%
1960 5.5
1962 5.5
1964 5.2
1966 3.8
1968 3.6
1970 4.9
1972 5.6
1974 5.6%
1976 7.7
1978 6.1
1980 7.1
1982 9.7
1984 7.5
1986 7.0
1987 6.2
1988 5.5
1989 5.3
1990 5.6%
1991 6.8
1992 7.5
1993 6.9
1994 6.1
1995 5.6
1996 5.4
1997 4.9
1998 4.5
1999 4.2
2000 4.0
2001 4.7
2002 5.8
2003 6.0%
2004 5.5
2005 5.1
2006 4.6
2007 4.6
2008 5.8
2009 9.3
2010 9.6



Source: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. Web: stats.bls.gov .

so you're calling the average unemployment the highest unemployment? Where did you go to school, Flock University?

In December of 1982 unemployment was 10.8%

Is Unemployment the Worst Since the Great Depression? - US News and World Report

The unemployment rate is a murky number. It seems simple enough to look at the national unemployment figures released every month by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. In July, that number was 9.4 percent. At the peak of the early '80s recession—December 1982—unemployment hit 10.8 percent.

I know one thing. Reagan and Bush41 borrowed $3 trillion 1980's dollars to fund their tax cuts for the wealthy. Give me that much money and I could fix anything.

Oh...did you notice that at the end of each Republican run they left a higher unemployment rate than what they assumed

Hoover 4.2% 23.6%
Eisenhower 3.0% 5.5%
Nixon-Ford 3.6% 7.7%
Reagan-Bush41 7.1% 7.5%
Bush43 4.0% 5.8%

 

[Mac1958]

.

Holy crap, comparing the recession of the early 80's to this monster is - what's a civil term here - ill-advised. Hmph, that's not a very appropriate term, but I think I'll leave it at that.

Come on, if we're going to pretend this is/was just another economic blip on the long-term map, then perhaps we should be discussing sports or knitting or cat food. Such a notion is absolutely absurd, and to claim that another approach would have had us up and running full speed by now is an exercise in either abject ignorance or pure politics. I suspect the latter. The world economy has suffered a blow it has never suffered before, not even close. It took decades of stupidity to get us here, it could easily take decades to get us out.

Jeez, are we supposed to be taking this kind of thought seriously?

.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Where'd you get that load of shit....Fox News


United States Unemployment Rate
Here's a look at the U.S. unemployment rate for selected years from 1920 to 2010.

Year Rate
1920 5.2 %
1928 4.2
1930 8.7
1932 23.6
1934 21.7
1936 16.9
1938 19.0
1940 14.6
1942 4.7%
1944 1.2
1946 3.9
1948 3.8
1950 5.3
1952 3.0
1954 5.5
1956 4.1
1958 6.8%
1960 5.5
1962 5.5
1964 5.2
1966 3.8
1968 3.6
1970 4.9
1972 5.6
1974 5.6%
1976 7.7
1978 6.1
1980 7.1
1982 9.7
1984 7.5
1986 7.0
1987 6.2
1988 5.5
1989 5.3
1990 5.6%
1991 6.8
1992 7.5
1993 6.9
1994 6.1
1995 5.6
1996 5.4
1997 4.9
1998 4.5
1999 4.2
2000 4.0
2001 4.7
2002 5.8
2003 6.0%
2004 5.5
2005 5.1
2006 4.6
2007 4.6
2008 5.8
2009 9.3
2010 9.6



Source: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. Web: stats.bls.gov .

so you're calling the average unemployment the highest unemployment? Where did you go to school, Flock University?

In December of 1982 unemployment was 10.8%

Is Unemployment the Worst Since the Great Depression? - US News and World Report

The unemployment rate is a murky number. It seems simple enough to look at the national unemployment figures released every month by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. In July, that number was 9.4 percent. At the peak of the early '80s recession—December 1982—unemployment hit 10.8 percent.

I know one thing. Reagan and Bush41 borrowed $3 trillion 1980's dollars to fund their tax cuts for the wealthy. Give me that much money and I could fix anything.

Oh...did you notice that at the end of each Republican run they left a higher unemployment rate than what they assumed

Hoover 4.2% 23.6%
Eisenhower 3.0% 5.5%
Nixon-Ford 3.6% 7.7%
Reagan-Bush41 7.1% 7.5%
Bush43 4.0% 5.8%

BOOOOOOOOSHHHH

Try deflecting but you know you're fucking flat out wrong regarding the 81-82 numbers

And since I have never and I do mean never praised Reagan or Bush to anyone here I have no idea why you think they are relevant to the discussion regarding Bam Bam's failed stimulus.

 

[Skull Pilot]

.

Holy crap, comparing the recession of the early 80's to this monster is - what's a civil term here - ill-advised. Hmph, that's not a very appropriate term, but I think I'll leave it at that.

Come on, if we're going to pretend this is/was just another economic blip on the long-term map, then perhaps we should be discussing sports or knitting or cat food. Such a notion is absolutely absurd, and to claim that another approach would have had us up and running full speed by now is an exercise in either abject ignorance or pure politics. I suspect the latter. The world economy has suffered a blow it has never suffered before, not even close. It took decades of stupidity to get us here, it could easily take decades to get us out.

Jeez, are we supposed to be taking this kind of thought seriously?

.

To say that comparisons are worthless and historical data irrelevant is what exactly?

 

[Cammmpbell]

.

Holy crap, comparing the recession of the early 80's to this monster is - what's a civil term here - ill-advised. Hmph, that's not a very appropriate term, but I think I'll leave it at that.

Come on, if we're going to pretend this is/was just another economic blip on the long-term map, then perhaps we should be discussing sports or knitting or cat food. Such a notion is absolutely absurd, and to claim that another approach would have had us up and running full speed by now is an exercise in either abject ignorance or pure politics. I suspect the latter. The world economy has suffered a blow it has never suffered before, not even close. It took decades of stupidity to get us here, it could easily take decades to get us out.

Jeez, are we supposed to be taking this kind of thought seriously?

.

Don't burst their bubble. It's what Fox News teaches their sheep. This thing came so close to total financial disaster that there's no telling if we would have ever recovered from it.

 

[Skull Pilot]

.

Holy crap, comparing the recession of the early 80's to this monster is - what's a civil term here - ill-advised. Hmph, that's not a very appropriate term, but I think I'll leave it at that.

Come on, if we're going to pretend this is/was just another economic blip on the long-term map, then perhaps we should be discussing sports or knitting or cat food. Such a notion is absolutely absurd, and to claim that another approach would have had us up and running full speed by now is an exercise in either abject ignorance or pure politics. I suspect the latter. The world economy has suffered a blow it has never suffered before, not even close. It took decades of stupidity to get us here, it could easily take decades to get us out.

Jeez, are we supposed to be taking this kind of thought seriously?

.

Don't burst their bubble. It's what Fox News teaches their sheep. This thing came so close to total financial disaster that there's no telling if we would have ever recovered from it.

So I'll ask you, saying history is irrelevant and not using data and comparisons to the past is what exactly?

And when have I ever linked to a Fox news source?

You see unlike you I think for myself and get very little if any of my information from the idiot box.

 

[Mac1958]

.

Holy crap, comparing the recession of the early 80's to this monster is - what's a civil term here - ill-advised. Hmph, that's not a very appropriate term, but I think I'll leave it at that.

Come on, if we're going to pretend this is/was just another economic blip on the long-term map, then perhaps we should be discussing sports or knitting or cat food. Such a notion is absolutely absurd, and to claim that another approach would have had us up and running full speed by now is an exercise in either abject ignorance or pure politics. I suspect the latter. The world economy has suffered a blow it has never suffered before, not even close. It took decades of stupidity to get us here, it could easily take decades to get us out.

Jeez, are we supposed to be taking this kind of thought seriously?

.

To say that comparisons are worthless and historical data irrelevant is what exactly?

Now we move into the straw man portion of the discussion.

No, I did not say that comparisons are worthless and historical data is irrelevant. Ugh. But I would say that comparing two entirely different economic events to make a political point is a waste of time. Two different things.

.

 

[Cammmpbell]

.

Holy crap, comparing the recession of the early 80's to this monster is - what's a civil term here - ill-advised. Hmph, that's not a very appropriate term, but I think I'll leave it at that.

Come on, if we're going to pretend this is/was just another economic blip on the long-term map, then perhaps we should be discussing sports or knitting or cat food. Such a notion is absolutely absurd, and to claim that another approach would have had us up and running full speed by now is an exercise in either abject ignorance or pure politics. I suspect the latter. The world economy has suffered a blow it has never suffered before, not even close. It took decades of stupidity to get us here, it could easily take decades to get us out.

Jeez, are we supposed to be taking this kind of thought seriously?

.

Don't burst their bubble. It's what Fox News teaches their sheep. This thing came so close to total financial disaster that there's no telling if we would have ever recovered from it.

So I'll ask you, saying history is irrelevant and not using data and comparisons to the past is what exactly?

And when have I ever linked to a Fox news source?

You see unlike you I think for myself and get very little if any of my information from the idiot box.

You seem to have completely forgotten the autumn of 2008. Here's a little something to jog your memory:

Financial crisis: George W Bush to meet John McCain and Barack Obama on economy - Telegraph

 

[The Rabbi]

.

Holy crap, comparing the recession of the early 80's to this monster is - what's a civil term here - ill-advised. Hmph, that's not a very appropriate term, but I think I'll leave it at that.

Come on, if we're going to pretend this is/was just another economic blip on the long-term map, then perhaps we should be discussing sports or knitting or cat food. Such a notion is absolutely absurd, and to claim that another approach would have had us up and running full speed by now is an exercise in either abject ignorance or pure politics. I suspect the latter. The world economy has suffered a blow it has never suffered before, not even close. It took decades of stupidity to get us here, it could easily take decades to get us out.

Jeez, are we supposed to be taking this kind of thought seriously?

.

You're right. In the 1980s we had desperately high inflation and equally high unemployment. We faced new and strong competition in what had been American monopoly industries like steel and autos. Recall the Misery Index?
Obama stumbled onto an economy that was basically sound (10 years of low inflation and unemployment) and managed to gin it up into a crisis. He has made this the worst recovery in history despite (or because of) record spending and meddling with the economy. Had he done absolutely nothing but played golf every day we would have seen unemployment about 6% today. Instead it is higher than when he took office 3 yewars ago.
So you are correct there is no comparison between the two. 1980s recession was far worse. Fortunately we had Ronald Reagan for president so he laid the groundwork for the longest post war expansion until then. SOmethng Clinton benefitted from.
Thanks for pointing out that they were different. I knew you weren't a total buffoon.

 

[Cammmpbell]

.

Holy crap, comparing the recession of the early 80's to this monster is - what's a civil term here - ill-advised. Hmph, that's not a very appropriate term, but I think I'll leave it at that.

Come on, if we're going to pretend this is/was just another economic blip on the long-term map, then perhaps we should be discussing sports or knitting or cat food. Such a notion is absolutely absurd, and to claim that another approach would have had us up and running full speed by now is an exercise in either abject ignorance or pure politics. I suspect the latter. The world economy has suffered a blow it has never suffered before, not even close. It took decades of stupidity to get us here, it could easily take decades to get us out.

Jeez, are we supposed to be taking this kind of thought seriously?

.

You're right. In the 1980s we had desperately high inflation and equally high unemployment. We faced new and strong competition in what had been American monopoly industries like steel and autos. Recall the Misery Index?
Obama stumbled onto an economy that was basically sound (10 years of low inflation and unemployment) and managed to gin it up into a crisis. He has made this the worst recovery in history despite (or because of) record spending and meddling with the economy. Had he done absolutely nothing but played golf every day we would have seen unemployment about 6% today. Instead it is higher than when he took office 3 yewars ago.
So you are correct there is no comparison between the two. 1980s recession was far worse. Fortunately we had Ronald Reagan for president so he laid the groundwork for the longest post war expansion until then. SOmethng Clinton benefitted from.
Thanks for pointing out that they were different. I knew you weren't a total buffoon.

You seem to have completely forgotten the autumn of 2008. Here's a little something to jog your memory:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YsDmPEeurfA]President Bush Addresses Nation on Economic Crisis - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Skull Pilot]

.

Holy crap, comparing the recession of the early 80's to this monster is - what's a civil term here - ill-advised. Hmph, that's not a very appropriate term, but I think I'll leave it at that.

Come on, if we're going to pretend this is/was just another economic blip on the long-term map, then perhaps we should be discussing sports or knitting or cat food. Such a notion is absolutely absurd, and to claim that another approach would have had us up and running full speed by now is an exercise in either abject ignorance or pure politics. I suspect the latter. The world economy has suffered a blow it has never suffered before, not even close. It took decades of stupidity to get us here, it could easily take decades to get us out.

Jeez, are we supposed to be taking this kind of thought seriously?

.

To say that comparisons are worthless and historical data irrelevant is what exactly?

Now we move into the straw man portion of the discussion.

No, I did not say that comparisons are worthless and historical data is irrelevant. Ugh. But I would say that comparing two entirely different economic events to make a political point is a waste of time. Two different things.

.

They are not that different even though your shepherds would tell you so.

 

[NYcarbineer]

.

Holy crap, comparing the recession of the early 80's to this monster is - what's a civil term here - ill-advised. Hmph, that's not a very appropriate term, but I think I'll leave it at that.

Come on, if we're going to pretend this is/was just another economic blip on the long-term map, then perhaps we should be discussing sports or knitting or cat food. Such a notion is absolutely absurd, and to claim that another approach would have had us up and running full speed by now is an exercise in either abject ignorance or pure politics. I suspect the latter. The world economy has suffered a blow it has never suffered before, not even close. It took decades of stupidity to get us here, it could easily take decades to get us out.

Jeez, are we supposed to be taking this kind of thought seriously?

.

You're right. In the 1980s we had desperately high inflation and equally high unemployment. We faced new and strong competition in what had been American monopoly industries like steel and autos. Recall the Misery Index?
Obama stumbled onto an economy that was basically sound (10 years of low inflation and unemployment) and managed to gin it up into a crisis. He has made this the worst recovery in history despite (or because of) record spending and meddling with the economy. Had he done absolutely nothing but played golf every day we would have seen unemployment about 6% today. Instead it is higher than when he took office 3 yewars ago.
So you are correct there is no comparison between the two. 1980s recession was far worse. Fortunately we had Ronald Reagan for president so he laid the groundwork for the longest post war expansion until then. SOmethng Clinton benefitted from.
Thanks for pointing out that they were different. I knew you weren't a total buffoon.

Ronald Reagan started the mess we are in today. Ronald Reagan singlehandedly wiped out the political cost of being fiscally irresponsible. That is the single most damaging act our nation has suffered in the last 40 years.