The Stimulus Seems to have failed

[joobz]

It wasn't my original analogy, I was just running with it. To answer your question, the hemorrhaging of private sector jobs sounds like a good place to start.

I know it wasn't your analogy, but we should be clear when we discuss these things.

I would argue that 'water=jobs' isn't the best analogy to capture the situation.
Perhaps a better one would be, Basement flooding.

If a dam started to have a huge leak and flooded a town where your house was, then you would expect your basement to be flooded. You would then need to immediately fix the dam without delay to limit the overall impact of the flooding. However, patching that hole will not make the water in your basement be removed any sooner. Further work would be needed to remove the basement water and then allow for repairs to begin. In this analogy, the basement flood would be a lagging indicator to the broken dam.

 

[Hindmost]

Can you prove any of the numbers or facts they cite are wrong?

Can you cite anything the democrats did when they took over congress to cause the economic downfall...please point to exact details on how they caused Bear Sterns, Lehman Bros, Wachovia, AIG and others to fail.

If you look at the trend of unemployment, it is getting better during the Obama administration...

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf

Fortunately, I bet against republicans and end up with more money...

glenn

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/democratic-presidencies-arent-always-bad-for-stocks

http://money.cnn.com/2004/01/21/markets/election_demsvreps/

http://currencythoughts.com/2008/08...med-under-democrat-and-republican-presidents/

 

[Chris L]

If you look at the trend of unemployment, it is getting better during the Obama administration...

Do you bother to read today's headlines?

 

[Hindmost]

Do you bother to read today's headlines?

Not the headlines as they are filled with ideological histrionics; I read the actual report. The private sector added over 100,000 jobs in July and 67000 in August, more than expected. The overall loss was due to census jobs ending.

The trend is less job loss overall and possible increased...it still isn't great, but it in not headed down as it was a couple years ago. Look at the chart in the US labor report link.

glenn

 

[lomiller]

I know it wasn't your analogy, but we should be clear when we discuss these things.

I would argue that 'water=jobs' isn't the best analogy to capture the situation.
Perhaps a better one would be, Basement flooding.

Actually in my original analogy it was water from a leak damaging your living room. The point being made was that just because it will take months to fix the roof and repair the damage already done does not mean it doesn’t make any difference if you wait. As long as water is

Water coming in is analogous to job loss, not total jobs or unemployment

 

[pgwenthold]

It seems that the argument is that "the stimulus failed" because it, apparently, wasn't big enough to deal with the actual economic crisis that occurred. Oh sure, it met the goals of what it was supposed to do in terms of jobs and economic growth, but because the situation was so dire, it was not sufficient to meet what was needed.

Then again, we have to ask the question, why was it so insufficient? Perhaps it was because the same clowns who are now gloating in the fact that it didn't work to their satisfaction fought to prevent it from being big enough to solve the problem.

So they fought to limit the size of the stimulus package, and are now criticizing on the grounds that it ultimately was not big enough to solve the problem.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

Actually in my original analogy it was water from a leak damaging your living room. The point being made was that just because it will take months to fix the roof and repair the damage already done does not mean it doesn’t make any difference if you wait. As long as water is

Water coming in is analogous to job loss, not total jobs or unemployment

So, rather than placing a tarp over the hole in the roof, you advocate waiting to see just how much damage is going to happen from all the rain storms in the next few months while you deliberate over which repair estimate you're going to accept?

Doesn't really make much sense in this scenario either. It is necessary to act immediately in an attempt to alleviate further damage. Sure, the tarp is not a permanent fix and water might still leak by, but it wasn't intended to be permanent and there's less water leaking by than if the tarp wasn't in place.

In other words: Your assessment is incorrect.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

It seems that the argument is that "the stimulus failed" because it, apparently, wasn't big enough to deal with the actual economic crisis that occurred. Oh sure, it met the goals of what it was supposed to do in terms of jobs and economic growth, but because the situation was so dire, it was not sufficient to meet what was needed.

Then again, we have to ask the question, why was it so insufficient? Perhaps it was because the same clowns who are now gloating in the fact that it didn't work to their satisfaction fought to prevent it from being big enough to solve the problem.

So they fought to limit the size of the stimulus package, and are now criticizing on the grounds that it ultimately was not big enough to solve the problem.

To bring Iomiller's hole-in-the-roof analogy into play, it's like Mom saw the hole and said "we need to fix the roof, but first, let's put a tarp over the hole" and then when it came time to actually fix the roof, Dad comes around and says "well, that tarp didn't fix the leak completely. Let's just get rid of the tarp and see what happens."

 

[pgwenthold]

To bring Iomiller's hole-in-the-roof analogy into play, it's like Mom saw the hole and said "we need to fix the roof, but first, let's put a tarp over the hole" and then when it came time to actually fix the roof, Dad comes around and says "well, that tarp didn't fix the leak completely. Let's just get rid of the tarp and see what happens."

I would revise by saying that you wanted to put an extra large tarp over the hole, because you can see that the edges of the hole are dicey and ready to fall, but Dad didn't want to waste money on it. Therefore, you used a tarp that barely covered the hole in the size that was. Meanwhile, the roof kept falling apart, making the hole bigger and causing more leaks.

Then Dad says, "Well, I told you a tarp would never cover it. So let's get rid of the tarp and see what happens."

 

[lomiller]

It seems that the argument is that "the stimulus failed" because it, apparently, wasn't big enough to deal with the actual economic crisis that occurred. Oh sure, it met the goals of what it was supposed to do in terms of jobs and economic growth, but because the situation was so dire, it was not sufficient to meet what was needed.

Then again, we have to ask the question, why was it so insufficient? Perhaps it was because the same clowns who are now gloating in the fact that it didn't work to their satisfaction fought to prevent it from being big enough to solve the problem.

So they fought to limit the size of the stimulus package, and are now criticizing on the grounds that it ultimately was not big enough to solve the problem.

Bingo

So, rather than placing a tarp over the hole in the roof, you advocate waiting to see just how much damage is going to happen from all the rain storms in the next few months while you deliberate over which repair estimate you're going to accept?

I gave the analogy in response that claim that waiting was always better. I am arguing sooner is better.

 

[lomiller]

I would revise by saying that you wanted to put an extra large tarp over the hole, because you can see that the edges of the hole are dicey and ready to fall, but Dad didn't want to waste money on it. Therefore, you used a tarp that barely covered the hole in the size that was. Meanwhile, the roof kept falling apart, making the hole bigger and causing more leaks.

Then Dad says, "Well, I told you a tarp would never cover it. So let's get rid of the tarp and see what happens."

Not sure if pgwenthold intended it but there is a pretty good pun in there

 

[daenku32]

It seems that the argument is that "the stimulus failed" because it, apparently, wasn't big enough to deal with the actual economic crisis that occurred. Oh sure, it met the goals of what it was supposed to do in terms of jobs and economic growth, but because the situation was so dire, it was not sufficient to meet what was needed.

Then again, we have to ask the question, why was it so insufficient? Perhaps it was because the same clowns who are now gloating in the fact that it didn't work to their satisfaction fought to prevent it from being big enough to solve the problem.

So they fought to limit the size of the stimulus package, and are now criticizing on the grounds that it ultimately was not big enough to solve the problem.

I want to get a bullhorn and climb on the apartment roof top to scream just this, but unfortunately I think it's against the covenants.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

Bingo



I gave the analogy in response that claim that waiting was always better. I am arguing sooner is better.

I missed a "not" in the previous post. I apologize.

 

[BeAChooser]

Originally Posted by BeAChooser
Curious how downturns in the economy always seem to coincide with democrats getting control of both houses of Congress.

evidence?

See what I mean about joobz, Chris L? Even after evidence filled posts like the following

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6229347&postcount=468

and

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6292685&postcount=641

joobz acts like no evidence has been presented for my assertion. But just in case he actually missed reading those posts rolleyes let's review the evidence for him one more time:

----------

Let's go back to Carter's administration. From 1977 to 1979, democrats controlled both houses of Congress and the Presidency. During this confluence, the Dow started out about 900, dipped to 800, then climbed back to 900. Unemployment started at 7%, dipped to 6%, but then climbed back to 7%. GDP rose from 2 to 2.5 trillion. But inflation climbed from about 6 percent to 8 percent. In fact, by the end of Carter's administration, nearly everyone felt the economy was in shambles … especially since inflation had climbed to the double digits before he left office.

From 1981 to 1985, Reagan's first term, the Republicans controlled the Senate but Democrats still controlled the House. Even so, Reagan's persona was enough to force several tax cuts and some constraints on government spending. The Dow climbed from 900 to about 1300. Unemployment went up to about 10% (due to the 1981-82 recession) but then dropped back down to about 7%. GDP climbed to over 4 trillion. But most important, inflation dropped to just 4%.

From 1987 to 1989, Reagan remained President while democrats regained control of both houses of Congress. But Reagan remained very popular so democrats were unable to undo any of the changes that Reagan had made in tax policy and government spending. As a result, GDP rose to about 5.4 trillion. The Dow climbed to 2500. Unemployment dropped to almost 5 percent. And inflation remained below 5%.

Then the first Bush took over. During the 1991 and 1993 sessions, Congress remained in democrat hands. But Bush was also popular as a result of the first Gulf War, so his policies were mostly dominant. Inflation briefly climbed to 6 percent but then dropped to about 3%. Unemployment climbed almost 8 percent then dipped back down to 6%. The Dow climbed to about 3500. GDP rose to about 6.5 trillion.

Now Clinton took over. Little good happened economically until Republicans gained control of the House and Senate in January 1995. At that time unemployment was still at 6.25% and the Dow was still only at 3800. Inflation was still at 3% and the GDP was still around 6.6 trillion. Republicans retained control of both houses of Congress until the end the 2000. In December 2000, unemployment stood at 3.75% and the Dow was at 10,600. Inflation remained at or below 3% the whole time. GDP grew to almost 10 trillion. Republican control of Congress clearly made the difference.

From January 2001 to the end of 2002, democrats controlled the Senate (or it was split 50/50) while the house remained in Republican hands. Now, unemployment drifted back up to 6.5% and the Dow fell to 8300. Inflation went to about 3.5%. GDP remained about 10 trillion. Now of course there were other things that figured into that poor performance (like the Dot Com bust and 9/11) but democrat control of one house didn't help.

From January 2003 to the end of 2006, Republicans again controlled both the Senate and House. With the same President in power. Unemployment fell to 4% and the Dow soared to 12300. Inflation rose to about 4% then fell to 2% in mid-2006.. GDP climbed to above 12 trillion. Again, clearly control of Congress by Republicans made the difference.

Then in November 2006, democrats took control of both houses. At that time unemployment was at 4.3% and the Dow was at 12,500. GDP was over 13 trillion. Inflation was below 2%. Since then unemployment has climbed and the Dow has fallen. Current unemployment is at 9.5% (it's actually higher than that because they don't count folks who have stopped looking for work) and the Dow is has dropped back to 10300 (and by most predictions headed even further downwards come the end of the year). Inflation rose back up to 4% before the current recession, has dipped because of the recession, but is expected to climb well above 4% because of democrat's increasing the debt so dramatically. And the GDP grew to slightly over 14 trillion, where it essentially remains. And now there's talk of a double dip recession.

I think it's pretty clear from the above that the makeup of Congress has far more to do with the health of the economy than the party of the President. Unless the party of the president coincides with the party controlling Congress. Then all bets are off, especially when democrats are the party. Then it may become a perfect storm. To our detriment. It's also clear from the above that when democrats control both houses of Congress (unless the President is a dynamic republican like Reagan who has already succeeded in implimenting his economic policies before democrats take control of both houses), the economy will worsen.

Now won't you agree that's pretty strong evidence, especially since 1995 (the last 15 years), joobz?

 

[joobz]

See what I mean about joobz, Chris L? Even after evidence filled posts like the following

Skip the meta conversation. It doesn't become you. I asked for you to make concrete claims. Let's review them.

Let's go back to Carter's administration. From 1977 to 1979, democrats controlled both houses of Congress and the Presidency. During this confluence, the Dow started out about 900, dipped to 800, then climbed back to 900. Unemployment started at 7%, dipped to 6%, but then climbed back to 7%. GDP rose from 2 to 2.5 trillion. But inflation climbed from about 6 percent to 8 percent. In fact, by the end of Carter's administration, nearly everyone felt the economy was in shambles … especially since inflation had climbed to the double digits before he left office.

From 1981 to 1985, Reagan's first term, the Republicans controlled the Senate but Democrats still controlled the House. Even so, Reagan's persona was enough to force several tax cuts and some constraints on government spending. The Dow climbed from 900 to about 1300. Unemployment went up to about 10% (due to the 1981-82 recession) but then dropped back down to about 7%. GDP climbed to over 4 trillion. But most important, inflation dropped to just 4%.

So, if I understand correctly, the 81/82 recession (that occurred during a mixed congressional control) is the fault of democrats?
Here we have one example of you making a special pleading argument.

From 1987 to 1989, Reagan remained President while democrats regained control of both houses of Congress. But Reagan remained very popular so democrats were unable to undo any of the changes that Reagan had made in tax policy and government spending. As a result, GDP rose to about 5.4 trillion. The Dow climbed to 2500. Unemployment dropped to almost 5 percent. And inflation remained below 5%.

Selective reasoning. Democrats were in power and unemployment continued to drop. You are simply applying special pleading.

Then the first Bush took over. During the 1991 and 1993 sessions, Congress remained in democrat hands. But Bush was also popular as a result of the first Gulf War, so his policies were mostly dominant. Inflation briefly climbed to 6 percent but then dropped to about 3%. Unemployment climbed almost 8 percent then dipped back down to 6%. The Dow climbed to about 3500. GDP rose to about 6.5 trillion.

When bush took over, unemployment skyrocketed.

Now Clinton took over. Little good happened economically until Republicans gained control of the House and Senate in January 1995.

except for the fact that unemployment dropped from 7.3% in Jan 1992 to 5.5% in Dec. 1994. All while under a fully democratically controlled system.

At that time unemployment was still at 6.25% and the Dow was still only at 3800. Inflation was still at 3% and the GDP was still around 6.6 trillion. Republicans retained control of both houses of Congress until the end the 2000. In December 2000, unemployment stood at 3.75% and the Dow was at 10,600. Inflation remained at or below 3% the whole time. GDP grew to almost 10 trillion. Republican control of Congress clearly made the difference.

See above.

From January 2001 to the end of 2002, democrats controlled the Senate (or it was split 50/50) while the house remained in Republican hands. Now, unemployment drifted back up to 6.5% and the Dow fell to 8300. Inflation went to about 3.5%. GDP remained about 10 trillion. Now of course there were other things that figured into that poor performance (like the Dot Com bust and 9/11) but democrat control of one house didn't help.

Unemployment went up during this time, when republicans controlled a part of congress. In other words, another example of your miss leading "evidence".

I think it's pretty clear from the above that the makeup of Congress has far more to do with the health of the economy than the party of the President. Unless the party of the president coincides with the party controlling Congress. Then all bets are off, especially when democrats are the party. Then it may become a perfect storm. To our detriment. It's also clear from the above that when democrats control both houses of Congress (unless the President is a dynamic republican like Reagan who has already succeeded in implimenting his economic policies before democrats take control of both houses), the economy will worsen.

Now won't you agree that's pretty strong evidence, especially since 1995 (the last 15 years), joobz?

Nope. The evidence doesn't actually support your claim. In fact, all you have done is attempt to give a "heads I win, tails you lose" type of debate. It's silly and you've helped demonstrate that.

Thank you.

 

[lomiller]

The primary cause of the 81/82 recession was the Fed’s decision to bring inflation down to the 2% range and keep it there. I’m still mixed on this decision because I saw it do a lot of short term harm, but it’s been the cornerstone of economic success since. In retrospect it was probably the right thing to do.

Who’s responsible? Well the Fed chairman reports (loosely) to congress but is a selected by the President. The Fed chairman of the time was Paul Volker who was a Carter appointee but he enjoyed the full support of President Reagan.

The 91 recession was triggered by the S&L crisis, which was firmly a consequence of banking deregulation pushed though by Reagan and supported primarily by Republicans but with some Democratic support in Congress.

The 2001 recession was more of a “classic” recession where there was simply too much capacity built up in the tech sector and a correction was needed.

The current recession stems primarily from bad banking practices allowed by several decades of de-regulation. The last major round of this came from the Clinton Whitehouse teaming up with a Republican congress. The failure to recognize and address the problems that were occurring as a result fall squarely on the Republicans who controlled both Congress and the Presidency.


So, who’s to blame? Overall I’d say Republicans but the Democrats have thrown a few chips in the pot as well.

 

[BeAChooser]

Can you cite anything the democrats did when they took over congress to cause the economic downfall

You didn't read the article, did you? And haven't really been paying much attention to what democrats have done and said in general, have you?

If you look at the trend of unemployment, it is getting better during the Obama administration…

Funny how the trend in unemployment seems to have been so much better in cases like the 1981/82 recession, where massive socialist stimulus packages were not passed. Unemployment seemed to improve sooooo much faster than this time.

And historically, that's been found to be true in case after case. This is something that was discussed at length near the beginning of this thread and repeated several times. Nevertheless, let me repeat and summarize it one more time, since no one on your side of this debate seems to have paid attention

To start with, we could learn a lot by looking at such historical examples as the Depression of 1837 which saw 4 million (or more) people lose their jobs (which was a lot back then) and almost half the banks in the country fail. Property values collapsed and it looked a lot like what democrats warned would happen if we didn't intervene in a massive way this time. Things were so bad there were food riots in a number of large cities. But the President at that time, Van Buren, was philosophically opposed to government intervention and did nothing. And guess what? That depression was over in far less time than the Great Depression, with the economy surging again. Without a war to stimulate it. Without massive stimulus spending. That depression was over in less time than democrats are now suggesting this current recession will drag on despite trillions and trillions in *stimulus* dollars. So get a clue.

Or consider the Depression of 1893, which happened under Grover Cleveland's watch. It was one of the worst in American history. Again, the situation wasn't all that different from that in the 1930s. Unemployment went from 4% to over 12%. GDP dropped 10%! And again, because of Grover Cleveland being opposed to government intervention, the government did little to intervene. In fact, Cleveland cut taxes AND spending. And again, that economic crisis was over within about 6 years with unemployment back down to 5% and the economy booming. Get a clue.

How about the recession of 1921? It was an extremely sharp deflationary recession following World War I. Unemployment rose over 700% in one year (to nearly 12% according to one source). Production fell 23% and the stock market dropped 18%. Yet within two years, it was over, unemployment had returned to what was considered full employment and the economy was booming. What happened to make this possible? President Harding cut government spending by 40%, instead of massively increasing it. He lowered taxes and reduced regulation which helped America's entrepreneurs and capital create jobs and push the economy to recover. Harding's free market policies (and then Calvin Coolidge's) led to the Roaring Twenties, known for technological advances, women's rights, the explosion of the middle class, and some of the most rapid economic growth in American history. All of this without a stimulus. Get a clue.

The truth is that in example after example of recessions and depressions, one can see that cutting government spending (or at least not intervening) still resulted in a quick recovery (in a better "trend" then we now see). Look at the recessions/depressions in 1815, 1873 and 1958, as well. In every one, the government cut spending and in every one of them the economy recovered faster than it did during the New Deal ... or is doing now.

Basically, there are four historical cases. Cases where recessions/depressions were ended in a relatively short time through cuts (or at least no or very minor increases) in government spending, taxes and regulations (I listed lots of these). Cases where recessions/depressions did not end in a relatively short time after cuts (or at least no or very minor increases) in government spending, taxes and regulations (As far as I can tell, there are hardly any of these). Cases where recessions/depressions ended in a relatively short time after massive government intervention (As far as I can tell, there are none of these). And cases where recessions/depressions ended after a long period of time following massive government intervention (And there are several of these). Get a clue and draw the logical conclusion. You don't have to be an economist or an expert to draw the rational conclusion from that data set. And that conclusion is this: it is foolish to bet that massive stimulus spending will bring the next recession/depression to an end more quickly. In fact, that data suggests that massive government intervention will likely lengthen and deepen a recession/depression, instead.

Even Christine Romer must know the truth but is so blinded by leftist ideology she can't admit it. She herself did a study in 1999 that showed the average length of recessions from 1887 to 1929 (before Keynesian spending schemes were tried) was 10.3 months, while the average recession from 1948 to 2000 has lasted 10.7 months. But democrats don't seem able to actually learn from history. They seem doomed to repeat it.

 

[Hindmost]

You didn't read the article, did you? And haven't really been paying much attention to what democrats have done and said in general, have you?





Funny how the trend in unemployment seems to have been so much better in cases like the 1981/82 recession, where massive socialist stimulus packages were not passed. Unemployment seemed to improve sooooo much faster than this time.

And historically, that's been found to be true in case after case. This is something that was discussed at length near the beginning of this thread and repeated several times. Nevertheless, let me repeat and summarize it one more time, since no one on your side of this debate seems to have paid attention

To start with, we could learn a lot by looking at such historical examples as the Depression of 1837 which saw 4 million (or more) people lose their jobs (which was a lot back then) and almost half the banks in the country fail. Property values collapsed and it looked a lot like what democrats warned would happen if we didn't intervene in a massive way this time. Things were so bad there were food riots in a number of large cities. But the President at that time, Van Buren, was philosophically opposed to government intervention and did nothing. And guess what? That depression was over in far less time than the Great Depression, with the economy surging again. Without a war to stimulate it. Without massive stimulus spending. That depression was over in less time than democrats are now suggesting this current recession will drag on despite trillions and trillions in *stimulus* dollars. So get a clue.

Or consider the Depression of 1893, which happened under Grover Cleveland's watch. It was one of the worst in American history. Again, the situation wasn't all that different from that in the 1930s. Unemployment went from 4% to over 12%. GDP dropped 10%! And again, because of Grover Cleveland being opposed to government intervention, the government did little to intervene. In fact, Cleveland cut taxes AND spending. And again, that economic crisis was over within about 6 years with unemployment back down to 5% and the economy booming. Get a clue.

How about the recession of 1921? It was an extremely sharp deflationary recession following World War I. Unemployment rose over 700% in one year (to nearly 12% according to one source). Production fell 23% and the stock market dropped 18%. Yet within two years, it was over, unemployment had returned to what was considered full employment and the economy was booming. What happened to make this possible? President Harding cut government spending by 40%, instead of massively increasing it. He lowered taxes and reduced regulation which helped America's entrepreneurs and capital create jobs and push the economy to recover. Harding's free market policies (and then Calvin Coolidge's) led to the Roaring Twenties, known for technological advances, women's rights, the explosion of the middle class, and some of the most rapid economic growth in American history. All of this without a stimulus. Get a clue.

The truth is that in example after example of recessions and depressions, one can see that cutting government spending (or at least not intervening) still resulted in a quick recovery (in a better "trend" then we now see). Look at the recessions/depressions in 1815, 1873 and 1958, as well. In every one, the government cut spending and in every one of them the economy recovered faster than it did during the New Deal ... or is doing now.

Basically, there are four historical cases. Cases where recessions/depressions were ended in a relatively short time through cuts (or at least no or very minor increases) in government spending, taxes and regulations (I listed lots of these). Cases where recessions/depressions did not end in a relatively short time after cuts (or at least no or very minor increases) in government spending, taxes and regulations (As far as I can tell, there are hardly any of these). Cases where recessions/depressions ended in a relatively short time after massive government intervention (As far as I can tell, there are none of these). And cases where recessions/depressions ended after a long period of time following massive government intervention (And there are several of these). Get a clue and draw the logical conclusion. You don't have to be an economist or an expert to draw the rational conclusion from that data set. And that conclusion is this: it is foolish to bet that massive stimulus spending will bring the next recession/depression to an end more quickly. In fact, that data suggests that massive government intervention will likely lengthen and deepen a recession/depression, instead.

Even Christine Romer must know the truth but is so blinded by leftist ideology she can't admit it. She herself did a study in 1999 that showed the average length of recessions from 1887 to 1929 (before Keynesian spending schemes were tried) was 10.3 months, while the average recession from 1948 to 2000 has lasted 10.7 months. But democrats don't seem able to actually learn from history. They seem doomed to repeat it.

You never seem to get cause and effect on the same page, but you do use a bunch of smilies. You provide cherry picked history without content.

What democratic policy cause Lehman bros, Merril Lynch, AIG etc to fail?

Now, the massive Reagan stimulus in the form of huge deficits and massive defense spending caused employment to get better--republican form of socialism...but the economy wasn't as bad back then as there weren't major institutions failing and the energy sector was growing very quickly. There certainly wasn't thoughts of banks collapsing coming from the Carter era...until the Reagan savings and loan debacle. And here, history has repeated itself.

During the Carter administration, there was an oil embago, and the tail end of the baby boom generation needing jobs--Reagan had it easy since there were half as many people coming into the job market. But look at the link below and you will see the generally poor performance for the republicans.

I will continue to bet against republicans in the money department. Conservatives don't seem to learn from their mistakes or from history

glenn

http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2009/01/09/bush-on-jobs-the-worst-track-record-on-record/

 

[joobz]

The primary cause of the 81/82 recession was the Fed’s decision to bring inflation down to the 2% range and keep it there. I’m still mixed on this decision because I saw it do a lot of short term harm, but it’s been the cornerstone of economic success since. In retrospect it was probably the right thing to do.

Who’s responsible? Well the Fed chairman reports (loosely) to congress but is a selected by the President. The Fed chairman of the time was Paul Volker who was a Carter appointee but he enjoyed the full support of President Reagan.

The 91 recession was triggered by the S&L crisis, which was firmly a consequence of banking deregulation pushed though by Reagan and supported primarily by Republicans but with some Democratic support in Congress.

The 2001 recession was more of a “classic” recession where there was simply too much capacity built up in the tech sector and a correction was needed.

The current recession stems primarily from bad banking practices allowed by several decades of de-regulation. The last major round of this came from the Clinton Whitehouse teaming up with a Republican congress. The failure to recognize and address the problems that were occurring as a result fall squarely on the Republicans who controlled both Congress and the Presidency.


So, who’s to blame? Overall I’d say Republicans but the Democrats have thrown a few chips in the pot as well.

Seems to be a rather accurate assessment.

 

[BeAChooser]

The private sector added over 100,000 jobs in July and 67000 in August, more than expected.

LOL! Did you look closely at that report?

First of all, it notes that there are 1,100,000 discouraged workers (an increase of 325,000 from a year ago). Those are workers who are not counted as unemployed because they stopped looking for work.

Second, there was another 2,400,000 people who wanted and were available for work, and had looked for a job in the last 12 months, but are not presently employed.

Third, the number of people employed PART TIME increased by 331,000 over the month. They are counted as employed but as your link states, these are people who are working part time because their hours have been cut back or because they are unable to find a full- time job.

And despite all of that, the unemployment rate did not go down. It actually went up a little, to 9.6%. Went up for the second month in a row. In fact, U6 - real unemployment - went from 16.5% to 16.7%, the highest since April (http://portalseven.com/employment/unemployment_rate_u6.jsp ). During "Recovery Summer". How's that for a "trend"?

And here's another point.

The largest increase in private sector employment (28,000) was in health care … a sector which doesn't actually produce any wealth, mostly consumes it. And that increase is probably more a function of the new regulations imposed by the Health Care bill than a measure of economic health in the country (i.e, people being able to afford better health care).

Manufacturing employment (people who actually do produce wealth) declined by about the same amount as health care employment increased. Declined after going up last month. That doesn't bode well for the future, does it?

Construction employment was up 19,000, but 10,000 of that merely reflected workers (undoubtedly democrat union ones) who were on strike in July. And how many of those 19,000 jobs were paid for with stimulus money (and thus a burden on other sectors of the economy)?

And within the professional and business services sector, employment in temporary help services increased by 17,000. But how many of those are actually good jobs?

Sorry, but even your source suggests the economy is not all that healthy … that the stimulus hasn't worked like democrats claimed it would work.

And one more thing to add. Where did these jobs that were created and lost occur? Bet the gains took place in red states and the losses in blue states. And the lesson in that is … ?