The Stimulus Seems to have failed

[BeAChooser]

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.

No, that is not the argument. I suggest you go back and re-read the thread.

Oh sure, it met the goals of what it was supposed to do in terms of jobs and economic growth

No, it did not do that either. Making up things doesn't help your case.

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.

False. The Obama administration got exactly as big a stimulus as it asked for. In fact, the democrat Congress approved an even bigger stimulus than they asked for ... than the stimulus they claimed would solve the problem.

Trying to rewrite history isn't going to win this argument. It's just going to discredit you along with the stimulus.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

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 … ?

So, you're making the claim that the figures indicate the economy has fallen deeper into recession over the past month or two?

Interestingly, that's about the same time the home buyers tax credit and the extra unemployment benefits ran out. But, hey, don't let the facts get in the way of your partisanship.


I love the shifting goalposts, btw. It's not just enough for the jobs to be there, they must be "good" jobs too...

 

[stilicho]

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

This was at least partly due to signing NAFTA: http://www.cfr.org/publication/15790/naftas_economic_impact.html. In fact, both leading Democratic aspirants for the White House claimed they were going to renegotiate NAFTA but that's been quietly shelved.

The biggest issue facing the US economy is likely the back door subsidy given by the Communist Chinese to their state corporations by means of rigging the valuation of the yuan. We all know the actual value of the yuan is something like three times its nominal value.

Along with a stimulus, the Obama administration needs to stop Communist China from practicing unfair subsidisation of its own industry and commerce. This is going to be the biggest challenge of the next decade or so. If Obama can't do it then I predict he's a one-term president.

 

[BeAChooser]

So, if I understand correctly, the 81/82 recession (that occurred during a mixed congressional control) is the fault of democrats?

In the sense that a republican had to step in and fix the inflation problem … which involved the pain of a recession.

When bush took over, unemployment skyrocketed.

I'm not going to defend Bush Sr other than to note he went along with some of the new welfare programs that democrats wanted. And of course eventually, the unemployment rate did fall back to 6% during his term, but he gets no credit for that, right joobz?

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

Well first of all, Clinton didn't become president until January 1993, so the fall in unemployment all during 1992 occurred under Bush's adminsistration. And while it's true Congress was in democrat hands, the country was still coming out of a recession so it's not surprising that unemployment was falling.

As for the first year of Clinton's term, yes, unemployment did fall but there must have been some reason that in November voters turned out to give republicans a stunning victory at the polls, when republicans gained a majority in the house for the first time in 40 years. Voters must have been mighty unhappy about something.

 

[BeAChooser]

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

On Sept 6, 2008, the US took over both Fannie and Freddie.

And then things went south for the Lehman, Merrill Lynch and AIG.

And whose responsibility do you think the failure of Fannie and Freddie that was, Hindmost?

 

[BeAChooser]

So, you're making the claim that the figures indicate the economy has fallen deeper into recession over the past month or two?

Not just me. A number of economists have substantially raised their probability that we will see a double dip recession now.

 

[joobz]

In the sense that a republican had to step in and fix the inflation problem … which involved the pain of a recession.



I'm not going to defend Bush Sr other than to note he went along with some of the new welfare programs that democrats wanted. And of course eventually, the unemployment rate did fall back to 6% during his term, but he gets no credit for that, right joobz?



Well first of all, Clinton didn't become president until January 1993, so the fall in unemployment all during 1992 occurred under Bush's adminsistration. And while it's true Congress was in democrat hands, the country was still coming out of a recession so it's not surprising that unemployment was falling.

As for the first year of Clinton's term, yes, unemployment did fall but there must have been some reason that in November voters turned out to give republicans a stunning victory at the polls, when republicans gained a majority in the house for the first time in 40 years. Voters must have been mighty unhappy about something.

We were discussing congress. I presented evidence that directly contradicted your argument.
All references to presidents was simply meant to focus the timeline. You are correct though, clinton's time only account for 1 year of the 2 year decline in unemployment. This simply further contradicts your supposed "democrat congress hurts economy" silliness.

I wonder if you will be honest enough to address lomiller's summary of the real story behind the 81/82 recession.

 

[Hindmost]

On Sept 6, 2008, the US took over both Fannie and Freddie.

And then things went south for the Lehman, Merrill Lynch and AIG.

And whose responsibility do you think the failure of Fannie and Freddie that was, Hindmost?

Complete non-sequitur...and the grinny thing again. You really don't know what took the country down...do you know what a derivative is and how embroiled Lehman, Merril, AIG and Bear Sterns were? Fannie and Freddie were late to the game and followed the same stupidity. Good old republican lazy unfair economics.

glenn

 

[Hindmost]

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 … ?

You obviously missed the part where I said it wasn't good or deliberately left it out for propaganda purposes. But, that is typical of your cherry picking...the trend is still way better than it was a couple years ago. the only way is can get worse is if the republicans take over...as the WSJ article clearly shows.

glenn

 

[BobTheDonkey]

Not just me. A number of economists have substantially raised their probability that we will see a double dip recession now.

Way to cut out the part of my post that addresses why we're seeing this double dip...

 

[Chris L]

the trend is still way better than it was a couple years ago

You may want to say that a bit louder as the people who had jobs 2 years ago, but don't now, can't hear you. I'm sure that "improving trend" will give them a nice warm fuzzy feeling.

 

[joobz]

You may want to say that a bit louder as the people who had jobs 2 years ago, but don't now, can't hear you. I'm sure that "improving trend" will give them a nice warm fuzzy feeling.

I guess you've given up on actual debate and are simply trying to score points?

That's a standard method for people who have no rationally coherent argument to make.

 

[Chris L]

You guess wrong. After looking at the job losses, the housing decline, the consumer confidence index (among other things) and the "summer of recovery", I'm just not sure any evidence of economic downturn will convince some people here that the stimulus did not do what the people who proposed it, said it would do. I was trying to remind the more smug filled portions of this thread that saying the economy is fine doesn't make it so. That the failed policies that have been engaged in have real world consequences. Those people who have given up even looking for a job do not care how wonderful you think the stimulus is. To them, it has failed.

 

[joobz]

You guess wrong. After looking at the job losses, the housing decline, the consumer confidence index (among other things) and the "summer of recovery", I'm just not sure any evidence of economic downturn will convince some people here that the stimulus did not do what the people who proposed it, said it would do.

Popular opinion decides truth?

I was trying to remind the more smug filled portions of this thread that saying the economy is fine doesn't make it so.

You did this by making verifiably false claims (E.g., self-fulfilling prophecy) following by smug snarky posts?

That the failed policies that have been engaged in have real world consequences.

Unsupported assertion.

 

[Chris L]

Popular opinion decides truth?

No, but it does decide elections.

 

[joobz]

No, but it does decide elections.

as I said before.

I guess you've given up on actual debate and are simply trying to score points?

That's a standard method for people who have no rationally coherent argument to make.

 

[BeAChooser]

http://blog.heritage.org/2010/09/03/morning-bell-the-audacity-of-failure/

Morning Bell: The Audacity of Failure

… snip …

By every objective measure, President Barack Obama’s economic stimulus package has been a complete failure. When President Obama was selling his stimulus plan to the American people, he promised it would save or create 3.5 million jobs by the end of 2010. At the time, employment stood at about 134.3 million, according to the Labor Department’s most commonly used measure. That established an Obama jobs target for December 2010 at 137.8 million. According to the latest jobs report, total U.S. employment stood at 130.3 million in August, which means the cumulative Obama jobs deficit stands at 7.5 million.

… snip …

Romer first admits that her magic Keynesian formulas were completely useless in predicting how bad the recession would be, and then she turns right around and uses those exact same formulas to justify the success of the stimulus. … snip … So instead of changing course, Romer wants us to double down with a second round of economic stimulus.

How much more stimulus does the Obama administration want to spend? Romer wouldn’t say, and the White House is desperate to avoid calling any new action “stimulus,” but The Atlantic’s Megan McArdle has crunched the numbers and come up with a ballpark size of how big the original economic stimulus package would have to have been if we take the left’s Keynesian economics as gospel: “Full employment is perhaps 4.5-5%. If we assume that stimulus benefits increase linearly, that means we would have needed a stimulus of, on the low end, $2.5 trillion. On the high end, it would have been in the $4-5 trillion range.”

Even the Obama administration doesn’t want to add another $5 trillion to our $13.5 trillion national debt. That is why the Obama administration is pushing a $921 billion tax hike set to take effect on January 1, 2011. There is only one word for proposing $981 billion in taxes to pay for trillions in failed stimulus spending in the midst of 9.6% unemployment: audacity.

I think Stuck On Stupid is even more appropriate.

 

[BeAChooser]

How about a little stroll down memory lane?

Remember this?

http://www.house.gov/pelosi/press/releases/Aug03/prWherearetheJobs080103.html

Pelosi: Where Are the Jobs, Mr. President?



August 1, 2003

 

[Chris L]

The post you quoted before asking me about public opinion had to do with the apparent unfalsifiable nature of the "the stimulus has worked" meme. No matter how bad the economic news, some will insist that the conditions are either A. not that bad, or B. not the fault of the only economic policy we have had for almost 2 years.

 

[BeAChooser]

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/546138/201009031923/Recovery-Autumn-.aspx

True enough, 68,000 new private-sector jobs were created last month, showing that private businesses, though gasping for breath, aren't dead yet.

But overall, 54,000 jobs disappeared, raising the toll during the "Recovery Summer" Vice President Joe Biden ridiculously hailed two months ago to 238,000. Nor was the uptick in the unemployment rate to 9.6% from 9.5% what you expect in a "recovery."

This is not "better than expected"; it's worse than expected. This can be gauged not by market expectations for modest job creation, but by long-term experience watching how jobs are created in a normal recovery. By that gauge, we're in the worst jobs slump since World War II.

Even the normally bland Surveys of Consumers, put out by Thomson Reuters and the University of Michigan, warned Friday that "the probability of a double dip (recession) is high enough for everyone to include such an event in their contingency plans."

… snip …

On Friday, the president actually patted himself on the back, saying the employment report was "positive news" that "reflects the steps we've already taken to break the back of this recession."

If there's one thing that marks this administration as different from others, it's the steadfast refusal to remove its ideological blinders and learn from its mistakes.

Like I said, Stuck On Stupid.