The Stimulus Seems to have failed

[Hindmost]

Well the *expertise* of he and his economic advisors certainly wasn't in evidence back in May of 2009 when he held a major press conference to sell his health care proposals. He opened it with this prepared speech: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2009/07/22/transcript_of_obama_prime-time.html?wprss=44 . And during that speech, he wanted to show how his agenda had already worked to make the US economic situation better … to reassure the public that his adminstration knew what it was doing with respect to health care. So he said the following (which presumably his economic advisors concurred with, since not one of them stood up anytime after the speech and said "sorry, Mr. President, but that's not quite right"):



The problem is that bold part is TOTALLY, COMPLETELY and ABSOLUTELY wrong. And why am I so sure? Because the Obama adminstration had to have been aware of the work the CBO had done on the budget and debt. Had to have been aware of a report they'd published in March. Here's the report: http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cach...rent+law+assumptions&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us and here's what it says on page 11:



Now surely YOU understand what that says. It says that the cumulative deficit WITH Obama's budget is $9.3 trillion, not $7.1 trillion as he claimed. It says that the cumulative deficit WITHOUT Obama's proposals would have been $4.4 trillion, not $9.3 trillion as he claimed. And it says that the President's budget proposals will increase the cumulative deficit by $4.9 trillion dollars (that's 9.3 minus 4.4 ... very simple math) over the next 10 years, not reduce it by $2.2 trillion, as Obama claimed. It's clear as day. Simple math.

And surely Obama and his economic advisors read that very important CBO report and did the math. You don't really want to claim they didn't, do you? Because I can prove that they did, based on other speeches and documents by the Obama administration during that time frame. So we are left with only four possibilities.

The first is that Obama just flubbed the speech. That he said $9.3 trillion, when he meant to say $4.4 trillion. But we know he didn't because he then went on to cite a $7.1 trillion figure (which, by the way, just happens to have been the published 10 year cumulative deficit projected by the Whitehouse at the time) and then subtract that from $9.3 trillion to arrive at the $2.2 trillion dollar savings that he boasted about. No, he clearly meant to say what he said and after the fact, noone at the Whitehouse tried to correct his numbers … say he misspoke.

The second is that Obama and his economic advisors couldn't understand that very clear English sentence in the CBO report. But surely they can. After all, Obama was President of the Harvard Law Review and his advisors no doubt come from equally prestigious Ivy League institutions. Surely you don't want to claim that they couldn't understand such a simple, well constructed, English sentence. No, I think it's safe to assume they can read.

The third possibility is that Obama didn't have the economic acumen to understand what was written in the CBO report. And as a result it confused him (all those billions and trillions, and percentages and economic "lingo") and as result he just totally, but accidently, misrepresented what it said when he wrote the speech. Mixed up the CBO's numbers with the OMB's numbers. Came to the wrong conclusion. That's possible ... but surely a speech as important as this one (which was announced far in advance of the speech) was prepared well in advance and reviewed by numerous members of his highly educated staff. Including his economic advisors. Surely they went over it with a fine tooth comb. So it's hard to imagine that Obama's comment doesn't reflect the *expertise* of his economic (and other) advisors as well. And do you really think all of them would also be confused by the billions and trillions, percentages and economist "lingo"? No, of course not.

So that leaves only one possibility. That Obama and his staff (including his economic *experts*) tried to deliberately mislead the American public because they wanted Universal Health Care and were willing to do or say anything to get it. And that's called lying. And as far as I'm concerned, economic *experts* willing to lie aren't worth a plug nickel. So yes, I'd offer this example as proof the President has less expertise and less economic expertise to "draw upon".

I admire you ability to cherry pick stuff and use it rhetorically..you are much better than me.

Flashback....Reagan predicted he would reduce the federal deficit...no...increased govt spending.

http://finance.yahoo.com/taxes/article/110597/taxes-what-people-forget-about-reagan?mod=taxes-filing

Bush Senior predicted he would reduce the deficit.

Clinton predicted he would reduce the deficit...wait...he actually did.

2000-2001--CBO predicts budget surpluses for the next decade and then younger Bush gets elected...increased govt spending and doubles the deficit. (I don't think he was lying...just really dumb)

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/28xx/doc2819/AnalysisPresBud.pdf

http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/dont-blame-obama-for-bushs-2009-deficit/

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=11094

I find it unbelieveable that you can't understand the intangibles that affect the economy with what occurred over the last few years. Any prediction has a very short half life. Did you predict the precipitous fall of almost all the US financial firms? I don't recall any specific post.

I will still bet against the republicans to keep my money safe.

glenn

 

[BeAChooser]

Yes, you did.

Originally Posted by BeAChooser
It's foolish to think the recent increase in health care jobs is because of increased spending on development of health care technology. If anything, companies are now holding off on such developments because they fear government run health care will prohibit the widespread use needed to recoup those costs..

Ok, I suppose I did. But ...

Here are the numbers of "original" PMA "approvals" by the FDA in 2009 and 2010 (during the Obama administration), compared with the number before the recession (2005 - 2008) under Bush's administration:

http://www.fda.gov/medicaldevices/p...provalsandclearances/pmaapprovals/default.htm

2010 (so far) - 12
2009 - 15
2008 - 26
2007 - 25
2006 - 38
2005 - 32

Looks to me like there has been a rather a dramatic decrease in activity during Obama's tenure, joobz.

 

[BeAChooser]

Flashback....Reagan predicted he would reduce the federal deficit...no...increased govt spending.

LOL! Suddenly want to change the subject?

And Reagan predicted a reduction in the federal deficit based on the premise that democrats (who controlled Congress at the time) would abide by an agreement they'd made with him to cut government spending (for example, http://www.nytimes.com/1987/11/20/us/reagan-planning-to-cut-spending-on-deadline-today.html ). Needless to say, they didn't.

http://www.reagansheritage.org/html/reagan_edwards12.shtml

Though Reagan promised deep cuts in domestic spending, that did not turn out to be the case. Indeed, overall welfare spending increased during the Reagan presidency -- primarily because Reagan could not overcome, even with vetoes and the bully pulpit of the White House, the spending impulses of Congress, which, after all, signed the checks. Throughout his two terms, he was confronted by Democrats still enthralled by the New Deal as well as Republicans (particularly in the Senate) still mesmerized by its political appeal.

Bush Senior predicted he would reduce the deficit.

You realize of course, that the post you responded too wasn't just about predictions that didn't come true, it was about deliberately lying to the public about what economists were saying and predicting at the time. Obama and his staff clearly did that in trying to sell the Health Care Bill. So can you prove that Reagan or Bush Sr lied regarding CBO or OMB projections in an effort to sell a program dear to them? I sincerely doubt you can.

Clinton predicted he would reduce the deficit...wait...he actually did.

Because, as I noted, he was forced to by a Congress controlled by republicans who signed a contract with America to reduce the deficit long before Clinton jumped on that bandwagon.

2000-2001--CBO predicts budget surpluses for the next decade and then younger Bush gets elected...increased govt spending and doubles the deficit.

That's a dishonest misrepresentative of Bush Jr's time in office. First of all, the CBO made that projection prior to the collapse of the tech industry at the end of Clinton's term (which led to a recession they didn't include in their analysis which also began at the end of Clinton's term … i.e., before Bush took office). Second, the CBO analysis didn't predict 9/11 and the WOT, so it couldn't very well account for the negative effects on the economy and military spending those two things would have. What is remarkable is that despite all three of those serious negative influences, the economy recovered quite nicely (until democrat's gained control of Congress in late 2006) and the deficit was kept relatively manageable and even started to go down … until democrat's gained control of Congress and it went back up (as shown here: http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_gcA0ZuKGk...sh_deficit_vs_obama_deficit_in_pictures_2.jpg ).

I find it unbelieveable that you can't understand the intangibles that affect the economy with what occurred over the last few years. Any prediction has a very short half life.

Well again, the post you responded to wasn't about making a faulty prediction. It was about deliberately lying to the public about the deficit and the effect that Obama's economic policies had on the debt, in order to sell the Health Care Bill. Like I said, seems you suddenly wanted to change the subject.

 

[Hindmost]

LOL! Suddenly want to change the subject?

And Reagan predicted a reduction in the federal deficit based on the premise that democrats (who controlled Congress at the time) would abide by an agreement they'd made with him to cut government spending (for example, http://www.nytimes.com/1987/11/20/us/reagan-planning-to-cut-spending-on-deadline-today.html ). Needless to say, they didn't.

http://www.reagansheritage.org/html/reagan_edwards12.shtml







You realize of course, that the post you responded too wasn't just about predictions that didn't come true, it was about deliberately lying to the public about what economists were saying and predicting at the time. Obama and his staff clearly did that in trying to sell the Health Care Bill. So can you prove that Reagan or Bush Sr lied regarding CBO or OMB projections in an effort to sell a program dear to them? I sincerely doubt you can.



Because, as I noted, he was forced to by a Congress controlled by republicans who signed a contract with America to reduce the deficit long before Clinton jumped on that bandwagon.



That's a dishonest misrepresentative of Bush Jr's time in office. First of all, the CBO made that projection prior to the collapse of the tech industry at the end of Clinton's term (which led to a recession they didn't include in their analysis which also began at the end of Clinton's term … i.e., before Bush took office). Second, the CBO analysis didn't predict 9/11 and the WOT, so it couldn't very well account for the negative effects on the economy and military spending those two things would have. What is remarkable is that despite all three of those serious negative influences, the economy recovered quite nicely (until democrat's gained control of Congress in late 2006) and the deficit was kept relatively manageable and even started to go down … until democrat's gained control of Congress and it went back up (as shown here: http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_gcA0ZuKGk...sh_deficit_vs_obama_deficit_in_pictures_2.jpg ).



Well again, the post you responded to wasn't about making a faulty prediction. It was about deliberately lying to the public about the deficit and the effect that Obama's economic policies had on the debt, in order to sell the Health Care Bill. Like I said, seems you suddenly wanted to change the subject.

You missed my point completely.

ETA: When you edit someone's post, it is polite to quote the entire post or indentify where you snipped something out. I have notice you alway edit stuff without identifying such.

glenn

 

[joobz]

Ok, I suppose I did. But ...

Here are the numbers of "original" PMA "approvals" by the FDA in 2009 and 2010 (during the Obama administration), compared with the number before the recession (2005 - 2008) under Bush's administration:

http://www.fda.gov/medicaldevices/p...provalsandclearances/pmaapprovals/default.htm

2010 (so far) - 12
2009 - 15
2008 - 26
2007 - 25
2006 - 38
2005 - 32

Looks to me like there has been a rather a dramatic decrease in activity during Obama's tenure, joobz.

You can't look at APPROVALS, you have to look at what is in review. That is why I presented applications and not approvals.

Approvals are a factor of the technology and the safety concerns. Not of company efforts.

 

[BeAChooser]

You missed my point completely.

On the contrary, I think I demolished much of your *point* quite judiciously. If anyone missed a point, it would be you in responding to my post 784 as you did.

 

[BeAChooser]

You can't look at APPROVALS

Why can't you look at approvals? Aren't they all that really matters?

Approvals are a factor of the technology and the safety concerns.

Oh ... so you think technology and safety concerns suddenly changed under Obamacare in such a way as to cut the number of approved medical devices by half or more from what they were before he assumed office? I see.

 

[joobz]

Oh ... so you think technology and safety concerns suddenly changed under ...

No. But I know that each technology is different and approvals year to year become more and more difficult because of increased knowledge. Look into the trends into cGMPs to see what I am referring to. There is a reason why that little "C" is before the GMP.

The real measure of company activity is the applications, not approvals. This hasn't decreased and this fact completely destroys your wild speculation about the effect of "obamcare" on medical technology development.

BTW, what do you know about "ObamaCare" and biotechnology patents? (Without googling)

 

[BeAChooser]

I know that each technology is different and approvals year to year become more and more difficult because of increased knowledge.

LOL! So you're saying there was sudden increase in knowledge just as Obama took office. That's explains the sudden drop.

Just keep digging, joobz. It just helps me highlight the nonsense you continually spout.

 

[joobz]

LOL! So you're saying there was sudden increase in knowledge just as Obama took office. That's explains the sudden drop.

Just keep digging, joobz. It just helps me highlight the nonsense you continually spout.

I didn't say that at all. Don't make stuff up.

 

[BeAChooser]

I didn't say that at all.

Yes you did:

approvals year to year become more and more difficult because of increased knowledge.

That was your explanation for the drop in approvals.

 

[joobz]

Yes you did:



That was your explanation for the drop in approvals.

year to year. That doesn't imply some magic this cycle by any means. There are a whole host of reasons to why approvals might be down. YOu would need to speak with the review boards as to why.

Your claim was that effort in medical technology would decrease because of Obama Care, and the new submissions proved that wrong.
You have also ignored my question regarding biotechs.

What do you think has happened with biotechs and Obamacare?

 

[BeAChooser]

year to year.

But for two years in a row the number of approvals appears to be about half or less of what it had previously been the four years before that.

I don't think you can claim that's just the normal fluxuation, joobz.

 

[BeAChooser]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/sep/9/green-jobs-no-longer-golden-in-stimulus/

Noticeably absent from President Obama's latest economic-stimulus package are any further attempts to create jobs through "green" energy projects, reflecting a year in which the administration's original, loudly trumpeted efforts proved largely unfruitful.

In short, another crackpot liberal notion that didn't work.

Next?

 

[joobz]

But for two years in a row the number of approvals appears to be about half or less of what it had previously been the four years before that.

I don't think you can claim that's just the normal fluxuation, joobz.

And yet, the actual activity (new proposals) hasn't decreased.
So, again, your point is moot.

Also, you have failed twice to answer my question:
What does "Obamacare" have in it regarding patents and biotechs?

 

[BeAChooser]

And yet, the actual activity (new proposals) hasn't decreased.

Would you please link the source on which you based your claim that "A quick look at the PMA (pre market approvals) that must be submitted to get a device approved shows that there are currently 91 new concepts in review at the FDA. This is completely consistent from year to year, looking back to 1999."

I'm curious about this since this

http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/D...issions/PremarketApprovalPMA/ucm051387.htm#10

states

Before FDA approves or disapproves a PMA, FDA will not disclose the existence of the PMA unless it previously has been publicly disclosed or acknowledged.

So where are you getting your numbers, joobz?

 

[joobz]

Would you please link the source on which you based your claim that "A quick look at the PMA (pre market approvals) that must be submitted to get a device approved shows that there are currently 91 new concepts in review at the FDA. This is completely consistent from year to year, looking back to 1999."

I'm curious about this since this

http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/D...issions/PremarketApprovalPMA/ucm051387.htm#10

states

Before FDA approves or disapproves a PMA, FDA will not disclose the existence of the PMA unless it previously has been publicly disclosed or acknowledged.

That statement doesn't contradict my argument. reread it carefully.

So where are you getting your numbers, joobz?

http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/P...provalsandClearances/PMAApprovals/default.htm

Go to the year.
and then click a month.
And then scroll to the bottom to see a summary count of active pmas in review.

When do you plan on answering my question? Or is the answer perhaps too embarrassing for your claim?

Allow me to help you out:
http://www.biotechblog.com/2010/05/...nce-companies-engaged-in-innovative-research/
ETA:
http://www.biojobblog.com/2010/03/a...-pharmaceutical-and-biotechnology-industries/

 

[BeAChooser]

That statement doesn't contradict my argument.

Seems to me that statement suggests that any PMA total you give from that source, other than one involving approved or denied PMAs, may be an incomplete list. It suggests that the total number of PMAs listed at the bottom of those pages (thanks for pointing that out) is not accurate except for the approved PMAs numbers (like those I cited). So how can any other number than the APPROVED PMA total be used to give us an accurate measure of development activity? Hmmmmm?

Other signs of trouble?

http://www.mddionline.com/article/ma-market-rebounds-lows

December 2009

… snip …

For more than a year, an initial public offering (IPO) has not been a viable exit strategy or capital raising opportunity for medical device and diagnostics companies. The only medical device company to go public in 2009 was AGA Medical Holdings, which completed its IPO on October 20. … snip … The AGA experience is not a very good omen that the IPO market will be a viable option for device firms in the near future.

… snip …

We see this year’s decrease in M&A activity in the medical device and related industries as an aberration due to one of the longest and most severe recessionary and tight credit periods ever experienced in the United States. We expect overall general M&A activity, and medical device M&A activity in particular, to increase in 2010.

But did it? Apparently not ...

http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-228432710.html and http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Econo...ce+IPO+market+still+flounders:...-a0227652528

Economy improves, medical device IPO market still flounders.

May 1, 2010

… snip …


This was supposed to be a growth year. With investment levels down considerably in 2009 (37 percent in dollars and 30 percent in deal volume compared with 2008), venture capitalists greeted the dawn of a new decade with great expectations: They envisioned a world in which the economy was well on its way to recovery, a world in which sagging capital markets had stabilized and investments had returned to pre-recession levels (or at least close to it).

Such a turn of events, they surmised, would most certainly help revive the comatose*initial public offering (IPO) pipeline.

So much for those great expectations.

… snip …

"What would really benefit the IPO market fight now is a strong economic recovery," said Bill Miller, life science partner at global advisory firm Ernst & Young. "But there is still some uncertainty over whether we have hit the bottom. Some clients that I've talked to and others out there are not really sure whether we truly are on the road to recovery."

The constant mix of contradictory economic news seems to be lost on consumers (the Conference Board Consumer Confidence Index*rebounded in March, rising to 52.5 from 46.4 in February). The same, however, cannot be said of venture capitalists. Having been blindsided by the sharp decline in device investments last year and a retrenchment*in mergers and acquisitions, investors are being more careful with their money and more selective of their ventures. They're also more reluctant to take their investments public.

Maybe a little too reluctant. In the last two years, the number of medical device companies withdrawing IPOs has outnumbered those offering their stock by a near 31 margin. Between January 2008 and April 2010, just six device companies filed IPOs, and data show those filings were bunched 20 months apart. During that same time period, 17 device firms withdrew their IPOs; another that was considering going public decided against it and never filed the necessary paperwork with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).

And while the economy flounders, Obama golfs.

 

[joobz]

Seems to me that statement suggests that any PMA total you give from that source, other than one involving approved or denied PMAs, may be an incomplete list. It suggests that the total number of PMAs listed at the bottom of those pages (thanks for pointing that out) is not accurate except for the approved PMAs numbers (like those I cited). So how can any other number than the APPROVED PMA total be used to give us an accurate measure of development activity? Hmmmmm?

The operative term there. that means the numbers given may be lower than what is actually the case. In other words, my point still stands, and your attempt at cherry picking fails once again. Why do you think approvals (which is Dependant upon the types of devices being developed and the level of evaluations needed to be approved) is anything but an indicator of fda stringency?



And I wonder why you ignore my question?
I wonder why you continued to ignore it. The reality is Obamacare isn't suppressive to medical development.

Healthcare is a wealth generating industry. just consider the benefit to society by saving a life that can continue to produce vs. if that person was to have died.

 

[ServiceSoon]

Can both sides of discussion agree on the following 1. If the stimulus would have never been implemented the GDP would have taken a steep dive? 2. If this dive would have occurred then the next quarter would have had a better chance to recover?

It seems to me that the stimulus not only failed, it left the situation worse than it would have been otherwise.