The Stimulus Seems to have failed

[lomiller]

If the leak is going to take 2 years to fix anyway, a few more weeks thinking about how you want to fix it can't hurt.

The sooner you stop the water pouring in the less extensive the repairs will need to be, reguardless of how long it takes to finish.

Now would you care to explain to us the benefits you expect to see from waiting to implement at stimulus? I mean real benefits not vague hand waving..

 

[Chris L]

The sooner you stop the water pouring in the less extensive the repairs will need to be, reguardless of how long it takes to finish.

From what you all have said, it is still going to take 2 years just to stop the water no matter how you go about it. Why not stop for a second and think about what really needs to be done?

 

[lomiller]

From what you all have said, it is still going to take 2 years just to stop the water no matter how you go about it.

Don’t try and put words in my mouth. With the roof you would expect improvement the very soon after work started, with the stimulus you would expect some improvement as soon as money starts to flow, and this is in fact what we saw.

Now are you going to answer the question and explain what you think could be gained by waiting?

 

[Chris L]

My point is not "just waiting", my point is taking time to actually think about what you are doing. The stimulus was rushed through without much thought or debate. The end product of that rush is this wonderful "summer of stimulus" we are all enjoying.

 

[BeAChooser]

Did you notice that unemployment had was 8.5% when Obama was inaugurated and 8.9 when the stimulus was passed?

That's FALSE.

Obama was sworn into office on January 20, 2009. The Labor department reported in February that the unemployment rate hit 7.6% in January (http://money.usnews.com/money/caree...te-hits-76-percent-what-you-need-to-know.html and http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/06/AR2009020601156.html ). A month earlier (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/10/business/economy/10jobs.html ), it reported that the unemployment rate had reached 7.2% and in response to that "President-elect Barack Obama said Congress must enact an economic stimulus plan quickly." Such urgency for a unemployment rate that at the time was a full 3% less than that which occurred during the 1981/82 recession.

Obama signed the Stimulus Bill on February 17, 2009. In March, the Labor department said unemployment reached 8.1% in February (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/07/business/economy/07jobs.html ).

Learn some history rather than just making it up.

Originally Posted by BeAChooser
But the unemployment rate also stops going up even when there is no stimulus.

it didn't in the great depression...

You think there was no stimulus in the Great Depression? Learn a little history.

 

[lomiller]

That's FALSE.

You realize it’s pretty easy to follow the link I was commenting on and verify it says exactly what I said it does?

You think there was no stimulus in the Great Depression? Learn a little history.

Yup it started in 1933 right around the time unemployment peaked and started to drop. It was cut (prematurely) in 1937 which was quickly followed by another increase in unemployment.

 

[BeAChooser]

You realize it’s pretty easy to follow the link I was commenting on and verify it says exactly what I said it does?

Oh I know what it said. But I also know what the Department of Labor DIRECTLY stated about unemployment in January and February of 2009 … from numerous sources. And what they directly said is at odds with what joobz's chart says.

Edited by LashL: 

Edited for civility.

In fact, let's back to the source cited for that chart "U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics".

http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet?data_tool=latest_numbers&series_id=LNS14000000

There's a figure on that page titled "Unemployment Rate" and a table below it showing the raw data. For January 2009, it says 7.7%. (The sources I cited said 7.6% was the announced figure.) For February 2009, it says 8.2 percent. (The sources I cited said 8.1% was the announced figure.) Neither is anywhere near the 8.5% and 8.9% figures you cited based on joobz's chart . So it looks like you were indeed duped by joobz.

Yup it started in 1933 right around the time unemployment peaked and started to drop.

We've had this discussion before. On this very thread. You wrote:

The US economy went into recession in 1929 and the President at the time reacted with a policy of no government stimulus and a misguided attempt to balancer the budget.

And I replied that:

LOL! I can only infer that you are one of the millions of gullible democrats who hang on every word coming out of that partisan, moron named Rachel Maddow.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/jack-c...l-maddow-still-cant-get-it-right-about-hoover

Here she goes again, this time during her show Friday night while condemning Republicans calling for a "freeze" on federal spending for the rest of the fiscal year --

You know who else had the excellent idea to freeze government spending during a recession? This guy! (holds up photo of Hoover) H.H., President Herbert Hoover. His fundamental misunderstanding of how to shore up a failing economy was so celebrated that the great armies of homeless and jobless Americans gave him naming rights for the shanty towns where they all lived in cardboard boxes and burned-out cars during the Great Depression -- Hoovervilles. Hoovervilles.

The problem is that Hoover didn't freeze spending. Either Maddow's a fool or a liar. Here, from the same source:

When it comes to federal spending during Hoover's single term in office, 1929 to 1933, what actually happened? According to the Office of Budget and Management Web site, Table 1.1 (BAC - in http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2009/pdf/hist.pdf ), just the opposite of what Maddow repeatedly claims.

Federal spending increased $166 million in 1929, or 5 percent. In 1930, it rose by $193 million over the preceding year, at 6 percent. The pattern continued in 1931, with an increase of $257 million, nearly 8 percent. And for 1932, it rose a whopping 30 percent, by $1.08 billion. All told, federal spending increased 57 percent in this four-year period, according to the OMB.

Since in previous debates with you, I told you that Hoover significantly increased government spending, one suspects you of now lying. I told you previously that Herbert Hoover started a trade war, increased government spending substantially and raised tax rates across the board. In fact, he increased the top rate on personal income taxes from 25% to 63%. He doubled estate taxes. And he raised corporate taxes by nearly 15%. And in doing so, he probably turned what would have been a recession into a 10 or 11 year depression. Why did you ignore all that?

Now I no longer suspect. Now I know you are lying to try and deceive the members of this forum.

It was cut (prematurely) in 1937 which was quickly followed by another increase in unemployment.

This is also a dishonestly because you were previously informed:

The unemployment rate was indeed 25% immediately after FDR took office, but the unemployment rate did not drop to 9% as you now claim (you previously claimed it dropped to 10%). It fact, it went down to only about 14% in June of 1937 (http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1528.html ), and then proceeded to go back up to almost 19% by 1938. It was still over 17% in 1939, despite FDR doubling government spending again. Only the onset of WW2 and the enormous growth in demand for war goods finally brought it below 10% (in 1941).

And the timing of the rate dropping from 25% to 14% probably has more to do with the Supreme Court striking down key elements of the New Deal legislation (including the National Industrial Recovery Act in July 1935 and the Agricultural Adjustment Act in July 1935 and January 1936) than FDR's prolifigate spending.

Furthermore, the timing of it then going back up to 19% probably was the result of FDR, in 1936 and early 1937, packing the court with his own people, leading to reversals of the earlier Supreme Court decisions mentioned above in the spring of 1937. And immediately after that, the Dow collapsed and the unemployment rate shot back up to 19%.

All of these facts have been posted to you previously but you apparently just want to ignore them or lie. Readers will have to decide which you are doing.

I've certainly made up my mind, LIAR.

And let me remind you how I ended my previous discussion with you on this topic:

So here's my advice, lomiller. Either stop pretending you know the economic history of the US or stop lying about history. Because which ever happens to be the case, you will only end up further embarrass yourself.

 

[joobz]

From what you all have said, it is still going to take 2 years just to stop the water no matter how you go about it. Why not stop for a second and think about what really needs to be done?

What does "water" represent in your analogy? Why do you refuse to address simple direct questions?

 

[joobz]

Oh I know what it said. But I also know what the Department of Labor DIRECTLY stated about unemployment in January and February of 2009 … from numerous sources. And what they directly said is at odds with what joobz's chart says. Which makes me suspect that joobz's chart is just the usual garbage he posts. And that you are just the usual dupe he relies on to believe his garbage.

I guess you have a hard time reading "seasonly adjusted" vs. "Non seasonally adjusted"

In other words, I presented the raw numbers.

I'll wait for an apology...

 

[lomiller]

Oh I know what it said. But I also know what the Department of Labor DIRECTLY stated about unemployment in January and February of 2009

The Google graph I was commenting on comes from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, and unlike you I understand why it’s slightly different then the one you link to in this post. Clearly I was responding to a specific post with a specific link, and was commenting on that series, not some other related series.

For February 2009, it says 8.2 percent.

Tell us why you think that supports your argument any better?

It still shows unemployment rising very rapidly between the time your quote mined statement took place, when the stimulus was passed and when the first spending occurred. In fact it’s even more evident that the rate at which jobs were being lost slows almost immediately when stimulus money started being spent.

So it looks like you were indeed duped by joobz.

Not at all. Unlike you I actually understood what he linked. One could make a case that there are better series to use, but that’s an entirely other discussion and certainly one that went over your head or you would have made it instead of erroneously calling the data false.

 

[lomiller]

I guess you have a hard time reading "seasonly adjusted" vs. "Non seasonally adjusted"

In other words, I presented the raw numbers.

I'll wait for an apology...

Boooo

I wanted to see him try and figure it out

 

[Chris L]

What does "water" represent in your analogy?

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.

 

[joobz]

Again, wrong. If you look at the rate at which jobs were being lost back in January 2009 versus the equivalent point in time during the 1981/82 recession, you find that the current recession was no worse. Here's a chart showing the rate of job loss in the current recession versus some other recessions at equivalent times after the peak job month:

http://blogs.fxstreet.com/fxbootcam...b-losses-in-recent-recessions-thru-jun091.gif

Notice, that the end point of the current recession line is June 2009. That means January 2009, when Obama claimed this was the worst recession since WW2, corresponds to Month 12. Note that the rate of increase in jobs during the 1981 recession in month 12 wasn't all that different than in the current recession. Moreover, the 1981 recession started off with a job loss rate far worse than the current recession. Yet for some reason, Bush, et al, felt it necessary to intervene in the current recession. And in month 8-9, the 1981 recession already had every bit as steep a job loss rate as the current recession would have several months later in equivalent time (i.e., after the November elections when the public knew Obama was going to be President and Obama was already talking up his plan for a large stimulus). I suggest that Bush's intervention, plus the uncertainty that business was given by the talk by Obama and democrats about a stimulus, is part of the reason the unemployment rate began to steepen in the December to February timeframe.

It's funny you posted this graph. Notice the slope, which relates to change rate. All this shows is that OBama was correct in his claim, and you were wrong.

 

[BeAChooser]

I guess you have a hard time reading "seasonly adjusted" vs. "Non seasonally adjusted"

So you are foolish enough to believe "non seasonally adjusted" numbers are meaningful. I see.

 

[joobz]

So you are foolish enough to believe "non seasonally adjusted" numbers are meaningful. I see.

insults without substance. You are digging yourself in deeper.

 

[BeAChooser]

Unlike you I actually understood what he linked.

If you did, you were trying to deceive. But I'm not convinced you did.

 

[BeAChooser]

insults without substance. You are digging yourself in deeper.

http://www.dol.nebraska.gov/nwd/lmi/es/trends/trends/nov07/Ask the Economist.pdf

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, “Seasonal Adjustment removes the estimated effect of changes that normally occur at the same time every year. CPI series are selected for seasonal adjustment if they pass certain statistical criteria and if there is an economic rationale for the observed seasonality.” (BLS http://www.bls.gov/cpi/cpisaqanda.htm)

Seasonally adjusting data helps users create projections and forecast more accurately. It also helps readers to not be misled by sudden fluctuations in month-to-month numbers. BLS has been seasonally adjusting data since 1992 and has distributed several updated processes to achieve greater accuracy. The last model overhaul occurred in 2005.

 

[lomiller]

If you did, you were trying to deceive.

Yes, it was all a big trick when I responded to the actual content of a post rather then something else…

I note you still haven’t made any substantive response to any points being made.

 

[BeAChooser]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/01/AR2010090106148_pf.html

Lunch at the National Press Club on Wednesday caused some serious indigestion.

It wasn't the food; it was the entertainment. Christina Romer, chairman of President Obama's Council of Economic Advisers, was giving what was billed as her "valedictory" before she returns to teach at Berkeley, and she used the swan song to establish four points, each more unnerving than the last:

She had no idea how bad the economic collapse would be. She still doesn't understand exactly why it was so bad. The response to the collapse was inadequate. And she doesn't have much of an idea about how to fix things.

Now mind you, folks … Romer was one of the prime architects of the Stimulus!

And this is what a far left media outlet is reporting, not some conservative news outlet.

Let's continue from the above:

What she did have was a binder full of scary descriptions and warnings, offered with a perma-smile and singsong delivery: "Terrible recession. . . . Incredibly searing. . . . Dramatically below trend. . . . Suffering terribly. . . . Risk of making high unemployment permanent. . . . Economic nightmare."

Anybody want dessert?

Of course the rest of the article goes back to "trying" to defend Obama and the democrats. It is the Washington Post, after all.

 

[joobz]

http://www.dol.nebraska.gov/nwd/lmi/es/trends/trends/nov07/Ask the Economist.pdf

Funny thing about seasonal adjustment is that it normalizes the values on what would be expected in a "normal" season. To make this valid, you would have to demonstrate that seasonal changes in job numbers would be purely additive to changes that occur as a result of a recession. I am not convinced such a case exists.


But lets remember:
1.) I presented those values as demonstration of the trend in unemployment rates, not the absolute. Both seasonal and unseasonal numbers support my argument.
2.) You accused me of being dishonest. Clearly, I wasn't.