The Stimulus Seems to have failed

YoPopa said:
So you can't think of any rebranding successes either.
Click to expand...
Those were the rebrandings that came to mind.
Do you have a problem with them?
Do you deny that they are examples of how public perception allows for something to be considered acceptable?


YoPopa said:
The Stimulus failed on its' merits.
Click to expand...
Failed? I am still not certain this is true. It definitely wasn't as impactful as people thought it would be, but I will withhold judgement until more time is provided. For instance, people were originally claiming cask for clunkers was a failure. It took a complete year before we were able to see how it did exactly what it was supposed to do.

YoPopa said:
It did not fail because it was call "The Stimulus" changing the name isn't going to change the merits and the voters who show up at midterms tend to be a little better informed on issues.
Click to expand...
I agree with you that voters will vote harsh against dems. As they should. However, I also believe that they will do so for the wrong reasons. I think the democrats failed because they proved to be ineffectual at legislating.
 
BeAChooser said:
Perhaps it shows why the stimulus hasn't worked?
Click to expand...
But it doesn't. You have made a series of "guilt by insinuation" posts and have failed to support any of them. We understand you hate Obama. But your dislike isn't rooted in logic or reason and your recent posts expose that fact.
 
Hindmost said:
I do think there are more than 48 economists around the US...so majority is a bit of a stretch. You also don't know the president has less expertise or less available expertise to draw upon.
Click to expand...

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"):

And -- and -- and just to -- to raise a broader issue that I think has colored how we look at health care reform, let me just talk about deficit and debt, because part of what's been happening in this debate is the American people are understandably queasy about the huge deficits and debt that we're facing right now.

And the feeling is, all right, we had the bank bailout, we had the recovery package, we had the supplemental, we've got the budget, we're seeing numbers, trillions here and trillions there. And so I think, legitimately, people are saying, "Look, we're in a recession. I'm cutting back. I'm having to give up things. And yet all I see is government spending more and more money."

And that argument, I think, has been used effectively by people who don't want to change health care to suggest that somehow this is one more government program. So I just want to address that point very quickly.

First of all, let's understand that, when I came in, we had a $1.3 trillion deficit -- annual deficit that we had already inherited. We had to immediately move forward with a stimulus package because the American economy had lost trillions of dollars of wealth. Consumers had lost through their 401(k)s, through home values, you name it, they had lost trillions of dollars. That all just went away.

That was the day I was sworn in; it was already happening. And we had 700,000 jobs that were being lost. So we felt it was very important to put in place a recovery package that would help stabilize the economy.

Then we had to pass a budget by law, and our budget had a 10-year projection. And I just want everybody to be clear about this. If we had done nothing, if you had the same, old budget as opposed to the changes we made in our budget, you'd have a $9.3 trillion deficit over the next 10 years. Because of the changes we've made, it's going to be $7.1 trillion.

Now, that's not good, but it's $2.2 trillion less than it would have been if we had the same policies in place when we came in.

So the reason I point this out is to say that the debt and the deficit are deep concerns of mine. I am very worried about federal spending. And the steps that we've taken so far have reduced federal spending over the next 10 years by $2.2 trillion.
Click to expand...

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:

The cumulative deficit from 2010 to 2019 under the President's proposals would total $9.3 trillion, compared with a cumulative deficit of $4.4 trillion projected under the current-law assumptions embodied in CBO's baseline.
Click to expand...

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". :D
 
BeAChooser said:
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/72321



"Virtually Any Measure"? LOL! Talk about Stuck On Stupid.
Click to expand...
there are at least 6 different indicators used to measure economic strength that I can think of, of which unemployment is just one.

Do you have evidence that 2 or more of the other measures (GDP, exchange rate, consumer spending, GNP, stock market, rate of inflation, trade balance...) are not better now than 2 years ago?
 
Besides the housing market, consumer confidence, and deficit figures?
 
joobz said:
there are at least 6 different indicators used to measure economic strength that I can think of, of which unemployment is just one.

Do you have evidence that 2 or more of the other measures (GDP, exchange rate, consumer spending, GNP, stock market, rate of inflation, trade balance...) are not better now than 2 years ago?
Click to expand...

LOL! Well let's look at your highly cherry picked categories, joobz …

Unemployment now - 9.6%
2 years ago (September 2008) - 6.1%
Clearly worse off.

GDP now - 14.6 trillion
2 year ago - 14.5 trillion
Looks like a wash, buy maybe not. GDP now, based on historical trends, should actually be much higher now than in 2008. And GDP now is arguably being held up by consumer spending which in turn is arguably being held up by government giveaways, not real economic strength.

exchange rate now - 1 USD = 6.1 Chinese Yuan
2 years ago 1 USD = 6.8 Chinese Yaun
exchange rate now 1 USD = 0.65 British Pounds
2 years ago 1 USD = 0.55 British Pounds
exchange rate now 1 USD = 0.78 Euro
2 years ago 1 USD = 0.68 Euro
exchange rate now 1 USD = 84 Japanese Yen
2 years ago 1 USD = 109 Japanese Yen
exchange rate now 1 USD = 1.06 Canadian Dollars
2 years ago 1 USD = 1.06 Canadian Dollars
Looks like a wash at best.

consumer spending (which, by the way, is now only propped up by government giveaways) (and by this I assume you mean real personal consumption expenditures as in http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/PCEC96 ) - $9300
2 years ago - $9300
Looks like a wash ... but since spending now is being held up by government giveaways, may it's not. Maybe we're worse off than appearances.

GNP (says pretty much the same as GDP, joobz … :rolleyes:)

stock market now - DOW at 10,341
2 years ago - DOW closed at 11,510
Definitely not better today than 2 yeas ago.

rate of inflation now - slightly over 1 percent (http://www.usinflationcalculator.com/inflation/current-inflation-rates/ )
2 years ago - about 4.9 percent (considered to be on the high side of stable range)
You win this one, I guess, but note there will be a price paid down the road in terms of higher inflation rates because of the new debt Obama has added. Some expect double digit inflation. And many believe that the inflation rate is now too low (http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2010/02/monetary_policy_1 ). It means businesses are working well below capacity. And there are still concerns we might see deflation, if the economy double dips. And that would be bad too.

trade balance now - -50 Billion (in July and headed even more negative) (see http://www.tradingeconomics.com/Economics/Balance-of-Trade.aspx?Symbol=USD )
2 years ago - -60 billion (in September)
Looks like another wash when all is said and done, joobz, and you won't see more jobs, when the total amount of trade is down from 2008 (http://www.census.gov/indicator/www/ustrade.html ).

I just don't see the point you were trying to make, joobz. Because even by your measures, Gibbs is acting like Baghdad Bob. :D
 
BeAChooser said:
LOL! Well let's look at your highly cherry picked categories, joobz …
Click to expand...
not cherry picked, just ones that popped into my head. your antagonistic methods are not very helpful.

BeAChooser said:
I just don't see the point you were trying to make, joobz. Because even by your measures, Gibbs is acting like Baghdad Bob. :D
Click to expand...
I was asking a legitimate question. You make derisive remarks and based upon your posting history, I do not trust your opinions without support.


However, you made a rational counterargument and are correct.
I do not know what Gibbs was talking about. He should be challenged on that point.
 
Lol at BAC’s ideas on economic metrics he got almost all of them completely backwards because he doesn’t seem to realize it’s direction that counts. Apparently in his world it’s better to have a plummeting GDP then a rising GDP of the same value…
 
lomiller said:
Lol at BAC’s ideas on economic metrics he got almost all of them completely backwards because he doesn’t seem to realize it’s direction that counts. Apparently in his world it’s better to have a plummeting GDP then a rising GDP of the same value…
Click to expand...

LOL! Of course direction counts, but Bush couldn't do much about the direction that democrat control of Congress sent the country back in 2007 and 2008. A recession was going to occur no matter what he did. Whereas, Obama has had a lot of impact on the direction the economy has taken (speaking of which, what are the odds of a double dip now?) since taking office.

And you don't seem to realize that slope matters too. Historical data shows that what USUALLY happens following deep recessions, especially when there isn't any stimulus of the sort Obama and company have forced on America, is that GDP grows very fast .... much faster than what has happened after this recession. So if we can see any trend by looking at history, the trend we see is that Obama's stimulus has cost us considerable GDP growth that we should have had since the recession supposedly ended. That's a net loss anyway you look at it, lomiller. :D
 
lomiller said:
Lol at BAC’s ideas on economic metrics he got almost all of them completely backwards because he doesn’t seem to realize it’s direction that counts. Apparently in his world it’s better to have a plummeting GDP then a rising GDP of the same value…
Click to expand...
Excellent point. Something I should have picked up on. Perhaps this is what Gibb's was thinking of?
BeAChooser said:
LOL! Of course direction counts,
Click to expand...
Why are you laughing? It seems like an important point which you missed. The rest of your post was nothing more than an apologetic type of attempt to dismiss the importance of this.

So, perhaps Gibbs wasn't wrong when he made his claim.
 
joobz said:
So, perhaps Gibbs wasn't wrong when he made his claim.
Click to expand...

:rolleyes:

http://www.freedomworks.org/blog/max/the-economy-by-the-numbers

And today White House Press Briefing Press Secretary Robert Gibbs claimed that “by virtually any measure, our economy is a better place than it was two years ago.”

Republican House leader John Boehner's office put out the following numbers which show the opposite is true and commented, "Apparently, 'virtually any measure' does not include any of these key economic indicators:"

• THEN: Unemployment In August 2008: 6.1. percent; 9.4 million unemployed Americans
• NOW: Unemployment In August 2010: 9.6 percent; 14.9 million unemployed Americans
• THEN: The National Debt on September 2, 2008: $9.67 trillion
• NOW: The National Debt on September 2, 2010: $13.44 trillion
• THEN: The National Deficit in 2008: $400 billion
• NOW: Projected National Deficit In 2010: $1.34 trillion
• THEN: Average 2008 Government Compensation: $108,476; Private Sector: $69,928
• NOW: Average 2009 Government Compensation: $123,049; Private Sector: $61,051
• THEN: Number of Homes Lost or Put Into Foreclosure In July 2008: 272,171
• NOW: Number of Homes Lost or Put Into Foreclosure In July 2010: 325,229
​
Click to expand...

But you go on drinking the KoolAid, joobz. :D
 
BeAChooser said:
:rolleyes:

http://www.freedomworks.org/blog/max/the-economy-by-the-numbers
LIST OF STATIC MEASURES WHICH DO NOT REFERENCE TRENDS
Click to expand...
YOu've already conceded that trends matters.
lomiller said:
Lol at BAC’s ideas on economic metrics he got almost all of them completely backwards because he doesn’t seem to realize it’s direction that counts. Apparently in his world it’s better to have a plummeting GDP then a rising GDP of the same value…
Click to expand...

BeAChooser said:
LOL! Of course direction counts,
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Why would you repost a list of static measures?

BeAChooser said:
But you go on drinking the KoolAid, joobz. :D
Click to expand...
What does koolaid have to do with the current discussion?
 
joobz said:
Why would you repost a list of static measures?
Click to expand...


Static?

Hate to tell you but the current trend

- in unemployment is UP .

- in National Debt is UP.

- in National Deficit is UP.

- in government compensation is UP.

- in foreclosures is UP.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom