The Stimulus Seems to have failed

[BeAChooser]

see if Warren Buffett will hire you

I see, Glenn, that you've decided that trying to change the subject and making personal attacks will be your tactics at this point in the discussion. As I predicted might be the case.

I evaluate things sans ideology.

Right now, at least the economy has stabalized likely due in part to the stimulus

As I've already noted, without the stimulus, historical data suggests we'd be seeing a GDP growth rate of perhaps 4% right now (see post #856), and unemployment would be well off it's current value of 9.6%. Instead, the GDP growth rate is now well under 2% and headed downward as I showed earlier (and all the bad news still pouring in suggests), while unemployment appears to be headed back up as I showed earlier. I don't see how you can characterize that as "stabilized", but I do know where you got that phrase, in your "sans-ideological" way: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gWifx4pzOPIWhSx1Xff9H1vua02AD9I77P080 "Obama says his policies have stabilized economy".

However, I do bet against stupidity in when I invest and that was a reasonable bet against the Bush administration.

Like I said, it looks like you've decided your only tactic at this point is to change topics. And blaming Bush seems to be something else you got from Obama.

There was little reason for the stock market to go as high as is did during the Bush administration as the middle class was not gaining ground and poverty was increasing even though the US was in an economic boom.

And yet it did, demonstrating that you fundamentally don't understand what drives the stock market.

And if you think the middle class was losing ground under Bush, you should see what it's doing under Obama, right now. What do you think is behind the anger would-be voters are showing towards democrats?

When Paulson and Bush printed 80 billion dollars to bailout AIG and several friends

A policy that Obama endorsed and voted for, by the way. And what was really dishonest was the way Obama became *furious* when AIG paid huge bonuses just weeks after Obama's administration paid out $30 billion in additional aid to the company, when his administration and democrats in Congress had in fact known for months AIG was going to do that.

As Lehman, Citi, Merril Lynch, Bear Sterns fell, it was clear this financial problem was really unprecedented. I don't trust the republicans that got us into this mess to get us out. They have proposed nothing of substance.

LOL! All you are doing is repeating the same misrepresentations of history that you claimed earlier … the ones I debunked in posts that I noted you ignored. The truth is that republicans didn't get us in this mess by themselves. In fact, democrats are largely responsible. But then you don't want to argue the facts I presented which show that. Instead, you want to change the subject or just regurgitate the same unfounded assertions to avoid debate. A typical "sans-ideological" democrat tactic.

Bush and Bush have certainly been bad for employment.

http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2009/...ord-on-record/

Well lets take a look at what that source states. That during George Bush Sr's administration, the number of jobs went up by 2.5 million from beginning to end. That during Bush Jr's administration, the number of jobs increased by 3 million over what it was at the beginning of his time in office. And what's happened during Obama's term so far? Well, the number of jobs has gone down about 2 million since he entered office. So it looks like he's got some serious catching up to do. And he has a jobs *promise* to keep:

http://blog.heritage.org/wp-content/uploads/jobs-gap-september-small.jpg

 

[BeAChooser]

yes, anyone who bought what they were selling at face value was... if not stupid, at least incredibly naive.

Well that pretty much describes most of those who voted for Obama.

But at any rate, again, the stimulus seems to have done what it was intended to do.

FALSE. As pointed earlier in this thread (you didn't read it, before posting, did you), Obama and his staff clearly stated what it was intended to do. And it didn't do it.

 

[Chris L]

BAC,
I guess it's a matter of "intended by who". The people selling the plan definitely over sold it. The people who voted for it can claim though that THEY intended it to do exactly what it did, whatever that might be.

That's the reason that most large projects initiated by most organizations usually have specific goals (and metrics to measure those goals) spelled out before hand. Otherwise it really is too easy for people to redefine the goal to match results and claim success.

That has been the problem with this thread all along. No matter how bad the numbers get, someone, somewhere, can claim it could have been worse, therefore the stimulus did what it was supposed to do. Thus making the idea "the stimulus did not fail" unfalsifiable.

 

[joobz]

Do you really think there are less people in poverty now than there were in 2009?

I don't know. Businesses are making a come back. Ask Eastman (a materials supply company) what their sales have been like. They are having a great year, a good sign that manufacturing is getting ramped up again.

So, I don't know what the poverty numbers are going to be this year. but I don't have a reason to think it'll be worse.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_poverty_rate_timeline.gif

As one of my sources noted, it's expected that the poverty rate will climb even higher before it starts to go down. Here is another:

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE58943C20090910

And let's look at the poverty rate trends
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_poverty_rate_timeline.gif
This shows a bit different picture in the grand scheme, doesn't it?

By the way, joobz … know what the poverty rate is in that socialist paradise called the EU? 17%. It's so bad that the EU made 2010 the "Stop Poverty Now" year.

As I've learned from you, one should never believe what you say without checking first.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_the_United_States

In the EU and for the OECD, "relative poverty" is defined as an income below 60% of the national median equalized disposable income after social transfers for a comparable household. In Germany, for example, the official relative poverty line for a single adult person in 2003 was 938 euros per month (11,256 euros/year, $12,382 PPP. West Germany 974 euros/month, 11,688 euros/year, $12,857 PPP). For a family of four with two children below 14 years the poverty line was 1969.8 euros per month ($2,167 PPP) or 23,640 euros ($26,004 PPP) per year. According to Eurostat the percentage of people in Germany living at risk of poverty (relative poverty) in 2004 was 16% (official national rate 13.5% in 2003). Additional definitions for poverty in Germany are "poverty" (50% median) and "strict poverty" (40% median, national rate 1.9% in 2003). Generally the percentage for "relative poverty" is much higher than the quota for "strict poverty". The U.S concept is best comparable to "strict poverty". By European standards the official (relative) poverty rate in the United States would be significantly higher than it is by the U.S. measure. A research paper from the OECD calculates the relative poverty rate for the United States at 16% for 50% median of disposable income and nearly 24% for 60% of median disposable income[19] (OECD average: 11% for 50% median, 16% for 60% median).

One must always compare apples to apples.

 

[joobz]

Regarding that LA expenditure of $111 million to create or save 55 jobs ...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_upsho...million-in-stimulus-funds-to-create-7-76-jobs

That's government for you. INEFFICIENT. And democrats only want to make it bigger. MUCH bigger.

I'm curious, Do you have the numbers on how much it costs to change traffic lights? Or how much it costs to power them compared to the LED?

Here's an interesting analysis of the savings that can result.
http://auto.howstuffworks.com/car-driving-safety/safety-regulatory-devices/question178.htm

couple of points to note
1.) Actual electricity in CA is ~12Cents/kw-Hr not 8 Cents/kw-hr http://michaelbluejay.com/electricity/cost.html
2.) Lights used are ~10W and not 15-20W
http://www.ledtronics.com/products/cat1.aspx?P=C0D7
3.) Current bulbs are 60W and not 100W
4.) average intersection will have ~3x3 lights for each way = 36 lights, but typically only 1 of the three is on at any one time, so we'll say 12 lights/intersection
So: (60W-10W)*24*365/1000*(12 lights/intersection)*0.12$/kwHr=$630/year.
This times 1800 intersections equals 1.14 million dollars/year in savings.

This amount can easily be put into employees. If you assume an average income of 45k and an addition 50% for benefits, each employee would cost 67.5k/year. This means that the cost savings in the traffic lights would allow the city to add an additional 17 jobs to the rolls.

 

[Piggy]

BAC,
I guess it's a matter of "intended by who". The people selling the plan definitely over sold it. The people who voted for it can claim though that THEY intended it to do exactly what it did, whatever that might be.

That's the reason that most large projects initiated by most organizations usually have specific goals (and metrics to measure those goals) spelled out before hand. Otherwise it really is too easy for people to redefine the goal to match results and claim success.

That has been the problem with this thread all along. No matter how bad the numbers get, someone, somewhere, can claim it could have been worse, therefore the stimulus did what it was supposed to do. Thus making the idea "the stimulus did not fail" unfalsifiable.

When you look at the prospects that were before us at the end of the Bush administration, it's clear that we dodged a major calamity. There was a very tangible possibility of economic gridlock and a global depression.

It's amazing that we've had a turnaround in this recession more quickly than we had, say, under Reagan's handling of the Carter recession, which didn't see an economic turnaround til his 2nd year, and a jobs turnaround til his 3rd year. (Which, btw, included an '82 tax hike which, as a % of GDP, was larger than the currently planned "hike" -- allowing portions of the Bush cuts to expire.)

I haven't seen any objective studies which conclude that the stimulus created no jobs, had no effects, and was not important in ending the free-fall and triggering the reversal.

So it's not simply a matter of interpreting inkblots any way you like.

The stimulus certainly appears to have "worked", although I don't see how anybody can say that it "worked" to the extent that its loudest proponants claimed it would.

 

[Hindmost]

I see, Glenn, that you've decided that trying to change the subject and making personal attacks will be your tactics at this point in the discussion. As I predicted might be the case.

It was not a personal attack...you carefully sniped out the context--without identifying that you sniped out part of my comment. That is intellectually dishonest. I was commenting that you and others really can't tell what the full extent of the stimulus would be--and I was being truthful about the job in principle. I certainly wouldn't mind working for the oracle. Full quote below.

No matter what you post, I am sure that you and just about everyone cannot tell what would and would not happen with and without the stimulus package. If you really think you are that good, see if Warren Buffett will hire you. I really don't recall you posting anything prescient about the economy before the crash occured

...snip...

As I've already noted, without the stimulus, historical data suggests we'd be seeing a GDP growth rate of perhaps 4% right now (see post #856), and unemployment would be well off it's current value of 9.6%. Instead, the GDP growth rate is now well under 2% and headed downward as I showed earlier (and all the bad news still pouring in suggests), while unemployment appears to be headed back up as I showed earlier. I don't see how you can characterize that as "stabilized", but I do know where you got that phrase, in your "sans-ideological" way: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gWifx4pzOPIWhSx1Xff9H1vua02AD9I77P080 "Obama says his policies have stabilized economy".

I never read the article in question. I follow the fanancial markets extensively and things are stable based on most indicators. I don't consider what you posted and any kind of proof that things would be better without the stimulus.

I said, it looks like you've decided your only tactic at this point is to change topics. And blaming Bush seems to be something else you got from Obama.

When you post "stuck on stupid" constantly that would meet your requirement for off topic.

Bush deserves some of the blame, but I am sure he was incapable of understanding the what was happening. It was mainly his handlers. It isn't off topic to inform why I bet against the republicans as far as economic policy when this thread is about such policy. As I pointed out, the markets and employment perform better under democratic policy.

And yet it did, demonstrating that you fundamentally don't understand what drives the stock market.

And if you think the middle class was losing ground under Bush, you should see what it's doing under Obama, right now. What do you think is behind the anger would-be voters are showing towards democrats?

The republican form of socialism drove the market...huge deficit spending. And the explosion of derivatives without any underlying value drove the market. The derivative were a house of cards.

A policy that Obama endorsed and voted for, by the way. And what was really dishonest was the way Obama became *furious* when AIG paid huge bonuses just weeks after Obama's administration paid out $30 billion in additional aid to the company, when his administration and democrats in Congress had in fact known for months AIG was going to do that.

you need to look this one up..this was long before TARP and congress didn't even have say in it--they weren't even informed.

LOL! All you are doing is repeating the same misrepresentations of history that you claimed earlier … the ones I debunked in posts that I noted you ignored. The truth is that republicans didn't get us in this mess by themselves. In fact, democrats are largely responsible. But then you don't want to argue the facts I presented which show that. Instead, you want to change the subject or just regurgitate the same unfounded assertions to avoid debate. A typical "sans-ideological" democrat tactic.

And I still think you are wrong. The republicans and democrates got us into this, but the republican were incharge and failed to realize what was occuring in the financial markets...they have the lion's share of the blame.

Well lets take a look at what that source states. That during George Bush Sr's administration, the number of jobs went up by 2.5 million from beginning to end. That during Bush Jr's administration, the number of jobs increased by 3 million over what it was at the beginning of his time in office. And what's happened during Obama's term so far? Well, the number of jobs has gone down about 2 million since he entered office. So it looks like he's got some serious catching up to do. And he has a jobs *promise* to keep:

http://blog.heritage.org/wp-content/uploads/jobs-gap-september-small.jpg

You really don't think there is any carry through from the previous administration.

And I am done here.

glenn

 

[BeAChooser]

By European standards the official (relative) poverty rate in the United States would be significantly higher than it is by the U.S. measure.

Something about that claim smells, joobz.

http://www.nationaljournal.com/njmagazine/wn_20100116_2302.php

Although [the] Netherlands, Sweden, and Denmark are among Europe's wealthiest countries, as U.S. states they would be between 14.5 percent and 18 percent below the U.S. average .… If France became a U.S. state, it would rank No. 48 out of 51 by per capita [gross domestic product], just barely ahead of America's two poorest states, West Virginia and Mississippi.... Belgium, Finland, Britain, Germany, and Spain would rank in the bottom 20 percent of U.S. states by per capita GDP, just barely ahead of Arkansas but below Kentucky.

In fact, Europe's EU, as a whole, appears to have the purchasing power of the people in Mississippi, one of our poorest states: http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_otfwl2zc6Qc/SqVEXe7MudI/AAAAAAAALQY/hj8sjsavCoQ/s1600-h/gdpworld.jpg . And here is a source that looks at current GDP (real) growth rates: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(real)_growth_rate. You can see that the 2009 estimate growth rate of the US *growth* rate is listed as -2.4%. But the Netherlands had a -4.3% *growth* rate. Sweden's is -4.4%. Denmarks is -4.3%. So the disparity in wealth is growing even larger as we chat.

And how odd, given the claim of your *source*, that in the US (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/peo_siz_of_hou-people-size-of-houses ) 72% of homes have 5 or more rooms. Only 43% of Dutch houses do. In fact US houses are on average almost twice the size in terms of square footage as those in the Netherlands (http://www.greenlivingpedia.org/House_size_comparisons ). And a larger percentage of Americans own homes than people in the Netherlands. And yet the Netherlands is one of the wealthiest, per capita, European nations.

But you claim our poverty rate is higher? Something about your claim just smells, joobz.

 

[BeAChooser]

I was commenting that you and others really can't tell what the full extent of the stimulus would be

But, as has been pointed out over and over and over (and ignored over and over and over, by folks on your side of this issue), history strongly suggests what would have happened had there been no stimulus … had we done what Van Buren, Cleveland and Harding did, instead. Call it a historical crystal ball … experience. And that ball tells us that unemployment and the economy would likely be much better now than they are.

As I pointed out, the markets and employment perform better under democratic policy.

Someone recently tried to claim that markets do better during the terms of democrat PRESIDENTS. First, I point out that Presidents aren't the only ones who set policy. So does Congress … especially where the economy is concerned. And I showed that the economy, unemployment and markets have done much worse under democrat controlled Congresses than republican ones.

I also challenged the evidence about presidents and the markets. I presented the following data and analysis.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2008/10/14/opinion/20081014_OPCHART.html has a chart showing Averaged Annualized Return of the S&P under presidents going back to Hoover. During that time there were 7 republican and 6 democrat Presidents.

First, note that Hoover (who acted very much like Obama is now acting where stimulus and recession is concerned) saw a return of almost -31%, which greatly affected the average overall republican return. Remove his presidency and the average republican return goes up by a factor of 10 … from 0.4% to 4.7%. The claim that democrat Presidents do better is skewed to this extent.

Second, look at the chart and notice that the Bush I, Eisenhower, Ford and Reagan Presidencies all saw average returns over 10%. Yet, no democrat president except Bill Clinton saw returns over 10%. For the most part, democrat administrations had returns that were well below the 10%+ of those four administrations. And while Clinton's term saw 15% returns, I suggest that wasn't due as much to Clinton as to the republicans who dominated Congress during much of his term. Again, I'd like to see the details from any study you cite regarding Presidents and market performance.

Now it's true that no democrats in the above period saw negative returns, whereas Bush II and Nixon did, decreasing the average republican return considerably. I've neither the interest or time to explore what happened under Nixon, but I will note that the dot com bubble that made Clinton's returns so high ended before Bush 2 took office and then Bush 2 had to deal with the recession that followed as a result of the bubble bursting and democrats taking over control of congress for a time (during which time the stock market fell). Then came 9/11 and the war on terror. Both causing shocks to the economy and market. But then republicans regained control of the Congress in 2003 and held it to the end of 2006. During that time, the market rose dramatically (the Dow went from 8,300 to over 12,000. Then democrats took over control of both houses again and have held it ever since. And again, the market started falling (dropping back to 10,000). So I don't really think you can blame the market's poor performance during Bush 2 term on Bush as much as on certain events that he could not have prevented and on democrat control of Congress. And I suspect that factoring in that reality would affect your sources conclusion regarding Presidents and market performance.

you need to look this one up..this was long before TARP and congress didn't even have say in it--they weren't even informed.

You are either uninformed or are liar.

http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/1326881-federal-reserve

Sep 16, 2008

… snip …

the Federal Reserve was close to a deal Tuesday night to take a nearly 80 percent stake in the troubled giant insurance company, the American International Group in exchange for an $85 billion loan, according to people briefed on the negotiations.

The Fed’s action came after Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson and Ben S. Bernanke, president of the Federal Reserve, went to Capitol Hill on Tuesday night to meet with House and Senate leaders. Mr. Paulson called the Senate majority leader, Harry Reid, Democrat of Nevada, about 5 p.m. and asked for a meeting in the Senate leader’s office, which began about 6:30 p.m.

… snip …


Attending the meeting on the Capitol Hill were Democratic Senate leaders that included Charles E. Schumer of New York, Richard J. Durbin of Illinois, Christopher J. Dodd of Connecticut and Kent Conrad of North Dakota A contingent of Republicans was led by Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the minority leader, and included Richard C. Shelby of Alabama, Jon Kyl of Arizona and Judd Gregg of New Hampshire. House leaders included John Boehner of Ohio, the Republican leader; Spencer Bachus, Republican of Alabama; and Barney Frank, Democrat of Massachusetts.

And I still think you are wrong.

Never mind the facts, folks. He's still thinks I'm wrong. Of course he also thinks Congress was never even informed about the AIG loan before it occurred.

And I am done here.

Indeed you are.

 

[Cavemonster]

Something about that claim smells, joobz.

http://www.nationaljournal.com/njmagazine/wn_20100116_2302.php



In fact, Europe's EU, as a whole, appears to have the purchasing power of the people in Mississippi, one of our poorest states: http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_otfwl2zc6Qc/SqVEXe7MudI/AAAAAAAALQY/hj8sjsavCoQ/s1600-h/gdpworld.jpg . And here is a source that looks at current GDP (real) growth rates: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(real)_growth_rate. You can see that the 2009 estimate growth rate of the US *growth* rate is listed as -2.4%. But the Netherlands had a -4.3% *growth* rate. Sweden's is -4.4%. Denmarks is -4.3%. So the disparity in wealth is growing even larger as we chat.

And how odd, given the claim of your *source*, that in the US (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/peo_siz_of_hou-people-size-of-houses ) 72% of homes have 5 or more rooms. Only 43% of Dutch houses do. In fact US houses are on average almost twice the size in terms of square footage as those in the Netherlands (http://www.greenlivingpedia.org/House_size_comparisons ). And a larger percentage of Americans own homes than people in the Netherlands. And yet the Netherlands is one of the wealthiest, per capita, European nations.

But you claim our poverty rate is higher? Something about your claim just smells, joobz.

That's a bit of a non-sequitur, poverty levels are not GDP per capita, neither are house sizes or home ownership. Actually, I can't believe you would use home ownership levels as a measure of wealth at this point in history, that's absolutely ridiculous.

Poverty levels are poverty levels, and most independent comparative measures, even including our CIA measurement, places the US at higher poverty levels than Germany, The Netherlands, Ireland. We have about twice the poverty level of France and Austria, that's pretty dramatic.

 

[BeAChooser]

the poverty level of France

Let me repeat:

If France were to became an American state, it would be the 50th poorest, below Arkansas.

The EU.15 as a whole would be the 49th poorest state, below Alabama.

Hey, maybe the problem is that you are counting all those dirt poor illegals now in America. Some 3-6% of the population. Remove them, and what do you find about poverty in America? Hmmmmmmmmmm?

 

[joobz]

Something about that claim smells, joobz.

I see you are unable to actually refute the argument, so instead resort to insinuation. I provided the sources. You are welcome to reject them as you see fit.

By the way, speaking of Fishy numbers, I don't believe the source you provide.
For instance, the international monetary fund States that for 2009 the US average GDP/capita was $46,380. Norway, on the other hand, was $79,085. Unless math has changed recently, It would be impossible for Norway to have a GDP/capita lower than most states when it's average is pushing twice that of the US.

I'll just stop there. That alone destroys your argument.


Now, I could go into how GDP numbers don't actually provide any information regarding poverty numbers, as income equality isn't described by averages. But, I'm sure you know that. I'm also sure you know your GDP argument was a red herring, an attempt to deflect uncomfortable information.

 

[joobz]

Let me repeat:

If France were to became an American state, it would be the 50th poorest, below Arkansas.

The EU.15 as a whole would be the 49th poorest state, below Alabama.

Hey, maybe the problem is that you are counting all those dirt poor illegals now in America. Some 3-6% of the population. Remove them, and what do you find about poverty in America? Hmmmmmmmmmm?

France GDP = $42,747. (http://tinyurl.com/3xq84cl)

Based upon GDP by state, it would rank at #9 of all states.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_GDP_per_capita_(nominal)


Again, I don't believe your sources.

 

[Cavemonster]

Let me repeat:

If France were to became an American state, it would be the 50th poorest, below Arkansas.

How is that a repetition, when the last time you quoted it, you said 48th?

If France became a U.S. state, it would rank No. 48 out of 51 by per capita [gross domestic product], just barely ahead of America's two poorest states, West Virginia and Mississippi.

And you were wrong then too.
And again, even if you were right, GDP is not poverty level.

Hey, maybe the problem is that you are counting all those dirt poor illegals now in America. Some 3-6% of the population. Remove them, and what do you find about poverty in America? Hmmmmmmmmmm?

You'll have to ask the CIA, who does the counting.
But I'm pretty sure most illegal immigrants don't get too chatty with people from the government asking questions.

 

[joobz]

Oh, BeACHooser, and I am very suspect of your use of "PPP" vs. state GDPs.

 

[Hindmost]

But, as has been pointed out over and over and over (and ignored over and over and over, by folks on your side of this issue), history strongly suggests what would have happened had there been no stimulus … had we done what Van Buren, Cleveland and Harding did, instead. Call it a historical crystal ball … experience. And that ball tells us that unemployment and the economy would likely be much better now than they are.



Someone recently tried to claim that markets do better during the terms of democrat PRESIDENTS. First, I point out that Presidents aren't the only ones who set policy. So does Congress … especially where the economy is concerned. And I showed that the economy, unemployment and markets have done much worse under democrat controlled Congresses than republican ones.

I also challenged the evidence about presidents and the markets. I presented the following data and analysis.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2008/10/14/opinion/20081014_OPCHART.html has a chart showing Averaged Annualized Return of the S&P under presidents going back to Hoover. During that time there were 7 republican and 6 democrat Presidents.

First, note that Hoover (who acted very much like Obama is now acting where stimulus and recession is concerned) saw a return of almost -31%, which greatly affected the average overall republican return. Remove his presidency and the average republican return goes up by a factor of 10 … from 0.4% to 4.7%. The claim that democrat Presidents do better is skewed to this extent.

Second, look at the chart and notice that the Bush I, Eisenhower, Ford and Reagan Presidencies all saw average returns over 10%. Yet, no democrat president except Bill Clinton saw returns over 10%. For the most part, democrat administrations had returns that were well below the 10%+ of those four administrations. And while Clinton's term saw 15% returns, I suggest that wasn't due as much to Clinton as to the republicans who dominated Congress during much of his term. Again, I'd like to see the details from any study you cite regarding Presidents and market performance.

Now it's true that no democrats in the above period saw negative returns, whereas Bush II and Nixon did, decreasing the average republican return considerably. I've neither the interest or time to explore what happened under Nixon, but I will note that the dot com bubble that made Clinton's returns so high ended before Bush 2 took office and then Bush 2 had to deal with the recession that followed as a result of the bubble bursting and democrats taking over control of congress for a time (during which time the stock market fell). Then came 9/11 and the war on terror. Both causing shocks to the economy and market. But then republicans regained control of the Congress in 2003 and held it to the end of 2006. During that time, the market rose dramatically (the Dow went from 8,300 to over 12,000. Then democrats took over control of both houses again and have held it ever since. And again, the market started falling (dropping back to 10,000). So I don't really think you can blame the market's poor performance during Bush 2 term on Bush as much as on certain events that he could not have prevented and on democrat control of Congress. And I suspect that factoring in that reality would affect your sources conclusion regarding Presidents and market performance.



You are either uninformed or are liar.

http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/1326881-federal-reserve





Never mind the facts, folks. He's still thinks I'm wrong. Of course he also thinks Congress was never even informed about the AIG loan before it occurred.



Indeed you are.

You are too kind...

http://articles.cnn.com/2008-09-17/..._bailout-taxpayer-exposure-aig?_s=PM:POLITICS

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/01/08/politics/main6073045.shtml

 

[BeAChooser]

I don't believe the source you provide.
For instance, the international monetary fund States that for 2009 the US average GDP/capita was $46,380. Norway, on the other hand, was $79,085. Unless math has changed recently, It would be impossible for Norway to have a GDP/capita lower than most states when it's average is pushing twice that of the US.

LOL!

Disregarding the fact that I never claimed that Norway has a per capita GDP lower than most states, obviously you don't have a clue what Per Capita GDP PPP is or why one should use it rather than raw GDP when making comparisions of this sort. Maybe this will give you a clue:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita



Now look carefully at the numbers on that webpage. You can even use the International Monetary fund numbers, since you seem to trust them. It states the 2009 Per Capita GDP (PPP) for Norway was $52,561. The 2009 Per Capita GDP (PPP) for the US was $46,381. Not that big a difference. And note that Norway has the second highest Per Capita GDP PPP of all the countries in the EU. So it looks like you engaged in a bit of cherry picking, didn't you, joobz?

Now look at all the other EU countries and you find that the values indicated are very close to the values you can read off the chart I linked earlier. For example, http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_otfwl2zc6Qc/SqVEXe7MudI/AAAAAAAALQY/hj8sjsavCoQ/s1600-h/gdpworld.jpg seems to indicate that France's per capita gdp (ppp) was about $32500 in 2008. Well, the 2009 value for France is $33,700. Likewise, the Germany's 2008 per capita gdp (ppp) looks to be almost $35,000. The 2009 number is $34,212 … if anything a little lower. And the UK's 2008 number appears to be about $36,000, where as the 2009 value in that wikipedia page is $34,700. Considerably lower. And those are two of the wealther countries in the EU. So it looks like the EU average given in the chart I linked is probably spot on.

Now the question is whether the value of $35,000 given for Mississippi is correct. Well, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_GDP_per_capita_(nominal) indicates that Mississippi's 2009 Per Capita GDP is 30,000, unadjusted for purchasing power disparities between states. Since Mississippi is relatively poor, prices are cheaper there, so it's PPP value would naturally be higher than 30,000. $35,000 actually sounds about right, joobz. And notice one other thing about that wikipedia table, joobz. Mississipi is dead last.

Now I could just stop there. That alone destroys your argument.

But I think I'll add this link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_between_U.S._states_and_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)

which compares the GDP (PPP) between nations and states. According to it, Mississippi (in 2005) had a GDP (PPP) of $81.29 billion dollars. The population of Mississippi in 2005 was about 2.8 million (http://www.epodunk.com/cgi-bin/popInfo.php?locIndex=25 ). That yields a Per Capita GDP (PPP) of about $29,000 for 2005. Which is consistent with a 2008 value of $30,000 found earlier.

Now compare that to what's listed for France in that wikipedia page. It's 2008 GDP (PPP) is indicated to be $2.12 trillion dollars. It's 2008 population was (http://www.indexmundi.com/france/population.html ) about 64 million. That gives a Per Capita GDP (PPP) of about $33,000. That's also consistent with the number found earlier.

Now I think I'll stop. Having proven you either dishonest ... or just ignorant about the meaning and importance of PPP.

 

[Cavemonster]

It states the 2009 Per Capita GDP (PPP) for Norway was $52,561. The 2009 Per Capita GDP (PPP) for the US was $46,381. Not that big a difference.

Really? Because that's a difference of a bit more than 13% and your earlier quote found between 14 and 18 percent quite notable.

Although [the] Netherlands, Sweden, and Denmark are among Europe's wealthiest countries, as U.S. states they would be between 14.5 percent and 18 percent below the U.S. average

So, is there a magical jump from 13 to 14? Hmmmmmmmmm?

 

[joobz]

LOL!

Disregarding the fact that I never claimed that Norway has a per capita GDP lower than most states, obviously you don't have a clue what Per Capita GDP PPP is or why one should use it rather than raw GDP when making comparisions of this sort. Maybe this will give you a clue:

I'm sorry, I do know and it is why I find it dishonest to use it when discussing states. Afterall, the PPP between states isn't constant nor does it account for all services available. It's a rather dishonest comparison to relate the cost of living of a country with UHC and educational programs and one with a poverty rate at 20.8%, which doesn't use the more rigorous definition the EU uses.

Also, as I have already said, it is extremely strange to use averages when were were discussing poverty limits.

 

[BeAChooser]

Did you watch any of this folks? It was downright funny. All these disillusioned, clueless, Obama supporters in one room. Whining. Crying. Lamenting … their vote, but not having the courage to actually say it. And Obama still Stuck On Stupid. You know there was a problem when even the leftist NYTimes reported the *event* this way …

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/21/us/politics/21obama.html?_r=1&ref=us

Disappointed Supporters Question Obama

… snip …

But it sounded like a therapy session for disillusioned Obama supporters.

And you KNOW that was a hand-picked audience, folks. How's that stimulus working? Was the stimulus a failure? Well, these people might give you a clue if you are still in doubt.