The Stimulus Seems to have failed

[mhaze]

If all problems under 0 are Bush's fault, then all the problems under Bush were Clinton's fault.

But keep up the whining and the complaining.

 

[lomiller]

If all problems under 0 are Bush's fault, then all the problems under Bush were Clinton's fault.

But keep up the whining and the complaining.

Lol typical republican "logic" "lets just make false equivocations rather then at who took what actions or what the result was"...

 

[mhaze]

Lol typical republican "logic" "lets just make false equivocations rather then at who took what actions or what the result was"...

I play back the far left script back on their sorry selves.

That's all that I've done here.

I am really unfair, right?

 

[lomiller]

I play back the far left script back on their sorry selves.

Except in your case "far left" moderates, centrists and people based in reality and you want to "pay back" things that only exist in your paranoid delusions. That why you are always quoting some supposed conspiracy that only you have ever heard of.

 

[stokes234]

It's not I that is doing that. You said "Remember the effects of scale".

The graph shows nothing but scale, and the big red ink is OWNED by 0.

You tried to blame the poor growth under Bush on 9/11. I asked you to quantify it. You're still dodging the question, so i'll ask you again - quantify it. How many missing percentage points of growth per year for the following 7/8 years are you attributing to 9/11, and can you back it up?

 

[mhaze]

Except in your case "far left" moderates, centrists and people based in reality and you want to "pay back" things that only exist in your paranoid delusions. That why you are always quoting some supposed conspiracy that only you have ever heard of.

Word salad, limp and stale....

Try some fresh greens...

Oh, by the way....what I reversed and played back was precisely, exactly, your script...so now your words apply to you...

Except in Lomiller's case "far right" moderates, centrists and people based in reality and you want to "pay back" things that only exist in your paranoid delusions. That why you are always quoting some supposed conspiracy that only you have ever heard of.

You tried to blame the poor growth under Bush on 9/11. I asked you to quantify it. You're still dodging the question, so i'll ask you again - quantify it. How many missing percentage points of growth per year for the following 7/8 years are you attributing to 9/11, and can you back it up?

LOL....

I think I said I thought "agreement could be reached on an estimate of the effects of 911".

I'm surprised anyone would argue with that, or think that I would have to make up the number. "Agreement" implies people of differing perspectives, "agreeing".

That, perhaps, is something of a new idea around here...

 

[stokes234]

LOL....

I think I said I thought "agreement could be reached on an estimate of the effects of 911".

I'm surprised anyone would argue with that, or think that I would have to make up the number. "Agreement" implies people of differing perspectives, "agreeing".

That, perhaps, is something of a new idea around here..

You might indeed think that that is what you said, but we have a quote feature in this thread. And what it tells me is that what you actually said, in response to this:

The graph shows that if you try to use the numbers from shadowstats to smear obama as creating a worse economy than the standard GDP measure shows, then you also have to admit that throughout almost all of Bush's time in office, US GDP growth was negative.

Was this:

That does indeed make sense if you blame 911 on Bush...

It's all so very, very simple....

And there really is no other way to interpret this response than as an attempt to excuse the negative growth under bush as the result of 9/11.

So let's get this clear: Do you blame the 8 years of poor growth under Bush on 9/11?

If so, quantify the effect, and it explain why it stretched to the end of Bush's term but not into Obama's.

If not, explain why a republican president shrank the economy.

 

[BeAChooser]

Originally Posted by BeAChooser
LOL! Says someone who says a chart, showing what past recoveries should look like, says nothing.

Yes, because you clearly don't understand that the word "should" is not a synonym of "have".

Oh boy, another English lesson. Planning to be a *professor*?

If you have any evidence that the recovery to the early 80's recession is what all recoveries should look like you certainly haven't presented it.

But as the chart I presented shows, it wasn't just the early 80's recession where recovery was rapid. In fact, that chart showed nearly a dozen recessions since the Great Depression. And except for this one and the one in 2001, by now recovery was well under way. In fact, in every single instance, except 2001, all the jobs lost during the recession had been recovered by now. And the rule of thumb in that chart also appears to be that the deeper the recession, the more dramatic the recovery. Which perhaps explains the 2001 case. So this recession stands in stark contradiction to that rule as well.

In fact, it's hard to even find one example, even before the Great Depression, where the recovery wasn't dramatic and fast if the recession was deep. Even if the leader at the time didn't do what Obama did … i.e., increase government spending and taxes. Go ahead, offer us an example.

I'll remind you there is a difference between "should" and "ideally" as well.

Indeed. Go ahead, KF, present us with an example from the past where a recovery was as lackadaisical as this one has been. Show us what you think should have happened. Tick tick tick …

As I said, you sound rather proudly ignorant and react violently to disagreement.

LOL! Look in a mirror.

You haven't actually "disposed" of any of my claims.

If you say so.

What on Earth are you going on about? I made one comment to you that the word "unlogical" isn't actually a word.

LOL! You knew what I meant and you made that comment rather than deal with the substance of what what I presented. And it wasn't made in a friendly manner either. Recall, I made the assertion that in every modern recession, even the deep ones like that in 1981-82, recovery was well under way by now, rather than the economy remaining stagnant and unemployment going back up. This is true. And I offered a figure showing what every recession since WWII did as my proof. And then I asked "Why is that? Perhaps because of something that the Presidents who faced this recession did? That's not unlogical, is it?". And no, it's not illogical to ask that question. But rather than address the substance, you decided to play English professor.

And not only that, you then ignored the chart I offered, saying "Do you have any evidence for this assertion" … as if you were blind. And in the very next line of your response, you called me "ignorant of economic history" and implied I wasn't as smart as an "imbecile", and then proceeded into derailing the conversation into a discussion of what caused the '81 recession, rather than why there was a recovery by now in all those recessions and not in the current one. So pardon me if I made a big deal … about your *tactics*, KF.

Originally Posted by BeAChooser
He tried. He brokered a deal with democrats to reduce spending on social programs … and they turned around and broke that deal.

Good on them, deficit spending and stimulus got the economy out of recession.

The recession formally began in July 81 and ended in November 82, the 16th month on that figure I supplied (when unemployment peaked). By the 28th month, all the jobs lost during the recession had been regained. Now it was in August of 81 that Reagan signed the Economic Recovery Act, cutting all income taxes by 25% spread over October, July '82 and July '83. It also reduced the top rate from 80 to 50 percent. And despite those cuts, government revenues went up significantly. Now, did government spending go up during that time? Yes. But was it welfare spending? No. And therein lies part of the difference from the current administration's policies.

Originally Posted by BeAChooser
Government spending as a percentage of GDP did go down, even though he was increasing military spending to defeat the Soviets in the Cold War.

Is it my turn? Oh yes, it is. LIAR! Something that lomiller pointed out to you that has escaped your grasp is that I'm right whether you believe I forgot "early" or not. Look at the graph again, now look at it with only spending for 1980-1990 brought up. We can see where spending was when Reagan entered office in 1981 and where it was when he left office in 1989.

… snip ...

I'll give him credit that spending as a percentage of GDP went down at the federal level.

But the federal budget is the only one he had control of during that time. When he entered office, Federal spending was 21.7% of GDP. With a democratic House and a republican Senate, it rose to 23.5% in 1983. But then it declined to 21.2% by the time he left office. Despite all the spending on the military to win the Cold War.

Originally Posted by BeAChooser
Didn't you bother to read that CATO article I linked and quoted above? Tax revenues went up even after the cuts in tax rates because that caused the economy to boom. They did pay for themselves, they just didn't pay for all the spending that was going on, especially in the Cold War.

I did, and I didn't find any notice of tax revenues in your article so maybe you could point it out.

From the link in the article … the report by Cato that the article is about:

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa261.pdf

Total Revenue Growth. Nominal federal revenues dou-bled in the 1980s from $517 billion to $1.031 trillion. From 1981 to 1989 real federal revenues climbed by 20 percent. As a share of GDP, however, federal tax revenues fell by 1.0 percentage point during that period.

Income Tax Receipts. Even income tax revenues grew substantially in the 1980s. In 1981 income tax receipts totaled $347 billion; in 1989 they totaled $549 billion, a 58 percent increase. In fact, income tax collections grew only slightly slower in the 1980s than in the 1990s despite income tax rate reductions in the Reagan years and increases in the Bush-Clinton years. Real income tax revenues rose by 16.3 percent from 1982 to 1989 after the top income tax rate had been reduced from 70 percent to 50 percent in 1983, and then to 28 percent in 1986.

Satisfied?

I did find examples of what some may consider severe methodological bias, such as arbitrarily cutting off the Clinton-presidency in 1995 thereby allowing them to ignore the economic boom that occurred afterwards.

The cutoff date wasn't arbitrary. In 1995, Congress switched hands. So it wasn't Clinton and his policies that drove the economic boom after that, it was Gingrich and the Republican Congress. Clinton just went along for the ride.

Anywho, according to these numbers the Cato institute would be dead wrong. Tax revenues clearly dropped under Reagan.

No, your chart shows revenues as a percent of GDP, which is not the same thing as claimed by Cato. This chart (http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/...tack=1&size=m&title=&state=US&color=c&local=s ) from your same source shows what direct revenues did in dollars … climb from about $600 billion to over a trillion in 1989 … just as Cato indicated in their report.

Originally Posted by BeAChooser
You are right. My mistake. Spending and debt are not the same thing. And in fact, debt as a percentage of GDP did double during Reagan's years. Reagan said the new debt was his "greatest disappointment". But then, Reagan was fighting the Cold War and we weren't going to win that without spending. And once the Cold War was won, that spending could go down … as opposed to the way *entitlement* programs that democrats so love work.

Good for Reagan, let's stop giving him credit for slashing spending and raising the tax revenue through cuts then.

But he did. Now you the one confusing spending with debt and misrepresenting what tax revenues actually did.

Originally Posted by BeAChooser
Now if only Bush I and Clinton had taken the Cold War peace dividend and used it to cut the debt ratio instead of shifting it into unsustainable, reckless, and ineffective social programs. Programs that we are now realizing accomplished next to nothing and saddled us and future generations with tens of trillions of dollars in unfunded liabilities.

You mean the debt that Clinton was paying off?

You mean the debt that Gingrich and the Republican Congress were paying off? Notice that when democrats controlled Congress (from 1990 to 1995), the debt as a percent of GDP rose from 55% to 66%. But almost immediately after republicans gained control, it started falling, ending up back at 57% by 2000.

And you do know what unfunded liabilities are, don't you? Because Clinton did a lot to make that part of the federal ledger look a LOT worse.

Originally Posted by BeAChooser
Nice try at taking something I said in another thread completely out of context.

I didn't, your whole rant just kind of proved me right.

No, you took something I said in another thread completely out of context. I understand if you don't want to acknowledge your use of a very dishonest debating tactic. Really, I understand.

Stimulating economic growth through deficit spending outside of a recession is not fiscally responsible.

But it is in time of war and we were at war. Oh that's right, you liberals never did really believe that the Cold War was a real war. In fact, weren't liberals happy (or should I say eager) to seek accommodation with a nation (the Soviet Union) that Reagan rightly labeled the Evil Empire?

I already pointed out that tax revenues went down under Reagan

No, what you did is show you can misinterpret a chart. As I showed, your source actually proves that federal tax revenues almost doubled under Reagan.

, so why are we crediting him for stimulating the economy

Because tax revenues could only double at the same time that tax rates went down significantly, if GDP went up significantly. And it did. GDP went from 2.5 trillion at the end of Carter's Presidency (where it basically sat throughout his Presidency) to about 5.4 trillion by the end of Reagan's administration. And that's why we credit him for stimulating the economy. See?

Originally Posted by BeAChooser
Second, Reagan actually instituted a lot of spending cuts.

Not enough, apparently.

No, but then he didn't get a lot of help from the democrat side of the aisle given they were in control of the House for much of his Presidency.

Originally Posted by BeAChooser
That's because you're a socialist and believe in the myth of free lunches.

That's not only irrelevant it's wholly inaccurate. As I said before, you've apparently decided that since I'm not the dirty communist sympathizer I you thought I was I must just be a socialist now.

It's not irrelevant, not if you are indeed a socialist.

And I'm sorry, but you sound like one much of the time. You've constantly defended socialist economic policies and socialist inspired universal healthcare. You've defended Keynes, who wrote in his book that "I expect to see the State, which is in a position to calculate the marginal efficiency of capital-goods on long views and on the basis of general social advantage, taking an ever greater responsibility for directly organizing investment", and who argued that "socialization of investment" would "prove the only means of securing an approximation to full employment", and who labeled his approach "liberal socialism." You've repeatedly defended Obama (a closet socialist with scores and scores of socialist and communist friends/associates/supporters) by defending his socialist policies and by dismissing all his contacts and history with socialists and communists. You've defended Van Jones, a communist. You've even remarked that you admire certain communists and have defended the notion of communism. If conservatives lose ground to communism and socialism, that's apparently ok with you since, as you said once, "that's the will of the people." Seriously, KF, why would I not believe you are socialist after all that?

Originally Posted by BeAChooser
Numerous examples in history suggest that if the government had pretty much stayed out of it, the economy would now be booming.

I know I'm going to regret this once I see your text-wall, but please name some.

Sigh. I have named examples several times, already, on this very thread. Did you not pay attention, KF? Oh well, I guess I'll have to do it yet again (because liberals never learn?):

Consider the downturn (depression) of 1837? It was so serious that 4 million people lost their jobs (that was a lot back then compared to the size of the working population). It was the worst downturn the US had experienced. About 40% of America's 850 banks outright collapsed (i.e., went out of business). Property values that had been in a speculative bubble (much like ours) also collapsed. It looked a lot like what Obama warned us would happen if we didn't intervene in a massive way in the current recession. But intervene was not what President Van Buren (a democrat who today would be called a republican) did. No, he was philosophically opposed to government intervention … so he did nothing. And what happened? The economy recovered … partially recovering by 1839 (i.e., by now, in the current downturn), then suffering a brief relapse as a result of events overseas, then taking another 4 years to turn around (although some historians say that real GNP actually grew about 16% over those 4 years in which case recovery must have been underway in those 4 years). It's worth noting that Federal debt as a percent of GDP was close to zero at the time. By the logic of today, Van Buren could have spent and spent and spent. But he didn't. And things worked out fine in a time frame much shorter than what the Obama administration is now predicting for this downturn.

Then we have the depression of 1893. Again, the worst in US history to that point in time. Unemployment went from 4% to over 12%. GDP dropped 10%. But again, we were blessed with a President, Grover Cleveland, who, like Van Buren, was opposed to government intervention. Who, in fact, cut taxes and reduced government spending in response. Who was supported by many in Congress, such as Senator James Berry who declared "It is not the purpose of this government to give work to individuals throughout the United States by appropriating money which belongs to other people and does not belong to the Senate." And guess what? The economy recovered. That downturn was over within 6 years, with unemployment back to 5% and the economy booming. Do you think that's what's predicted now? No, unemployment is predicted to remain high … a new "norm" … with GDP growth relatively stagnant for as far out as we can look (despite massive and costly interventions by the Federal government).

Or how about the example of 1921, when President Harding inherited (like Obama claims he inherited) one of the sharpest recessions in US history. Unemployment rose over 700% in just one year. Production fell 23%. The stock market lost 18%. Yet within within two years (by now), it was over. Unemployment had returned to what was considered full employment and the economy was booming. What happened to make this possible? President Harding cut government spending by 40%, instead of massively increasing it. He lowered taxes and reduced regulation, all of which helped America's entrepreneurs and capitalists create jobs and push the economy to recover. Harding's free market policies (and then Calvin Coolidge's, who followed him) led to the Roaring Twenties, known for technological advances, women's rights, the explosion of the middle class, and some of the most rapid economic growth in American history. All of this without a government stimulus robbing peter (a privately employed taxpayer) to pay paul (a government worker). You starting to see a trend here, KF?

Originally Posted by BeAChooser
LOL! Do you really think Clinton should get the credit for that boom?

Fortunately I don't care to play any insipid credit games with you.

I'll take your non-response as a concession that you can't really make much a case for giving Clinton the credit for the economic boom during the second half of his Presidency.

Originally Posted by BeAChooser
Tax cuts are not the same as the sort of stimulus that Obama and company have been pushing … i.e., increased government spending.

I've never said they're the same

But you certainly implied they were in your response.

 

[BeAChooser]

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/576170/201106221847/The-Picture-Darkens.htm

The Congressional Budget Office's Long-Term Budget Outlook has new, alarming projections that should be a warning to all.

The ratio of debt to GDP has reached 69%, up from 62% last year. In 2010, the CBO's worst-case scenario said the debt-to-GDP ratio would rise to 87% by 2020. Now, with the economy failing to revive and the ongoing surge in stimulus spending, the total level of public debt will reach 101% of GDP by 2021.
Does it matter? You bet. Recent studies show that when public debt hits 90% of GDP, economic growth slows significantly — by 1% a year or more. That means literally millions of lost jobs over the coming decade.

Nice going Obama.

 

[BeAChooser]

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/06/22/usa-debt-idUSN1E75L0GC20110622

WASHINGTON, June 22 (Reuters) - Democratic leaders called on Wednesday for new spending and tax cuts to boost the sluggish U.S. economy

Three words … STUCK ON STUPID.

 

[mhaze]

....there really is no other way to interpret this response than as an attempt to excuse the negative growth under bush as the result of 9/11.

So let's get this clear: Do you blame the 8 years of poor growth under Bush on 9/11?

If so, quantify the effect, and it explain why it stretched to the end of Bush's term but not into Obama's.

If not, explain why a republican president shrank the economy.

The economic impact of 911 has been well studied, and I think it is fairly well understood. Therefore, it cannot easily be moved into your polemical argument style as a pro or a con. Rather, it can be subtracted out from the series of years involved (which incidentally, continue).

I don't see anything very complicated about this matter.



http://isu.indstate.edu/guell/ecn100/Sept11th.PDF

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_effects_arising_from_the_September_11_attacks

 

[BeAChooser]

On another thread, I posted this:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7308864&postcount=12

Originally Posted by Unabogie
Actually, of course it worked. The economy was losing 750,000 jobs a month under Bush and after passing the stimulus we're now adding jobs every month

LOL!

Never mind that I can show you recession after recession and depression after depression where the recovery was much faster than now ... and yet no spending stimulus was applied. Never mind that you can't show us a recession or depression where a spending stimulus led to a rapid recover. In fact, just the opposite was done in the numerous cases where recovery from just as serious an economic crisis as this one were much, much faster. Never mind that even the Obama administration predicted that the economy would do far better than now WITHOUT a stimulus. Has it ever occurred to you (and we've certainly tried to point it out to you in the past), that Obama's actions made matters worse. Just like Hoover's actions (followed by FDR's) made matters worse in the 30s? The problem is you liberals/socialists/democrats NEVER learn from history. You either ignore it, spin it or try to alter it.

And KF responded with this post:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7309003&postcount=14

I will now dismantle his response on this thread (rather than derailing the other thread further).

Originally Posted by BeAChooser
Never mind that I can show you recession after recession and depression after depression where the recovery was much faster than now ... and yet no spending stimulus was applied. Never mind that you can't show us a recession or depression where a spending stimulus led to a rapid recover.

We've been over this in another thread, actually. Your example, the 1981-82 recession, saw considerable increases in deficit spending (BAC - DF links us to this chart: http://www.usgovernmentspending.com...tack=1&size=m&title=&state=US&color=c&local=s ) and spending as a percentage of GDP (BAC - DF links us to this chart: http://www.usgovernmentspending.com...State Local Spending&state=US&color=c&local=s ). Reagan raised taxes in September of 1982 (which even the Mises institute characterized as the largest tax increase in US history) yet the economy did not slink back into recession.

LOL! So having lost the argument on this thread, KF tries to distort it on the other thread, thinking I won't be allowed to respond. Wrong.

The first chart you link does show deficit spending as a percentage of GDP going up following the recession (and then dropping down to basically where it was prior to the recession … because GDP increased dramatically). But that deficit spending had an entirely different character than the current stimulus spending, which is why the economy boomed. As already pointed out above. An argument that KF basically ignored, you'll note.

The second chart shows TOTAL government spending (Federal, State and Local) going up from 1980 to 1990. But as already pointed out, Federal spending actually dropped under Reagan. And perhaps it's time to look at the characteristic of the state and local spending, too. It went up to keep the welfare rolls filled (http://www.presidentreagan.info/social_spending.cfm ). That was the states' decision.

And third, while your link at Mises does note that Reagan instituted a tax increase in 1982 (called TEFRA), which it describes as the largest tax increase in history ($214 billion over 5 years), that tax still did not cancel out the effects of the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981, which is what got the economy moving in the first place. There's an interesting chart here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaganomics , which sums up the effect of the various tax measures during the Reagan years, and shows that indeed, all told (even accounting for increases in Social Security), the tax burden was reduced by Reagan. And the economy didn't "slink back into recession" as a result of TEFRA because it was already booming (not like now), and $214 billion over the next five years was small potatoes in an economy that would grow over $1.5 TRILLION in that 5 year period.

Originally Posted by BeAChooser
In fact, just the opposite was done in the numerous cases where recovery from just as serious an economic crisis as this one were much, much faster.

There haven't been any as serious as this one since the Great Depression. But let's examine this claim. According to wikipedia, which has a handy list of US recessions, there hasn't been a loss of GDP this significant since the recession of 1945 which lasted 8 months and saw a peak unemployment of 5.2%.

Non-sequitor. No one is denying that the peak numbers in the "Great Recession" were/ARE bad. The issue is whether the numbers were worse than the 1981-82 recession peaks back in January 2008, when Bush and Obama began this government spending spree, and began talking about massively raising taxes. And they weren't. As pointed out previously, citing such sources as the NYTimes, the fall in GDP at that time was less than that experienced during the 1981-82 recession. Unemployment was several percent below the 1981-82 peaks. And many other stats show that the recession then was not anywhere near as bad as the 1981-82 recession. Obama LIED when he claimed it was. And you bought that lie and apparently still believe it. Furthermore, Obama promised that his stimulus would keep unemployment from rising above 9% and get people back to work quickly. And that didn't/hasn't happened. IT FAILED the purpose that Obama himself set for it. And you can't bring yourself to admit that, can you?

In your given example, the early 1980's recession, the recession wasn't nearly as bad yet lasted almost as long.

You mean compared to the current recession? False. The 81' recession was just as bad … it was worse … before Obama interfered in this one. Worse than what Obama predicted this one would become with that interference. And this one isn't over, despite the "official" declaration. You need only look at the charts I posted above to see that. But you can't bring yourself to honestly do that, can you?

The early 1990's and early 2000's recessions both lasted 8 months and declined 1.4% and .3% of GDP respectively. Let's go back before 1980 then.

The 1973-75 recession lasted 1 year and months with a 3.2% GDP decline.

The 69-70 recession lasted 11 months with a decline of .6% of the GDP.

The 60-61 recession lasted 10 months with a decline of 1.6% of the GDP.

The recession of 1958 lasted 8 months with a decline of 3.1% of the GDP.

The recession of 1953 lasted 10 months with a decline of 2.6% of the GDP.

The recession of 1949 lasted 11 months with a decline of 1.7% of the GDP.

But the depth of the recession is not the issue. It's how fast the recovery should occurs given one as deep as this one. How rapidly GDP grows at the end of recessions. And the data shows clearly that the deeper the recession, the faster the recovery will be … if government doesn't interfere by massive spending and increasing taxes … as they are doing now and as they did in 1932. And I'm not just saying that. Even Commissioner Keith Hall of the US Bureau of Labor Statistics admitted that in 2010 when he said (http://articles.boston.com/2010-08-...unemployment-jobs-and-unemployment-job-growth ) "It’s always been: The deeper the recession, the faster the recovery. The last two recessions were mild, so they had mild jobless recoveries. There’s reason to think that we’ll have a bigger bounce coming out of this recession because we had such a steep decline. The question is: Where is it?" Why don't you deal with that fact and question, rather than try to spin a new red herring, KF?

 

[lomiller]

You need only look at the charts I posted above to see that. But you can't bring yourself to honestly do that, can you?

What even your data shows us is that the recession that started in Dec 2007 was 14 months old by the end of January when Obama was elected and had therefore already gone on longer then any recession since 1940. They also show that on the day Obama was inaugurated the economic decline in economic activity already surpassed every recession since the great depression. The recession ended 5 months later, in June 2009 as mere 1 month after money from the stimulus sharted to flow.
This is what your plots show.


I asked you things before and you refused to answer. If “doing nothing” worked how come 14 months of doing nothing failed to pull the economy out of recession when every other recession since 1940 had ended in less time? If the stimulus didn’t work why did the recession end so quickly once the stimulus money began to flow?

 

[BeAChooser]

I asked you things before and you refused to answer.

LIAR.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7274948&postcount=1698

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7275898&postcount=1706

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7280778&postcount=1722

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7281939&postcount=1736

You just can't help yourself, can you?

And my prediction in that final post was dead on.

 

[lomiller]

You plugging your ears and crying “Liar liar nah nah nah I can’t hear you” isn’t answering the question.
Trying to imply the NBER, the very organization that is the original source of all the numbers in your plots should not be trusted now that you want to change the start&end date for the current recession is not an answer.

Do you have any answer that doesn’t depend changing the following historical facts?
The recession started in Dec 2007
Obama was Inaugurated 14 months later Jan 22 2009
The recession ended in June 2009 once stimulus money started to flow

 

[BeAChooser]

The recession ended in June 2009 once stimulus money started to flow

LOL! How do you know one had anything to do with the other, lomiller?

Afterall, we were promised by the Obama administration that the stimulus was going to get people immediately back to work ... so rapidly that it would keep unemployment from rising above 9 percent? So obviously, for the Obama administration to make such a claim, they had to have a model which predicted that unemployment would rise to that level and then start to decrease ... all on it's own without government interference.

And, in fact, I posted a link to a figure on thread http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7307665&postcount=226 , showing the administration's projection from that model. And guess what? It predicted that unemployment would turn around at almost the same time it actually did. So wouldn't that suggest the timing you refer to is nothing more then coincidence? Since the economy was predicted to turn around anyway, at that time, even without a stimulus? That logic seems inescapable.

Note also that the government no stimulus model predicted that by now unemployment would be at 8 percent and rapidly on it's way down. So what went wrong? Why is unemployment still above 9 percent and in fact rising again? Could it be because the stimulus and all of Obama's other interference has caused that? Just like Hoover's interference turned a recession in 1929 into a full blown depression? Just like Hoover's and FDR's interference kept that depression lasting much longer than it otherwise would have (see this UCLA analysis: http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/FDR-s-Policies-Prolonged-Depression-5409.aspx?RelNum=5409 "FDR's Policies Prolonged Depression by 7 Years, UCLA Economists Calculate")?

But of course I'm wasting my time, aren't I, lomiller? You will ignore this simple and clear logic just like all the other times you've ignored it. And go on repeating the same dishonest mime. Just like I predicted you would the last time I confronted the dishonesty of your posts on this subject. Some things never change and even hope won't change that.

 

[mhaze]

.....The recession ended in June 2009 once stimulus money started to flow

BWahahahah!

It ain't even started, buddy.

 

[stokes234]

The economic impact of 911 has been well studied, and I think it is fairly well understood. Therefore, it cannot easily be moved into your polemical argument style as a pro or a con. Rather, it can be subtracted out from the series of years involved (which incidentally, continue).

I don't see anything very complicated about this matter.

So why do you continue to refuse to quantify it? How many points of growth per year did it remove from the american economy?

 

[mhaze]

So why do you continue to refuse to quantify it? How many points of growth per year did it remove from the american economy?

Because I provided two links (of hundreds) that have studied this matter. Which you ignored.

Because I think from your method of questioning you are not serious, and are just trying to find something....somewhere...to pick on.

AS OF NOW you've contributed nothing to the discussion.

Think about it.

 

[BeAChooser]

http://www.cnbc.com/id/43534613

Forecasts for Growth Drop, Some Sharply

Published: Saturday, 25 Jun 2011

A drumbeat of disappointing data about consumer behavior, factory sales and weak hiring in recent weeks has prompted economists to ratchet down their 2011 economic forecasts to as little as half what they expected at the beginning of the year.