Third Anniversary of the 2009 Stimulus Package

[sappstuf]

The CBO was nice enough to release a "report card" of sorts on how the economy has done since.


The rate of unemployment in the United States has exceeded 8 percent since February 2009, making the past three years the longest stretch of high unemployment in this country since the Great Depression. Moreover, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projects that the unemployment rate will remain above 8 percent until 2014. The official unemployment rate excludes those individuals who would like to work but have not searched for a job in the past four weeks as well as those who are working part-time but would prefer full-time work; if those people were counted among the unemployed, the unemployment rate in January 2012 would have been about 15 percent. Compounding the problem of high unemployment, the share of unemployed people looking for work for more than six months—referred to as the long-term unemployed—topped 40 percent in December 2009 for the first time since 1948, when such data began to be collected; it has remained above that level ever since.

I think I would call that an F.

[SoonerPride]

Yeah, sure, because without it another Great Depression would have been worse than F. Perhaps a Z.


Critics from both the left and the right can debate whether the stimulus was the best policy, whether it was big enough, and whether Congress chose the ideal spending priorities. Both sides can state, correctly, that the stimulus did not succeed in jump starting a full-fledged economic recovery.

But what critics can't say is that the stimulus was a total waste of money.

http://www.policyshop.net/home/2011/11/23/cbo-report-shows-the-stimulus-worked.html

We've seen 23 straight months of private sector job growth

http://assets.democrats.org/images/blog/20120203-JobCreationGraph_January.gif

And the economy is heating up...

Factory production is at a 5 year high.

http://articles.philly.com/2012-02-16/business/31067548_1_factory-output-factory-activity-jonathan-basile

New jobless claims at 4 year low

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/16/usa-economy-idUSL2E8DG1Z220120216

So, sure, call it an F if you must.

I'd call it Obama gets re-elected.

[sappstuf]

Yeah, sure, because without it another Great Depression would have been worse than F. Perhaps a Z.

http://www.policyshop.net/home/2011/11/23/cbo-report-shows-the-stimulus-worked.html

We've seen 23 straight months of private sector job growth

http://assets.democrats.org/images/blog/20120203-JobCreationGraph_January.gif

And the economy is heating up...

Factory production is at a 5 year high.

http://articles.philly.com/2012-02-16/business/31067548_1_factory-output-factory-activity-jonathan-basile

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/16/usa-economy-idUSL2E8DG1Z220120216

So, sure, call it an F if you must.

I'd call it Obama gets re-elected.

New jobless claims at 4 year low


I read through your links, but I didn't find the chart that you had embedded. I thought that was weird, it is like you are trying to hide where you got it from. I was right, you are.

I found it on the Democratic National Committee's Blog right at the bottom of page 16.

http://www.democrats.org/news/blog/P16

I get my info from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, and you are pulling from the DNC.. Keep drinking the koolaid. Now take your gum out, see if you can follow and you might learn something.

You need a job growth of about 90K per month just to keep up with population growth(That number is also from the CBO, the NYTimes says 150K). So when you hear Obama, other Dems or any politician "tout" a job growth of say 80K, what they are really saying is 10K entered the job market this month and there is no job for them. It's like paddling upstream, you are still losing ground. That takes care of about half of the months that you seem to think show something good.

To actually decrease unemployment, it takes much more and for a long period of time. Obama hasn't done that. In fact, according to Obama's predictions, unemployment without the stimulus package would be around 6.8% in the first quarter of 2012. People would kill to have 6.8% unemployment right now instead of 8.3% that we have with the stimulus.

Your chart, or rather the DNC's chart is nothing to brag about.

Because everything else is guesswork or hypothethicals, we can only judge the stimulus based on what the predictions for it would be if it was passed. That makes it a complete and utter failure.

F.

[pphilfran]

Yeah, sure, because without it another Great Depression would have been worse than F. Perhaps a Z.



http://www.policyshop.net/home/2011/11/23/cbo-report-shows-the-stimulus-worked.html

We've seen 23 straight months of private sector job growth

http://assets.democrats.org/images/blog/20120203-JobCreationGraph_January.gif

And the economy is heating up...

Factory production is at a 5 year high.

http://articles.philly.com/2012-02-16/business/31067548_1_factory-output-factory-activity-jonathan-basile

New jobless claims at 4 year low

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/16/usa-economy-idUSL2E8DG1Z220120216

So, sure, call it an F if you must.

I'd call it Obama gets re-elected.

The stimulus that was passed in Feb 2009 started creating jobs in March/April?


The stimulus money did not cause that drop in early 2009 since little of the money had been actually spent by that time....

Sentiment might have been better due to the money that was coming...

[pphilfran]

I give em a C at best....Give Donald Duck many trillions of dollars to spend and he could create a significant amount of jobs....

[sappstuf]

I give em a C at best....Give Donald Duck many trillions of dollars to spend and he could create a significant amount of jobs....

Grading on the curve this morning phil? ;)

[soonercruiser]

Didn't Obama promise that unemployment would be 6% by now?
Just wondering....

Gas prices are up 90% on Obama's watch....and set to rise a lot more!
Quote Obama......"....energy prices will necessarily skyrocket under my plan...."!

[rock on sooner]

I give em a C at best....Give Donald Duck many trillions of dollars to spend and he could create a significant amount of jobs....

Well, you gave W a balanced budget and a projected surplus and look what he did with that! What grade would you give him?

[StoopTroup]

I do remember Obama saying that he didn't think everything would go smooth and that it would take more than 4 years. So....if he hasn't gotten everything exactly the way he thought it should go....I think the GOP has done a darn good job of taking the blame for it all and assisting him in being able to convince a good number of Americans that the GOP is the reason it hasn't gone smooth.

If the GOP continues on this path they are on....it will one day all get done by the folks who are tired of all our old asses and the way we have fought against each other....and it will get done somehow. Maybe even much different than we all thought.

I might even be serving the jello to Cruiser in the Home. :D

[pphilfran]

Well, you gave W a balanced budget and a projected surplus and look what he did with that! What grade would you give him?

He wasn't worth a chit either...

What grade do you give Clinton for setting the foundation for the financial collapse...ignoring the warning of Brooksley Born, Chair of Commodity Futures Trading Commission, about a possible collapse....ignoring her warning because she would destroy the economy...and then, in 1998, even after having to bail out LTCM to the tune of 3.6 billion dollars, Clinton's working group felt is was a fluke and nothing needed to change....Brooksley was forced our of her position by said Working Group for her outlandish views on a possible meltdown due to derivatives...

[StoopTroup]

He wasn't worth a chit either...

What grade do you give Clinton for setting the foundation for the financial collapse...ignoring the warning of Brooksley Born, Chair of Commodity Futures Trading Commission, about a possible collapse....ignoring her warning because she would destroy the economy...and then, in 1998, even after having to bail out LTCM to the tune of 3.6 billion dollars, Clinton's working group felt is was a fluke and nothing needed to change....Brooksley was forced our of her position by said Working Group for her outlandish views on a possible meltdown due to derivatives...

Same as bush but I give Bill a + on his grade for playing the Sax. I thought that was cool. :D

http://userserve-ak.last.fm/serve/_/6662957/Bill+Clinton+clinton.jpg

Also....I voted for Dole. I just wanted to point that out.

[pphilfran]

Same as bush but I give Bill a + on his grade for playing the Sax. I thought that was cool. :D

It was a musical White House...great flute playing, too....

[StoopTroup]

It was a musical White House...great flute playing, too....

And Pizza and 1/4 pounders were plentiful. Beats the hell out of airplanes hitting buildings.

[pphilfran]

Sounds like a great time!

[soonercoop1]

And Pizza and 1/4 pounders were plentiful. Beats the hell out of airplanes hitting buildings.

And while he was eating pizza and 1/4 pounders some terrorists were planning it...

[sappstuf]

It was a musical White House...great flute playing, too....

Just follow the link and push the red button..

http://instantrimshot.com/

[soonercruiser]

Same as bush but I give Bill a + on his grade for playing the Sax. I thought that was cool. :D

http://userserve-ak.last.fm/serve/_/6662957/Bill+Clinton+clinton.jpg

Also....I voted for Dole. I just wanted to point that out.

Clinton "blows"! ......big ones!

[StoopTroup]

Yeah but Dubya looked like a deer in the headlights the morning of 9-11-01 and instead of excusing himself and saying something important had happened and that he needed to leave and maybe having someone on his Staff take his place.....he sat there. Thank God it wasn't a Nuclear Attack on our Country.

Look at what the 8 years as POTUS did to them both.

The damn job is hard on Presidents. I think we all need to get back to respecting the guys that actually become Presidents as even though folks think they want that job....after they actually do it and can't really talk about all they went through....that has to be a pretty lonely life.

Even though I was upset at Bush I still treated him with as much respect as I could while he was POTUS. I think folks who trash Presidents while they are in office really ought to take more of a Commander in Chief approach towards how they speak about the President. By the time they exit office....whether it's 4 or 8 years....they earn their keep and the money we pay them. We should be a hell of a lot nicer to them and their Familes while they are under the microscope. So many other Countries and people are watching how we react to them while they are in office.

When I saw folks burning the image of Bush in the Streets of Iraq....I understood why they were doing it....but I was enraged as an American. When that idiot threw a show at President Bush....I wish they would have shot his ***.

So...at the end of the day....I think we should all get back to being a bit more patriotic when it comes to having conversations and mud slinging should stop. Our Country is in trouble and it's not because of the decisions of one man or even two men. Bush and Obama and the Presidents before them all had a heck of a hard job.

[hawaii 5-0]

What would the unemployment rate been without the Stimulus?

12% ?

15% ?

What would Michigan been like if GM and Chrysler both went belly up? I imagine Romney woulda swooped in, saved the day and made a lotta moola for his investers when he restructured the companies and outsourced the jobs to the Phillipines.


5-0

[hawaii 5-0]

I would have liked the Stimulus to have had better accountbility but to say it totally failed would be BS.

5-0

[sappstuf]

What would the unemployment rate been without the Stimulus?

12% ?

15% ?

What would Michigan been like if GM and Chrysler both went belly up? I imagine Romney woulda swooped in, saved the day and made a lotta moola for his investers when he restructured the companies and outsourced the jobs to the Phillipines.


5-0

You can go by made up numbers to try and make the Stimulus look better, like you did, or just go with what the Obama administration predicted, which was 9% without the stimulus.

[diverdog]

Sapp:

The stimulus did not have a lot of funds that were paid into job creation. A good chunk was spent on tax relief, helping states pay for unemployment and healthcare.

The other issue is that there is such widespread damage in the economy because the housing sector is still hurting. Until that gets sorted out we cannot expect a rapid recovery.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/36/Investmentbubble.jpg

[sappstuf]

Sapp:

The stimulus did not have a lot of funds that were paid into job creation. A good chunk was spent on tax relief, helping states pay for unemployment and healthcare.

The other issue is that there is such widespread damage in the economy because the housing sector is still hurting. Until that gets sorted out we cannot expect a rapid recovery.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/36/Investmentbubble.jpg

Those are valid points DD. Unfortunately, Obama said none of that. And much of it doesn't sound like "stimulus" to kick start the economy. Yet it was in the bill that Obama signed and made many promises of what it would do.

If you look at hard numbers of what was promised, like unemployment, and what was delivered, it was a failure.

[pphilfran]

What would the unemployment rate been without the Stimulus?

12% ?

15% ?

What would Michigan been like if GM and Chrysler both went belly up? I imagine Romney woulda swooped in, saved the day and made a lotta moola for his investers when he restructured the companies and outsourced the jobs to the Phillipines.


5-0

Uh...GM and Chrysler did go belly up...in fact we poured a fortune into Chrysler so we could sell them to Fiat, an Italian company...I would have given Chrysler to a US operating team before I sold them off to an Italian firm...

[Bourbon St Sooner]

The stimulus was a giant waste of money, but it's a drop of **** in the comode compared to the trillions that QE1 and 2 pumped into the economy with startlingly little effect so far.

[hawaii 5-0]

Uh...GM and Chrysler did go belly up...in fact we poured a fortune into Chrysler so we could sell them to Fiat, an Italian company...I would have given Chrysler to a US operating team before I sold them off to an Italian firm...


Phil I admit my mistake.

It was Bush that gave 25 Billion to the Big 3 Automakers during HIS bailout in Sept. 2008

Obama only gave 22 Billion to GM and Chrysler in March 2009. Of course, there were strings attached this time, like the firing of GM boss Rick Wagoner.

Tell me, where would they be without the stimulus? GM still above water? Would Fiat have even considered investing in Chrysler?

Just wondrin'.

5-0

[LiveLaughLove]

It was a payoff to cronies. His own peoples emails admit it. It wasn't about jump starting the economy in general, just the economy of democrat bundlers. Helped them a great deal.

It's always the way though. I was a trainer at one of the first greyhound tracks in Texas when they got para mutual betting passed. The money from gambling was going to be used on education. Ann Richards promised.

1 year in, the state racing commission was supposed to be around 12 people in size (I don't recall the exact numbers here, but I am close). A local TV station did some actual journalism and found that it was around 4 times bigger than it was supposed to be, and all of them were <drum roll> Ann Richards political cronies. I know you're shocked. Out of the millions of dollars gambling was raking in, very little made it to education. It went in to the pockets of these Democrat fat cats on the commission (and no doubt some of it kicked back to Miss Ann).

Our form of government wasn't made to be deeply involved in economics. It just wasn't. They don't do these types of things well at all. Bureaucracy wins the day every day, and political pay offs are the norm.

I can't say I am shocked, surprised, or disheartened that the stimulus hasn't worked like they said it would. I never thought it would. And it hasn't, not even close.

[pphilfran]

Phil I admit my mistake.

It was Bush that gave 25 Billion to the Big 3 Automakers during HIS bailout in Sept. 2008

Obama only gave 22 Billion to GM and Chrysler in March 2009. Of course, there were strings attached this time, like the firing of GM boss Rick Wagoner.

Tell me, where would they be without the stimulus? GM still above water? Would Fiat have even considered investing in Chrysler?

Just wondrin'.

5-0

Whenever I hear how we kept GM and Chrysler from going broke it makes my hair stand on end...normal DC rhetoric...much like how Green Energy will help us become energy independent...makes me want to barf hearing this inaccurate crap coming out of our leaderships mouths...

I don't really have a problem with the bailouts but I damn sure have a problem with how there were put in place....

That first 25 billion might have well been put into a big pile and burned...GM and Chrysler were each burning through a billion dollars a month...the Dec money did nothing to resolve the financial issues of the companies...they were going under no matter what was done so it should have taken place a whole lot sooner than March...

Then we have to come around 3 months later and hand them another pile of money since they had already burned thought the initial 25 billion...and then we "help" them to restructure...then screw the bondholders and move the union (who caused as much of the problems for GM and Chrysler as poor management) ahead of the bondholders when it came to dividing up the company...

Then we sell em to f'n Fiat...I would have given the company away to a US based operating team (better yet, give em to Ford) before I sold them to Fiat and watch profits fly overseas....

And then, in our infinite wisdom, we tell Fiat they can up their ownership percent if the produce a 40 mpg vehicle for sale in the US...so Fiat does just that...the Fiat 500, produced in Mexico...why the hell didn't we force them to produce the car in the US if they wanted to raise their ownership stake...I will tell you why, our DC leadership doesn't know chit about business...

But Ford...a company that sold off assets and mortgaged the Ford name gets nada...and then Ford has to compete with a company that got money to clean their books...so we basically punished those that did what was needed to keep afloat and rewarded those that did so poorly the company was not viable...

Same chit with the Wall Street bailouts....we tossed a bunch of money to the financials and then atteched few strings so much of the money did not go to the desired areas....I would have given em a month of operating money...told em to go through their loans and sort em out into various groups...loans that were underwater to people that only had one home and hadn't pulled a bunch of equity out would get brought back from being underwater....those that had multiple homes, flipped a bunch of homes, or pulled out equity get the finger...there could have been other groups between these two extremes that would be helped by a lesser degree...but hell no...we just tossed money at the problem....

While I am at it let's look at fed "venture" money being used to finance Green companies...

What the f does DC know about venture money and Green companies? I will tell you, not a damn thing...Chu might be one smart sob but he is not a businessman...

So we pour money into various companies...Solyndra being one...now, what if you were in the process of starting up a company to compete with Solyndra...and then out of the blue Solyndra gets a sweetheart financial deal...are you going to continue to move forward with your company? You are already behind the 8 ball since Solyndra gets backing...

If they want to grow an industry you give tax credits to all companies that meet you strict guidelines...that boosts the reward which helps make the risk more tolerable...it brings in more competition and would give a better chance of actually having a viable company come out in the end...TAX INCENTIVES? Hell no...our leadership is beating the VC to death about the money they make and what to tax them even more...lowering funding to the companies/sectors that our leadership want to grow...as usual our leadership has no business sense and put money into place that in the end will hurt expansion in areas they want to grow....

[pphilfran]

wrong thread

[pphilfran]

Sapp:

The stimulus did not have a lot of funds that were paid into job creation. A good chunk was spent on tax relief, helping states pay for unemployment and healthcare.

The other issue is that there is such widespread damage in the economy because the housing sector is still hurting. Until that gets sorted out we cannot expect a rapid recovery.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/36/Investmentbubble.jpg

This...extending unemployment benefits is not the stimulus that was needed...I don't even consider it stimulus

[Sooner5030]

eat the contraction on the front end. No need to continue to falsely inflate GDP growth with deficit spending. Eventually, theoretically.....it has to be reversed and will have the opposite effect or have downward pressure measured economic activity. Intervention to fill the hole during the downside of a business cycle works great when you're not already leveraged to the max.

when is the last year nominal GDP growth exceeded the annual deficit? That would be the last year you had real growth......otherwise we have a structurally contracting economy covered up with deficit spending.

[Turd_Ferguson]

eat the contraction on the front end. No need to continue to falsely inflate GDP growth with deficit spending. Eventually, theoretically.....it has to be reversed and will have the opposite effect or have downward pressure measured economic activity. Intervention to fill the hole during the downside of a business cycle works great when you're not already leveraged to the max.

when is the last year nominal GDP growth exceeded the annual deficit? That would be the last year you had real growth......otherwise we have a structurally contracting economy covered up with deficit spending.Could you put that in layman terms please?

[pphilfran]

Could you put that in layman terms please?

We are spending a trillion in stimulus/incentives (or more) to get a trillion in GDP growth...

So there is actually no real growth...

[diverdog]

We are spending a trillion in stimulus/incentives (or more) to get a trillion in GDP growth...

So there is actually no real growth...

Its been that way for a while.

[sappstuf]

This...extending unemployment benefits is not the stimulus that was needed...I don't even consider it stimulus

Phil,

Obama still pushes unemployment benefits as a stimulus.


"However many jobs might be generated by a Keystone pipeline," he said, "they're going to be a lot fewer than the jobs that are created by extending the payroll tax cut and extending unemployment insurance."

[pphilfran]

Phil,

Obama still pushes unemployment benefits as a stimulus.

I know...

[soonercoop1]

Sapp:

The stimulus did not have a lot of funds that were paid into job creation. A good chunk was spent on tax relief, helping states pay for unemployment and healthcare.

The other issue is that there is such widespread damage in the economy because the housing sector is still hurting. Until that gets sorted out we cannot expect a rapid recovery.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/36/Investmentbubble.jpg

Kind of funny (not really) that they still have refused to address what actually caused the economic meltdown yet have printed trillions more in debt for that guise....

[ictsooner7]

The CBO was nice enough to release a "report card" of sorts on how the economy has done since.



I think I would call that an F.

This is my favorite thread since my forced month long sabbatical. Let’s take a look at the thread, yet another thread taken from a right wing website, sappstuf tries to pass this off as a CBO report when in fact it is from a hotair.com a rightwing website and tries to say HE gives it a F when in fact this is lifted straight from the website.

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/02/17/chart-of-the-day-cbo-report-an-f-on-the-2009-stimulus-package/

Next the CBO did NOT release anything that was the third anniversary of the stimulus the report that the rightwing website is claiming, in fact it is titled UNDERSTANDING AND RESPONDING TO PERSISTENTLY HIGH UNEMPLOYMENT.

http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/02-16-Unemployment.pdf

Of course the rightwingers have tried to pass this off as a report on the stimulus package when in fact the REAL report on the stimulus package done last year titled ESTIMATED IMPACT OF ARRA ON EMPLOYMENT AND ECONOMIC OUTPUT FROM JULY 2011 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 2011.

http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/11-22-ARRA.pdf

The conclusions the CBO came up with are as follows.

– They raised real (inflation-adjusted) gross domestic product (GDP) by between 0.3 percent and 1.9 percent (see Table 1),
– They lowered the unemployment rate by between 0.2 percentage points and 1.3 percentage points,
– They increased the number of people employed by between 0.4 million and 2.4 million, and
– They increased the number of full-time-equivalent jobs by 0.5 million to 3.3 million. (Increases in FTE jobs include shifts from part-time to full-time work or overtime and are thus generally larger than increases in the number of employed workers.)
– The CBO estimates that the impact of the stimulus will continue to be felt over the next year, increasing GDP by up to 0.8 percent next year and creating up to 1.1 million jobs over what it would have been.
– The longterm economic impacts of increased borrowing to fund the stimulus will be minimal or nonexistent. “In contrast to its positive near-term macroeconomic effects, ARRA will reduce output slightly in the long run, CBO estimates—by between zero and 0.2 percent after 2016,” its economists predict.


So to sum up……..the right AGAIN not being truthful about the stimulus package, those on the right taking rightwing talking points as reality and gospel and third most importantly since the stimulus package contained fully 1/3 TAX CUTS, the right is giving TAX CUTS an F!

Please try to keep your arguments consistant.

[okie52]

ICT-you're back!!!!

[OULenexaman]

oh for gods sake...you gotta be ****tin me...

[sappstuf]

This is my favorite thread since my forced month long sabbatical. Let’s take a look at the thread, yet another thread taken from a right wing website, sappstuf tries to pass this off as a CBO report when in fact it is from a hotair.com a rightwing website and tries to say HE gives it a F when in fact this is lifted straight from the website.

Oh brother.. The silliness returns..

I see that you take exception to my first post. You are trying to say that I passing something from one website and saying it is from the CBO. In another words you are attacking my credibility and calling me a liar. Luckily, you have included my salvation in your own post. You linked to this:

http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/02-16-Unemployment.pdf

If you would have even bothered to read the first friggin paragraph of the summary, you would see that what I pasted in my original post is word for word from what the CBO wrote. Thank you for linking to it, it made my job of rebuting your nonsense that much easier. Under normal circumstances, I would expect an adult to admit they were wrong and that the CBO did in fact write that very paragraph. I don't hold such high expectations from you.

[ictsooner7]

Oh brother.. The silliness returns..

I see that you take exception to my first post. You are trying to say that I passing something from one website and saying it is from the CBO. In another words you are attacking my credibility and calling me a liar. Luckily, you have included my salvation in your own post. You linked to this:

http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/02-16-Unemployment.pdf

If you would have even bothered to read the first friggin paragraph of the summary, you would see that what I pasted in my original post is word for word from what the CBO wrote. Thank you for linking to it, it made my job of rebuting your nonsense that much easier. Under normal circumstances, I would expect an adult to admit they were wrong and that the CBO did in fact write that very paragraph. I don't hold such high expectations from you.

Your quote was lifted straight off hotair.com

Today we, er, celebrate the third anniversary of the 2009 stimulus package’s presidential signature. When Barack Obama applied his signature, he promised that the $800 billion authorized to his administration by a Democratic Congress would allow him to keep unemployment under 8% and revamp the American economy for long-term prosperity and solid economic growth. Yesterday, in an early anniversary present, the CBO scored the performance of the stimulus and the Obama administration on that very metric, and the first paragraph delivers the verdict clearly, emphases mine:

The rate of unemployment in the United States has exceeded 8 percent since February 2009, making the past three years the longest stretch of high unemployment in this country since the Great Depression. Moreover, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projects that the unemployment rate will remain above 8 percent until 2014. The official unemployment rate excludes those individuals who would like to work but have not searched for a job in the past four weeks as well as those who are working part-time but would prefer full-time work; if those people were counted among the unemployed, the unemployment rate in January 2012 would have been about 15 percent. Compounding the problem of high unemployment, the share of unemployed people looking for work for more than six months—referred to as the long-term unemployed—topped 40 percent in December 2009 for the first time since 1948, when such data began to be collected; it has remained above that level ever since.

Frankly, there isn’t much to be added to this score. It’s a good, solid F- for the stimulus and the President who wasted $800 billion on it, three years after insisting that his gimmicky approach to economics would create a modern economy that would generate prosperity for all. But just in case you need it, the CBO includes this very helpful chart on unemployment at the beginning of the report:



Yes the CBO did write that paragraph, you copied everything else from hotair.com and tried to pass it off as the CBO’s assessment as a REPORT CARD on the stimulus and as your assessment, neither of which is true. I understand the CBO wrote it, but you did not identify that the whole thing was pulled from hotair.com. I would expect an adult to admit they got caught and that you did take it off straight off of Hotair.com and try to pass it off as your assessment and that it is a REPORT CARD on the stimulus from the CBO. I don't hold such high expectations from you.

The bottom line is that you and the right are trying to pass off the CBO report as a report card on the stimulus and it is simply not true.

[soonercruiser]

Don't argue the point!
ATTACK THE MESSENGER!!!

A classic left-wing, Alinskyian tactic!

Is unemployment down to 6% yet????
:dispirited:

[ictsooner7]

Don't argue the point!
ATTACK THE MESSENGER!!!

A classic left-wing, Alinskyian tactic!

Is unemployment down to 6% yet????
:dispirited:

Who's attacking? I'm just pointing out what he says is not true.

Tell me again how well the economy did under bush. It was so bad we elected a black man as the president.

[pphilfran]

Bush was hardly alone in creating the economic mess...goes back a couple of decades...

With basically unlimited funding has the economic recovery met the goals set by the current administration?

[ictsooner7]

Bush was hardly alone in creating the economic mess...goes back a couple of decades...

With basically unlimited funding has the economic recovery met the goals set by the current administration?

So after 7 years of bush and republican policies you now are claiming it goes back decades? LOL WOW......................you are killing me..............so funny.

Hey lets blame Carter!

This one is all on bush and the republicans, ask the American people.

[pphilfran]

So after 7 years of bush and republican policies you now are claiming it goes back decades? LOL WOW......................you are killing me..............so funny.

Hey lets blame Carter!

This one is all on bush and the republicans, ask the American people.

You should enjoy your amnesty...my money is on you not lasting the month...

Yes, the economic problems started decades ago...

Look up LTCM and the reasons they failed...look up Brooksley Born and Clinton's Working Group...

I will make it easy on ya...from the rightwing PBS Frontline...

In The Warning, veteran FRONTLINE producer Michael Kirk unearths the hidden history of the nation's worst financial crisis since the Great Depression. At the center of it all he finds Brooksley Born, who speaks for the first time on television about her failed campaign to regulate the secretive, multitrillion-dollar derivatives market whose crash helped trigger the financial collapse in the fall of 2008.

"I didn't know Brooksley Born," says former SEC Chairman Arthur Levitt, a member of President Clinton's powerful Working Group on Financial Markets. "I was told that she was irascible, difficult, stubborn, unreasonable." Levitt explains how the other principals of the Working Group -- former Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan and former Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin -- convinced him that Born's attempt to regulate the risky derivatives market could lead to financial turmoil, a conclusion he now believes was "clearly a mistake."

Born's battle behind closed doors was epic, Kirk finds. The members of the President's Working Group vehemently opposed regulation -- especially when proposed by a Washington outsider like Born.

"I walk into Brooksley's office one day; the blood has drained from her face," says Michael Greenberger, a former top official at the CFTC who worked closely with Born. "She's hanging up the telephone; she says to me: 'That was [former Assistant Treasury Secretary] Larry Summers. He says, "You're going to cause the worst financial crisis since the end of World War II."... [He says he has] 13 bankers in his office who informed him of this. Stop, right away. No more.'"

Greenspan, Rubin and Summers ultimately prevailed on Congress to stop Born and limit future regulation of derivatives. "Born faced a formidable struggle pushing for regulation at a time when the stock market was booming," Kirk says. "Alan Greenspan was the maestro, and both parties in Washington were united in a belief that the markets would take care of themselves."

Now, with many of the same men who shut down Born in key positions in the Obama administration, The Warning reveals the complicated politics that led to this crisis and what it may say about current attempts to prevent the next one.

"It'll happen again if we don't take the appropriate steps," Born warns. "There will be significant financial downturns and disasters attributed to this regulatory gap over and over until we learn from experience."

Read more: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/warning/view/#ixzz1nzxFlJiH

[ictsooner7]

Don't argue the point!
ATTACK THE MESSENGER!!!

A classic left-wing, Alinskyian tactic!

Is unemployment down to 6% yet????
:dispirited:

When bush took over in January 2001 the unemplyment rate was 4.2%, thank you President Clinton, and when he left office in January 2009 the rate was 7.8%. So its ok for bush to go from 4.2 to 7.8, but you want obama to go from 7.8 to 6 in 4 years? REALLY? Obama is doing a HELL of a lot better than bush did.

[ictsooner7]

You should enjoy your amnesty...my money is on you not lasting the month...

Yes, the economic problems started decades ago...

Look up LTCM and the reasons they failed...look up Brooksley Born and Clinton's Working Group...

I will make it easy on ya...from the rightwing PBS Frontline...

In The Warning, veteran FRONTLINE producer Michael Kirk unearths the hidden history of the nation's worst financial crisis since the Great Depression. At the center of it all he finds Brooksley Born, who speaks for the first time on television about her failed campaign to regulate the secretive, multitrillion-dollar derivatives market whose crash helped trigger the financial collapse in the fall of 2008.

"I didn't know Brooksley Born," says former SEC Chairman Arthur Levitt, a member of President Clinton's powerful Working Group on Financial Markets. "I was told that she was irascible, difficult, stubborn, unreasonable." Levitt explains how the other principals of the Working Group -- former Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan and former Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin -- convinced him that Born's attempt to regulate the risky derivatives market could lead to financial turmoil, a conclusion he now believes was "clearly a mistake."

Born's battle behind closed doors was epic, Kirk finds. The members of the President's Working Group vehemently opposed regulation -- especially when proposed by a Washington outsider like Born.

"I walk into Brooksley's office one day; the blood has drained from her face," says Michael Greenberger, a former top official at the CFTC who worked closely with Born. "She's hanging up the telephone; she says to me: 'That was [former Assistant Treasury Secretary] Larry Summers. He says, "You're going to cause the worst financial crisis since the end of World War II."... [He says he has] 13 bankers in his office who informed him of this. Stop, right away. No more.'"

Greenspan, Rubin and Summers ultimately prevailed on Congress to stop Born and limit future regulation of derivatives. "Born faced a formidable struggle pushing for regulation at a time when the stock market was booming," Kirk says. "Alan Greenspan was the maestro, and both parties in Washington were united in a belief that the markets would take care of themselves."

Now, with many of the same men who shut down Born in key positions in the Obama administration, The Warning reveals the complicated politics that led to this crisis and what it may say about current attempts to prevent the next one.

"It'll happen again if we don't take the appropriate steps," Born warns. "There will be significant financial downturns and disasters attributed to this regulatory gap over and over until we learn from experience."

Read more: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/warning/view/#ixzz1nzxFlJiH

It was Texas republican PHIL GRAHAM'S BILL!! Clinton shouldn't have backed it.

[pphilfran]

Why change the subject...

Clinton had a multi billion dollar meltdown during his watch...he had to go begging for money to work a bailout...his Working Group advisers discounted the eventual problems...and then advised Clinton to do nothing....which he took to heart...

They railroaded the person that was trying to bring concerns to the front prior to LTCM meltdown...

Like I said, there are more people in the boat than just Bush, and it goes back to bad decisions decades ago....

[ictsooner7]

Why change the subject...

Clinton had a multi billion dollar meltdown during his watch...he had to go begging for money to work a bailout...his Working Group advisers discounted the eventual problems...and then advised Clinton to do nothing....which he took to heart...

They railroaded the person that was trying to bring concerns to the front prior to LTCM meltdown...

Like I said, there are more people in the boat than just Bush, and it goes back to bad decisions decades ago....

what bailout?

[pphilfran]

what bailout?

I gave you a link...told you the name of the company...LTCM..

Long-Term Capital Management did business with nearly everyone important on Wall Street. Indeed, much of LTCM's capital was composed of funds from the same Financial Professionals it traded with. As LTCM teetered, Wall Street feared that Long-Term's failure could cause a chain reaction in numerous markets, causing catastrophic losses throughout the financial system. After LTCM failed to raise more money on its own, it became clear it was running out of options. On September 23, 1998, Goldman Sachs, AIG, and Berkshire Hathaway offered then to buy out the fund's partners for $250 million, to inject $3.75 billion and to operate LTCM within Goldman's own trading division. The offer was stunningly low to LTCM's partners because at the start of the year their firm had been worth $4.7 billion. Warren Buffett gave Meriwether less than one hour to accept the deal; the time period lapsed before a deal could be worked out.[23]

Seeing no options left the Federal Reserve Bank of New York organized a bailout of $3.625 billion by the major creditors to avoid a wider collapse in the financial markets.[24] The principal negotiator for LTCM was general counsel James G. Rickards.[25] The contributions from the various institutions were as follows:[26][27]

$300 million: Bankers Trust, Barclays, Chase, Credit Suisse First Boston, Deutsche Bank, Goldman Sachs, Merrill Lynch, J.P.Morgan, Morgan Stanley, Salomon Smith Barney, UBS
$125 million: Société Générale
$100 million: Lehman Brothers, Paribas
Bear Stearns declined to participate.

In return, the participating banks got a 90% share in the fund and a promise that a supervisory board would be established. LTCM's partners received a 10% stake, still worth about $400 million, but this money was completely consumed by their debts. The partners once had $1.9 billion of their own money invested in LTCM, all of which was wiped out.[28]

The fear was that there would be a chain reaction as the company liquidated its securities to cover its debt, leading to a drop in prices, which would force other companies to liquidate their own debt creating a vicious cycle.

The total losses were found to be $4.6 billion. The losses in the major investment categories were (ordered by magnitude):[19]

$1.6 bn in swaps
$1.3 bn in equity volatility
$430 mn in Russia and other emerging markets
$371 mn in directional trades in developed countries
$286 mn in equity pairs (such as VW, Shell)
$215 mn in yield curve arbitrage
$203 mn in S&P 500 stocks
$100 mn in junk bond arbitrage
no substantial losses in merger arbitrage

Long Term Capital was audited by Price Waterhouse LLP. After the bailout by the other investors, the panic abated, and the positions formerly held by LTCM were eventually liquidated at a small profit to the rescuers.

Some industry officials said that Federal Reserve Bank of New York involvement in the rescue, however benign, would encourage large financial institutions to assume more risk, in the belief that the Federal Reserve would intervene on their behalf in the event of trouble. Federal Reserve Bank of New York actions raised concerns among some market observers that it could create moral hazard.[29]

LTCM's strategies were compared (a contrast with the market efficiency aphorism that there are no $100 bills lying on the street, as someone else has already picked them up) to "picking up nickels in front of a bulldozer"[30] – a likely small gain balanced against a small chance of a large loss, like the payouts from selling an out-of-the-money naked call option.

[ictsooner7]

I gave you a link...told you the name of the company...LTCM..

Long-Term Capital Management did business with nearly everyone important on Wall Street. Indeed, much of LTCM's capital was composed of funds from the same Financial Professionals it traded with. As LTCM teetered, Wall Street feared that Long-Term's failure could cause a chain reaction in numerous markets, causing catastrophic losses throughout the financial system. After LTCM failed to raise more money on its own, it became clear it was running out of options. On September 23, 1998, Goldman Sachs, AIG, and Berkshire Hathaway offered then to buy out the fund's partners for $250 million, to inject $3.75 billion and to operate LTCM within Goldman's own trading division. The offer was stunningly low to LTCM's partners because at the start of the year their firm had been worth $4.7 billion. Warren Buffett gave Meriwether less than one hour to accept the deal; the time period lapsed before a deal could be worked out.[23]

Seeing no options left the Federal Reserve Bank of New York organized a bailout of $3.625 billion by the major creditors to avoid a wider collapse in the financial markets.[24] The principal negotiator for LTCM was general counsel James G. Rickards.[25] The contributions from the various institutions were as follows:[26][27]

$300 million: Bankers Trust, Barclays, Chase, Credit Suisse First Boston, Deutsche Bank, Goldman Sachs, Merrill Lynch, J.P.Morgan, Morgan Stanley, Salomon Smith Barney, UBS
$125 million: Société Générale
$100 million: Lehman Brothers, Paribas
Bear Stearns declined to participate.

In return, the participating banks got a 90% share in the fund and a promise that a supervisory board would be established. LTCM's partners received a 10% stake, still worth about $400 million, but this money was completely consumed by their debts. The partners once had $1.9 billion of their own money invested in LTCM, all of which was wiped out.[28]

The fear was that there would be a chain reaction as the company liquidated its securities to cover its debt, leading to a drop in prices, which would force other companies to liquidate their own debt creating a vicious cycle.

The total losses were found to be $4.6 billion. The losses in the major investment categories were (ordered by magnitude):[19]

$1.6 bn in swaps
$1.3 bn in equity volatility
$430 mn in Russia and other emerging markets
$371 mn in directional trades in developed countries
$286 mn in equity pairs (such as VW, Shell)
$215 mn in yield curve arbitrage
$203 mn in S&P 500 stocks
$100 mn in junk bond arbitrage
no substantial losses in merger arbitrage

Long Term Capital was audited by Price Waterhouse LLP. After the bailout by the other investors, the panic abated, and the positions formerly held by LTCM were eventually liquidated at a small profit to the rescuers.

Some industry officials said that Federal Reserve Bank of New York involvement in the rescue, however benign, would encourage large financial institutions to assume more risk, in the belief that the Federal Reserve would intervene on their behalf in the event of trouble. Federal Reserve Bank of New York actions raised concerns among some market observers that it could create moral hazard.[29]

LTCM's strategies were compared (a contrast with the market efficiency aphorism that there are no $100 bills lying on the street, as someone else has already picked them up) to "picking up nickels in front of a bulldozer"[30] – a likely small gain balanced against a small chance of a large loss, like the payouts from selling an out-of-the-money naked call option.

What the hell does this have to do with Bill Clinton? This is what this whole thread is about, take one thing that happened then try to pin in on a democrat. This WHOLE thing was PRIVATE INTERPRISE buying the assets and HEY LOOK AT THE NEXT PARAGRAPH FROM THE SAME PLACE YOU COPY AND PASTED FROM.

Typical rightwingnut trying to claim some how this is a Clinton bailout. LAUGHABLE, the only one who believes this is YOU! This what is wrong with our country, rightwingnuts make sh!t up to try to blame democrats for THEIR failures. You complain about Obama going from 7.7% unemployment to 8.3% and completely blame him, BUT BUSH taking it from 4.2% to 7.7% is someones elses fault. LAUGHABLE.


Aftermath

After the bailout, Long-Term Capital Management continued operations. In the year following the bailout, it earned 10%. By early 2000, the fund had been liquidated, and the consortium of banks that financed the bailout had been paid back; but the collapse was devastating for many involved. Mullins, once considered a possible successor to Alan Greenspan, saw his future with the Reserve dashed. The theories of Merton and Scholes took a public beating. In its annual reports, Merrill Lynch observed that mathematical risk models "may provide a greater sense of security than warranted; therefore, reliance on these models should be limited."[31]

After helping unwind LTCM, Meriwether launched JWM Partners. Haghani, Hilibrand, Leahy, and Rosenfeld all signed up as principals of the new firm. By December 1999, they had raised $250 million for a fund that would continue many of LTCM's strategies—this time, using less leverage.[32] With the Credit Crisis, JWM Partners LLC was hit with 44% loss from September 2007 to February 2009 in its Relative Value Opportunity II fund. As such, JWM Hedge Fund was shut down in July 2009.[33]

[pphilfran]

You are such a hack...

The company went under in 1998...it's problems were ignored....the same thing happened on a larger scale 10 years later...

I am not trying to pin blame...you are trying to avoid looking at all causes and not looking at the entire cause of the meltdown...hell, I didn't even talk about Greenspan keeping interest rates low and causing the housing bubble...that went on for over 15 years..including the entire Clinton term...

[pphilfran]

You harping about all the problems coming from one administrations is completely false...

[hawaii 5-0]

You harping about all the problems coming from one administrations is completely false...


Yep. It was a lot of things.

Throw in two wars without allowing for the cost.

5-0

[ictsooner7]

You are such a hack...

The company went under in 1998...it's problems were ignored....the same thing happened on a larger scale 10 years later...

I am not trying to pin blame...you are trying to avoid looking at all causes and not looking at the entire cause of the meltdown...hell, I didn't even talk about Greenspan keeping interest rates low and causing the housing bubble...that went on for over 15 years..including the entire Clinton term...

Yes you are trying to pin blame, you called it Clintons bailout, which is not true. AND it was folded in 2000 AFTER the money was paid back.

Initially successful with annualized returns of over 40% (after fees) in its first years, in 1998 it lost $4.6 billion in less than four months following the Russian financial crisis requiring financial intervention by the Federal Reserve Bank, and the fund closed in early 2000.

After the bailout, Long-Term Capital Management continued operations.

[pphilfran]

Damn, they were unwinding the company...it was liquidated...

[pphilfran]

I guess we will have to agree to disagree...

I won't change my stance that the meltdown took a couple of decades of poor financial leadership...

You won't change your stance that Bush was solely responsible...

I will leave it at that...

[ictsooner7]

You are such a hack...

The company went under in 1998...it's problems were ignored....the same thing happened on a larger scale 10 years later...

I am not trying to pin blame...you are trying to avoid looking at all causes and not looking at the entire cause of the meltdown...hell, I didn't even talk about Greenspan keeping interest rates low and causing the housing bubble...that went on for over 15 years..including the entire Clinton term...


You are right it was ignored, by republicans. Thank you for making my point! The company took losses in 1998, Phil Gramm republican senator from texas

On Capitol Hill, Mr. Gramm became the most effective proponent of deregulation in a generation, by dint of his expertise (a Ph.D in economics), free-market ideology, perch on the Senate banking committee and force of personality (a writer in Texas once called him “a snapping turtle”). And in one remarkable stretch from 1999 to 2001, he pushed laws and promoted policies that he says unshackled businesses from needless restraints but his critics charge significantly contributed to the financial crisis that has rattled the nation.

He led the effort to block measures curtailing deceptive or predatory lending, which was just beginning to result in a jump in home foreclosures that would undermine the financial markets. He advanced legislation that fractured oversight of Wall Street while knocking down Depression-era barriers that restricted the rise and reach of financial conglomerates.

And he pushed through a provision that ensured virtually no regulation of the complex financial instruments known as derivatives, including credit swaps, contracts that would encourage risky investment practices at Wall Street’s most venerable institutions and spread the risks, like a virus, around the world.

[pphilfran]

You won't hear me defending Gramm or the repeal of parts of the Glass–Steagall Act...Banks shouldn't be in investments and investment firms shouldn't be in banking...two completely different mind sets and risk/reward profiles...

[ictsooner7]

You won't hear me defending Gramm or the repeal of parts of the Glass–Steagall Act...Banks shouldn't be in investments and investment firms shouldn't be in banking...two completely different mind sets and risk/reward profiles...

Then why do you support a party that is doing everything it can to block any regulations on them?

[pphilfran]

Then why do you support a party that is doing everything it can to block any regulations on them?

Where did I ever say I supported one party or another?

[ictsooner7]

Where did I ever say I supported one party or another?

You always take the republican side.

[hawaii 5-0]

Which side would it be if I stated that I think we shoulda calculated how much oil the US uses in one calender year (roughly) and taken that amount of oil from Iraq times the number of years for that War.

Tho I didn't approve of the made up reasons for the War, once we committed our troops we shoulda gotten something substantial out of it for all the American blood shed.

It's still a small price.

5-0

[hawaii 5-0]

Double post.

[pphilfran]

No I don't...

I didn't have a problem with the bailouts...without them we would have suffered financial ruin...I did and do have a problem with how the money was distributed...I very much dislike the sale of Chrysler to Fiat...

I have no problem with higher taxes by eliminating loopholes...we need revenue to be at 20% of GDP...I have no problem with raising revenue through SS limit increases..I also want the age limit slowly increased...

I don't think we should go to war so easily or stick our nose in every country in the world...

I have no problem with regulation but I do have a problem with our auditing systems of current regulation...

I don't care if we have voter ID or not...

I don't care if we have a path to citizenship...only that it will be a very costly and time intensive program....since there is no cheap way out I will settle for it...

I don't have a problem with solar, wind, or nukes...only that they are currently very expensive and contrary to what Obama says they will not save us one drop on crude imports...I am hedging my bets on Global Warming so I can back solar and wind...so yes, I am more heavily repub on this issue...

All I attempt to do is to hold people accountable for their actions and results that the put into place...I really do not care if what they say is political rhetoric...or pandering to a voter base...they say they are going to do something and they can bet I will hold them accountable...

I have made it very plain that I am voting against each and every incumbent in the next election cycle....

[OU_Sooners75]

unemployment numbers are not matching job creation numbers....hmmm


I know this link I am about to provide is a few months old, but nothing has changed drastically enough to change the numbers....

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/unemployment-rate-drops-to-8-6-but-job-growth-remains-weak/

[ictsooner7]

unemployment numbers are not matching job creation numbers....hmmm


I know this link I am about to provide is a few months old, but nothing has changed drastically enough to change the numbers....

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/unemployment-rate-drops-to-8-6-but-job-growth-remains-weak/

Amazing how when a dem wins an election its fraud and when there is good economic news its being altered. How we measure unemployment has not changed.

[rock on sooner]

No I don't...

I didn't have a problem with the bailouts...without them we would have suffered financial ruin...I did and do have a problem with how the money was distributed...I very much dislike the sale of Chrysler to Fiat...

I have no problem with higher taxes by eliminating loopholes...we need revenue to be at 20% of GDP...I have no problem with raising revenue through SS limit increases..I also want the age limit slowly increased...

I don't think we should go to war so easily or stick our nose in every country in the world...

I have no problem with regulation but I do have a problem with our auditing systems of current regulation...

I don't care if we have voter ID or not...

I don't care if we have a path to citizenship...only that it will be a very costly and time intensive program....since there is no cheap way out I will settle for it...

I don't have a problem with solar, wind, or nukes...only that they are currently very expensive and contrary to what Obama says they will not save us one drop on crude imports...I am hedging my bets on Global Warming so I can back solar and wind...so yes, I am more heavily repub on this issue...

All I attempt to do is to hold people accountable for their actions and results that the put into place...I really do not care if what they say is political rhetoric...or pandering to a voter base...they say they are going to do something and they can bet I will hold them accountable...

I have made it very plain that I am voting against each and every incumbent in the next election cycle....

Holy Crap! A sensible response...only thing I'd question is about SS...since it is revenue neutral...doesn't contribute
a penny to the deficit...and consistently gets raided to help other areas. I'd like to see the Gov't pay back all it's
"borrowed" over the years and SS would be solvent far into the future....

[LiveLaughLove]

Holy Crap! A sensible response...only thing I'd question is about SS...since it is revenue neutral...doesn't contribute
a penny to the deficit...and consistently gets raided to help other areas. I'd like to see the Gov't pay back all it's
"borrowed" over the years and SS would be solvent far into the future....

Would be nice, but it's a pipe dream. Politicians will never let monies just sit when they know it's there.

They started plotting the raiding of SS the day it was enacted.

[cleller]

Don't guess there's any good way to tell if the stimulus did what it was intended to do, prevented things from getting much worse, or wasted a bunch of money.

The problem now is paying back the money. No one has put forth an agreeable plan. That's the main issue I have. Seems like the guy that spent the money is the one most responsible for that.

[ictsooner7]

Don't guess there's any good way to tell if the stimulus did what it was intended to do, prevented things from getting much worse, or wasted a bunch of money.

The problem now is paying back the money. No one has put forth an agreeable plan. That's the main issue I have. Seems like the guy that spent the money is the one most responsible for that.

Yes there is.....those on the right refuse to believe it.

http://www.cbo.gov/publication/43014

CBO estimates that ARRA’s policies had the following effects in the fourth quarter of calendar year 2011 compared with what would have occurred otherwise:
They raised real (inflation-adjusted) gross domestic product (GDP) by between 0.2 percent and 1.5 percent,
They lowered the unemployment rate by between 0.2 percentage points and 1.1 percentage points,
They increased the number of people employed by between 0.3 million and 2.0 million, and
They increased the number of full-time-equivalent (FTE) jobs by 0.4 million to 2.6 million. (Increases in FTE jobs include shifts from part-time to full-time work or overtime and are thus generally larger than increases in the number of employed workers.)

[cleller]

Yes there is.....those on the right refuse to believe it.

http://www.cbo.gov/publication/43014

CBO estimates that ARRA’s policies had the following effects in the fourth quarter of calendar year 2011 compared with what would have occurred otherwise:
They raised real (inflation-adjusted) gross domestic product (GDP) by between 0.2 percent and 1.5 percent,
They lowered the unemployment rate by between 0.2 percentage points and 1.1 percentage points,
They increased the number of people employed by between 0.3 million and 2.0 million, and
They increased the number of full-time-equivalent (FTE) jobs by 0.4 million to 2.6 million. (Increases in FTE jobs include shifts from part-time to full-time work or overtime and are thus generally larger than increases in the number of employed workers.)

Until we can go back and relive the last 3 years without the stimulus, this is still unproven conjecture to me.

I don't deny there is a good possibility the stimulus had its desired effect. In times of crisis, there is some evidence that deficit spending can be a positive. The unanswered question is: how will this impact our future economy? When you do all that spending without even a hint of a plan on how to raise capital to fund it, it takes a lot of the shine off.

As with deficit spending, there is evidence that tax hikes in times of crisis are also not advisable. Therefore, cuts in other areas would be mandated. This is where the Obama administration falters. He just keeps spending.

In a few, or several years, the interest on the stimulus will create new problems that will hamper growth and prosperity when it is time to repay this money. That will be when Obama has handed off the problem to someone else. The average voter will not be sophisticated enough to realize what has happened.

If I bought a new hybrid car last week, it would be very obvious that I'd be saving money on gas today. I might be unable to repay the loan tomorrow or next year, but no one keeps tabs on that.

Very shallow stuff. No foresight anywhere.

[ictsooner7]

Until we can go back and relive the last 3 years without the stimulus, this is still unproven conjecture to me.

I don't deny there is a good possibility the stimulus had its desired effect. In times of crisis, there is some evidence that deficit spending can be a positive. The unanswered question is: how will this impact our future economy? When you do all that spending without even a hint of a plan on how to raise capital to fund it, it takes a lot of the shine off.

As with deficit spending, there is evidence that tax hikes in times of crisis are also not advisable. Therefore, cuts in other areas would be mandated. This is where the Obama administration falters. He just keeps spending.

In a few, or several years, the interest on the stimulus will create new problems that will hamper growth and prosperity when it is time to repay this money. That will be when Obama has handed off the problem to someone else. The average voter will not be sophisticated enough to realize what has happened.

If I bought a new hybrid car last week, it would be very obvious that I'd be saving money on gas today. I might be unable to repay the loan tomorrow or next year, but no one keeps tabs on that.

Very shallow stuff. No foresight anywhere.

It simply amazes me how you on the right refuse to believe when presented with facts. The right yells and screams about the CBO reports because they do not backup the right wing talking points. CBO is non-partisan, yet you ignore the facts they provide, have you done any research on your own? Have your collected data and analyzed it? Of course not, but you have perused right wing websites that claims the stimulus did not generate one single job. You say Obama just keeps spending when EVERY real economist KNOWS cutting spending will slow down the recovery. You of course ignore the fact the a full 1/3 of the ARA act, stimulus was TAX CUTS!!

[cleller]

This is also from the CBO report:

"Although CBO has examined data on output and employment during the period since ARRA’s enactment, those data are not as helpful in determining ARRA’s economic effects as might be supposed because isolating the effects would require knowing what path the economy would have taken in the absence of the law. Because that path cannot be observed, the new data add only limited information about ARRA’s impact."

That sounds pretty much like my earlier argument. Here's another passage:

"Multiplying estimates of those per-dollar effects [from stimulus spending] by the dollar amounts of each element of ARRA yields an estimate of the law’s total impact on output. To produce estimates of ARRA’s total impact on employment, CBO combined the estimate with estimates of how changes in output affect the unemployment rate and participation in the labor force."

That's alot of estimating. I'm not sure how much estimating goes on it the US debt to GDP, but as of Feb 21, it passed 101%. That's creeping up near Ireland, Italy, Greece. You thing that's a club we should feel good about joining?

No, I don't think the modest good news from the stimulus report is so great when compared with the bottomless pit of debt we're facing. When will Obama unveil a plan to pay this debt?

And why is it the people on the left are always accusing the people on the right of one thing or another? Who is it that is actually yelling and screaming around here, huh? It is tiresome beyond belief, such a persecution complex. Just quit the condescending faux intellectual crap. The left just happens to like the government to pay their way, protect criminals, house and feed those who won't work, anything to lessen personal responsibily.
Either stand up and claim that the the government should be your daddy, or go away.

[soonercruiser]

When bush took over in January 2001 the unemplyment rate was 4.2%, thank you President Clinton, and when he left office in January 2009 the rate was 7.8%. So its ok for bush to go from 4.2 to 7.8, but you want obama to go from 7.8 to 6 in 4 years? REALLY? Obama is doing a HELL of a lot better than bush did.

Some people really have a very short memory.
Economists agree that Clinton handed Bush an economy in decline.
Then 9-11.

Besides, we're only wanting Obama to keep his own (arrogant) words!

[diverdog]

Some people really have a very short memory.
Economists agree that Clinton handed Bush an economy in decline.
Then 9-11.

Besides, we're only wanting Obama to keep his own (arrogant) words!

Now you are being some what hypocritical. You want to hang the bad economy around Obama's neck all the while giving Bush a free ride because he inherited an economy in decline from Clinton. You can't have it both ways Cruiser.

[ictsooner7]

This is also from the CBO report:

"Although CBO has examined data on output and employment during the period since ARRA’s enactment, those data are not as helpful in determining ARRA’s economic effects as might be supposed because isolating the effects would require knowing what path the economy would have taken in the absence of the law. Because that path cannot be observed, the new data add only limited information about ARRA’s impact."

That sounds pretty much like my earlier argument. Here's another passage:

"Multiplying estimates of those per-dollar effects [from stimulus spending] by the dollar amounts of each element of ARRA yields an estimate of the law’s total impact on output. To produce estimates of ARRA’s total impact on employment, CBO combined the estimate with estimates of how changes in output affect the unemployment rate and participation in the labor force."

That's alot of estimating. I'm not sure how much estimating goes on it the US debt to GDP, but as of Feb 21, it passed 101%. That's creeping up near Ireland, Italy, Greece. You thing that's a club we should feel good about joining?

No, I don't think the modest good news from the stimulus report is so great when compared with the bottomless pit of debt we're facing. When will Obama unveil a plan to pay this debt?

And why is it the people on the left are always accusing the people on the right of one thing or another? Who is it that is actually yelling and screaming around here, huh? It is tiresome beyond belief, such a persecution complex. Just quit the condescending faux intellectual crap. The left just happens to like the government to pay their way, protect criminals, house and feed those who won't work, anything to lessen personal responsibily.
Either stand up and claim that the the government should be your daddy, or go away.


The only one around with "condescending faux intellectual crap" is you. You are shown facts and figures, yet you refuse to believe them bacause it does not back up your right wingnut claims. The right two years ago was screaming and yelling for the US to be like Ireland, cut spending, balance the budget, now look at them, economy in shambles with no way to revive it. As for the debt and deficit, it was your party the gave us a VAST majority of it, I didn't vote for either bush or reagan, YOU DID!

This is the problem with the right, you say the left wants the government to take care of us, the implication being only the right wants to take care of themselves, how arrogant that only you and yours pull themselves up by their bootstraps, plenty on the left do it as well, again refer to the article showing how blue states subsidize red states.



For claiming "Economists agree that Clinton handed Bush an economy in decline.
Then 9-11."

Only rightwing economists "agree" the gdp growth:

1999 4.87% clintons highest
2000 4.17%
2001 1.09%,

2004 3.59% bushes highest
2005 3.06%
2006 2.67%
2007 1.94%
2008 -0.02%
2009 -3.50%
2010 3.00%
2011 3.00%

BUSH handed Obama the worst economy since the past republican caused depression. Hypocrite. Bush was warned about 9-11 and ignored the warnings, while the right tired to pin it on Clinton. Now Obama is just off of bushs hight by .59%. Not bad at all.



As for "The left just happens to like the government to pay their way, protect criminals, house and feed those who won't work, anything to lessen personal responsibily." Look at these FACTS!

BLUE STATES SUBSIDIZE RED STATES


The Geography of Government Benefits

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/02/12/us/entitlement-map.html?ref=us

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/12/us/even-critics-of-safety-net-increasingly-depend-on-it.html?_r=1

[cleller]

Did anyone else miss the "We should be like Ireland" movement two years ago? I guess thats a way of ignoring our 101% debt ratio, and what it could mean down the road. One more time: HOW DOES IS GET REPAID?

Yes, I do believe the left wants the government to take care of everyone. Should it be a surprise if the government is handing out money, that people will take it?If the government hadn't started handing it out in exchange for votes during the "Great Society" days, we wouldn't be living in the "dependent society" days now.

[ictsooner7]

Did anyone else miss the "We should be like Ireland" movement two years ago? I guess thats a way of ignoring our 101% debt ratio, and what it could mean down the road. One more time: HOW DOES IS GET REPAID?

Yes, I do believe the left wants the government to take care of everyone. Should it be a surprise if the government is handing out money, that people will take it?If the government hadn't started handing it out in exchange for votes during the "Great Society" days, we wouldn't be living in the "dependent society" days now.


Here are two republicans who want us to be like Ireland. My rightwingnut friends all said we should be like Ireland and cut spending.


REPUBLICANS HEART IRISH TAX RATES.... While pushing back against the economic stimulus plan, Republicans have, of course, been demanding more tax cuts. But what kind of tax cuts are we talking about? Republican Policy Committee Chairman John Ensign, the fourth-ranking Republican in the chamber, argued yesterday:

"You know, we have the second highest corporate tax rate in the industrialized world. Microsoft, which is a great American company, has zero exports from the United States. They have a lot of exports from Ireland, because, guess what, Ireland has a 12.5 percent corporate tax rate; we have a 35 percent corporate tax rate."


Are we back to this again? John McCain relied on this talking point quite a bit last year. In the first presidential debate, the Republican nominee said: "Right now, the United States of American business pays the second-highest business taxes in the world, 35 percent. Ireland pays 11 percent. Now, if you're a business person, and you can locate any place in the world, then, obviously, if you go to the country where it's 11 percent tax versus 35 percent, you're going to be able to create jobs, increase your business, make more investment, et cetera."

[REDREX]

Then why do you support a party that is doing everything it can to block any regulations on them?----Why do you think all regulation helps solve problems?----Freddie and Fannie both Gov't GSE's were the biggest contributors to the housing problem

[rock on sooner]

Everyone says the US corps pay 35% tax rates, name one! There are so many loopholes that
noone pays 35% and more than a few pay nothing at all!

[cleller]

Obama has just proposed cutting the corporate tax rate, also. Is he the one who wants to be like Ireland now?

The European Central Bank allowed Ireland to overheat, and nearly default. These high debt ratios are a problem. The big problem is the lack of a plan to address them.

[dwarthog]

Everyone says the US corps pay 35% tax rates, name one! There are so many loopholes that
noone pays 35% and more than a few pay nothing at all!

Here you go.


ExxonMobil ( XOM - news - people ), Chevron ( CVX - news - people ) and ConocoPhillips ( COP - news - people ), all endure income tax burdens of more than 40%--higher than the statutory U.S. rate of 35%. Exxon, with a 45% rate, tallied $21.6 billion in worldwide income taxes for 2010. Wal-Mart Stores ( WMT - news - people ) paid $7.1 billion (at a rate of 32.4%) in income taxes.


http://www.forbes.com/2011/04/13/ge-exxon-walmart-apple-business-washington-corporate-taxes.html


I agree with you on the loopholes, but no doubt a lot of that has to do with companies seeking out countries with friendlier tax rates, which is precisely why those countries enact favorable corporate tax rates, to attract businesses.

[ictsooner7]

Obama has just proposed cutting the corporate tax rate, also. Is he the one who wants to be like Ireland now?

The European Central Bank allowed Ireland to overheat, and nearly default. These high debt ratios are a problem. The big problem is the lack of a plan to address them.

Well, those guys are to the right of anyone on here, more knee jerk reactionaire types who jumped on the rightwingnut radio talking points and emails.

[rock on sooner]

Here you go.




http://www.forbes.com/2011/04/13/ge-exxon-walmart-apple-business-washington-corporate-taxes.html


I agree with you on the loopholes, but no doubt a lot of that has to do with companies seeking out countries with friendlier tax rates, which is precisely why those countries enact favorable corporate tax rates, to attract businesses.

I certainly stand corrected. Thank you. I guess it begs the question for those companies H.R...Can you find better
tax accountants?:playful:

[dwarthog]

I certainly stand corrected. Thank you. I guess it begs the question for those companies H.R...Can you find better
tax accountants?:playful:

Exactly!

Although I bet those companies tax accountants are putting in some serious hours already getting it down to that rate, with the way those particular companies are drug around through the muck!

More to your point about the tax rate in general. The article indicated an average tax rate of 25% for the 20 companies mentioned. Certainly a fair bit more than I think a lot of folks expected, but definitely less than the 35% being thrown about. I wonder what those numbers would be with a much larger sampling?

[soonercruiser]

No, Diver! My post was meant as sarcasm.
I am pointing about the hypocrisy in other's arguments, when they use it for their side!

THEY, can't have it both ways!

http://i305.photobucket.com/albums/nn212/SoonerCruiser_photos/Political/hypocrisy.jpg