Buyer's remorse?

[maxiep]

Yah, but WHY has he done all that? because the guy before him basically set that train on it's tracks. What else is he going to do? Let GM and Chrysler go belly up? I really doubt that would be better for the economy.

quadrupled the debt? You mean we're not 40 trillion in debt?

Yep, let them go bankrupt. A full Chapter 11. The problem for the Obama Administration is that it would have put the UAW on the rocks, which he couldn't see happen--he owes the union. So now, the government and the UAW runs GW.

As for the debt figure, check the CBO projections.

he also had to deal with people thinking he was "wagging" the dog to get the pointless Monica Lewinsky shit off the air.

That's a complete non-sequitor.

It wasn't a huge difference than what Bush did (bail-out wise).

Thank you for highlighting your financincal ignorance. If you don't see the difference betwen the bank bailout bill (which I didn't like) and the spending package (which I hate with ever fiber of my being), then you should read more and comment less.

so explain why your record of commenting on politics and the politicians that are involved, has been far more in favor of Bush and conservatives and very little criticism of them?

I highly approved of President Bush's prosecution of the War on Terror. I hated his spending programs. I outlined my political philosophy to you and you wonder why I don't embrace President Obama's policies? Seriously?

you mean how they were given reports about how the intelligence thought that AQ was planning some kind of attack on our shores, involving planes? You're telling me that they couldn't have done something in almost 9 months to at least prepare airports or improve security?

Oh wait, is the NY times the one that doesn't count?

I said it was a failure, from the Clinton Administration to the Bush Administration to the intelligence agencies. And like I said, hindsight is 20/20. 19 guys with boxcutters? To put in the security required to stop 9/11 would have taken extreme measures that would have been politically impossible. As for the NYT, I subscribe to the weekend package. It's a pretty decent paper.

 

[Denny Crane]

So, for those who blame Obama for the economy (after being in office for just about 3 months), do you blame the previous administration for the lack of awareness for the 9/11 attacks, considering it was after their administration had almost 8 months of time to get on the ball?

I do blame the previous administration for the 9/11 attacks. It was fully their responsibility to watch for our safety.

But it's a little more complicated than that. The attacks were planned for a decade. And the response was more than lobbing a couple of cruise missiles at an empty training camp and an aspirin factory.

Regarding the economy, there's a large school of economists who think the worst of the recession would have been past us by now and the actions of the administration have made things a lot worse. Even Obama's longer term projections have gone from rosy to gloom as far as the eye can see.

With all the shovel ready projects that justified $850B in emergency spending, we're shedding 600K+ jobs per month. Do the math and you realize we can't sustain losing 600K+ jobs per month for half of Obama's entire term before we're at peak depression era unemployment levels.

The spending flies in the face of reason. If you recognize we have boom/bust cycles then keeping GM strong means you cover its negative cash flow of $20B for a year or two while we ride this cycle out. A huge contrast between $40B and $850B ($850B on top of $750B already passed).

Funny thing about credit cards. It doesn't matter if you borrowed $1K on it 10 years ago or yesterday. It sucks to have the $1K balance. It sucks even worse when your minimum payment keeps you from paying social security recipients what they're due. The good news for those people is that they'll be able to collect extended unemployment benefits instead.

 

[barfo]

Regarding the economy, there's a large school of economists who think the worst of the recession would have been past us by now and the actions of the administration have made things a lot worse.

There is another large school of economists who think the opposite.

With all the shovel ready projects that justified $850B in emergency spending, we're shedding 600K+ jobs per month. Do the math and you realize we can't sustain losing 600K+ jobs per month for half of Obama's entire term before we're at peak depression era unemployment levels.

Is there any economist who thinks that will happen? Why not say that if we keep losing jobs at that rate for a few years, there will be more unemployed people than there are people?

The spending flies in the face of reason. If you recognize we have boom/bust cycles then keeping GM strong means you cover its negative cash flow of $20B for a year or two while we ride this cycle out. A huge contrast between $40B and $850B ($850B on top of $750B already passed).

Keeping GM strong through boom and bust cycles is not the job of the government. That's the job of GM management. Unfortunately, they failed.

I'm not sure what connection there is between costs of the GM bailout and the stimulus package. Are you suggesting the economy would be just fine if we'd just given GM more money but done nothing else?

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

There is another large school of economists who think the opposite.

No there aren't. Find one that isn't a sycophant.

Is there any economist who thinks that will happen? Why not say that if we keep losing jobs at that rate for a few years, there will be more unemployed people than there are people?

There's no sign of any companies hiring. They're all laying off these days. I do think the number of job losses will decline, but that means unemployment has reached 25% or more.

Keeping GM strong through boom and bust cycles is not the job of the government. That's the job of GM management. Unfortunately, they failed.

If govt. is to be a safety net, then it should be one. Why should it insure your health and not that of GM?

I'm not sure what connection there is between costs of the GM bailout and the stimulus package. Are you suggesting the economy would be just fine if we'd just given GM more money but done nothing else?

barfo

Yes.

 

[barfo]

No there aren't. Find one that isn't a sycophant.

I suspect that any name I throw out you'll label a sycophant, so this is pretty pointless, but here's one name: Paul Krugman, winner of the 2008 Nobel prize in economics.

There's no sign of any companies hiring. They're all laying off these days. I do think the number of job losses will decline, but that means unemployment has reached 25% or more.

Interesting prediction, but what do you base it on?

If govt. is to be a safety net, then it should be one. Why should it insure your health and not that of GM?

Because not everything has to be taken to the extreme, does it? If we legalize pot, do we have to legalize giving heroin to kindergartners?

Yes.

Interesting. On the one hand, you predict 25% unemployment, yet on the other hand, the economy would be just fine if we'd only given GM more money. How many people do you think GM employs?

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

I suspect that any name I throw out you'll label a sycophant, so this is pretty pointless, but here's one name: Paul Krugman, winner of the 2008 Nobel prize in economics.



Interesting prediction, but what do you base it on?



Because not everything has to be taken to the extreme, does it? If we legalize pot, do we have to legalize giving heroin to kindergartners?



Interesting. On the one hand, you predict 25% unemployment, yet on the other hand, the economy would be just fine if we'd only given GM more money. How many people do you think GM employs?

barfo

GM? 100,000. The auto dealers? Half a million. The auto parts makers and repair guys? 5M.

This Paul Krugman?


Krugman fears lost decade for US due to half-steps

 

[barfo]

GM? 100,000. The auto dealers? Half a million. The auto parts makers and repair guys? 5M.

And how many jobs lost is 25% unemployment? Isn't it something like 40 million?

This Paul Krugman?

Yes, that one.

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

And how many jobs lost is 25% unemployment? Isn't it something like 40 million?



Yes, that one.

barfo

30M, and we're at 6M and counting.

Krugman doesn't seem very optimistic. He calls what we're doing half measures.

You want to try and find another economist now?

 

[barfo]

30M, and we're at 6M and counting.

6 and 30 are different numbers. You claim that we will have 30M unemployed because we didn't save GM, and GM is responsible for 6M jobs. Explain.

Krugman doesn't seem very optimistic. He calls what we're doing half measures.

You want to try and find another economist now?

I didn't claim he was optimistic. I claimed he was an example of an economist who didn't think "the actions of the administration have made things a lot worse". He believes they need to do more of what they are doing.

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

6 and 30 are different numbers. You claim that we will have 30M unemployed because we didn't save GM, and GM is responsible for 6M jobs. Explain.

650,000 jobs lost x 20 months = 13M + 6M already lost = 19M overall for the whole economy. Unemployment is at ~9% now with 6M lost, what do you think it will be at 19M lost? 20 months is arbitrary, 1/2 of Obama's only term.

The automakers are responsible directly and indirectly for 6M total jobs.

I didn't claim he was optimistic. I claimed he was an example of an economist who didn't think "the actions of the administration have made things a lot worse". He believes they need to do more of what they are doing.
barfo

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/05/18/business/econwatch/entry5023220.shtml

Early this year, as the U.S. Congress prepared to debate a $787 billion spending bill that's better known as the stimulus plan, President Barack Obama claimed that immediate action was necessary to prevent unemployment from skyrocketing.

"Experts agree that if nothing is done, the unemployment rate could reach double digits," Mr. Obama said in a January 24 radio address. "If we do not act boldly and swiftly, a bad situation could become dramatically worse." The same month, his economic advisors released a report saying that, without the stimulus, unemployment would hit around 8.5 percent by April 2009, and 7.8 percent with it.

We know what happened next: a Democratic Congress quickly approved the legislation. But what may not be as obvious is that even with the stimulus, current unemployment is far worse than the Obama administration had predicted: it's already 8.9 percent.

In the last few days, a marked-up version of that chart has rocketed around economics and public policy blogs, with some administration critics arguing it showed the stimulus was unnecessary. (For perspective, the stimulus' generous $787 billion is roughly 60 percent of the total revenue that the IRS collects each year from Americans' personal income taxes, or almost seven times the entire GDP of New Zealand.)

Harvard University economics professor Greg Mankiw wrote on Sunday: "In light of the shifting baseline, it is impossible to hold the administration accountable for whether its policies are achieving their intended effects." The conservative Heritage Foundation dubbed it "Obama's growing credibility gap."

As for Krugman:

http://www.newsweek.com/id/191393

Obama’s Nobel Headache

Paul Krugman has emerged as Obama's toughest liberal critic. He's deeply skeptical of the bank bailout and pessimistic about the economy. Why the establishment worries he may be right.


In his twice-a-week column and his blog, Conscience of a Liberal, he criticizes the Obamaites for trying to prop up a financial system that he regards as essentially a dead man walking. In conversation, he portrays Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner and other top officials as, in effect, tools of Wall Street (a ridiculous charge, say Geithner defenders). These men and women have "no venality," Krugman hastened to say in an interview with NEWSWEEK. But they are suffering from "osmosis," from simply spending too much time around investment bankers and the like. In his Times column the day Geithner announced the details of the administration's bank-rescue plan, Krugman described his "despair" that Obama "has apparently settled on a financial plan that, in essence, assumes that banks are fundamentally sound and that bankers know what they're doing. It's as if the president were determined to confirm the growing perception that he and his economic team are out of touch, that their economic vision is clouded by excessively close ties to Wall Street."

You might want to look for another economist who's not a sycophant.

 

[Denny Crane]

Interestingly, Krugman is famous for his work in international economics. Here's a blog post from Econ International Blog that explains what that red bit on the graph really means.

http://www.econinternational.com/bl...n-fewer-jobs-than-administration-projections/

Recovery Report Card: 1.7 million fewer jobs than Administration projections


April’s unemployment figures show that the number of people unemployed was 13.7 million, or 8.9 percent of the labor force.

Administration economists Romer & Bernstein predicted that the stimulus/recovery program would hold unemployment to only 7.8 percent of the labor force, or approximately 12 million.

With unemployment 1.7 million higher than projected, by the Administration’s own benchmarks, it seems that its stimulus/recovery plan is performing much worse than expected. In fact, it is performing worse than if there were no recovery plan.


Read more: http://www.econinternational.com/bl...n-administration-projections/#ixzz0GOBeFVIK&B

 

[barfo]

650,000 jobs lost x 20 months = 13M + 6M already lost = 19M overall for the whole economy.

The automakers are responsible directly and indirectly for 6M total jobs.

Yes. But you claim that if we'd preserved those 6M jobs (and I'll note that not all of those 6M have been lost, not even close), the economy would be fine.

Your math doesn't add up.

As for Krugman:


You might want to look for another economist who's not a sycophant.

Why would I want to do that? He would clearly disagree with your school of economists "who think the worst of the recession would have been past us by now and the actions of the administration have made things a lot worse."

Again, his problem with the administration is that they aren't doing enough.

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

Yes. But you claim that if we'd preserved those 6M jobs (and I'll note that not all of those 6M have been lost, not even close), the economy would be fine.

Your math doesn't add up.

My claim is the economy may have seen its worst by now without the "stimulus" package, and as the red line on the graph shows, we're at least making the situation a lot worse than it needs to be. That's by the administration's own promises and forecasts.

Check the source on the graph. They're Obama's economic advisors, getting govt' paychecks.

Why would I want to do that? He would clearly disagree with your school of economists "who think the worst of the recession would have been past us by now and the actions of the administration have made things a lot worse."

Again, his problem with the administration is that they aren't doing enough.

barfo

He outright thinks the administration's plan is the wrong one.

BTW, his complaints mirror my own - specifically about the banks getting the bulk of the funds while leaving the little guy to suffer foreclosure.

 

[barfo]

With unemployment 1.7 million higher than projected, by the Administration’s own benchmarks, it seems that its stimulus/recovery plan is performing much worse than expected. In fact, it is performing worse than if there were no recovery plan.

That commentary is rather disingenuous.

What the graph shows is that unemployment is higher than was projected with or without the stimulus package. It does not show that "the stimulus/recovery plan" is performing worse than if there was no recovery plan.

Now, if you want to make a case that the stimulus package caused higher unemployment, feel free. That graph doesn't make the case, however. That graph just shows that the projections of unemployment were not accurate.

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

That commentary is rather disingenuous.

What the graph shows is that unemployment is higher than was projected with or without the stimulus package. It does not show that "the stimulus/recovery plan" is performing worse than if there was no recovery plan.

Now, if you want to make a case that the stimulus package caused higher unemployment, feel free. That graph doesn't make the case, however. That graph just shows that the projections of unemployment were not accurate.

barfo

Which gives us all great confidence in any of their predictions, including the benefit of the stimulus.

 

[barfo]

My claim is the economy may have seen its worst by now without the "stimulus" package, and as the red line on the graph shows, we're at least making the situation a lot worse than it needs to be. That's by the administration's own promises and forecasts.

Check the source on the graph. They're Obama's economic advisors, getting govt' paychecks.

Yes, and if you want to claim they suck at prediction of short-term unemployment data, I think you'd have a point.

However, the red line does not in any way show that the stimulus package is making the situation worse. To adopt that view you have to assume that their prediction of unemployment w/o the stimulus was actually dead-on, while their prediction of unemployment with the stimulus was wildly incorrect. That's not a very unbiased set of assumptions.

He outright thinks the administration's plan is the wrong one.

You need to read more of what he's written, then. He's a critic, sure, but he's clearly on the opposite side from your "school of economists".

barfo

 

[barfo]

Which gives us all great confidence in any of their predictions, including the benefit of the stimulus.

That is a reasonable point, I think.

Although I'd challenge you to produce anyone who can accurately predict the economic future in detail.

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

Yes, and if you want to claim they suck at prediction of short-term unemployment data, I think you'd have a point.

However, the red line does not in any way show that the stimulus package is making the situation worse. To adopt that view you have to assume that their prediction of unemployment w/o the stimulus was actually dead-on, while their prediction of unemployment with the stimulus was wildly incorrect. That's not a very unbiased set of assumptions.

By definition, Obama's advisors are sycophants, and they're the ones making the projections.

My prediction is 20 months (at least) of constantly revised economic data, for the worse, and the massive debt and deficits we're incurring are going to kill Social Security and a whole host of your favorite programs.

You need to read more of what he's written, then. He's a critic, sure, but he's clearly on the opposite side from your "school of economists".

barfo

I've read him plenty. That's why I suggested you find someone who actually supports your claims.

For the record, he absolutely doesn't think we're not doing enough. He thinks we're doing the WRONG things.

 

[barfo]

By definition, Obama's advisors are sycophants

Uhm, no. They aren't sycophants by definition. Here's the definition.

syc·o·phant (sĭk'ə-fənt, sī'kə-)
n. A servile self-seeker who attempts to win favor by flattering influential people.

My prediction is 20 months (at least) of constantly revised economic data, for the worse, and the massive debt and deficits we're incurring are going to kill Social Security and a whole host of your favorite programs.

Well, of course the economic data will be constantly revised. That's been true for the past several decades, I'm sure it will go on being true. As for your other predictions, we'll see. I don't have a crystal ball so I'm not going to say you are wrong (or right).

For the record, he absolutely doesn't think we're not doing enough. He thinks we're doing the WRONG things.

Nonsense.

New York Times columnist Paul Krugman said during a press conference Friday at Willamette University that investment in universal health care and infrastructure, along with temporary nationalization of the country's banks, are the most viable paths to economic recovery.

But the Obama administration isn't proposing to spend enough, added Krugman, the winner of a Nobel Prize in economics for his work in world trade patterns.

Krugman is speaking Friday night at Willamette. Thursday night he spoke at the Arlene Schnitzer auditorium in Portland.

The $819 billion spending package passed by the House of Representatives this week is about $1 trillion short of what's needed, Krugman said. Achieving sustained recovery will probably require spending $600 billion per year for three years on projects that put people to work while building a lasting infrastructure to support ongoing economic growth.

link

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

The administration isn't spending $600B for 3 years on projects that put people to work while building a lasting infrastructure to support ongoing economic growth. What it's doing is spending $2T/year above what they take in, and on everything but those things. The result will be that when they figure it out, it'll be too late. The Chinese won't be loaning us money at that point.

 

[Sug]

Well since white blue collar workers have been hardest by the Bush/Cheney Depression I would say that they were able to be at home, unemployed and all, and actually watched the speech and voted in the poll. They like the lie better than the truth at this point.