How to avoid a lost decade

[Denny Crane]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/how-to-avoid-a-lost-decade/2011/06/12/AGjnG8RH_story.html

By Lawrence Summers, Published: June 12

Even with the massive 2008-09 policy effort that prevented financial collapse and depression, the United States is now halfway to a lost economic decade. From the first quarter of 2006 to the first quarter of 2011, the U.S. economy’s growth rate averaged less than 1 percent a year, similar to Japan in the period its bubble burst. During that time, the share of the population working has fallen from 63.1 to 58.4 percent, reducing the number of those with jobs by more than 10 million. The fraction of the population working remains almost exactly at its recession trough, and recent reports suggest that growth is slowing.

Beyond the lack of jobs and incomes, an economy producing below its potential for a prolonged interval sacrifices its future. Huge numbers of new college graduates are moving back in with their parents this month because they have no job or means of support. Strapped school districts across the country are cutting out advanced courses in math and science and in some cases opening school only four days a week. Reduced incomes and tax collections are the most important cause of unacceptable budget deficits at present and in the future.

Traditionally, the American economy has recovered robustly from recession as demand has been quickly renewed. Within a couple of years after the only two deep recessions of the post-World War II period — those of 1974-75 and 1980-82 — the economy was growing in the range of 6 percent or more, rates that seem inconceivable today. Why?

 

[Denny Crane]

LOL. He asks "Why?" at the end. He's one of the principle architects of Obamanomics.

Summers did for the country what he did for Harvard.

http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2009/11/29/how-larry-summers-lost-harvard-18-billion/

How Larry Summers lost Harvard $1.8 billion

No one had the stones to stand up to Summers when it came to this high-risk strategy of essentially borrowing at Treasury rates and investing the proceeds in an illiquid long-term endowment — certainly not James Rothenberg, Harvard’s part-time, unpaid, California-based treasurer.

After Summers left, sheer inertia took over, and nothing happened — maybe because El-Erian was soon on his way out as well. The result was that the university ended up losing 27% of its $6 billion in “cash”: a whopping $1.8 billion. There’s no indication, of course, of any kind of apology from Summers.

 

[Denny Crane]

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/after-28-months-stimulus-spending-19-mil

1.9 Million Fewer Americans Have Jobs Today Than When Obama Signed Stimulus
Tuesday, June 14, 2011
By Matt Cover

(CNSNews.com) – Twenty-eight months after Congress passed President Obama’s signature economic stimulus law, and nearly one year after he declared the summer of 2010 to be “Recovery Summer,” 1.9 million fewer people are employed.

In February 2009, the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) reported that 141.7 million people were employed. By the end of May 2011 – the last month for which data are available – that number had fallen to 139.8 million, a difference of 1.9 million.

While the number of people with jobs has increased slightly from its low point during the recession – 137.9 million in December 2009 – those 1.9 million jobs have been lost despite $800 billion in stimulus spending.

 

[MARIS61]

I thought from the thread title that this was about the Blazers circa 2001-2011.

 

[MARIS61]

As fas as less people being employed the figure is highly suspect.

In a down economy a sizable portion of the labor market suddenly goes under-the-table as both employee and employer try to maximize their meager incomes by dodging taxes altogether.

Another factor could be the ebb and flow of people reaching retirement age, reaching working age, less unemployed people dying recently...

 

[jlprk]

Why?

Because Obama didn't reverse Bush's changes. Bush doubled the total employees of all intelligence agencies, which caused the tripling in Defense Dept. spending from 1998 to now. Obama extended Bush's infamous 10-year tax cut for the rich, which costs over $400B per year. Obama enlarged one Bush war and slightly decreased the other. And the rest of the world has decreased trade with us because Obama hasn't gotten rid of Bush's torture machine.

Obama is Bush, Jr. The country is dying from the domination by Republicans even when most officeholders are Democrats. I have previously posted the timetable I see for this country's death. By 2050 the intelligence agencies will be desperately trying socialist remedies but it will be too late. China is just laughing at American militaristic stupidity. China will soon take over the world with no military moves whatsoever, just economic moves.

 

[blazerboy30]

Because Obama didn't reverse Bush's changes. Bush doubled the total employees of all intelligence agencies, which caused the tripling in Defense Dept. spending from 1998 to now. Obama extended Bush's infamous 10-year tax cut for the rich, which costs over $400B per year.

Dude, you're talking out of your ass... and you aren't even close. The Joint Committee on Taxation estimated the 2001 tax cut at $1.35Trillion over 10 years. That is $135B per year. Link

The rest of your post is lies and gibberish.

 

[jlprk]

The rest of my post is the truth. Get back to me when it comes true. Your 135 number may have been true in the past. But the widely-used bipartisan estimate for the next 2 years from the December tax cut extension is $900B. I conservatively called that over $400B per year, when I could easily have called it a half-trillion per year.

 

[blazerboy30]

The rest of my post is the truth. Get back to me when it comes true. Your 135 number may have been true in the past. But the widely-used bipartisan estimate for the next 2 years from the December tax cut extension is $900B. I conservatively called that over $400B per year, when I could easily have called it a half-trillion per year.

So you're blaming Bush for Obama extending tax cuts into the future. Excellent.

 

[jlprk]

The $1.35T number was a political estimate made in your 10-year-old link, not an actual number 10 years later after results were in. My stat about the Defense Dept. budget tripling since 1998 has been widely published in the last month. My stat about intelligence employees doubling during the Bush years was not widely published, but I happened to see it and linked to it months ago on this board. I have the link in my backup drive from my crashed computer, but I haven't put it into my new computer which I got this week, otherwise I'd give you the link about the intelligence employees doubling.

Intelligence is a major part of the Defense Dept. budget. Once hired, the next president can't lay them off without them striking back, as Carter found. So Bush stuck Obama with new, expensive embedded layers of government that cannot be reversed.

 

[jlprk]

The 1.35 tax cut was planned to balloon as the years went on. It may have averaged 135 per year, but by the end of the 10 years was higher than that. It's now 450 per year and rising fast.

 

[blazerboy30]

The 1.35 tax cut was planned to balloon as the years went on. It may have averaged 135 per year, but by the end of the 10 years was higher than that. It's now 450 per year and rising fast.

1) The projection for 2009 lost revenue due to the tax cut was $170B.

2) Obama is to blame for extending those cuts. So if you are upset about the "450 per year and rising fast" blame your savior Obama.

3) As usual, you're making up garbage and assuming it is fact.

 

[jlprk]

1) Even if that number were after the fact, not a guess in advance, it would be irrelevant to whether the tax cut is way too big now.

2) No, Republicans are to blame for 1) passing it in 2001 which destroyed the enormous Clinton surpluses, and 2) extending it recently. All that Obama did was to cave in to them in December, since they had just won the election and would get their way anyway. He wanted to avoid a bunch of arguing in January, but most Democrats wanted him to fight the Republicans even if we would lose.

Thus, only someone "talking out of his ass," as you put it, would say, as you also said, "Obama is to blame for extending those cuts."

3) Examples? You lost. You were never even in the competition. Give up.

 

[MARIS61]

blazerboy30 better quit while you're behind.

If there's anyone on the internet that can back up their posts beyond refute, it's jlprk.

 

[jlprk]

Civilian and military intelligence is all grouped within the Defense Dept. budget, so no wonder it has tripled.

Maxiep is the only one here with my accounting experience and education to make the argument in favor of tax cuts (they trickle down and help business growth) but as the Republican deficits show whenever that philosophy is tried, the theory is a failure. Rich people invest in foreign funds as much as in domestic businesses. And they disproportionately buy foreign goods, so their tax cuts just subsidize the trade deficit.

The source of the miraculous Clinton surpluses was the 1993 restoration of pre-Reagan tax rates. The 10-year cut in 2001 took that right back, so every Democrat except Bush Jr. planned to stop it after 10 years.

Maris--see my comment after your 10,000th post! Maris is the most interesting guy here.

 

[MARIS61]

Just noticed I passed 10,000 posts.

Do I get a cookie?

 

[jlprk]

I kept track for an hour before, ready to pounce, but you didn't post for a bunch of minutes, and I went out to weed, and when I came back you were at 10,001. I will bitterly hate myself for the rest of my life.

 

[blazerboy30]

Maxiep is the only one here with my accounting experience and education to make the argument in favor of tax cuts (they trickle down and help business growth)

As ridiculous as the rest of your posts are, the part in bold made me giggle even more. Congratulations on that extremely difficult to obtain degree in accounting!

 

[jlprk]

What's yours? Where I come from it was the hardest degree after science, math, and engineering (Math was my first major, but I quit because I'm lazy). Besides, it's the 30 years of experience, not the degree. I just got that for window-dressing to impress guys like you. The degree is like Mensa. For $60 a year, you might join for a year to put on your resume while you're looking for a job, but otherwise, it's a yawning dinner where you talk with retards about the last movie they saw.

 

[blazerboy30]

What's yours? Where I come from it was the hardest degree after science, math, and engineering (Math was my first major, but I quit because I'm lazy). Besides, it's the 30 years of experience, not the degree. I just got that for window-dressing to impress guys like you. The degree is like Mensa. For $60 a year, you might join for a year to put on your resume while you're looking for a job, but otherwise, it's a yawning dinner where you talk with retards about the last movie they saw.

Well nice work. You definitely impressed me!

 

[jlprk]

Hey, no problem. If you want more, I can keep patting myself on the back all night. Not going to answer what your degree is in, eh?

 

[jlprk]

4 long, long minutes have slowly passed by and you haven't asked me to keep praising myself. I was really hoping I could keep droning on and on.

 

[MARIS61]

While the suspense mounts and we're all pins and needles about which area of study blazerboy30 got his degree in, or not, let's roll back the clock and let
Boz Scaggs give us the Lowdown from his breakout album SILK DEGREES:

[video=youtube;eQK_QAUa8Dw]

 

[blazerboy30]

Hey, no problem. If you want more, I can keep patting myself on the back all night. Not going to answer what your degree is in, eh?

I'm just trying to decide which is more impressive: you (maris61) being a real estate agent in Lapine, Oregon... or you (jlprk) being an accountant. Tough choice.

 

[MARIS61]

All occupations are unimpressive and boring in and of themselves.

It's the unique talents, sincerity, and ingenuity of the successful individual which sometimes makes them impressive to others.

 

[blazerboy30]

All occupations are unimpressive and boring in and of themselves.

It's the unique talents, sincerity, and ingenuity of the successful individual which sometimes makes them impressive to others.

I disagree. Your former government employment is impressive regardless of how much lack of talent, ingenuity and sincerity it required.

 

[jlprk]

I'm just trying to decide which is more impressive: you (maris61) being a real estate agent in Lapine, Oregon... or you (jlprk) being an accountant. Tough choice.

Or you being nothing you want to admit. You may not know the winner in this 3-way, but you know who is the loser.

 

[STOMP]

Obama is to blame for extending those cuts. So if you are upset about the "450 per year and rising fast" blame your savior Obama.

Savior??? He explicitly blamed the President calling him Bush Jr. for not reversing those ridiculous tax cuts for the ultra rich (and multiple other things) in his first post that you responded to, yet you're still producing this knee jerk insult. I'm sorry but it's like you're not reading what you're responding to.

STOMP

 

[BrianFromWA]

The cost breakdown from this article (nothing special, CBS...just the first one I came across) said that of the $850+B over 2 years, that $120B would come from the "top 2%" of taxpayers. That seems to mean that $730B would come from the unemployment benefits and the SS tax rebate and the "not rich" (top 2% is around $200k/yr). (Regardless of the fact that SS/M/M is overrun by about the size of the entire DoD...we're giving rebates now!) For those 52% of households that don't pay a dime in federal income tax (making below about 50k) the 2% rollback of SS tax means they're getting a 27% savings on their tax bill (from 7.45% to 5.45%). I'm not saying whether this is right or wrong, but showing how this isn't just "paying off the rich people at the expense of the poor".

 

[jlprk]

6 months later I have forgotten the numbers, but I remember that the estate tax cuts for the rich were at least as big as their $120B income tax cut, and that the middle class S.S. tax cut just means the middle class will receive that much less when they are retired.

Republicans had 2 reasons to include the SS cut: 1) It was a pretty ornament so they could say the middle class was getting a cut too. 2) The revenue cut moved up the year that SS will run out of money, so Republicans had new propaganda ammo to call for SS cuts. You notice they immediately followed this SS revenue cut with increased calls for future SS payout cuts.