Stimulus Helping Economy to Rebound

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Nice to know we'll have a full rebound by year's end. Unemployment will be down under 6%, I presume as well. Outstanding! A chicken in every pot.
 
Nice to know we'll have a full rebound by year's end. Unemployment will be down under 6%, I presume as well. Outstanding! A chicken in every pot.

I think you have misinterpreted the words "begin to rebound". They don't mean the same thing as "fully recover".

barfo
 
People back in November who voted for Obama will probably think he's done a good job and saved us from the brink of utter collapse.

People who didn't vote for Obama either didn't think we were near collapse, or the economy fixed itself and we racked up massive debt for no reason.

Neither side budges an inch.
 
Yippee! Start the parade.

President Obama's economic recovery package will actually hurt the economy more in the long run than if he were to do nothing, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said Wednesday.

CBO, the official scorekeepers for legislation, said the House and Senate bills will help in the short term but result in so much government debt that within a few years they would crowd out private investment, actually leading to a lower Gross Domestic Product over the next 10 years than if the government had done nothing.
 
What fiscal stimulus? How much of that monster "emergency" spending package has actually been spent? Wasn't there supposed to be a another forced redistribu- er... I mean... another stimulus check?
 
People back in November who voted for Obama will probably think he's done a good job and saved us from the brink of utter collapse.

People who didn't vote for Obama either didn't think we were near collapse, or the economy fixed itself and we racked up massive debt for no reason.

Neither side budges an inch.

but his approval numbers are slipping by the day. it seems like they are changing their views.
 
People back in November who voted for Obama will probably think he's done a good job and saved us from the brink of utter collapse.

People who didn't vote for Obama either didn't think we were near collapse, or the economy fixed itself and we racked up massive debt for no reason.

Neither side budges an inch.

The wrong side doesn't budge.

:lol:
 
People back in November who voted for Obama will probably think he's done a good job and saved us from the brink of utter collapse.

People who didn't vote for Obama either didn't think we were near collapse, or the economy fixed itself and we racked up massive debt for no reason.

Neither side budges an inch.

this
 
I saw this quote earlier today and was surprised to see the CBO making that statement.

I am curious how they came to that conclusion, considering so little of the "stimulus" package has been spent. Last time I looked, about 4 months after passing the bill, only ~6% of it had been spent.

Interesting that the Reuters article left out a part that that Washington Post included:

All told, the White House predicts that the nation will have to borrow an additional $9 trillion over the next decade to finance the annual deficits, driving the accumulated national debt to nearly $23 trillion in 2019 -- or 76.5 percent of gross domestic product,

$23 TRILLION. That is an absolutely astounding number. So is the fact that our debt will be closing in on 80% of our GDP.

I don't know how the US population will grow, but at the current population, and using $23 TRILLION, each person's share of the national debt will be $77k.
 
I saw this quote earlier today and was surprised to see the CBO making that statement.

I am curious how they came to that conclusion, considering so little of the "stimulus" package has been spent. Last time I looked, about 4 months after passing the bill, only ~6% of it had been spent.

Interesting that the Reuters article left out a part that that Washington Post included:



$23 TRILLION. That is an absolutely astounding number. So is the fact that our debt will be closing in on 80% of our GDP.

I don't know how the US population will grow, but at the current population, and using $23 TRILLION, each person's share of the national debt will be $77k.

I want a fucking Porsche if I am going to be in debt 77 extra grand and still have to work my ass off every day. Make it so Chairman O.
 
Can somebody remind me why I'm paying for a state government?
 
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/25092270-91af-11de-879d-00144feabdc0.html

Deficit fears put Obama’s reforms in jeopardy

By Edward Luce and Sarah O’Connor in Washington
Published: August 25 2009 20:44 | Last updated: August 25 2009 20:44

Tuesday’s sharply upgraded forecasts for growth in US national debt over the ext decade could hardly have come at a worse time for Barack Obama. Shortly after he was elected last November, the president let it be known he preferred the “big bang” approach to domestic reforms.

As Rahm Emanuel, the White House chief of staff put it, you should “never allow a crisis to go to waste”. In other words, the financial meltdown was seen as an opportunity for Mr Obama to enact as many of his key reforms, including healthcare, within the first year of taking office.

But fears of the Great Depression have receded only to be replaced by mounting concern over the country’s long-term creditworthiness. Rather than shoring up the appetite for domestic reform, the rising tide of fiscal panic could threaten large chunks of Mr Obama’s agenda.

In particular, prospects for enacting Mr Obama’s proposed $1,000bn (€700bn, £610bn) 10-year expansion in healthcare coverage this autumn are beginning to look dicey given the projected rise in the national debt of more than $9,000bn in the next decade.

Even though Mr Obama has promised the healthcare reforms will be self-funding, some believe the sharply altered mood in Washington could force the president to reorientate his priorities. Recent polls show the deficit ranking second only to jobs among the public’s chief worries. Healthcare comes a distant third.

“The national debt doubled under George W. Bush and it is set to almost double under Barack Obama,” says David Walker, head of the Peterson Foundation and former head of the General Accountability Office. “Unless we see a dramatic fiscal course correction we are likely to see all sorts of negative consequences, including a reduction in trend growth rates and growing international distaste for holding American debt.”

Mr Walker is among a growing body of observers who believe America’s deteriorating debt position could have consequences for the country’s national security – even compromising its superpower status. Pointing to the UK, which saw it’s triple A credit rating put on negative outlook earlier this year, Mr Walker says the US faces a similar spectre unless it changes course.

“At the moment we have a home team bias [the credit rating agencies are based in New York] and we are benefiting from having the dollar as the international reserve currency,” he says. “But we cannot take the reserve currency status for granted. The Chinese have already made a shot across our bows and these numbers will only reinforce their concerns.”

However, some economists caution against taking the latest forecasts as gospel. On Tuesday the Congressional Budget Office caused as much confusion as clarity when it brought out its own 92-page report alongside the White House’s 74-page document. Back in March the CBO said that if Mr Obama’s policies were implemented, the 10-year deficit would reach $9,300bn. Yesterday the White House seemed to acknowledge the CBO was more or less right. But the CBO had already been at work on new revisions.

To seasoned economists it was a reminder that projections are not always right. “The first thing you learn in doing these projections is to be very humble,” said James Horney, director of federal fiscal policy at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. “You know they’re going to be wrong and you know they’re going to be wrong by huge dollar amounts.”
 
You're right! They ARE somebody else's words...

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/25092270-91af-11de-879d-00144feabdc0.html

Deficit fears put Obama’s reforms in jeopardy

By Edward Luce and Sarah O’Connor in Washington
Published: August 25 2009 20:44 | Last updated: August 25 2009 20:44

Tuesday’s sharply upgraded forecasts for growth in US national debt over the ext decade could hardly have come at a worse time for Barack Obama. Shortly after he was elected last November, the president let it be known he preferred the “big bang” approach to domestic reforms.

As Rahm Emanuel, the White House chief of staff put it, you should “never allow a crisis to go to waste”. In other words, the financial meltdown was seen as an opportunity for Mr Obama to enact as many of his key reforms, including healthcare, within the first year of taking office.
 
You're right! They ARE somebody else's words...

Actually spot on. The whole article.

They played on fear of another great depression, they blame it all on Bush, "it's worse than we thought" (well, don't we want someone who gets it right?), etc. Shot all their political capital on passing the most massive pork barrel bill in history under the lie of a title (emergency stimulus).

That is, exactly, how you "don't let a (economic) crisis go to waste." Direct quote.
 
Actually spot on. The whole article.

They played on fear of another great depression, they blame it all on Bush, "it's worse than we thought" (well, don't we want someone who gets it right?), etc. Shot all their political capital on passing the most massive pork barrel bill in history under the lie of a title (emergency stimulus).

That is, exactly, how you "don't let a (economic) crisis go to waste." Direct quote.

Pssst...you can't use ( ) in a direct quote..because it means you're inserting a word that was implied. You don't know because you don't have the full text of the interview. In fact, only the interviewer could insert that and even then it wouldn't be 100% certain to be true.
 
but his approval numbers are slipping by the day. it seems like they are changing their views.

I recently heard (radio) that Obama's approval rating at this point in time is the third highest ever (After the two Bushs). Can anyone confirm that with any of the many polls out there? From my bit of research I found this false.
 
Last edited:
Obama can just raise the terror alerts during the next election. We know the formula works thanks to Bush.
 
info-presapp0605-all.gif

http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/info-presapp0605-31.html

If it is indeed at about 51%, that seems to be about dead center in the overall ratings over the last 50 years or so.

The interesting thing about that chart to me is how dynamic it is. No president ever hovers at any percent for terribly long. You're always either climbing or falling.
 
info-presapp0605-all.gif

http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/info-presapp0605-31.html

If it is indeed at about 51%, that seems to be about dead center in the overall ratings over the last 50 years or so.

The interesting thing about that chart to me is how dynamic it is. No president ever hovers at any percent for terribly long. You're always either climbing or falling.

So all Obama has to do is drop a nuke or fabricate a war in the Mid East to reach the 90s. Jesus he could do both and probably get up into the 180s. :biglaugh:
 
So all Obama has to do is drop a nuke or fabricate a war in the Mid East to reach the 90s. Jesus he could do both and probably get up into the 180s. :biglaugh:

I think the lesson is to get killed before you have a chance to plummet too far.
 
So all Obama has to do is drop a nuke or fabricate a war in the Mid East to reach the 90s. Jesus he could do both and probably get up into the 180s. :biglaugh:
Nah, if you look at all the Democrats, they don't get bumps when they commit to military actions. Truman's first popularity rating happened a year after he dropped the nuke, so I don't see that counting. :dunno: Kennedy dropped after Bay of Pigs, rebounding a bit after the Missile Crisis. LBJ dropped pretty hard after committing troops to Vietnam and the Tet Offensive. Clinton either held steady or dropped when the Balkans got hairy.

Reagan after Grenada got a bump up in 83. Same with Nicaragua in 89, but on small scales. Bush Sr didn't get the benefit of fabricating Iraq's invasion/rape/takeover of Kuwait until he actually started bombing things, looks like. And then kept going down when we pulled out early. Bush Jr's highest ratings seemed to be after he "fabricated" 9/11, not when he went to the UN to fabricate the Iraq war in 2003 (tiny bump there). Since Obama's already had his "high" moment, I'm hoping that he doesn't have a huge low coming up, but that's what the data's been showing over the last 11 presidents.

Actually, it seems that those who have the highest highs also have the lowest lows. Everyone's been within the same 35-point or so swing...except for Truman and the Bushes.
The interesting question is: why is that?
 
Last edited:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090904/ap_on_bi_go_ec_fi/us_economy

WASHINGTON – The unemployment rate jumped almost half a point to 9.7 percent in August, the highest since 1983, reflecting a poor job market that will make it hard for the economy to begin a sustained recovery.

While the jobless rate rose more than expected, the economy shed a net total of 216,000 jobs, less than July's revised 276,000 and the fewest monthly losses in a year, according to Labor Department data released Friday. Economists expected the unemployment rate to rise to 9.5 percent from July's 9.4 percent and job reductions to total 225,000.

"It's good to see the rate of job losses slow down," said Nigel Gault, chief U.S. economist at IHS Global Insight. But "we're still on track here to hit 10 percent (unemployment) before we're done."

The rise in the jobless rate was partly due to 73,000 people joining the civilian labor force and the government finding that the number of unemployed Americans jumped by nearly 500,000 to 14.9 million. Those figures are from a different survey than the report on total job cuts.
 
I'm hoping by the time the next election occurs, there will be a lot more complete analysis of the stimulus package and maybe even a non-partisan consensus of the package (if it worked)

I'm hoping the same thing with the whatever action is taken on the healthcare issue.

I am feeling much more upbeat about the economy these days . . . there used to be a time people were talking about a possible great depression.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top