Stimulus Helping Economy to Rebound

[barfo]

Apparently it's nobody's job to read it. It was passed less than 16 hours after being passed in committee. Anybody defending the bill is doing it out of a postion of ignorance, just as anybody criticizing it is.

Because no one could possibly have read it in the 8 months since it passed?

barfo

 

[barfo]

You seem to have read for memorization, not comprehension.

You remembered the exact 50million number, but don't comprehend why it is absurd.

I didn't remember it at all. When I saw your post I thought "that can't be right", so I looked it up. And lo and behold, it wasn't.

Did you know that Dick Cheney spent $1 billion on caviar in his last two weeks in office? Isn't that outrageous?

Well, if that number is wrong, I'm sure his caviar habit is outrageous anyway. And maybe it wasn't caviar, but it was certainly something, for some amount of money. You comprehend?

barfo

 

[blazerboy30]

I didn't remember it at all. When I saw your post I thought "that can't be right", so I looked it up. And lo and behold, it wasn't.

Did you know that Dick Cheney spent $1 billion on caviar in his last two weeks in office? Isn't that outrageous?

Well, if that number is wrong, I'm sure his caviar habit is outrageous anyway. And maybe it wasn't caviar, but it was certainly something, for some amount of money. You comprehend?

barfo

I accept your apology and your acceptance of defeat.

 

[yakbladder]

But jobs aren't the only story.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0709/24899.html

That story from February warns about Obama's too rosy predictions on GDP growth and deficits. FWIW, he recently upped his projected 10 year debt accumulation from $7T to $9.somethingT

But again I ask...You also said "the situation" - are you now wishing to refine your statement to "only unemployment"????!?!?!?!?

 

[yakbladder]

The amazing thing is that my original point about "apocalypse" really had nothing to do with it.

BB stuck words in my mouth about racking up "insane" amounts of debt just for the heck of it, so I decided to be just as dramatic and stick words and situations in his mouth.

But he got hyperventilated and went after the good 'ol NEA. I'm surprised he didn't choose the Dept. of Health and Human Services too.

 

[bodyman5001]

But you said...



Please give me a link to Obama stating this before the stimulus. Please identify Obama's "finance wizards" and where they made this statement.

A graph running around some website doesn't really do much for me with such bold claims being thrown around.

You also said "the situation" - are you now wishing to refine your statement to "only unemployment"????!?!?!?!? Are you one of the unemployed? Because that would be the only way I could see how "the situation" as "unemployed" would relate to you.

Is that a joke? Massive unemployment only hurts those people who are unemployed?

You have lost all credibility. What's next, going to argue that 2 plus 2 actually equals 8?


ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhaahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahhaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahaaahahhahaahaahahahahahahsahhahaaahaahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa



me..........

 

[yakbladder]

I'm sorry that you can't seem to discuss issues like an adult and that you have anger issues. I really hope that someday you seek help.

Is that a joke? Massive unemployment only hurts those people who are unemployed?

You have lost all credibility. What's next, going to argue that 2 plus 2 actually equals 8?

 

[bodyman5001]

I'm sorry that you can't seem to discuss issues like an adult and that you have anger issues. I really hope that someday you seek help.

How is one suffering from anger issues when they are laughing at you? Does everyone who laughs at you have anger problems? When someone says something so ridiculously stupid and isn't joking I react how I react. Deal with it. If you read what I write and can't tell when I am being sarcastic or intentionally mean, I shouldn't expect you to understand how unemployment hurts those who aren't.

Did you see the part at the end? It said.....me

You make me sad. You make me feel like there is nothing that can be done. When people have such backwards though processes that they feel like those of us that are sane are suffering from anger issues I don't know what to say.

Welcome to ignore, I suggest you do the same so I don't hurt your feelings again. I don't want to be responsible for how my horrific so called "anger" affects you.

 

[yakbladder]

I shouldn't expect you to understand how unemployment hurts those who aren't.

I won't bother with most of your tripe as your anger issues are clear in your other posts suggesting people kill their own families. You just need help.

My point was addressed to Denny, who stated that the "situation" was worse than it would have been without the stimulus. Then in his next post he provided a graph - showing only unemployment.

I stated...

Are you one of the unemployed? Because that would be the only way I could see how "the situation" as "unemployed" would relate to you.

It is highly unusual for someone to quantify the entirety of the economy based upon the statistic of unemployment UNLESS they were themselves unemployed and then maybe I could see their entire focus revolving around that...maybe. So I'm trying to determine - and have yet to receive an answer- as to whether Denny is refocusing his definition of "situation" as "unemployment". If Denny were unemployed then I would find it more plausible. Otherwise I believe Denny is just up to his old shenanigans.

 

[Denny Crane]

Why blather on about a "single" statistic when I've now produced two rather important ones. You seem to ignore the second and 3rd, the size of the growing debt and deficits, and GDP growth.

I'd say all three are HUGE indicators that the economy is sucking. And all 3, Obama and his advisors promised would be better if the stimulus pork bill was passed.

Maybe you want to go back and read post #52:

But jobs aren't the only story.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0709/24899.html

That story from February warns about Obama's too rosy predictions on GDP growth and deficits. FWIW, he recently upped his projected 10 year debt accumulation from $7T to $9.somethingT

Now can you pick 2 measures of the overall economy that are doing well? I'll give you one, Wall Street/Banking. I'll leave it up to you to figure out that there isn't a 2nd.

 

[barfo]

Why blather on about a "single" statistic when I've now produced two rather important ones. You seem to ignore the second and 3rd, the size of the growing debt and deficits, and GDP growth.

I'd say all three are HUGE indicators that the economy is sucking. And all 3, Obama and his advisors promised would be better if the stimulus pork bill was passed.

I don't think Obama promised the debt/deficits would get better this year due to the stimulus. As for the others, one can't really prove one way or another what would have happened without the stimulus.

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

I don't think Obama promised the debt/deficits would get better this year due to the stimulus. As for the others, one can't really prove one way or another what would have happened without the stimulus.

barfo

There was no stimulus, just pork.

 

[barfo]

There was no stimulus, just pork.

Methinks you exaggerate.

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

Methinks you exaggerate.

barfo

There's no measurable positive effect on the economy.

What was the emergency that the pork bill had to be passed in haste so nobody could debate it or even read much of it before the vote?

 

[barfo]

There's no measurable positive effect on the economy.

Clearly there are positive effects on the economy. A non-zero number of people are employed due to the stimulus spending, and their paychecks get spent on consumer goods, etc. One can certainly debate the long-term vs. short-term implications, but to say that it has no positive effect in the short term is at best an exaggeration.

What was the emergency that the pork bill had to be passed in haste so nobody could debate it or even read much of it before the vote?

I think it had something to do with the economy spinning down the toilet. I am not defending the not-reading or not-debating aspects, however.

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

Clearly there are positive effects on the economy. A non-zero number of people are employed due to the stimulus spending, and their paychecks get spent on consumer goods, etc. One can certainly debate the long-term vs. short-term implications, but to say that it has no positive effect in the short term is at best an exaggeration.



I think it had something to do with the economy spinning down the toilet. I am not defending the not-reading or not-debating aspects, however.

barfo

Sorry, but I call the bolded part utter bullshit.

"If we don't pass this stimulus bill, unemployment will reach 9%." Yet with the bill, unemployment has reached 9.7%. Which is better, the 9% without or the 9.7% with?

"If we pass this bill, GDP growth will rebound and we'll only run $7T in combined deficits over the next 10 years." Yet with the bill, the 10 year estimate has been adjusted to over $9T. Which is better, the $7T without or the $9T+ with? I'd argue that the $7T without is an absurd amount in the first place.

"The economy is worse than we thought." Who is in charge here? The guys in the West Wing are supposed to know these things.

"Emergency, emergency! The economy is the worse since the depression!" So spend the money like it's an emergency, dammit. How about spending it all in the first month if you can?

"It's the worst economy since the depression." Well, no, that's a flat out lie. It's the worst economy we've had since Jimmy Carter was sent packing. Obama's on that same course.

 

[barfo]

Sorry, but I call the bolded part utter bullshit.

You can call it that, but it doesn't make it so. Stimulus money is being used to hire people. I'm not sure how you could deny that.

"If we don't pass this stimulus bill, unemployment will reach 9%." Yet with the bill, unemployment has reached 9.7%. Which is better, the 9% without or the 9.7% with?

Your logic here is abominable. You are crediting the administration for being able (both economically and politically) to predict unemployment rates. It's completely silly. If they had said "If we don't pass this stimulus bill, unemployment will reach 11%", would you then be claiming the stimulus was a huge success, because unemployment is only 9.7%? Of course you wouldn't.

"If we pass this bill, GDP growth will rebound and we'll only run $7T in combined deficits over the next 10 years." Yet with the bill, the 10 year estimate has been adjusted to over $9T. Which is better, the $7T without or the $9T+ with? I'd argue that the $7T without is an absurd amount in the first place.

The $7T wasn't a "without" number. They changed the estimate from 7T with the stimulus to 9T with the stimulus.

"The economy is worse than we thought." Who is in charge here? The guys in the West Wing are supposed to know these things.

Shocking, that they weren't able to predict the future.

"Emergency, emergency! The economy is the worse since the depression!" So spend the money like it's an emergency, dammit. How about spending it all in the first month if you can?

Well, you can't. Government spending doesn't work that way.

"It's the worst economy since the depression." Well, no, that's a flat out lie.

It is certainly arguably the worst since the depression, depending on what metrics you look at.

I like how you accuse them of being too negative about the economy, in the same post as you accuse them of being too positive about the economy.

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

Have you ever heard of opportunity cost?

There's no way that spending $500K to create a job while dozens of other jobs are lost is a good thing.

Government sure can spend money in a hurry. They're already spending $300B per month, and if there's one thing government is good at, it's writing checks.

For the cost of the stimulus, they could have given all businesses and employees an instant break from FICA withholding. That would have amounted to a 15% cut in payroll expenses across the board, meaning companies could hire up to 15% more wages or spent that money on services from other companies.

In no way is it arguably the worst since the depression, based upon any metrics you look at. Pick one metric you think makes it worse than the early 1980s. Before you do, realize unemployment was higher than now, and much higher if you consider women weren't in the workforce in anywhere near the numbers they are now. Or that inflation was double digits. Or interest rates were pushing 20%.

(Obama's entire presidency is going to look like 80-83)

 

[yakbladder]

For the cost of the stimulus, they could have given all businesses and employees an instant break from FICA withholding. That would have amounted to a 15% cut in payroll expenses across the board, meaning companies could hire up to 15% more wages or spent that money on services from other companies.

But they don't. There are companies now with money to burn but inevitably they end up holding onto the money because they aren't sure what's happening to the economy. So you'd just end up giving companies 15% more money to put into savings.

 

[Denny Crane]

But they don't. There are companies now with money to burn but inevitably they end up holding onto the money because they aren't sure what's happening to the economy. So you'd just end up giving companies 15% more money to put into savings.

Which companies have money to burn?

I don't see any bonfires made out of cash out there.

 

[yakbladder]

Which companies have money to burn?

I don't see any bonfires made out of cash out there.

I know plenty of people at plenty of companies. I know lots of people at those service companies. They know what's going on and where the money is and isn't at.

There is cash at some of those companies - they have just put the death grip on it until they see what happens with the economy.

Bonfires made out of cash might be slightly dramatic, I think you can admit to that. The last time I saw a bonfire made out of cash was during the dotcom craze, and we know what happened there.

 

[barfo]

There's no way that spending $500K to create a job while dozens of other jobs are lost is a good thing.

As you've pointed out before, we borrowed the money from China to fund the stimulus bill. Was China going to hire a bunch of Americans with that money otherwise? Didn't think so.

Government sure can spend money in a hurry. They're already spending $300B per month, and if there's one thing government is good at, it's writing checks.

Not really. It's good at continuing to do what it already does. It is not particularly quick about implementing new spending.

For the cost of the stimulus, they could have given all businesses and employees an instant break from FICA withholding. That would have amounted to a 15% cut in payroll expenses across the board, meaning companies could hire up to 15% more wages or spent that money on services from other companies.

Sure, except they wouldn't have. They would have kept the cash. Maybe you didn't notice, but companies weren't investing in anything they didn't absolutely have to this year. Same as consumers.

barfo

 

[barfo]

In no way is it arguably the worst since the depression, based upon any metrics you look at. Pick one metric you think makes it worse than the early 1980s. Before you do, realize unemployment was higher than now, and much higher if you consider women weren't in the workforce in anywhere near the numbers they are now. Or that inflation was double digits. Or interest rates were pushing 20%.

first article I came to, was written in March:

In terms of length, the longest post-Depression economic decline was 16 months, which occurred in both the 1973-75 and 1981-82 recessions. This recession began in December 2007, which means that it will enter its 17th month next Wednesday.

The current recession is also more widespread than any other since the Depression. The Federal Reserve's readings show that 86% of industries have cut back production since November, the most widespread reduction in the 42 years the Fed has tracked this figure.

What's more, every state reported an increase in unemployment this past December, the first time that has happened in the 32 years that records for unemployment in each state have been kept.

"This is important because there's nowhere you can move to find a job," said Gus Faucher, director of macroeconomics for Moody's Economy.com.

Finally, during the past nine months, the drop in household wealth has been larger since anything on record in the post-World War II period.

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

first article I came to, was written in March:



barfo

http://blog.richardsprague.com/2009/01/worst-economy-since-great-depression.html

Worst economy since the Great Depression

From the Jan 13th issue of Time Magazine:

The slump is the longest, if not the deepest, since the Great Depression. Traumatized by layoffs that have cost more than 1.2 million jobs during the slump, U.S. consumers have fallen into their deepest funk in years. "Never in my adult life have I heard more deep- seated feelings of concern," says Howard Allen, retired chairman of Southern California Edison. "Many, many business leaders share this lack of confidence and recognize that we are in real economic trouble." Says University of Michigan economist Paul McCracken: "This is more than just a recession in the conventional sense. What has happened has put the fear of God into people."
​

(oops, forgot to mention the year: this article is from 1992, during what in retrospect turned out not to be much of a recession at all.) [via Marginal Revolution]

If you’re one of those who thinks President Obama is inheriting “the worst economy since the Great Depression”, please check out two years:

1982 [via David Leonhardt in NYTimes]

The first big blow to the economy was the 1979 revolution in Iran, which sent oil prices skyrocketing. The bigger blow was a series of sharp interest-rate increases by the Federal Reserve, meant to snap inflation. Home sales plummeted. At their worst, they were 30 percent lower than they are even now (again, adjusted for population size). The industrial Midwest was hardest hit, and the term “Rust Belt” became ubiquitous. Many families fled south and west, helping to create the modern Sun Belt. Nationwide, the unemployment rate rose above 10 percent in 1982, compared with 7.2 percent last month.
​

and, of course, 1973.

I wouldn’t trade today’s situation for either of those two years, and not just because today’s economy is by comparison so much better. It’s impossible to know the future, so who knows and maybe things will get a lot worse. But meanwhile it’s important not to over-react based on over-dramatic headlines.

 

[Denny Crane]

http://symonsez.wordpress.com/2009/...omy-not-worst-since-great-depression-not-yet/

From July:

All of this points to a recession comparable to the late 1970’s and early 1980’s. The comparison to the Great Depression is simply a tough argument to make, at this point. I truly hope, as I think everyone does, that politicians will not be able to accurately say that we are in the worst condition since the Great Depression. Many people have blamed the depression on Herbert Hoover. Others blamed the deep recession of the late 70’s and early 80’s on Jimmy Carter. Could this be the reason why the media and politicians choose Republican President Hoover’s legacy instead of Democrat President Jimmy Carter’s? Or is it more because from a PR standpoint, the Great Depression is something that every one knows about. Maybe its more attention getting or sexy to talk about the Great Depression instead of a simple recession. But, regardless of the reasoning, many aspects of the current situation cannot credibly be compared with the depression and more accurate reporting by the media and proclamations by policians would be that it is the worst in 30 years.

 

[barfo]

I don't think you are addressing the point, Denny. To show that it isn't arguably the worst economy since the depression, you have to show that an argument cannot be made that it is. You are merely showing that arguments can be made that it isn't. That is not disputed.

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

You don't read? Does it help if it's in bold? Or bigger font?


All of this points to a recession comparable to the late 1970’s and early 1980’s. The comparison to the Great Depression is simply a tough argument to make, at this point.

 

[barfo]

You don't read? Does it help if it's in bold? Or bigger font?


All of this points to a recession comparable to the late 1970’s and early 1980’s. The comparison to the Great Depression is simply a tough argument to make, at this point.

You don't comprehend?

In no way is it arguably the worst since the depression, based upon any metrics you look at.

There's no "comparison to the Great Depression" to be made here, so that part of your very large quote is irrelevant. The relevant comparison is to everything that came after the depression.

The other part of your very large quote just says that this recession is comparable to the 70's and 80s. Well, comparable to does not necessarily mean better than.

I don't see anything in anything that you've posted so far that backs up your claim. To the contrary, I posted a few metrics which can be used to argue that it is the worst since the depression.

barfo

 

[yakbladder]

You don't read? Does it help if it's in bold? Or bigger font?


All of this points to a recession comparable to the late 1970’s and early 1980’s. The comparison to the Great Depression is simply a tough argument to make, at this point.

Can you put it in a larger font? I'm having a hard time reading it.

 

[Denny Crane]

You don't comprehend?



There's no "comparison to the Great Depression" to be made here, so that part of your very large quote is irrelevant. The relevant comparison is to everything that came after the depression.

The other part of your very large quote just says that this recession is comparable to the 70's and 80s. Well, comparable to does not necessarily mean better than.

I don't see anything in anything that you've posted so far that backs up your claim. To the contrary, I posted a few metrics which can be used to argue that it is the worst since the depression.

barfo

What does this imply? It's the next sentence from the economist's blog I posted:

"I truly hope, as I think everyone does, that politicians will not be able to accurately say that we are in the worst condition since the Great Depression."

That we are NOT in the worst condition since the Great Depression.

Of course.

And it is way better now than it was after the Carter debacle. Nobody was projecting debt of 75% of GDP, people can afford a home because prices are down as are interest rates, taxation is lower, people who are lucky to have jobs and get COLAs aren't bumped by them into higher tax brackets (negating the effect), etc.

Nobody thinks we're heading toward being a 3rd world country like they did back then - at least not due to the underlying economic conditions. There are a lot of economists predicting massive inflation to pay for Obama's massive (and worthless) spending, which would put us in a similar situation to the early 80s.