PDA

View Full Version : The Recovery That Wasn't



SnakeoilSeller
05-31-2012, 12:57 PM
"But the economic recovery that Obama has presided over has been far from extraordinary. It hasn't even been ordinary. . .on several measures, the current recovery which started five months after Obama took office and is now in its 35th month is the worst on record since World War II."

http://news.investors.com/article/613025/201205300911/obama-recovery-much-worse-than-average.htm

LANGER72
05-31-2012, 06:55 PM
Considering all the stimulus, the economy is still quite stagnant. I think the expansion will happen after the Romney victory.
Just an opinion.

JamesBW43
05-31-2012, 07:24 PM
The stimulus was considered to be undersized, and I think it's pretty disingenuous to talk about this recovery against the average recovery without also talking about this past recession against the average recession. Not to mention the various and endless amount of factors to consider for each.

SnakeoilSeller
06-01-2012, 07:34 AM
A Trillion dollars undersized? In 2009, a newly elected President Obama stated that we needed to pass his stimulus so the unemployment rate would not go above 8%. It has not been under 8% since his stimulus was passed. President Obama and his economic team have failed by every measurable aspect imaginable.

SnakeoilSeller
06-01-2012, 10:01 AM
And now after today's horrible employment numbers, and of course the revised downard numbers of the previous 2 months, just continues to show that President Obama has absolutely no clue on how the economy or how free enterprise works. By every economic measurement available, the Obama presidency has been a horrible disaster.

Dolphins9954
06-01-2012, 10:55 AM
Blitzer said that Obama, then president-elect, was "talking about a $750 billion economic stimulus package. He wants it to be passed as soon as possible. It's unclear if whether it can be passed before he's inaugurated on January 20th. What do you think about this proposal?"

Romney replied, "Well, I frankly wish that the last Congress (had) dealt with the stimulus issue and that the president could have signed that before leaving office. I think there is need for economic stimulus. Americans have lost about $11 trillion in net worth. That translates into about $400 billion a year less spending that they'll be doing, and that's net of additional government programs like Medicaid and unemployment insurance. And government can help make that up in a very difficult time. And that's one of the reasons why I think a stimulus program is needed."

He continued, "I'd move quickly. These are unusual times. But it has to be something which relieves pressure on middle-income families. I think a tax cut is necessary for them as well as for businesses that are growing. We'll be investing in infrastructure and in energy technologies. But let's not make this a Christmas tree of all of the favors for various politicians who have helped out the Obama campaign, giving them special projects. That would be wrong. You'll see Republicans fight that tooth and nail if that happens. Let's do what's right for the economy, and let's not do what's a political expedient move."


http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/may/18/mitt-romney/mitt-romney-didnt-flip-flop-obama-stimulus/


Both these guys would have done the same thing. Bailouts and Stimulus. They both suck.

JamesBW43
06-01-2012, 11:08 AM
A Trillion dollars undersized? In 2009, a newly elected President Obama stated that we needed to pass his stimulus so the unemployment rate would not go above 8%. It has not been under 8% since his stimulus was passed. President Obama and his economic team have failed by every measurable aspect imaginable.

Yes, a trillion dollars was undersized, and I've read (not sure if true) that the Senate ended up cutting back on some of the aid to state and local governments.

I agree that they failed to put together a quality stimulus package the first time around. But again, you can't ignore the depth of the recession, the opposition in Congress, and the ever present fact that economics is far from an exact science. All the tax cuts and stimulus spending in the world won't do anything to the economy if businesses just sit on their money (exactly what many did) and people don't spend.

And by the way, if you think the President "has absolutely no clue how the economy or free enterprise works" then you need to reflect on how much you think conservative politicians know because this administration has also enacted a lot of tax cuts, breaks, and incentives to try to kick start the economy too. I wouldn't be surprised if, at this point, the total amount spent on actual infrastructure and state aid had been surpassed by the amount spent on tax breaks.

Tetragrammaton
06-01-2012, 11:36 AM
In 2009, a newly elected President Obama stated that we needed to pass his stimulus so the unemployment rate would not go above 8%.

Like a good party spokesman, you have been saying this for years. Show it to us.

SnakeoilSeller
06-01-2012, 11:47 AM
In 2009 the President enjoyed a majority in both the House and the Senate, so if anything was cut and / or enough was not spent, who is to blame? The President and the Democrats. BTW, 200 Billion was left over from TARP that Obama wanted to also spend on top of the stimulus. So he had over a Trillion to spend. He was the President that promised shovel ready jobs, it was the President that promised to spend the money on infrastructure. In fact, if I remember correctly, President Obama bragged about how VP Joe Biden was going to be in charge of how the Stimulus was spent "Nobody messes with Joe"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FyC-SU8Emhc

The President and the left can continue and attempt to spin his horrible economic record, but it is his. He wasted over a Trillion dollars on what probably was the best money laundering scheme on the planet. There is no spinning President Obama's nightmarish economic record.

JamesBW43
06-01-2012, 12:44 PM
In 2009 the President enjoyed a majority in both the House and the Senate, so if anything was cut and / or enough was not spent, who is to blame? The President and the Democrats. BTW, 200 Billion was left over from TARP that Obama wanted to also spend on top of the stimulus. So he had over a Trillion to spend. He was the President that promised shovel ready jobs, it was the President that promised to spend the money on infrastructure. In fact, if I remember correctly, President Obama bragged about how VP Joe Biden was going to be in charge of how the Stimulus was spent "Nobody messes with Joe"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FyC-SU8Emhc

The President and the left can continue and attempt to spin his horrible economic record, but it is his. He wasted over a Trillion dollars on what probably was the best money laundering scheme on the planet. There is no spinning President Obama's nightmarish economic record.

And I said that they indeed failed with the first stimulus. I completely blame the President and Congressional democrats for that. It is only since then, when Democrats lost the ability to cloture that I think they deserve some slack.

And the President isn't endowed with sovereign power. Congress has a lot of say as to where the money goes.

You can call it spin all you want, but you don't seem too eager to actually rebut any of my points.

SnakeoilSeller
06-01-2012, 01:04 PM
Here is the presentation of the jobs impact of the President's stimulus plan. Page 5 has the chart where they predict what will happen if the plan is not passed:

http://otrans.3cdn.net/ee40602f9a7d8172b8_ozm6bt5oi.pdf

There are thousands of articles that can easily be found that comment on the President's "8% promise" being made and broken. All you have to do is look (or want to look).

Eshlemon
06-01-2012, 01:28 PM
Like a good party spokesman, you have been saying this for years. Show it to us.


Economist Christina Romer regrets saying jobless rate would stay below 8 percent
By Lori Montgomery
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, August 7, 2010

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/06/AR2010080606271.html


Obama Stresses Plan's Job Potential
By Perry Bacon Jr.
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, January 11, 2009

To buttress Obama's points, two of his top economic advisers released yesterday an analysis of the president-elect's plan. The report carried the grim prediction that, while millions of jobs would be created or saved through the stimulus package, the unemployment rate would be little improved by the end of 2010 from the 7.2 percent at the end of last month -- the nation's highest rate since 1993. The advisers also warned that, without passage of the stimulus plan, unemployment could reach 9 percent.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/10/AR2009011001999.html

Not sure why this is continually questioned when its a fact Obama used this to sell the stimulus.

Eshlemon
06-01-2012, 02:27 PM
Yes, a trillion dollars was undersized, and I've read (not sure if true) that the Senate ended up cutting back on some of the aid to state and local governments.

I agree that they failed to put together a quality stimulus package the first time around. But again, you can't ignore the depth of the recession, the opposition in Congress, and the ever present fact that economics is far from an exact science. All the tax cuts and stimulus spending in the world won't do anything to the economy if businesses just sit on their money (exactly what many did) and people don't spend.

And by the way, if you think the President "has absolutely no clue how the economy or free enterprise works" then you need to reflect on how much you think conservative politicians know because this administration has also enacted a lot of tax cuts, breaks, and incentives to try to kick start the economy too. I wouldn't be surprised if, at this point, the total amount spent on actual infrastructure and state aid had been surpassed by the amount spent on tax breaks.

Yes, and with the 4.2 trillion in "stimulus spending" from Bush that saved 20 million jobs, greatest job creator ever! :rolleyes2: The entire basis of old Keynsian Democrats and Republican spending is flawed if ever a sound macroeconomic policy. With continually using these highest multipliers to diminish impact of the amount of debt added and negative private sector effects making this ineffective longterm. And with the "shovel ready" aspect significantly reduced and todays macroeconomic globilisation, ineffective short term.

LouPhinFan
06-01-2012, 02:32 PM
A banker buddy of mine told me a month ago that companies have money and the ones that don't can get credit through the banks to do business and hire but they aren't taking the lines of credit. He offers them the loans and they say "no thanks". He said they're too scared of this admin and POTUS. They are very fearful of this healthcare law too. They just see too much uncertainty to spend, borrow, or hire. I'm afraid it's going to be that way until Obama leaves office, whether that is this January or January four years from now.

Obama simply isn't going to see any meaningful recovery as long as he occupies the Oval Office. Companies don't trust him, and why should they?

NY8123
06-01-2012, 03:22 PM
The problem with the economy isn't the US.....with this tight nit world the economy is at the whims of the world. There is no good way to dig out something that is tied to every other nation in the world. The world is heading for a reboot, time to re-image the world economic structure, until then it will be cyclical and tied to treads. No way around it.

Tetragrammaton
06-01-2012, 03:23 PM
Here is the presentation of the jobs impact of the President's stimulus plan. Page 5 has the chart where they predict what will happen if the plan is not passed:

http://otrans.3cdn.net/ee40602f9a7d8172b8_ozm6bt5oi.pdf

There are thousands of articles that can easily be found that comment on the President's "8% promise" being made and broken. All you have to do is look (or want to look).


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/06/AR2010080606271.html


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/10/AR2009011001999.html

Not sure why this is continually questioned when its a fact Obama used this to sell the stimulus.

So no one has a source where Obama, not an advisor, says unemployment won't reach eight percent? And if you do, is it a "promise", your own words, or a projection?

Look, I am a smart guy, and I already know the answer. He never said it, the administration never promised it, and it was a projection. Other projections saw eleven percent.


"It should be understood that all of the estimates presented in this memo are subject to significant margins of error," the report states. "There is the more fundamental uncertainty that comes with any estimate of the effects of a program. Our estimates of economic relationships and rules of thumb are derived from historical experience and so will not apply exactly in any given episode. Furthermore, the uncertainty is surely higher than normal now because the current recession is unusual both in its fundamental causes and its severity."

There's also a footnote that goes along with the chart that states: "Forecasts of the unemployment rate without the recovery plan vary substantially. Some private forecasters anticipate unemployment rates as high as 11% in the absence of action."

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/feb/08/mitt-romney/mitt-romney-says-president-promised-peak-8-percent/

I know you will keep saying it anyway, so this all might be a waste of time anyway.

SnakeoilSeller
06-01-2012, 03:30 PM
A banker buddy of mine told me a month ago that companies have money and the ones that don't can get credit through the banks to do business and hire but they aren't taking the lines of credit. He offers them the loans and they say "no thanks". He said they're too scared of this admin and POTUS. They are very fearful of this healthcare law too. They just see too much uncertainty to spend, borrow, or hire. I'm afraid it's going to be that way until Obama leaves office, whether that is this January or January four years from now.

Obama simply isn't going to see any meaningful recovery as long as he occupies the Oval Office. Companies don't trust him, and why should they?

Excellent point, and this has been my experience as well. The majority of business owners I deal with say the same exact thing. I would estimate the amount that cannot get loans is under 10 percent. Far less than the media reports. Business owners just don't want to take the risk. With the tax hikes that are coming down the pike from Obamcare and the Bush Tax cuts expiring, they would rather sit and wait and see what happens.

And that attitude and it's consequences are a direct result from President Obama's economic policies.

Tetragrammaton
06-01-2012, 03:37 PM
Bush Tax cuts expiring

Which ones?

SnakeoilSeller
06-01-2012, 03:38 PM
Ultimately, liberals will try to spin everything on a technicality - "Obama did not say it", just his economic advisors, who repsent him, said it. It was only the selling point for why we had to pass a stimulus package "immediately" or else and why it would work. It was only something he and members of his economic team presented to other members of Congress, Senate, the media and the world. But if Obama did not directly say it, so he cannot be held responsible. Reminds me of a line from Godfather II - "there are a lot of buffers".

Liberalism is a lie. Once you realize that, everything else makes sense and falls into place.

Tetragrammaton
06-01-2012, 03:43 PM
Ultimately, liberals will try to spin everything on a technicality - "Obama did not say it", just his economic advisors, who repsent him, said it. It was only the selling point for why we had to pass a stimulus package "immediately" or else and why it would work. It was only something he and members of his economic team presented to other members of Congress, Senate, the media and the world. But if Obama did not directly say it, so he cannot be held responsible. Reminds me of a line from Godfather II - "there are a lot of buffers".

Liberalism is a lie. Once you realize that, everything else makes sense and falls into place.

And yet you don't even recognize the difference between a projection and a promise.

You are so worried about teams that it never lets anything meaningful in. As dumb as the statement "liberalism is a lie" (how is a political ideology a lie? Are you saying liberals don't believe it? It is such an existentially puzzling phrase), at least we can agree on our hatred of liberalism.

Locke
06-01-2012, 05:52 PM
Ultimately, liberals will try to spin everything on a technicality - "Obama did not say it", just his economic advisors, who repsent him, said it. It was only the selling point for why we had to pass a stimulus package "immediately" or else and why it would work. It was only something he and members of his economic team presented to other members of Congress, Senate, the media and the world. But if Obama did not directly say it, so he cannot be held responsible. Reminds me of a line from Godfather II - "there are a lot of buffers".

Liberalism is a lie. Once you realize that, everything else makes sense and falls into place.

Once you realize that Neo-conservatives are hate mongers and exist just to breed conflict, everything else makes sense and falls into place.

Wow, it's fun to make ridiculously partisan claims and pretend like you just presented an epiphany to the uneducated masses. I'm going to start doing the same thing...

JamesBW43
06-01-2012, 06:00 PM
Yes, and with the 4.2 trillion in "stimulus spending" from Bush that saved 20 million jobs, greatest job creator ever! :rolleyes2: The entire basis of old Keynsian Democrats and Republican spending is flawed if ever a sound macroeconomic policy. With continually using these highest multipliers to diminish impact of the amount of debt added and negative private sector effects making this ineffective longterm. And with the "shovel ready" aspect significantly reduced and todays macroeconomic globilisation, ineffective short term.

I don't quite follow what you're saying.

---------- Post added at 06:00 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:59 PM ----------


A banker buddy of mine told me a month ago that companies have money and the ones that don't can get credit through the banks to do business and hire but they aren't taking the lines of credit. He offers them the loans and they say "no thanks". He said they're too scared of this admin and POTUS. They are very fearful of this healthcare law too. They just see too much uncertainty to spend, borrow, or hire. I'm afraid it's going to be that way until Obama leaves office, whether that is this January or January four years from now.

Obama simply isn't going to see any meaningful recovery as long as he occupies the Oval Office. Companies don't trust him, and why should they?

Iirc, there was an extensive survey in the Wall Street Journal that displayed the majority of business owners (maybe just small business owners, not sure) were holding back because of the lack of demand. I'm fairly certain that only ~15-20% ranked the health care bill as the number one thing stopping them from hiring, and only ~5% because of tax policy.

SnakeoilSeller
06-01-2012, 07:29 PM
And yet you don't even recognize the difference between a projection and a promise.

You are so worried about teams that it never lets anything meaningful in. As dumb as the statement "liberalism is a lie" (how is a political ideology a lie? Are you saying liberals don't believe it? It is such an existentially puzzling phrase), at least we can agree on our hatred of liberalism.

You are right, there is a difference between a projection and a promise. But people get fired for missed projections, in most professions. If companies don'r make there numbes, CEO's get fired. If a salesperson does not make their numbers, they get fired. If a coach does not win enough games, canned. President Obama and his economic team missed projections, horribly. They had complete control, no excuses. He deserves to be fired.

Tetragrammaton
06-01-2012, 07:37 PM
You are right, there is a difference between a projection and a promise. But people get fired for missed projections, in most professions. If companies don'r make there numbes, CEO's get fired. If a salesperson does not make their numbers, they get fired. If a coach does not win enough games, canned. President Obama and his economic team missed projections, horribly. They had complete control, no excuses. He deserves to be fired.

The problem with that is that it doesn't really matter to anyone but Republican media personalities. The stimulus had its effect, but the economic climate was worse than their projection thought. It isn't like they invaded a country with false information.

Dolphins9954
06-01-2012, 08:23 PM
You are right, there is a difference between a projection and a promise. But people get fired for missed projections, in most professions. If companies don'r make there numbes, CEO's get fired. If a salesperson does not make their numbers, they get fired. If a coach does not win enough games, canned. President Obama and his economic team missed projections, horribly. They had complete control, no excuses. He deserves to be fired.

Unless they get bailed out. Then it's party time!!!!! Bonuses for everyone especially the CEO's!!!!!

Dolphins9954
06-01-2012, 08:27 PM
Both Obama and Romney would have done the same thing........Trillion dollar bailouts and stimulus. They both don't get. What we should have done is not bailed out anyone and let the free markets prevail. Let them file bankruptcy and liquidate their assets while letting the markets correct themselves. Would it have been tough? Sure....but we would have had a recovery by now with all those toxic assets purged and tons and tons of less debt.

Tetragrammaton
06-01-2012, 10:20 PM
Both Obama and Romney would have done the same thing........Trillion dollar bailouts and stimulus. They both don't get. What we should have done is not bailed out anyone and let the free markets prevail. Let them file bankruptcy and liquidate their assets while letting the markets correct themselves. Would it have been tough? Sure....but we would have had a recovery by now with all those toxic assets purged and tons and tons of less debt.

If we hadn't bailed anyone out we would have at least double the unemployment and apple sales would have moved to the street. Any debt incurred by the spending in the stimulus would have been worse in the increased unemployment insurance payouts and a lack of tax collection.

Dolphins9954
06-01-2012, 11:54 PM
If we hadn't bailed anyone out we would have at least double the unemployment and apple sales would have moved to the street. Any debt incurred by the spending in the stimulus would have been worse in the increased unemployment insurance payouts and a lack of tax collection.

Things would have been tough regardless. Could unemployment been worse than 10%? Possibly. Hell it isn't much better now but the pieces would have been set in a lot better ways for the recovery. Reminds me of that UCLA study that said the government prolonged the Great Depression by 8 years remember that? I think history repeated itself in a lot of ways. We went the Keynesian way and it didn't work. The Federal Reserve printed untold trillions and the government spent a ton of it and we still have a sh!tty economy.The market still to this day hasn't corrected itself. Those toxic loans still exist and many of the same banks that help cause this mess are still in business with a ton more money and power than before. The free market solution that you and I have to go through in the real world would have been the best route. I'm a firm believer that we would have had a recovery by now. Like the saying goes...."Better to take your lumps now than later". We got many more lumps to take for a while because we didn't follow free market principles.

LouPhinFan
06-02-2012, 07:33 AM
Iirc, there was an extensive survey in the Wall Street Journal that displayed the majority of business owners (maybe just small business owners, not sure) were holding back because of the lack of demand. I'm fairly certain that only ~15-20% ranked the health care bill as the number one thing stopping them from hiring, and only ~5% because of tax policy.

How long ago was that survey conducted? Consumers spending is up more right now.

All I know is what my banker friend told me. That's straight from the horse's mouth, so to speak.