Let's see, it's over a year now that the President's" Recovery Summer" program
was supposed to drop unemployment below %8 and the 2009 1.6 Trillion
"Stimulus" program would bring it down to 6.8% by now.
With unemployment still at 9.1% neither plan is working.
What now?

Curious where your numbers came from.

-spence

during the summer of 2013

To quote ANY Liberal Progressive

"The (insert program name here) would have worked but we didn't have enough money."

May be applied in virtually any situation...

Curious where your numbers came from.

-spence

From my Congressman, Scott Garret.

Fed reduced it's forcast of unemployment to 8.6% -8.9% by years end.
Two months ago they had forcast 8.4%- 8.7%.

Obama joked last week that there wasn't as many "shovel ready jobs"
ready as he thought. Ha ha. Immelt laughed too.

I'd like to see how funnie it would have been if he was speaking in front
of a union hall audience.
Real jokester. :doh:

Every speech the man gives is "Shovel Ready"

Every speech the man gives is "Shovel Ready"

:rotflmao:...That is awesome.

applies to pretty much any of them

Curious where your numbers came from.

-spence

The federal government.Its public knowledge and is a fact.

Obama's also accummulated more debt than all previous presidents before him combined.This also comes from the feds and is a fact.Literally trillions that there is no way to pay back.

I honor no party whatsover but you guys here who worship Obama need to let it go and admit it was mistake to have even voted for him.There's no shame in admitting you were wrong.

Obama's making that dope before him actually look smart.....nuke-u-ler might actually become a word!

The federal government.Its public knowledge and is a fact.
The quotes were about a 1.6 T "Stimulus" program which just isn't fact...

-spence

Obama's also accummulated more debt than all previous presidents before him combined.This also comes from the feds and is a fact.Literally trillions that there is no way to pay back.



Do you have the article that said this? I heard it wasn't true.
Thanks

Do you have the article that said this? I heard it wasn't true.
Thanks

It's certainly not true, unless you give Obama credit for all the debt that Bush and Reagan racked up also.

Actually, if you look back a century you'll find that Ike was probably the only Republican that has stats to back the rhetoric.

-spence

All I know is the US economy sux, and most the the globe does too.

The quotes were about a 1.6 T "Stimulus" program which just isn't fact...

-spence

Spence, the actual number is 1.16 Trillion and coming from Rep. Garret as Vice Chairman of the House Budget Comm.
and a member of the House Financial Services Comm. that # would be pretty accurate.

I think you're confusing the defect with "stimulus" spending. The actual stimulus package was around 700B over two years. Most of the defect in 2009 was inherited, had McCain been elected it would have been nearly or just as big.

Post a link or check your facts :)
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The quotes were about a 1.6 T "Stimulus" program which just isn't fact...

-spence

Spence, the actual number is 1.16 Trillion and coming from Rep. Garret as Vice Chairman of the House Budget Comm.
and a member of the House Financial Services Comm. that # would be pretty accurate.
-justplugit[/QUOTE]


Real Cost of Stimulus Plan? Almost $1.2 Trillion
Report January 29, 2009 –

Taxpayers will pay much more for the fiscal stimulus than previously revealed – over $1.17 trillion according to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO).

Most sources have assessed the cost of the stimulus package at approximately $825 billion. But the CBO reports those estimates do not include the cost of the money that must be borrowed to pay for the plan. [Editor's Note: To view the CBO letter reporting on the total cost of the stimulus plan, go here now.]

Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wisc., asked the CBO - the research arm of Congress - to calculate the “money cost” of borrowing the funds needed to fulfill the stimulus projects being sought by congressional Democrats and President Obama. Like every other borrower, the government must pay back borrowed principal plus the interest on its debt.

The CBO responded with a Jan. 27 letter from CBO Director Douglas W. Elmendorf estimating the cost of borrowing the money would be $347.1 billion – or about 42 percent of the cost of the projects. That would push the total cost of the stimulus package to over $1.17 trillion.

Quote:

Most of the defect in 2009 was inherited, had McCain been elected it would have been nearly or just as big.

Post a link or check your facts:)
-spence



the deficit jumped from about $450 billion in 2008 to $1.4 trillion in 2009.

Obama pushed through both an “omnibus” spending bill and the so-called stimulus bill that increased FY2009 spending.

McCain calls on Obama to veto omnibus - "We fought a good fight," Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) said on Sunday, conceding that the $410 billion omnibus bill is likely to pass the Senate early next week, but calling on President Obama to veto it.


February 8, 2009
McCain: Stimulus Bill Is "Generational Theft"By Michelle Levi In his sixty-eighth appearance on Face The Nation, Senator John McCain called the stimulus bill heading towards a Senate vote this week "generational theft," and said he could not support the package as-is because of the debt it would create for America.

When asked by host Bob Schieffer if he would support the stimulus plan, the senator replied, "I can't Bob. I can't because I think it is the greatest transfer of not only spending but authority and responsibility to government."





how's that "American Recovery and Renewal" or whatever they called it...working out?????

Jun 22, 5:57 PM (ET)

By PAUL WISEMAN and MARTIN CRUTSINGER

WASHINGTON (AP) - The economy's continuing struggles aren't just confounding ordinary Americans. They've also stumped the head of the Federal Reserve.

Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke told reporters Wednesday that the central bank had been caught off guard by recent signs of deterioration in the economy. And he said the troubles could continue into next year.

"We don't have a precise read on why this slower pace of growth is persisting," Bernanke said. He said the weak housing market and problems in the banking system might be "more persistent than we thought."

It was the Fed chief's most explicit warning yet that the economy will face serious challenges next year. For several months, he had said the factors working against economic growth appeared to be "transitory."


The Fed cut its forecast for economic growth this year to a range of 2.7 percent to 2.9 percent from an April forecast of 3.1 percent to 3.3 percent. It also cut its forecast for next year to a range of 3.3 percent to 3.7 percent from an earlier 3.5 percent to 4.2 percent. The Fed also said unemployment would stay higher than it had expected earlier.


I'm sure Obama is "playing this one perfectly" right Spence???

http://www.saltys.co/images/barrack.jpg

The CBO doesn't include debt service in it's estimates, it was asked to do this separately...but to just tack 10 years of interest on to a 3 year spending plan, without calculating benefits (and the CBO has documented dramatic benefits to GDP) is not an analysis of "true cost". Rather it's a just an attempt to make the bill look larger. Ryan tried to do the same thing when he asked the CBO to make believe all the entitlement spending in the stimulus was permanent so he could claim Obama was proposing a 3.5 Trillion dollar package.

So you can either include debt service with all your cost discussions or none.

As for McCain, whether he would have supported the Stimulus bill or not (he didn't even bother to show up for the vote mind you) isn't really relevant.

2008 vs. 2009

The CBO reported in October 2009 reasons for the difference between the 2008 and 2009 deficits, which were approximately $460 billion and $1,410 billion, respectively. Key categories of changes included: tax receipt declines of $320 billion due to the effects of the recession and another $100 billion due to tax cuts in the stimulus bill (the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act or ARRA); $245 billion for the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) and other bailout efforts; $100 billion in additional spending for ARRA; and another $185 billion due to increases in primary budget categories such as Medicare, Medicaid, unemployment insurance, Social Security, and Defense – including the war effort in Afghanistan and Iraq. This was the highest budget deficit relative to GDP (9.9%) since 1945.[55] The national debt increased by $1.9 trillion during FY2009, versus the $1.0 trillion increase during 2008.[56]

The Obama Administration also made four significant accounting changes to more accurately report the total spending by the Federal government. The four changes were: 1) accounting for the Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (”overseas military contingencies”) in the budget rather than through the use of supplemental appropriations; 2) assuming the Alternative Minimum Tax will be indexed for inflation; 3) accounting for the full costs of Medicare reimbursements; and 4) anticipating the inevitable expenditures for natural disaster relief. According to administration officials, these changes will make the debt over ten years look $2.7 trillion larger than it would otherwise appear.[57]

All things considered, I would assume McCain would have offered additional tax cuts as part of a Stimulus package just as Obama did. This doesn't leave a lot of discretionary or additional entitlement spending on the table that would have been avoided. In fact, assuming McCain's tax cuts would have been more equal across the board the chance of revenues being lower is very high.

If you were to consider a McCain Administration making the same accounting changes as Obama, the likelihood of a McCain 2009 budget deficit actually being larger than Obama is a reasonable proposition.

-spence

If you were to consider a McCain Administration making the same accounting changes as Obama, the likelihood of a McCain 2009 budget deficit actually being larger than Obama is a reasonable proposition.

-spence

Speculation.

My original question still hasn't been answered.

Speculation.

My original question still hasn't been answered.

speculation wrapped with absurdities....of course you measure the "stimulus" program by it's total cost, particularly when it was so ineffective...saved some union jobs, created some government jobs, much of it will end up back in Obama's campaign fund...just a little sugar rush for the Obama loyalist...and their children will be paying for it all for quite some time and nothing to show for it economically..no recovery...no reinvestment...just a really bad Act


CBO: Stimulus almost doubled U.S. debt
By: Conn Carroll | Senior Editorial Writer Washington Examiner Follow Him @conncarroll | 06/22/11 11:27 AM

. A new report from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) finds that President Obama’s economic stimulus program helped nearly double U.S. debt.

The 2011 Long-Term Budget Outlook, released Wednesday morning, reports that the “the combination of automatic budgetary responses” and Obama’s stimulus “had a profound impact on the federal budget.” According to CBO projections, before Obama’s stimulus became law, federal debt equaled 36 percent of GDP and was projected to decline slightly over the next few years. Instead, thanks in large part to the stimulus, debt reached 62 percent of GDP by 2010.

Other lowlights from the report include:

•Debt will reach 70 percent of GDP by the end of this year – the highest percentage since World War II.
•Spending on Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security will reach 15 percent of GDP by 2035 – spending on all government programs has averaged 18.5 percent over the past 40 years.
•Total government spending is set to hit 27 percent of GDP by 2035.
•Taxes are set to grow from 19 percent of GDP in 2013, to 23 percent by 2035.
•Americans “at various points on the income scale would pay a larger percentage of their income in taxes than people at the same points do today.”
•The effective marginal tax rate on labor income would rise from about 25 percent now to about 35 percent in 2035.

.............................................
Spence can continue to try to make excuses for this president, it appears to be his forte...but this guy is a COMPLETE disaster

"This repeated failure has nothing to do with the pace or type of spending. Rather, the problem is found in the oft-repeated Keynesian myth that deficit spending “injects new dollars into the economy,” thereby increasing demand and spurring economic growth. According to this theory, government spending adds money to the economy, taxes remove money, and the budget deficit represents net new dollars injected. Therefore, it scarcely matters how the dollars are spent. John Maynard Keynes famously asserted that a government program paying people to dig and then refill ditches(SHOVEL READY JOBS) would provide new income for those workers to spend and circulate through the economy, creating even more jobs and income. Today, lawmakers cling to estimates by Mark Zandi of Economy.com that on average, $1 in new deficit spending expands the economy by roughly $1.50.

If that were true, the record $1.6 trillion in deficit spending over the past fiscal year would have already overheated the economy. Yet despite this spending, which is equal to fully 9 percent of GDP, the economy is expected to shrink by at least 3 percent this fiscal year. If the spending constitutes an injection of “new money” into the economy, we may conclude that, without it, the economy would contract 12 percent — hardly a plausible claim.

If $1.6 trillion in deficit spending failed to slow the economy’s slide, there’s no reason to believe that adding $185 billion — the 2009 portion of the stimulus bill — will suddenly do the trick. But if budget deficits of nearly $2 trillion are insufficient stimulus, how much would be enough? $3 trillion? $4 trillion?

This is no longer a theoretical exercise. The idea that increased deficit spending can cure recessions has been tested, and it has failed. If growing the economy were as simple as expanding government spending and deficits, then Italy, France, and Germany would be the global economic kings. And there would be no reason to stop at $787 billion: Congress could guarantee unlimited prosperity by endlessly borrowing and spending trillions of dollars."

oops!

Forecasts for Growth Drop, Some Sharply
Published: Saturday, 25 Jun 2011 | 9:33 AM The New York Times

A drumbeat of disappointing data about consumer behavior, factory sales and weak hiring in recent weeks has prompted economists to ratchet down their 2011 economic forecasts to as little as half what they expected at the beginning of the year.

BUT DON'T WORRY

Bernanke May Try Spurring Economy by Prolonging Stimulus By Joshua Zumbrun and Steve Matthews - Jun 21, 2011 6:23 AM ET

Fed Chief Bernanke Leaves Door Open to Easing If Economy Weakens Further By Scott Lanman and Jeannine Aversa - Jun 23, 2011 12:00 AM ET .

.Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke left the door open to a fresh shot of monetary stimulus should the economic rebound he’s predicting fail to materialize.:confused:


Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

This is no longer a theoretical exercise. The idea that increased deficit spending can cure recessions has been tested, and it has failed. If growing the economy were as simple as expanding government spending and deficits, then Italy, France, and Germany would be the global economic kings. And there would be no reason to stop at $787 billion: Congress could guarantee unlimited prosperity by endlessly borrowing and spending trillions of dollars."


Bingo, but the controlling egg heads can't see the the forest for the trees.
They think they're so smart that history doesn't apply to them.

Or then again they have a different agenda for America, and it's
not self reliance and individual ingenuity but socialism, which leads to
nothing more than mediocracy.

Either or, we are headed for the ruination of the best form of government ever devised.

Speculation.
Not really, my initial assertion that a 2009 McCain presidency would have had a budget deficit nearly as large as Obama's would have been quite likely. That it would be larger is certainly speculation, but not an unreasonable one.

Deconstruct the 2009 numbers and I don't see very much that any Republican could have impacted more than 10-20%. Nobody would have proposed deep across the board cuts during a massive recession. What would have been far more likely are deep tax cuts which would have depressed revenues even further.

My original question still hasn't been answered.
Well, first off I think your Rep is misleading you just to make political hay.

Obama didn't promise 8% unemployment. This was a projection (with a large margin of error) based on the current generally accepted baseline which had unemployment peaking at 9%. This baseline was shown to be dramatically off as the recession ended up being much deeper than anticipated...

Additionally, I'm not aware of any Obama statement that unemployment should be 6.8% right now. The only reference to that number I've seen is a conservative who's asserted that had Obama not extended unemployment benefits this is where the rate would be.

While it makes for some good ideological fodder, it premise doesn't seem to be rooted in reality, in fact it's quite absurd.

So I'm not sure what the question really is in context of those numbers...Garret is just playing games with old talking points.

In broader terms...

1) According to the CBO the Stimulus has had a large beneficial impact and by the reckoning of many may have averted a much bigger economic meltdown. People will debate this forever.

2) The projected budget deficits and National debt were caused by both parties. Personally I don't see any solution that doesn't involve both spending cuts and increased taxes.

3) A big reason the unemployment rate isn't dropping further is simply because American businesses have become more productive and the explosive growth that fuels rapid hiring is happening in other parts of the world. This isn't just because we've "shipped jobs overseas", it's because the hiring is taking place close to the action, just like it did in the US in the 1990s.

4) These emerging nations will gradually help the US economy

5) Government investment in growth technologies is a good investment and something I'd like to see Obama do more of

-spence

Well, first off I think your Rep is misleading you just to make political hay.

Obama didn't promise 8% unemployment. -spence

Economic Scene- Forecast With Hope Built In
Doug Mills/The New York Times

Timothy Geithner,, Christina Romer, an economist, and Lawrence Summers, the top economics adviser. President Obama’s advisers have been overly optimistic about the jobless rate.

DAVID LEONHARDT
Published: June 30, 2009
WASHINGTON

In the weeks just before President Obama took office, his economic advisers made a mistake. They got a little carried away with hope.

To make the case for a big stimulus package, they released their economic forecast for the next few years. Without the stimulus, they saw the unemployment rate — then 7.2 percent — rising above 8 percent in 2009 and peaking at 9 percent next year. With the stimulus, the advisers said, unemployment would probably peak at 8 percent late this year.

We now know that this forecast was terribly optimistic. The jobless rate has already reached 9.4 percent. On Thursday, the Labor Department will announce the latest number, for June, and forecasters are expecting it to rise further. In concrete terms, the difference between the situation that the Obama advisers predicted and the one that has come to pass is about 2.5 million jobs. It’s as if every worker in the city of Los Angeles received an unexpected layoff notice.

There are two possible explanations that the administration was so wrong. And sorting through them matters a great deal, because they point in opposite policy directions.

1) Total Incompetence
2) Utter Incompetence :uhuh:

5) Government investment in growth technologies is a good investment and something I'd like to see Obama do more of

-spence

that is like asking Bernie Maidoff to continue to invest and manage your money for you....:smash:

If that were true, the record $1.6 trillion in deficit spending over the past fiscal year would have already overheated the economy. Yet despite this spending, which is equal to fully 9 percent of GDP, the economy is expected to shrink by at least 3 percent this fiscal year. If the spending constitutes an injection of “new money” into the economy, we may conclude that, without it, the economy would contract 12 percent — hardly a plausible claim.

If $1.6 trillion in deficit spending failed to slow the economy’s slide, there’s no reason to believe that adding $185 billion — the 2009 portion of the stimulus bill — will suddenly do the trick. But if budget deficits of nearly $2 trillion are insufficient stimulus, how much would be enough? $3 trillion? $4 trillion?

This is no longer a theoretical exercise. The idea that increased deficit spending can cure recessions has been tested, and it has failed. If growing the economy were as simple as expanding government spending and deficits, then Italy, France, and Germany would be the global economic kings. And there would be no reason to stop at $787 billion: Congress could guarantee unlimited prosperity by endlessly borrowing and spending trillions of dollars."

Your author either lacks a 3rd grade education or is just intentionally being deceptive.

-spence

Your author either lacks a 3rd grade education or is just intentionally being deceptive.

-spence

does being perpetually wrong make you snippy?

Contributor

Brian Riedl, Senior Policy Analyst at the Heritage Foundation

Brian Riedl is the Grover M. Hermann Fellow for Federal Budgetary Affairs at the Heritage Foundation. Riedl mainly focuses on federal spending trends, appropriations, budget process reform, and budget deficits. He also studies economic growth, tax policy, agriculture spending, antipoverty programs, and long-term entitlement spending trends.

As early as 2002 and 2003, Riedl became one of the first writers to note the beginning of a massive federal spending spree under President Bush, which has since pushed federal spending above $25,000 per household. In 2006, Riedl�s writings helped expose $14 billion in additional domestic spending added to an Iraq bill (including Mississippi's "railroad to nowhere") and the ensuing public backlash forced Congress to strip these funds from the bill. In 2008, Riedl was a leading critic of the farm bill, which was ultimately vetoed by President Bush (although overridden by Congress).

Riedl's budget research has been featured in front-page stories and editorials in The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post and The Los Angeles Times. He has discussed budget policy on NBC, ABC, CBS, PBS, CNN, FOX News, MSNBC, and C-SPAN. He also participates in the bipartisan "Fiscal Wake-Up Tour," which holds town hall meetings across America focusing on the looming crisis in Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.

Before coming to Heritage in 2001, Riedl worked for then-Gov. Tommy Thompson, former Rep. Mark Green (R-WI), and the Speaker of the Wisconsin Assembly. Riedl holds a bachelor's degree in economics and political science from the University of Wisconsin, and a master's degree in public affairs from Princeton University



let's see your bio Spence

Ahh, he has an education...we'll go with intentionally manipulative then.

-spence

Economic Scene- Forecast With Hope Built In
Blah, blah, blah...

I've already mentioned this.

-spence

Ahh, he has an education...we'll go with intentionally manipulative then.

-spence

you are the KING of that category :uhuh:

5) Government investment in growth technologies is a good investment and something I'd like to see Obama do more of

-spence

June 26, 2011
Obama trips promote profits for his donors, not jobs for Americans
Ed Lasky

Between golf outings (13 weekends in a row), musical soirees in the East Room, fantasy basketball pickup games, and trips to fundraisers for high rollers, Obama has made numerous trips to promote so-called clean-tech energy ventures. He has touted these companies as the wave of the future and as the hope for job growth in America. However, as is true of most actions Barack Obama takes there is an ulterior motive -- and it all has to do with himself.


The Washington Post reports that the focus of these clean-energy trips have been to ventures backed by huge donors to Barack Obama:


In all, Obama has visited 22 clean-tech projects in 19 separate trips....

Republicans and outside critics also have honed in on the political connections of some companies that have received federal help. The most attention has focused on Solyndra, a Silicon Valley solar company that ran into financial trouble after receiving a $535 million federal loan guarantee commitment....

Some of the biggest investors in Solyndra, which makes easy-to-install solar panels, were venture capital funds associated with Tulsa billionaire George Kaiser, a key Obama fundraiser. Rep. Cliff Stearns (R-Fla.), chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee's subcommittee on oversight and investigations, said he is "concerned that there was a hurry to get this money out of the door and that companies and individuals that supported the president were among the beneficiaries.''(snip)

But just weeks before Obama’s arrival, the company released sobering news from independent auditors evaluating its public offering plan. PricewaterhouseCoopers said Solyndra’s losses and negative cash flow raised “substantial doubt about its ability to continue as a going concern.” The report, covered by financial media, added to doubts on Wall Street.

Solar analyst Ramesh Misra, who works for the investment firm Brigantine Advisors, was skeptical about Solyndra’s signature product. Its solar panels are composed of an array of glass tubes that are expensive to produce, causing investment advisers to question whether the product could compete with less-expensive Chinese models. Misra, who has no financial interest in Solyndra or its rivals, questioned the administration’s decision.

“To think they could compete on any basis, that took a very big leap of faith,” Misra said.

“Solyndra stands out,” agreed Robert Lahey, an analyst with Ardour Capital who added that he thinks the government took a substantial risk in backing Solyndra.

A month after Obama’s visit, the company withdrew its public offering plans. A few weeks later, congressional auditors announced that Energy Department had given favorable treatment to some loan-guarantee applicants. A Government Accountability Office report found that the department had bypassed required steps for funding awards to five applicants, including Solyndra. The GAO did not publicly identify those five in its report; the Energy Department asked that some information about companies be excluded asbusiness sensitive.


Obama began his out-of-town clean-tech travel in March 2009. At a number of the companies the president visited, there were connections - not all of them close, to be sure - to his 2008 campaign. Over the months, Obama touted a Florida's utility's electric grid project (a company in an Obama fundraiser's portfolio was doing extensive business with the project) and a Nevada company that generates emission-free power from waste heat, the warmth radiated by machines or industrial processes (an Obama fundraiser is a partner in a venture fund that has a small stake in the company).


The benefit from these travels are immense. A company cannot buy this type of public relations. After all, Obama only frees up his spare time for pleasure trips.

While Obama touts these companies as being incubators for job growth, they are failures in this regard. Clean energy does not generate many jobs at all and those that are generated are often temporary, costs taxpayers a great deal of money per job, or are jobs generated overseas since so much of the equipment being produced has a made in China or made in Europe label stamped inconspicuously on them.


definitely need more of this:uhuh:

1) According to the CBO the Stimulus has had a large beneficial impact and by the reckoning of many may have averted a much bigger economic meltdown. People will debate this forever.

2) The projected budget deficits and National debt were caused by both parties. Personally I don't see any solution that doesn't involve both spending cuts and increased taxes.

3) A big reason the unemployment rate isn't dropping further is simply because American businesses have become more productive and the explosive growth that fuels rapid hiring is happening in other parts of the world. This isn't just because we've "shipped jobs overseas", it's because the hiring is taking place close to the action, just like it did in the US in the 1990s.

4) These emerging nations will gradually help the US economy

5) Government investment in growth technologies is a good investment and something I'd like to see Obama do more of

-spence

#1 your right Spence, people will debate this forever because it is also
speculative and conjecture.

#2 Agree it was caused by both parties, however imho spending cuts,
10% across the board, except military, as a start and TAX CUTS for small and medium size business will help with unemployment.

#3 That makes sense. However, sending jobs overseas started 35
years ago as high taxes and government over regulation is what started
the move.

#4 My Grandsons will have gray beards before emerging countries help
our US economy.

#5 Private investment in tech companies is a better route as competition
will get us there faster and the taxpayer won't have the expense of
another bureaucracy and having to pay benefits and retirement for government
employees.

Blah, blah, blah...

I've already mentioned this.

-spence

blah, blah YES....you did indeed regurgitate the lame excuses that were concocted by the NY Times....and Obama with his brilliant advisors did indeed forecast....To make the case for a big stimulus package, With the stimulus, the advisers said, unemployment would probably peak at 8 percent late this year.

but ohhhhhh....they made a boo boo...... they got all caught up in Hopey :jump1: Changey

it's the baseline's fault ? didn't know the economy was that bad???...really??? did you listen to any of the rehtoric???....it was the worst EVER....till you needed this excuse..... of course....then....we didn't know it was THAT bad....

gimme a break...

Third Grade Educations or Intentionally Misleading?????

either way this is pathetic journalism .......they made a "mistake" and got a "little" carried away.....

oops!

Forecasts for Growth Drop, Some Sharply
Published: Saturday, 25 Jun 2011 | 9:33 AM The New York Times

A drumbeat of disappointing data about consumer behavior, factory sales and weak hiring in recent weeks has prompted economists to ratchet down their 2011 economic forecasts to as little as half what they expected at the beginning of the year.

BUT DON'T WORRY

Bernanke May Try Spurring Economy by Prolonging Stimulus By Joshua Zumbrun and Steve Matthews - Jun 21, 2011 6:23 AM ET

Fed Chief Bernanke Leaves Door Open to Easing If Economy Weakens Further By Scott Lanman and Jeannine Aversa - Jun 23, 2011 12:00 AM ET .

.Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke left the door open to a fresh shot of monetary stimulus should the economic rebound he’s predicting fail to materialize.:confused:


Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

More Stimulus...More QE...That's the Ticket!!!!

Dollar seen losing global reserve status
By Jack Farchy in London

The US dollar will lose its status as the global reserve currency over the next 25 years, according to a survey of central bank reserve managers who collectively control more than $8,000bn.

More than half the managers, who were polled by UBS, predicted that the dollar would be replaced by a portfolio of currencies within the next 25 years.

That marks a departure from previous years, when the central bank reserve managers have said the dollar would retain its status as the sole reserve currency.

UBS surveyed more than 80 central bank reserve managers, sovereign wealth funds and multilateral institutions with more than $8,000bn in assets at its annual seminar for sovereign institutions last week. The results were not weighted for assets under management.

The results are the latest sign of dissatisfaction with the dollar as a reserve currency, amid concerns over the US government’s inability to rein in spending and the Federal Reserve’s huge expansion of its balance sheet.

“Right now there is great concern out there around the financial trajectory that the US is on,” said Larry Hatheway, chief economist at UBS

More Stimulus...More QE...That's the Ticket!!!!


"Benanke May Try Sturring Economy by Prolonging Stimulus."

Typical of the so called elite egg heads running our government.
Alot of these guys,like Bernanke, never worked in business a day in
their lifes. He's a Harvard Grad and taught at Stamford and NYU.
All theory and no practical experience or common sense.

By his theory the stimulus should have worked, but it didn't and now he
wants to do it again? Maybe it will work this time after all it is a theory.
Even if it did work it's a short term fix for a long term problem that just prolongs the problem.

He must be part of the" buy now pay later "generation. Guy gets a deal on
a $1500 suit charging it on plastic, brags about the deal, forgetting it will cost
him $2000 when and if he pays it off.

#1 your right Spence, people will debate this forever because it is also
speculative and conjecture.
That McCain would have had a massive (i.e. 1T++) 2009 budget deficit is neither speculation or conjecture.

Look at the numbers.

#2 Agree it was caused by both parties, however imho spending cuts,
10% across the board, except military, as a start and TAX CUTS for small and medium size business will help with unemployment.
The military can easily take a 10% spending cut. The issue there is with the programs local Congress people have a desire to continue funding for. This is also a bi-partisan issue.

#3 That makes sense. However, sending jobs overseas started 35 years ago as high taxes and government over regulation is what started the move.
Globalization is what started the move. Just as manufacturing shifted to the US in the late 1800's we're pushing it onto Asia at the turn of the century.

#4 My Grandsons will have gray beards before emerging countries help our US economy.
Nope, it's already happening. I work with manufacturing companies every day in the US and the growth in Asia and BRIC countries is a huge part of their business which helps them them employ Americans.

#5 Private investment in tech companies is a better route as competition will get us there faster and the taxpayer won't have the expense of another bureaucracy and having to pay benefits and retirement for government employees.
This is a classic Keynesian scenario. The problem is that private business will almost always take the path of least resistance which means short term shareholder value. People may mock Obama wanting to invest in environmental tech that's slow to produce, but odds are the future success of America will be based on these technologies.

-spence

we spent 20B Billion for a/c in Afghanistan!!

My buds don't get that.

[QUOTE=spence;868764]That McCain would have had a massive (i.e. 1T++) 2009 budget deficit is neither speculation or conjecture.

Look at the numbers.

IF THERE ARE FACTUAL NUMBERS, WHY THE DEBATE?


The military can easily take a 10% spending cut. The issue there is with the programs local Congress people have a desire to continue funding for. This is also a bi-partisan issue.

YA SURE, WITH WHAT'S GOING ON IN THE MID EAST, THE NEED FOR NEW SOPHISTCATED WEAPONS TO FIGHT TERRORISM AND CHINA BUILDING UP IT'S MILITARY AND BUIDING CARRIERS WE SHOULD CUT BACK ON MILITARY SPENDING ?


Globalization is what started the move. Just as manufacturing shifted to the US in the late 1800's we're pushing it onto Asia at the turn of the century.

OUR PUSHING INTO ASIA MAY BE THE FIRST YOU'VE SEEN IN YOUR LIFTIME,
BUT COMPANIES STARTED MOVING FROM STATE TO STATE THEN OUT OF
THE COUNTRY 35 YEARS AGO BECAUSE OF GOVT. REGULATION AND TAXES.


Nope, it's already happening. I work with manufacturing companies every day in the US and the growth in Asia and BRIC countries is a huge part of their business which helps them them employ Americans.

WHERE CAN I FIND THESE FACTS AND FIGURES.


This is a classic Keynesian scenario. The problem is that private business will almost always take the path of least resistance which means short term shareholder value. People may mock Obama wanting to invest in environmental tech that's slow to produce, but odds are the future success of America will be based on these technologies.

YA MEAN LIKE HOW SILICONE VALLEY COMPANIES WERE LOOKING FOR SHORT TERM SHARE HOLDER VALUE WHEN THEY CREATED HIGH TECH?

Globalization is what started the move. Just as manufacturing shifted to the US in the late 1800's we're pushing it onto Asia at the turn of the century.

This is a classic Keynesian scenario. The problem is that private business will almost always take the path of least resistance which means short term shareholder value. People may mock Obama wanting to invest in environmental tech that's slow to produce, but odds are the future success of America will be based on these technologies.

-spence

manufacturing didn't "shift" to the US in the late 1800's, mechanization allowed American businessmen and inventors and investors to create American jobs and expand industry and fill the growing demands here and elsewhere...and it happened without Obama "investing" in anything...go figure

saying it "shifted" suggests that we recieved it or it was sent here from somewhere else...we created, we expanded..it's what we do...and I'm sorry, the "future success of America" will NOT be based on environmental tech...the only thing that you got right is that it is very slow to produce, if at all...particularly with Obama(GOVERNMENT) picking winners and losers...ask Spain:uhuh: the future success of America will be based on private business creating and innovating and filling demands without the big hand of Statist Central Planners determining, directing and taxing their every step....
............................


The problem is that private business will almost always take the path of least resistance which means short term shareholder value.
-spence

yeah, that private business is just a menace....

manufacturing didn't "shift" to the US in the late 1800's, mechanization allowed American businessmen and inventors and investors to create American jobs and expand industry and fill the growing demands here and elsewhere...and it happened without Obama "investing" in anything...go figure

saying it "shifted" suggests that we recieved it or it was sent here from somewhere else...we created, we expanded..it's what we do...and I'm sorry, the "future success of America" will NOT be based on environmental tech...the only thing that you got right is that it is very slow to produce, if at all...particularly with Obama(GOVERNMENT) picking winners and losers...ask Spain:uhuh: the future success of America will be based on private business creating and innovating and filling demands without the big hand of Statist Central Planners determining, directing and taxing their every step....
............................


The problem is that private business will almost always take the path of least resistance which means short term shareholder value.
-spence

yeah, that private business is just a menace....

State Taxpayers May Eat $1.6 Million Loan for Defunct Green Bus Company
By Tom Gantert - Michigan Capitol Confidential – 06/20/2011

In September of 2009, Fisher Coachworks was mentioned in a press release from Gov. Jennifer Granholm as a “green technology” company that was part of the “new energy economy for Michigan.” Two years later, the state says Fisher Coachworks is out of business and the state has to write off $1.6 million it loaned the electric bus manufacturing company.

Edgar Benning, general manager of Flint’s Mass Transportation Authority, said in an email that Fisher Coachworks went out of business in the development phase of making two $1.1 million electric buses that Flint was going to purchase with grants from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, commonly referred to as the “stimulus plan.”

Fisher Coachworks officials could not be reached for comment.

Michael Psarouthakis, vice president of business acceleration for the Michigan Economic Development Corp., said Fisher Coachworks would not repay $1.6 million in loans it had received from the state. The MEDC had approved Fisher Coachworks for a $2.6 million loan, but never gave out the final $1 million because the company was struggling, Psarouthakis said.

“It was clear that they were going to have some serious financial difficulties even with our funding,” Psarouthakis said. “They needed significant funding above and beyond that.”

James Hohman, assistant director of fiscal policy at the Mackinac Center for Public Policy, said some green energy companies wouldn’t make it without government aid.

the future success of America will be based on private business creating and innovating and filling demands without the big hand of Statist Central Planners determining, directing and taxing their every step.....

You can take that to the bank. :hihi:

The problem is that private business will almost always take the path of least resistance which means short term shareholder value.
-spence

I really cant believe you said that.


Oh and by the way......
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Unemployment rates rose last month in more than half of the nation's largest metro areas, driven higher by weak private-sector hiring and natural disasters.

The unemployment rate increased in 210 metro areas in May, the Labor Department said Wednesday. It fell in 131 cities and remained unchanged in 37. That's a sharp reversal from April, when unemployment rates dropped in more than 90 percent of metro areas.

Nationwide, the unemployment rate ticked up in May to 9.1 percent and employers added just 54,000 net jobs. Employers added an average of 220,000 jobs per month in the previous three months.

Nationwide, the unemployment rate ticked up in May to 9.1 percent and employers added just 54,000 net jobs..

I wonder what % of those 54,000 jobs were temporary summer jobs
sought by High School and College kids?

Sorry, been down at a meeting with Disney. Be back to reject your counter arguments this weekend...

-spence

Sorry, been down at a meeting with Disney. -spence

Fantasyland...perfect for you:uhuh:

IF THERE ARE FACTUAL NUMBERS, WHY THE DEBATE?
I'm not sure...if anyone wishes to present a rational case that McCain could have seen a dramatically smaller 2009 deficit I'd love to see it.

You'd think Scott could google something up?

YA SURE, WITH WHAT'S GOING ON IN THE MID EAST, THE NEED FOR NEW SOPHISTCATED WEAPONS TO FIGHT TERRORISM AND CHINA BUILDING UP IT'S MILITARY AND BUIDING CARRIERS WE SHOULD CUT BACK ON MILITARY SPENDING ?
I think if anything the last two wars have demonstrated that sophisticated technology has it's limits...and the billions that go into programs that never even see the battlefield is astounding.

Maintaining military superiority can still be a priority, but the idea of a strong military has almost been seen as an entitlement by Congress and a free pass to spend without fear of repercussion.

OUR PUSHING INTO ASIA MAY BE THE FIRST YOU'VE SEEN IN YOUR LIFTIME, BUT COMPANIES STARTED MOVING FROM STATE TO STATE THEN OUT OF THE COUNTRY 35 YEARS AGO BECAUSE OF GOVT. REGULATION AND TAXES.

Government regulation has certainly pushed a lot of industries out of the US, but much of this is due to environmental and other negative impacts on the voters. Industry has shown time and time again that when left alone it will pollute, exploit and take unnecessary risks all in the name of shareholder value.

This doesn't mean that business is evil, but a balance is probably in the best interest of everyone.

The US is a desirable place to do business with a history of innovation, free thinking and strong legal protection of intellectual property. We can justify higher corporate taxes, although I'd note that many multi-nationals seem to have found a way to evade a lot of their own tax burden. The effective tax rate doesn't seem to be nearly the second largest often cited.

Perhaps more importantly, lower taxes aren't always going to be a deciding factor in a global economy. Many companies want to develop products locally to suit specific tastes. With an increasing cost of energy and transportation production will be kept local as well.

I work with manufacturing companies and see many US businesses moving production back to the states as the low cost options of the past few decades are now proving to be more expensive in the end.

WHERE CAN I FIND THESE FACTS AND FIGURES.
Look at any Fortune 500 annual report and where their revenue growth is. If it wasn't for emerging nations pushing tens of millions into their own Middle Class the US economy would be a shambles right now.

YA MEAN LIKE HOW SILICONE VALLEY COMPANIES WERE LOOKING FOR SHORT TERM SHARE HOLDER VALUE WHEN THEY CREATED HIGH TECH?
I'm not sure I understand your point.

The net of all this is that competing in a global economy is going to look different than what made us so strong the previous century.

Complaining about taxes and regulation isn't going to help us when nations like Germany and China are using their governments to position their private industries on a better footing through education and incentives.

You do realize those socialists in Germany with all their high taxes and oppressive regulation export more than the USA even though their GDP is 4 times smaller?

-spence

I really cant believe you said that.
Why?


Oh and by the way......
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Unemployment rates rose last month in more than half of the nation's largest metro areas, driven higher by weak private-sector hiring and natural disasters.

The unemployment rate increased in 210 metro areas in May, the Labor Department said Wednesday. It fell in 131 cities and remained unchanged in 37. That's a sharp reversal from April, when unemployment rates dropped in more than 90 percent of metro areas.

Nationwide, the unemployment rate ticked up in May to 9.1 percent and employers added just 54,000 net jobs. Employers added an average of 220,000 jobs per month in the previous three months.

The unemployment rate isn't going to drop dramatically until we can create new growth industries.

Case in point. One manufacturing sub-segment (in aerospace) that I deal with is seeing a big increase in business right here in New England. Rather than add staff (i.e. burden) to meet increased demand, they're looking to apply technology to improve the productivity of the existing workforce.

So the unemployment rate stays the same, but the aerospace supplier and my company both benefit.

There's a reason to DOW is nearly 12,600 on Friday not even two years after a massive recession. But no, you just want to claim Obama is a failure.

If we could only get this government off our back...oy vey.

-spence

There's a reason to DOW is nearly 12,600 on Friday not even two years after a massive recession. But no, you just want to claim Obama is a failure.

-spence

yeah...it's called QE2

Dow Up 20 Percent Since QE2 Began

Thursday, 30 Jun 2011 | 10:41 AM
The Federal Reserve headquarters in Washington, DC.

The market began its current rally ten months ago when Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke first hinted at a second quantitative easing (QE2) program during his speech at Jackson Hole, Wyoming on August 27:

“Notwithstanding the fact that the policy rate is near its zero lower bound, the Federal Reserve retains a number of tools and strategies for providing additional stimulus….A first option for providing additional monetary accommodation, if necessary, is to expand the Federal Reserve's holdings of longer-term securities.”

Thursday marks the end of a $600 billion bond-buying program by the Federal Reserve.

Even as the country’s unemployment levels remained high, the QE2 rally erased the market’s post-Lehman bankruptcy losses, pushing stocks all the way up to multi-year highs back in April of this year.

Sitting at those highs two months ago, the Dow had risen 28 percent from its levels prior to Chairman Bernanke’s speech, while the S&P 500 had jumped 30 percent and the Nasdaq Composite had soared 36 percent from their levels seen before the start of QE2.


Even as economic growth has shown signs of sputtering over the past couple of months, causing stocks to retreat off their April highs, the Dow and S&P are still up more than 20 percent since the end of last August.

.................................

Fed's Massive Stimulus Had Little Impact: Greenspan
Published: Thursday, 30 Jun 2011 | 5:24 PM ETSpecial to CNBC.com

The Federal Reserve's massive stimulus program had little impact on the U.S. economy besides weakening the dollar and helping U.S. exports, Federal Reserve Governor Alan Greenspan told CNBC Thursday.

In a blunt critique of his successor, Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke, Greenspan said the $2 trillion in quantative easing over the past two years had done little to loosen credit and boost the economy.

"There is no evidence that huge inflow of money into the system basically worked," Greenspan said in a live interview.

[QUOTE=spence;869518]You'd think Scott could google something up?

OR, I could post a lot of unsubstantiated nonsense...like you:uhuh:

I'm not sure...if anyone wishes to present a rational case that McCain could have seen a dramatically smaller 2009 deficit I'd love to see it.

You'd think Scott could google something up?

Many rational cases can be CONJECTURED. What is EVIDENT is the current deficit.

I think if anything the last two wars have demonstrated that sophisticated technology has it's limits...and the billions that go into programs that never even see the battlefield is astounding.

Maintaining military superiority can still be a priority, but the idea of a strong military has almost been seen as an entitlement by Congress and a free pass to spend without fear of repercussion.

A strong military is not only an entitlement of the Federal Government, it is one of the few responsibilities granted by the Constitution, as opposed to the many unconstitutional responsibilities it has usurped from the states and the people and which are the major, if not sole, reason for the massive national debt.

Government regulation has certainly pushed a lot of industries out of the US, but much of this is due to environmental and other negative impacts on the voters. Industry has shown time and time again that when left alone it will pollute, exploit and take unnecessary risks all in the name of shareholder value.

This is a matter that, constitutionally should be left to the States to criminalize and prosecute.

This doesn't mean that business is evil, but a balance is probably in the best interest of everyone.

The US is a desirable place to do business with a history of innovation, free thinking and strong legal protection of intellectual property.

The protection of the individual right to his property was a main reason for the revolution and the Constitution

We can justify higher corporate taxes, although I'd note that many multi-nationals seem to have found a way to evade a lot of their own tax burden. The effective tax rate doesn't seem to be nearly the second largest often cited.

Unequal and confiscatory style taxes without the consent of the taxed is a consfiscation of property and an abrogation of the property rights intended and garanteed by the Constitution. This can be applied to groups, corporations, or individual citizens. Which is why it is so pathetic, unprincipled, and uncostitutional to tax "the rich" at a higher rate than others under the guise of being "fair." To say they should pay a higher rate because they can afford it is to deny equal protection of the law, and if it is by fiat, without their consent, it is absolute confiscation of property.

Complaining about taxes and regulation isn't going to help us when nations like Germany and China are using their governments to position their private industries on a better footing through education and incentives.

You do realize those socialists in Germany with all their high taxes and oppressive regulation export more than the USA even though their GDP is 4 times smaller?

-spence

Taxes and regualtion nor complaining about them won't "help" us. Only maintaing or reviving our freedom to strive and to gain from profit motives and motives to acquire and keep property will help all in a world market place

Many rational cases can be CONJECTURED. What is EVIDENT is the current deficit.
Without an understanding of why we have the current deficits we do how can you judge who's better suited to set future policy? The argument isn't that the current deficits are a good thing.

A strong military is not only an entitlement of the Federal Government, it is one of the few responsibilities granted by the Constitution, as opposed to the many unconstitutional responsibilities it has usurped from the states and the people and which are the major, if not sole, reason for the massive national debt.

I never said we shouldn't have a strong military, rather that that entitlement has been distorted.

This is a matter that, constitutionally should be left to the States to criminalize and prosecute.
I'm not sure that's really practical, for instance with environmental issues especially you have waterways and air that's shared across the entire country. Should Alabama eliminate clean air standards to attract coal fired power companies then let their methyl mercury blow over to Georgia?

Unequal and confiscatory style taxes without the consent of the taxed is a consfiscation of property and an abrogation of the property rights intended and garanteed by the Constitution. This can be applied to groups, corporations, or individual citizens. Which is why it is so pathetic, unprincipled, and uncostitutional to tax "the rich" at a higher rate than others under the guise of being "fair." To say they should pay a higher rate because they can afford it is to deny equal protection of the law, and if it is by fiat, without their consent, it is absolute confiscation of property.
The context here isn't about progressive taxation but rather the impact corporate tax rates have on where companies do business.

Taxes and regualtion nor complaining about them won't "help" us. Only maintaing or reviving our freedom to strive and to gain from profit motives and motives to acquire and keep property will help all in a world market place

Rather than regulation and taxation I see unpredictability as a bigger disincentive to investment right now. Companies who weathered the recession are sitting on piles of cash because they don't want to risk a lack of short-term credit disrupting operations like it did in 2008. Would a government free private sector provide a more predictable environment? Now that would certainly be conjecture...

-spence

Without an understanding of why we have the current deficits we do how can you judge who's better suited to set future policy? The argument isn't that the current deficits are a good thing.


I didn't judge who's better suited to set future policy. It is irrelevant to judge what policy McCain would have set. The policies that are actually being set are reality. To compare them with conjectural policies that might have been set by the unelected candidate is a common trick to deflect from the matter at hand. As for an understanding of why we have massive current deficits and a massive national debt, as I said, the major, if not sole reason, is the Federal Government's usurpation of power and therefore responsibility to do things not delegated to it but reserved to the States and the people.

I never said we shouldn't have a strong military, rather that that entitlement has been distorted.

What has been distorted is the power of the Central Government and its unconstitutional intrusion into areas of governing and regulation not granted to it.

I'm not sure that's really practical, for instance with environmental issues especially you have waterways and air that's shared across the entire country. Should Alabama eliminate clean air standards to attract coal fired power companies then let their methyl mercury blow over to Georgia?

Your assuming that Alabama and it's citizens believe that methyl mercury is suitable to breath in Alabama--that noone in Alabama will sue the polluters nor that Alabaman legislators, lawyers, enraged and poisoned citizens would not care enough about their own health to demand that companies not pollute Alabama air.

The context here isn't about progressive taxation but rather the impact corporate tax rates have on where companies do business.

The context was "We can justify higher corporate taxes . . ." To do what? To pay for government programs that the Federal Government is not constitutionally allowed to create? Which is the same reason for "progressively" higher tax rates of individuals--all under the ruse that these taxes will only affect corporations and the rich, but won't affect the poor and middle class. Ha-ha. Of course it will in higher prices, lost jobs, lost businesses, lost investment, lost freedom, further departure from constitutional government, etc., etc.

Rather than regulation and taxation I see unpredictability as a bigger disincentive to investment right now. Companies who weathered the recession are sitting on piles of cash because they don't want to risk a lack of short-term credit disrupting operations like it did in 2008. Would a government free private sector provide a more predictable environment? Now that would certainly be conjecture...

-spence

Neither I, nor anyone I know, are anarchists. The Constitution is not an anarchistic manifesto. It mandates that we govern ourselves--individually, locally, by State, and by the Central Government in limited select functions granted to it by consent of the governed--all with the intent that the individual will be protected from the tyranny of the majority. What is most unpredictable and uncertain, is an over-arching Central Government that constantly expands its power over States, localities, and individuals in unrelenting various ways that were not granted to it. And there is great uncertainty in those sitting on loads of cash as to what direction or new tax or tax rate that has no principalled or constitutional reason, that this Central Government will create.

Without an understanding of why we have the current deficits we do how can you judge who's better suited to set future policy? The argument isn't that the current deficits are a good thing.

The "argument"...or original statement by you was

Originally Posted by spence
1) According to the CBO the Stimulus has had a large beneficial impact and by the reckoning of many may have averted a much bigger economic meltdown. People will debate this forever.
...............
and has morphed into..................
Originally Posted by spence

That McCain would have had a massive (i.e. 1T++) 2009 budget deficit is neither speculation or conjecture. Look at the numbers.

one has nothing to do with the other and the second is irrelevent while the first is completely ridiculous....."reckoning of many"?..."may have averted"??..."large beneficial impact"???????....talk about speculation and conjecture

I never said we shouldn't have a strong military, rather that that entitlement has been distorted. by spence


ENTITLEMENT???....there's plenty of "distorted entitlement" to talk about without lumping the military in

by spence
I'm not sure that's really practical, for instance with environmental issues especially you have waterways and air that's shared across the entire country. Should Alabama eliminate clean air standards to attract coal fired power companies then let their methyl mercury blow over to Georgia? :fishin:


by spence
The context here isn't about progressive taxation but rather the impact corporate tax rates have on where companies do business.

the "context" is higher taxes...see next

Rather than regulation and taxation I see unpredictability as a bigger disincentive to investment right now. Would a government free private sector provide a more predictable environment? Now that would certainly be conjecture...

-spence

the "unpredictability" and disincentive to invest right now is over the uncertainty regarding future regulation and taxation and government policy and unsustainable debt

Obama’s Economists: ‘Stimulus’ Has Cost $278,000 per JobThe stimulus is now causing the economy to shed jobs.
12:07 PM, Jul 3, 2011

By JEFFREY H. ANDERSON

When the Obama administration releases a report on the Friday before a long weekend, it’s clearly not trying to draw attention to the report’s contents. Sure enough, the “Seventh Quarterly Report” on the economic impact of the “stimulus,” released on Friday, July 1, provides further evidence that President Obama’s economic “stimulus” did very little, if anything, to stimulate the economy, and a whole lot to stimulate the debt.


The report was written by the White House’s Council of Economic Advisors, a group of three economists who were all handpicked by Obama, and it chronicles the alleged success of the “stimulus” in adding or saving jobs. The council reports that, using “mainstream estimates of economic multipliers for the effects of fiscal stimulus” (which it describes as a “natural way to estimate the effects of” the legislation), the “stimulus” has added or saved just under 2.4 million jobs — whether private or public — at a cost (to date) of $666 billion. That’s a cost to taxpayers of $278,000 per job.

In other words, the government could simply have cut a $100,000 check to everyone whose employment was allegedly made possible by the “stimulus,” and taxpayers would have come out $427 billion ahead.

Furthermore, the council reports that, as of two quarters ago, the “stimulus” had added or saved just under 2.7 million jobs — or 288,000 more than it has now. In other words, over the past six months, the economy would have added or saved more jobs without the “stimulus” than it has with it. In comparison to how things would otherwise have been, the “stimulus” has been working in reverse over the past six months, causing the economy to shed jobs.

Again, this is the verdict of Obama’s own Council of Economic Advisors, which is about as much of a home-field ruling as anyone could ever ask for. In truth, it’s quite possible that by borrowing an amount greater than the regular defense budget or the annual cost of Medicare, and then spending it mostly on Democratic constituencies rather than in a manner genuinely designed to stimulate the economy, Obama’s “stimulus” has actually undermined the economy’s recovery — while leaving us (thus far) $666 billion deeper in debt.

The actual employment numbers from the administration’s own Bureau of Labor Statistics show that the unemployment rate was 7.3 percent when the “stimulus” was being debated. It has since risen to 9.1 percent. Meanwhile, the national debt at the end of 2008, when Obama was poised to take office, was $9.986 trillion (see Table S-9). It’s now $14.467 trillion — and counting.

All sides agree on these incriminating numbers — and now they also appear to agree on this important point: The economy would now be generating job growth at a faster rate if the Democrats hadn’t passed the “stimulus.”

When the Obama administration releases a report on the Friday before a long weekend, it’s clearly not trying to draw attention to the report’s contents. Sure enough, the “Seventh Quarterly Report” on the economic impact of the “stimulus,” released on Friday, July 1, provides further evidence that President Obama’s economic “stimulus” did very little, if anything, to stimulate the economy, and a whole lot to stimulate the debt.

I wonder if your author even bothered to read the actual report. You certainly didn't...

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/cea_7th_arra_report.pdf

The analysis indicates that the Recovery Act has played a significant role in the turnaround of the economy that has occurred over the past two years. Real GDP reached its low point in the second quarter of 2009 and has been growing solidly since then, in large part because of the tax cuts and spending increases included in the Act. Employment, after falling dramatically, began to grow again on a sustained basis through 2010. As of the first quarter of 2011, the report estimates that the Recovery Act raised employment by 2.4 to 3.6 million jobs relative to what it otherwise would have been.

-spence

I wonder if your author even bothered to read the actual report. You certainly didn't...

he clearly did... "and it chronicles the alleged success of the “stimulus” in adding or saving jobs. The council reports that, using “mainstream estimates of economic multipliers for the effects of fiscal stimulus” (which it describes as a “natural way to estimate the effects of” the legislation)"

Quote:
The analysis indicates that the Recovery Act has played a significant role in the turnaround of the economy that has occurred over the past two years. Real GDP reached its low point in the second quarter of 2009 and has been growing solidly since then, in large part because of the tax cuts and spending increases included in the Act. Employment, after falling dramatically, began to grow again on a sustained basis through 2010. As of the first quarter of 2011, the report estimates that the Recovery Act raised employment by 2.4 to 3.6 million jobs relative to what it otherwise would have been.
-spence

I'm sure that he laughed at this part....comedy written by drunks?

who are you/they trying to kid Spence? "employment growing on a sustained basis"....HUH????
GDP growing "solidly"???..."played a significant role in the turn around"????...."raised employment"????

this is so sad and pathetic.....

I'm sure that he laughed at this part....comedy written by drunks?

who are you/they trying to kid Spence? "employment growing on a sustained basis"....HUH????
GDP growing "solidly"???..."played a significant role in the turn around"????...."raised employment"????

this is so sad and pathetic.....

FLOTUS is spending our money like a queen

"Real GDP reached its low point in the second quarter of 2009 and has been growing solidly since then, in large part because of the tax cuts and spending increases included in the Act. ":rotf2::rotf2:



Economist: U.S. GDP growth ‘mediocre’

The U.S. GDP grew 1.9% in the first quarter of 2011, down from the 3.1% during the fourth quarter of 2010 and considerably lower than the 3.7% growth in the first quarter of 2010.


“That’s pretty mediocre growth, especially coming out of a recession,” Collins said of the GDP number.

.......................................

IMF: US GDP Growth Below 3% For Six Years Posted: June 30, 2011 at 9:02 am

It would be hard for the news about the financial status of the US to be worse. The debt cap may not be increased by August 2. Rating agencies have warned of cuts in the grade of US paper. Jobless claims have not improved. Q2 GDP was no better than 2%

The IMF has decided to pile on. It has just released its “Concluding Statement of the 2011 Article IV Mission to The United States of America”, which was finished on June 20.

The agency predicts US GDP growth will be below 3% for six years, much worse than the long-term predictions of the Administration or the Congressional Budget Office.

who are you/they trying to kid Spence? "employment growing on a sustained basis"....HUH????
GDP growing "solidly"???..."played a significant role in the turn around"????...."raised employment"????
The data presented in the report does indicate positive and sustained growth in both GDP and employment they attribute to the Stimulus.

Anderson doesn't seem to challenge the numbers, he just distorts them to give you a little chub. I've actually tried to follow his logic and am at a loss for how he reaches the conclusions he does...as is often the case with articles like this intended mostly for quick circulation with little nutrition.

-spence

I've actually tried to follow his logic and am at a loss for how he reaches the conclusions he does...-spence

this won't shock many here :uhuh:

We can justify higher corporate taxes, although I'd note that many multi-nationals seem to have found a way to evade a lot of their own tax burden. The effective tax rate doesn't seem to be nearly the second largest often cited.

Perhaps more importantly, lower taxes aren't always going to be a deciding factor in a global economy. -spence

Oh, no Bubba...say it ain't so!!!

Bill Clinton calls for corporate tax cut
ASPEN, Colo. — President Bill Clinton says the nation’s corporate tax rate is “uncompetitive” and called for a lower rate as part of a “mega-deal” to raise the debt ceiling.

Oh, no Bubba...say it ain't so!!!

Bill Clinton calls for corporate tax cut
ASPEN, Colo. — President Bill Clinton says the nation’s corporate tax rate is “uncompetitive” and called for a lower rate as part of a “mega-deal” to raise the debt ceiling.

You missed an important part of Clinton's speech...

We tax at 35 percent of income, although we only take about 23 percent. So we should cut the rate to 25 percent, or whatever’s competitive, and eliminate a lot of the deductions so that we still get a fair amount, and there’s not so much variance in what the corporations pay.

Lower the top rate, remove deductions and let the companies still pay about the same in taxes...pretty much what Reagan did in '86. It sure sounds good for the Norquist disciples and might help negotiate a settlement in the debt ceiling game of chicken that Congress is playing.

-spence

You missed an important part of Clinton's speech...



Lower the top rate, remove deductions and let the companies still pay about the same in taxes...pretty much what Reagan did in '86. It sure sounds good for the Norquist disciples and might help negotiate a settlement in the debt ceiling game of chicken that Congress is playing.

-spence

no...THE important part is Bill Clinton says the nation’s corporate tax rate is “uncompetitive” and called for a lower rate

and it completely refutes your statements and the idea, your statement "we can justify higher corporate tax rates" that higher taxes on corporations is valid a way to increase revenue, particularly right now

..........................

“When I was president, we raised the corporate income-tax rates on corporations that made over $10 million [a year],” the former president told the Aspen Ideas Festival on Saturday evening.

“It made sense when I did it. It doesn’t make sense anymore — we’ve got an uncompetitive rate."

not ambiguous



Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0711/58275.html#ixzz1RDwXxqrJ

no...THE important part is Bill Clinton says the nation’s corporate tax rate is “uncompetitive” and called for a lower rate

and it completely refutes your statements and the idea, your statement "we can justify higher corporate tax rates" that higher taxes on corporations is valid a way to increase revenue, particularly right now
I've never said we can justify having the highest taxes, but that we can justify having higher taxes as the US is a desirable place to do business for many industries. Certainly taxes are a factor (one factor of many) in where companies operate, but right now the effective corporate rate in the US is just over 25%, putting us lower than many industrialized nations including Canada, India, China, Brazil, Japan, Italy and Germany.

Source: http://www.pwc.com/gx/en/paying-taxes/pdf/paying_taxes_2009.pdf

Clinton is throwing the GOP a bone in an attempt to be a deal maker and at the same time take away a key Republican talking point. Lowering the Tax rate from 35% to 25% while removing deductions will produce nearly the same tax revenue according to the GAO.

If it will even out how taxes are collected it's probably a good thing to do. These stories of corporations paying little or 1/2 the statutory rate is silly.

-spence

The jobless rate is not 9.4. Anybody who lost their job when things went critical in late 08 to early 09 have all dropped off the jobless statistics. The 99'ers (those who exhausted their unemployment benefits) do not exist according to how the jobless rate is determined. The jobless rate in above 20 percent IMO and many say as high as 25% .

I've never said we can justify having the highest taxes, but that we can justify having higher taxes as the US is a desirable place to do business for many industries. Certainly taxes are a factor (one factor of many) in where companies operate, but right now the effective corporate rate in the US is just over 25%, putting us lower than many industrialized nations including Canada, India, China, Brazil, Japan, Italy and Germany.

Source: http://www.pwc.com/gx/en/paying-taxes/pdf/paying_taxes_2009.pdf

Clinton is throwing the GOP a bone in an attempt to be a deal maker and at the same time take away a key Republican talking point. Lowering the Tax rate from 35% to 25% while removing deductions will produce nearly the same tax revenue according to the GAO.

If it will even out how taxes are collected it's probably a good thing to do. These stories of corporations paying little or 1/2 the statutory rate is silly.

-spence

The source that you linked is lengthy with not a lot of reference to U.S. stats. Admittedly, I read speadily, missing a lot, but found some interesting bits.:

"Where taxes are high and commensurate gains seem low, many businesses simply choose to stay informal. A recent study found that higher tax rates are associated with less private investment, fewer formal businesses per capita and lower rates of business entry. The analysis suggests for example, that a 10% increase in the effective corporate tax rate reduces the investment-to-GDP ratio by 2 percentage points."

"36 economies made it easier to pay taxes in 2007/2008. As in previous years, the most popular reform feature was reducing the profit tax rate which happened in no fewer than 21 economies."

Eastern Europe and Central Asia had most reforms in 2007/2008--nine reformed; four reduced profit tax to 10%, one from 20% to 15% and abolished the social tax, Czech Republic reduced it to 21%.

Five OECD high-income economies reduced Corporate income tax rates. Canada is gradually reducing the corp. income tax to 15% by 2012 and will abolish the 1.12% surtax and introduce accelerated depreciation for buildings. Canada already had reduced, in 2007/2008 its corp. tax rate to 19.5%. Also reducing the corp. tax rate were Denmark 28% to 25%, and Germany 25% to 15%.

"Countries can increase revenue by lowering rates and persuading more businesses to comply with more favorable rules."

The top 5 reform features in this study were:
1--REDUCED profit tax (71%)
2--Simplified process of paying taxes (22%)
3. Revised tax code (19%)
4. ELIMINATED taxes (17%)
5. Reduced labour taxes or contributions (14%)

In the United States "taxes on profit as a share of profits before total taxes rank in the 72nd percentile (23.5%) and thus quite high by global standards. Other taxes as a share of profits before tax also are quite high in the United States primarily due to property taxes."

"In 2008, the combined U.S. Federal and average State/local corporate income tax rate is 39.3%, 50% higher than the 26.2% average for the other 29 OECD countries." This is slightly offset by the DPAD . . . reducing the effective federal corp. tax rate on qualified income to 32.9%.

Beyond the comparisons, for me, it begs the question "What's it for?" Granted that taxes are necessary to run necessary and Constitutionally granted power. But if higher taxes simply are dumped into programs that are bloated, less effective than needed and are not even Constitutionally blessed, thus distancing us even further from our foundation toward uncharted, undefined whims to garner votes, are they good?

Beyond the comparisons, for me, it begs the question "What's it for?" Granted that taxes are necessary to run necessary and Constitutionally granted power. But if higher taxes simply are dumped into programs that are bloated, less effective than needed and are not even Constitutionally blessed, thus distancing us even further from our foundation toward uncharted, undefined whims to garner votes, are they good?
I just linked to the doc I saw the stats referenced from...I didn't read the entire thing.

It's perfectly fair to ask how tax revenue is being used. I think we'd all agree that if Congress was more careful with our money they'd need less of it.

But the point of it all is that the US doesn't seem to be that out of line when it comes to corporate taxes when compared to our peers.

-spence

The jobless rate is not 9.4. Anybody who lost their job when things went critical in late 08 to early 09 have all dropped off the jobless statistics. The 99'ers (those who exhausted their unemployment benefits) do not exist according to how the jobless rate is determined. The jobless rate in above 20 percent IMO and many say as high as 25% .

The official unemployment number is a measurement taken using one method of accounting. It doesn't reflect just people losing their jobs or the total number not working.

To jump between 9% and 20% isn't good for much beyond rhetoric, unless the argument is that the 9% method isn't accurately modeling the right trends.

There was a CATO article from last year that put the unemployment rate at less than 7% when focusing on people who had actually just become unemployed.

Perhaps more important is to use a consistent methodology. I'm more concerned with the trend...

-spence

Fed reduced it's forcast of unemployment to 8.6% -8.9% by years end.
Two months ago they had forcast 8.4%- 8.7%.

Obama joked last week that there wasn't as many "shovel ready jobs"
ready as he thought. Ha ha. Immelt laughed too.

I'd like to see how funnie it would have been if he was speaking in front
of a union hall audience.
Real jokester. :doh:
Funny thing with the gov, they come out with a number weekly for first time unemployment, usually stating this number has dropped from the previous week. Then an hour or two later they backtrack because they find out it is up or the same as the previous week..

The official unemployment number is a measurement taken using one method of accounting. It doesn't reflect just people losing their jobs or the total number not working.

To jump between 9% and 20% isn't good for much beyond rhetoric, unless the argument is that the 9% method isn't accurately modeling the right trends.

There was a CATO article from last year that put the unemployment rate at less than 7% when focusing on people who had actually just become unemployed.

Perhaps more important is to use a consistent methodology. I'm more concerned with the trend...

-spence

Rhetoric? It just shows that another 9% of the population is unemployed, and I am sure that the total of the population unemployed by now is closer to 30%

I've never said we can justify having the highest taxes,
I don't think anyone claimed that you did
but that we can justify having higher taxes as the US is a desirable place to do business for many industries. this is absurd, there are plenty of states that "justified higher taxes" thinking they were desirable places to do business and they are watching as businesses and people leave in droves right now

Certainly taxes are a factor (one factor of many) in where companies operate, QUOTE=spence

QUOTE=spence Perhaps more importantly, lower taxes aren't always going to be a deciding factor in a global economy. Many companies want to develop products locally to suit specific tastes. With an increasing cost of energy and transportation production will be kept local as well. are they a factor or aren't they?

but right now the effective corporate rate in the US is just over 25%, putting us lower than many industrialized nations including Canada, India, China, Brazil, Japan, Italy and Germany.

Clinton when did Clinton become president again? is throwing the GOP a bone in an attempt to be a deal maker and at the same time take away a key Republican talking point. Lowering the Tax rate from 35% to 25% while removing deductions will produce nearly the same tax revenue according to the GAO. no need to bother then

If it will even out how taxes are collected it's probably a good thing to do. you just said it will produce the same revenueThese stories of corporations paying little or 1/2 the statutory rate is silly. -spence

......................

hey Spence...Sowell posted a great article about you today...you should read it....:uhuh:

Politics vs. Reality
The facts are there, but they mean nothing if they are ignored.

It is hard to understand politics if you are hung up on reality. Politicians leave reality to others. What matters in politics is what you can get the voters to believe, whether it bears any resemblance to reality or not.

Not only among politicians, but also among much of the media, and even among some of the public, the quest is not for truth about reality but for talking points that fit a vision or advance an agenda. Some seem to see it as a personal contest about who is best at fencing with words.


Politics vs. Reality - Thomas Sowell - National Review Online (http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/271038/politics-vs-reality-thomas-sowell)

there is no recovery and it's gonna get worse before it gets better

I just linked to the doc I saw the stats referenced from...I didn't read the entire thing.

It's perfectly fair to ask how tax revenue is being used. I think we'd all agree that if Congress was more careful with our money they'd need less of it.

But the point of it all is that the US doesn't seem to be that out of line when it comes to corporate taxes when compared to our peers.

-spence

For the most part, the doc you linked trends to a more Reaganesc approach to taxation--lower taxes and easier methods of compliance, the combination leading to greater government revenue.

The study has little or nothing to do with U.S. economic problems or the loss of jobs to other countries. The cost of labor probably has more to do with "shipping jobs overseas" than corporate tax burdens. Most of those jobs did not go to our high income "peers," but to where the cost of doing business was sufficiently lower to make expensive moves feasible. The total tax rate borne by business is part of its cost and is passed on to the consumer in the price of the product. So U.S. business taxes, to a point, affect the American consumer more than the seller. Taxes raised beyond a point, as the study states, have a negative impact on investment and growth.

Taxes are necessary to fund the existence of government and are good so long as the government is unobtrusive to the growth and function of an economy and to the liberty of the individual. When taxes are collected to fund government expansion into what should be private sector responsibilities, the government power grows and the citizen's power shrinks. This is contrary to the intent of this country's founding.

there is no recovery and it's gonna get worse before it gets better


Yup, upto 9.2% today. Bad news always released before the
weekend hoping people won't pay that much attention.

Stimulus a complete failure.

Wake up and start cutting taxes for private industry so they know where they stand and can plan and start expansion.

Time for some genuine critical thinking and common sense, theory isn't working.

The unemployment rate isn't going to drop dramatically until we can create new growth industries.

There's a reason to DOW is nearly 12,600 on Friday not even two years after a massive recession. But no, you just want to claim Obama is a failure.

If we could only get this government off our back...oy vey.

-spence

oy vey

Home Depot founder Bernie Marcus did not mince words speaking with Investor's Business Daily:

Having built a small business into a big one, I can tell you that today the impediments that the government imposes are impossible to deal with. Home Depot would never have succeeded if we'd tried to start it today. Every day you see rules and regulations from a group of Washington bureaucrats who know nothing about running a business. And I mean every day. It's become stifling.

If you're a small businessman, the only way to deal with it is to work harder, put in more hours, and let people go. When you consider that something like 70% of the American people work for small businesses, you are talking about a big economic impact.

and

[Washington piles on regulations and mandates, the impact is tremendous. I don't think he's a bad guy. I just think he has no knowledge of this.Obama has] never really worked a day outside the political or legal area. He doesn't know how to make a payroll, he doesn't understand the problems businesses face. I would try to explain that the plight of the businessman is very reactive to Washington.

Meanwhile, IBD tallies the magnates, including billionaire Steve Wynn and non-founder CEOs, who are blasting Obama's economy.

Wynn has been a staunch supporter of the Obama administration from the beginning and still considers himself a Democrat. But even more remarkable, it's been out of character for CEOs such as Wynn to express their views in such blunt terms on political matters.

"A lot of people don't want to say that," he said. "They'll say, 'Oh God, don't be attacking Obama.' Well, this is Obama's deal, and it's Obama that's responsible for this fear in America," said Wynn. "The guy keeps making speeches about redistribution, and maybe 'we ought to do something to businesses that don't invest or (are) holding too much money.' We haven't heard that kind of talk except from pure socialists."[/B]

Business is being hammered, he said. "And I'm telling you that the business community in this country is frightened to death of the weird political philosophy of the president of the United States."

Others speaking out include:

•3M's George Buckley, who blasted Obama last February as anti-business. "We know what his instincts are," Buckley said. "We've got a real choice between manufacturing in Canada or Mexico - which tends to be more pro-business - and America," he told the Financial Times.

•Boeing's Jim McNerney, who in the Wall Street Journal last May called Obama's handpicked National Labor Relations Board's suit against his company a "fundamental assault on the capitalist principles that have sustained America's competitiveness since it became the world's largest economy nearly 140 years ago."

•Intel's Paul Otellini, who told CNET last August that the U.S. legal environment has become so hostile to business that there is likely to be "an inevitable erosion and shift of wealth, much like we're seeing today in Europe - this is the bitter truth."


just a sample, there are more.....

If you're a small businessman, the only way to deal with it is to work harder, put in more hours, and let people go. When you consider that something like 70% of the American people work for small businesses, you are talking about a big economic impact.
__________________________________________________ ___________

This is the plight of all the small business owners I know.

__________________________________________________ ____________
I don't think he's a bad guy. I just think he has no knowledge of this.Obama has] never really worked a day outside the political or legal area. He doesn't know how to make a payroll, he doesn't understand the problems businesses face. .[/COLOR]

__________________________________________________ ___________
And there in lies the problem with Obama and most of congress.
Did he or anyone of them,deliever papers and cut lawns at 10 yrs old,
work as a janitor in a school when they got their working papers, work
on farms in the summer, work in a drugstore, start their own small business,
work whie going to college and work for a large corporation?

They don't have an inkling of what hard work,saving money and sacrifice are and therefore have no clue as to the workings of business.

Community Organizer, pfft. What the H???

[QUOTE=spence;869785]I wonder if your author even bothered to read the actual report. You certainly didn't...
SEVENTH QUARTERLY REPORT
JULY 1, 2011:rtfm:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/defa...rra_report.pdf


Quote:
The analysis indicates that the Recovery Act has played a significant role in the turnaround of the economy that has occurred over the past two years.???? Real GDP reached its low point in the second quarter of 2009 and has been growing solidly since then???????, in large part because of the tax cuts and spending increases included in the Act. Employment, after falling dramatically, began to grow again on a sustained basis through 2010?????. As of the first quarter of 2011, the report estimates that the Recovery Act raised employment(JUNE 2011 UNEMPLOYMENT DATA*
(U.S. BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS) OFFICIAL UNEMPLOYMENT: 9.2% ??????????) by 2.4 to 3.6 million jobs relative to what it otherwise would have been.

-spence

.................................................. ........................

let's compare the report...that ultimately was not worth reading... to reality

By Samuel R. Staley
The U.S. Department of Commerce released its economic growth estimates for the second quarter of 2011 and they are, well, dismal. And depressing. The economy grew just 1.3 percent from April to June of this year, well below the 2.5 percent necessary to chip away at unemployment. What’s worse, estimates of growth for the first quarter were revised downward to just 0.4 percent.

According to the Bureau of Economic Analysis press release:

The increase in real GDP in the second quarter primarily reflected positive contributions from exports, nonresidential fixed investment, private inventory investment, and federal government spending that were partly offset by a negative contribution from state and local government spending. Imports, which are a subtraction in the calculation of GDP, increased.

The acceleration in real GDP in the second quarter primarily reflected a deceleration in imports, an upturn in federal government spending, and an acceleration in nonresidential fixed investment that were partly offset by a sharp deceleration in personal consumption expenditures.

The deceleration of personal consumer spending is particularly troubling for the Obama administration, since the entire stimulus package assumed that consumer spending was the key to reviving the economy. Goosing consumers would lead to long-term growth.

Moreover, a look at GDP growth since Obama took office surely has the president and his advisers worried:

2009 2nd Qtr: -0.7%
2009 3rd Qtr: 1.7%
2009 4th Qtr 3.8%
2010 1st Qtr: 3.9%
2010 2nd Qtr: 3.8%
2010 3rd Qtr: 2.5%
2010 4th Qtr: 2.3%
2011 1st Qtr: 0.4%
2011 2nd Qtr: 1.3%
first quarter 2011 were revised downward and if you follow along at all you know that the 2nd quarter will likely follow suit

Most of the growth in 2009 was independent of the government spending stimulus (and likely reflected the benefits of monetary policy and tax cuts). The economy began to sputter out around the time federal spending peaked. The emperor has no clothes.

The recent numbers are not good, but when you factor in continued high gas prices and global disruption caused by the nuke disaster and other events this spring there's reason for numbers to be where they are.

The same report by the government also indicated that business investment continuing to be up as companies seek to increase productivity. Hell, the North East is seeing a lot of growth in the aerospace industry keeps cranking out the orders for more aircraft. Parts suppliers in CT are experiencing record earnings.

So the GDP alone isn't reassuring but it's also not all bad.

To be honest I haven't seen anyone this giddy over bad news since Moveon.org mocked Gen. Petraeus.

-spence

Where are the manufacturing plants though Spence? Off-shore?

Hell, the North East is seeing a lot of growth in the aerospace industry keeps cranking out the orders for more aircraft.

-spence

Good news, but how will this continue when Obama wants to put more taxes
on Jet owning companies and individuals?

How will that help the little growth we are seeing in that industry. :huh:

Where are the manufacturing plants though Spence? Off-shore?
A lot of aero manufacturing is done in CT, PA, NY. Some also have offshore plants but the engineering is done in the US. A huge % of the entire aero supply chain is US based...Granted, it's one industry of many, but they're doing well.

The good/bad element is that companies want to increase throughput without adding burden (i.e. staff) so they're investing in technology to make their existing workforce more productive. There are manufacturing jobs being added, but not at the rate required before.

-spence

A lot of aero manufacturing is done in CT, PA, NY. Some also have offshore plants but the engineering is done in the US. A huge % of the entire aero supply chain is US based...Granted, it's one industry of many, but they're doing well.

The good/bad element is that companies want to increase throughput without adding burden (i.e. staff) so they're investing in technology to make their existing workforce more productive. There are manufacturing jobs being added, but not at the rate required before.

-spence

time to start coding more.

The recent numbers are not good brilliant!!!, but when you factor in continued high gas prices and global disruption caused by the nuke disaster and other events this spring there's reason for numbers to be where they are . HUH?
The same report(the report that we just established is worthless and mostly wrong) by the government also indicated that business investment continuing to be up as companies seek to increase productivity. Hell, the North East is seeing a lot of growth in the aerospace industry keeps cranking out the orders for more aircraft. Parts suppliers in CT are experiencing record earnings.

So the GDP alone isn't reassuring (SPENCE"S IRA is "reassuring"...for now...:rotf2:) but it's also not all bad. mostly

To be honest I haven't seen anyone this giddy over bad news since Moveon.org mocked Gen. Petraeus.

-spence

not giddy...just realistic.... and having to constantly point out that when you, Obama or the administration claim something...the opposite is usually true :uhuh:

time to start coding more.
It's interesting to look at the history...

Back in the day a machinist would pretty much do everything by hand. I remember a plant one time (they made aftermarket piston aircraft engines) had all these old lathes from WW2 used to turn tank cam shafts...wow, these things were big.

Then NC programming came about and you'd program a routine by tape.

Then even that got computerized (CNC) but the machinist still has final control. This is how most stuff is done today.

The trend in more tightly regulated industries is now to do everything in CAM software and not modify the code at the machine. It makes sense in some applications (for instance you may be required to know exactly which program made which part years later) but also really takes away from the artistry of the job.

So even though the factory isn't a bunch of robots, the job functions have shifted and become more technical as a result. The technology also allows companies to get better utilization from their production equipment so more parts can be cut without adding a lot of people.

Again, this is just one example, but I think a part of the unemployment problem we have right now is simply a correction as technology is becoming more advanced.

-spence

A lot of aero manufacturing is done in CT, PA, NY. Some also have offshore plants but the engineering is done in the US. A huge % of the entire aero supply chain is US based...Granted, it's one industry of many, but they're doing well.

Again, this is just one example, but I think a part of the unemployment problem we have right now is simply a correction as technology is becoming more advanced. business aren't "not" hiring because of technology advancements...they're not hiring because the business climate is so uncertain with the knucklehead currently in the Whitehouse...go back and read the comments from the various business leaders that had a lot to say about this

-spence

any actual evidence of this and whether it wll have any real impact? Who is "they"? I did a little searching and...maybe in your little sphere this is true and makes you giddy, but there is nothing to support that this is any kind of positive sign of either a turn around in the economy or a signal that jobs are being or will be created....I'm sure there's a pastry business out there doing well too...but it doesn't mean much in the overall scheme of things...

from the list of top 6 "industries hiring" in 2011


number two....

2. Federal government
While local and state governments have seen their budgets slashed, there's no recession at the federal level. Between new government programs and a wave of baby-boomer civil servants who are retiring, hiring will be huge in government for the next couple of years. It's forecast that 600,000 need to be hired by 2013.

business aren't "not" hiring because of technology advancements...they're not hiring because the business climate is so uncertain with the knucklehead currently in the Whitehouse.
Uncertainty is one factor.

The bigger picture is a global economy that's bringing tens of millions into the middle class. A lot of those manufacturing and white collar jobs aren't being shipped to China because it's cheaper...it's just that's now where the customer is.

Be it Obama or McCain as POTUS the picture would look pretty much the same on most fronts.

I work across manufacturing industries and have a pretty good position to see what's going on. Innovative companies are doing well, those that sit still are just getting by.

-spence

Uncertainty is one factor.

it is THE factor...

Small businesses account for two-thirds of all new jobs in America, but within that world, analysts are now increasingly recognizing the role that start-ups play in driving job creation. Economist Ying Lowrey of the Small Business Administration has calculated that new entrepreneurial businesses created 3.5 million new jobs a year between 1997 and 2008, with 1 million of those jobs going to paid employees, and 2.5 million to the entrepreneurs themselves.


7/13/10
"Owners do not trust the economic policies in place or proposed and are distressed by global and national developments that make the future more uncertain," the NFIB said.

"While political leaders trumpet their ideological attempts to remake the economy and save 'small business', more and more ordinary folks are wondering what in the world are they are thinking," the NFIB report stated. "Either policymakers have no idea how to help the economy or they are intentionally committing it to unsustainable expenditure growth and deficits so large that there will be no alternative but to raise taxes, a slow suicide for a dynamic economy."
Nine out of ten small businesses reported that all of their credit needs were met last month, according to the NFIB report. Just six percent of owners said "finance" was their single most important problem. Rather, poor sales, taxes and government red tape took the top three spots.

The bigger picture is a global economy that's bringing tens of millions into the middle class. simply not true.....job creation(the majority) will occur from small businesses...many of whom will not be participating in your "global economy"..make a quick list of the occupations and business that you know and you'll quickly realize that very few participate in the "global economy" or even have any need to

A lot of those manufacturing and white collar jobs aren't being shipped to China because it's cheaper...it's just that's now where the customer is. not true

Be it Obama or McCain as POTUS the picture would look pretty much the same on most fronts.
we've been through this and you have absolutely no evidence to support this

I work across manufacturing industries and have a pretty good position to see what's going on. Innovative companies are doing well, those that sit still are just getting by.
what you have is a very myopic view skewed by political ideaology:uhuh:

-spence

this economy will not turn around until Americans have the confidence in the economic and political environment to invest their time and treasure into entreprenurial endeavuors..it will be small business...very small businesses, that provide the jobs...not your cronie capitalists on a sugar rush from Bernanke that currently bouy your IRA

You should spend more time talking to actual corporate execs rather than reading Right wing blogs...

-spence

You should spend more time talking to actual corporate execs rather than reading Right wing blogs...

-spence

all smarm...no substance :uhuh:

you do the high-minded rhetoric thing very well...

but on facts and reality...not so much...

a lot like our current president.............

Most large corps are showing significant growth outside of the US, the growing middle class in India, China, Far East, not the US is causing significant shift if resources employed by these corporations to be OUTSIDE of the US.

We are the second or third market for most the Fortune 100.

The same report by the government also indicated that business investment continuing to be up as companies seek to increase productivity. Hell, the North East is seeing a lot of growth in the aerospace industry keeps cranking out the orders for more aircraft. Parts suppliers in CT are experiencing record earnings.

So the GDP alone isn't reassuring but it's also not all bad.

-spence

Have you recovered from your gloomy episode a few days ago in "THE SPEECH" thread where you felt that "Real wages continue to lag inflation for several decades now. Wealth generation appears to be more of a product of speculation than productivity in the marketplace"?

Or are you just changing your tone to suit your argument?

Most large corps are showing significant growth outside of the US, the growing middle class in India, China, Far East, not the US is causing significant shift if resources employed by these corporations to be OUTSIDE of the US.

We are the second or third market for most the Fortune 100.


yes, growth where there are favorable business climates and costs are more certain...

June 3 2010 (Bloomberg) — Microsoft Corp. Chief Executive Officer Steven Ballmer said the world’s largest software company would move some employees offshore if Congress enacts President Barack Obama’s plans to impose higher taxes on U.S. companies’ foreign profits.

“It makes U.S. jobs more expensive,” Ballmer said in an interview. “We’re better off taking lots of people and moving them out of the U.S. as opposed to keeping them inside the U.S.”

I know...he's not a "REAL" executive like the one's that Spence talks to every day...but, he has a little experience....


those middle classes are "growing" because US large corps are shifting there and investing because the business climate is better and "cheaper", not simply because the customer is there and our corporations are chasing them as Spence stated...

"A lot of those manufacturing and white collar jobs aren't being shipped to China because it's cheaper...it's just that's now where the customer is." -Spence

we(US corps) are creating and have been creating the growing middle class overseas through investment with jobs that are better paying than what would otherwise be there...it's just a better option for these corps but they are focusing there for many of the same reasons that small business here is lagging in job creation...and that is a crappy business climate here

Have you recovered from your gloomy episode a few days ago in "THE SPEECH" thread where you felt that "Real wages continue to lag inflation for several decades now. Wealth generation appears to be more of a product of speculation than productivity in the marketplace"?

Or are you just changing your tone to suit your argument?

The context for the two remarks are completely different.

-spence

those middle classes are "growing" because US large corps are shifting there and investing because the business climate is better and "cheaper", not simply because the customer is there and our corporations are chasing them as Spence stated...
You're ignoring the mega trends that are driving this behavior.

The middle class in China didn't rise simply because US companies were looking for cheap labor. Perhaps the USA's most successful export has been the American Dream. People in countries like China have determined they deserve better, are educating themselves and their Government has changed it's behavior to help enable this change. The influx of US jobs is certainly a factor, but before that you have a craving for cheaply made stuff that started the ball rolling in the first place.

It's a hell of a lot more complicated than just Obama and the corporate tax rate.


we(US corps) are creating and have been creating the growing middle class overseas through investment with jobs that are better paying than what would otherwise be there...it's just a better option for these corps but they are focusing there for many of the same reasons that small business here is lagging in job creation...and that is a crappy business climate here
Don't discount how hungry the young professional class in these emerging nations are to educate themselves and be successful. We're seeing more of this now in North Africa, Iran and likely in more countries who have lived for the past 1/2 century behind closed doors.

Corporations have to manage their assets and resources against variable risks to deliver shareholder value. I'm sure every exec would love to have a low and stable corporate tax rate. But that doesn't mean they're going to turn that benefit into US jobs or value to the US consumer. In a very competitive GLOBAL marketplace they're going to continue to look for any advantage to capture market share...and as SM36 mentioned, the high growth opportunities are for the most part not in the US today.

If we're smart, educate our kids and keep the innovative spirit of America going...we'll be fine in the long run...but we may not dominate like some feel we're entitled to.

-spence

You're ignoring the mega trends that are driving this behavior. "mega trends"

The middle class in China didn't rise simply because US companies were looking for cheap labor I don't think I ever mentioned cheap labor....I said better business environments which include the overall cost of labor as well as regulation and taxation.

Perhaps the USA's most successful export has been the American Dream. you mean capitalism, because that's what is creating these jobs and expanding the middle class abroad

People in countries like China have determined they deserve better, are educating themselves and their Government has changed it's behavior to help enable this change.

huh?

The 2011 crackdown on dissidents in the People's Republic of China refers to the arrest of dozens of mainland Chinese rights lawyers, activists and grassroots agitators who have been detained or have lost contact with friends and relatives is the response from the government of the People's Republic of China to the 2011 Chinese protests.[1][2][3][4][5] Since then, at least 54 Chinese activists have been arrested or detained by authorities in the biggest crackdown on dissent since the Tiananmen Square protests of 1989.[6][7] Since the start of the protests in mid-February 2011, human rights groups have claimed that more than 54 people have been arrested by authorities, some of whom have been charged with crimes. Among those arrested are bloggers who criticise the government such as Ai Weiwei, lawyers who pursue cases against the government, and human rights activists.
China official warns of domestic unrest and "hostile" West

....................

.

February 20, 2011.

BEIJING (Reuters) - The Chinese government faces a turbulent time of domestic unrest and challenges from "hostile Western forces" that it will fight with more sophisticated controls, a Communist Party law-and-order official said.

Chen Jiping, deputy secretary general of the Communist Party's Political and Legal Affairs Committee, gave the toughly worded warning in this week's issue of Outlook Weekly, and blamed Western democratic countries for fomenting unrest.

"The schemes of some hostile Western forces attempting to Western and split us are intensifying, and they are waving the banner of defending rights to meddle in domestic conflicts and maliciously create all kinds of incidents," Chen told the magazine, which is published by the official Xinhua news agency.

"Mass incidents continue at a high rate," Chen said, using the Party euphemism for protests, riots, strikes and mass petitions.

"Our country is in a period of magnified conflicts within the populace, high crime rates and complex struggle against foes, and these features are most unlikely to change any time soon," he said. The magazine reached subscribers on Tuesday.

To counter such worries, Chinese leaders have promoted more of the stringent security steps that they brandished over the weekend, when police snuffed out feeble attempts to emulate the "Jasmine Revolution" street protests that have bloomed across the Middle East.

Chen said the government was honing policies to defuse and smother unrest and crime. Those policies include more monitoring of citizens to nip threats in the bud.

"That will include comprehensive roll-out of a social stability risk assessment system that covers major projects and policies that have a direct bearing on public interests," he said.



China Intensifies CrackdownJul 26, 2011 • By DANIEL HALPER

The New York Times reports that "China already has some of the world’s most far-reaching online restrictions," and now it's getting worse.

New regulations that require bars, restaurants, hotels and bookstores to install costly Web monitoring software are prompting many businesses to cut Internet access and sending a chill through the capital’s game-playing, Web-grazing literati who have come to expect free Wi-Fi with their lattes and green tea.

The software, which costs businesses about $3,100, provides public security officials the identities of those logging on to the wireless service of a restaurant, cafe or private school and monitors their Web activity. Those who ignore the regulation and provide unfettered access face a $2,300 fine and the possible revocation of their business license.

The new measures are supposedly meant to allow the Chinese authorities to crackdown on crime, but will instead allow the Communist government to suppress freedom more easily. This renewed crackdown is apparently in response to the Arab Spring, which has been a poignant reminder to the Chinese government that repressed people eventually seek freedom.

The renewed crackdown is, in a way, a tacit admission of guilt, or at least a self-acknowledgment that the way the Chinese govern is similar to the way Syrian strongman Bashar al-Assad governs (and the way Hosni Mubarak governed Egyptians, etc.), and that the way the Chinese people are treated by their government is similar to the way the Syrians are treated by theirs.

The influx of US jobs is certainly a factor, but before that you have a craving for cheaply made stuff that started the ball rolling in the first place. actually, it was a lot of the same stuff...just made cheaplier...and in many cases.....better and for a fraction of the cost

It's a hell of a lot more complicated than just Obama and the corporate tax rate. right, there's the threat of Card Check and other Union strongarming, the Healthcare debacle, the insainty coming out of the EPA and other agencies and Czars



Don't discount how hungry the young professional class in these emerging nations are to educate themselves and be successful.why would I discount that? I believe that is the natural state of humanity until you become convinced by someone from government that you should depend on them for everything

We're seeing more of this now in North Africa, Iran and likely in more countries who have lived for the past 1/2 century behind closed doors. and why is that?

Corporations have to manage their assets and resources against variable risks see aboveto deliver shareholder value. I'm sure every exec would love to have a low and stable corporate tax rate. But that doesn't mean they're going to turn that benefit into US jobs or value to the US consumer. couple with some other factors, they might In a very competitive GLOBAL marketplace they're going to continue to look for any advantage to capture market share again...brilliant!!...and as SM36 mentioned, the high growth opportunities are for the most part not in the US today.do I need to repeat why?

If we're smart, educate our kids and keep the innovative spirit of America going...we'll be fine in the long run Hope and Change?...but we may not dominate like some feel we're entitled to. huh?
-spence

great stuff spence

You should spend more time talking to actual corporate execs rather than reading Right wing blogs...

-spence

Intel CEO Paul Otellini, referring to Obama and the Democrats, said in an August speech to the Technology Policy Institute's Aspen Forum, "I think this group does not understand what it takes to create jobs."

Verizon CEO Ivan Seidenberg, in a June speech at the Economic Club of Washington, accused Obama of creating an "increasingly hostile environment for investment and job creation."

Cypress Semiconductor's Rodgers told me last week that he had "started out happy with Obama because we had broken through the white male barrier" and made "a step forward for equality." But Rodgers added: "I have become deeply disappointed with him. It is amateur hour in Washington. The guy hasn't got a clue about the economy, how jobs are created, how wealth is created. It reminds me of the Jimmy Carter years, only worse."

Blackstone Group CEO Steven Schwarzman seemed to compare the Obama administration to Hitler by saying in a recent private meeting that Washington's push to increase taxes on private-equity firms is war, "like when Hitler invaded Poland in 1939," according to Newsweek.

July 19, 2011
Publicly-traded companies hold quarterly conference calls where investors are given updates on the state of the company and often hear about positive plans for the future.

Just yesterday, Wynn Resorts (WYNN) CEO Steve Wynn was speaking on a company conference call when he unleashed on President Obama, ranting about what Wynn sees as anti-business, socialist policies that are frightening companies as well as customers.

Bernie Marcus co-founded Home Depot (HD) in 1978 and brought it public in 1981 as the U.S. was suffering from the worst recession and unemployment in 40 years. The company thrived, creating hundreds of thousands of jobs and redefining home improvement retailing.

But Marcus says Home Depot "would never have succeeded" if it launched today due to onerous regulation.

Microsoft Corp. Chief Executive Officer Steven Ballmer said the world’s largest software company would move some employees offshore if Congress enacts President Barack Obama’s plans to impose higher taxes on U.S. companies’ foreign profits.

“It makes U.S. jobs more expensive,” Ballmer said in an interview. “We’re better off taking lots of people and moving them out of the U.S. as opposed to keeping them inside the U.S.”

"We don't know what the latest great idea from Obama will be. Therefore, we are hunkering down," Cypress Semiconductor CEO T.J. Rodgers.



74% of CEOs Believe Obama Would Be Disastrous for the Nation | October 09, 2008 |

With the nation in the middle of what is being regularly reported as the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression, a new poll found that 74 percent of America's top business leaders fear "an Obama presidency would be disastrous for the country."


i GUESS THEY WERE RIGHT

7/29/11

As U.S. Chamber of Commerce economist Martin Regalia warned Friday, Obama's increased regulation and uncertainty for small businesses "have made it extremely difficult for the economy to grow and create jobs."