"Recovery Summer"

[spence]

Originally Posted by justplugit

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

[scottw]

Originally Posted by 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

[spence]

Originally Posted by scottw

Economic Scene- Forecast With Hope Built In

Blah, blah, blah...

I've already mentioned this.

-spence

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

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 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.....

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

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....

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

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

[justplugit]

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.

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.

[spence]

Originally Posted by justplugit

#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

[striperman36]

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

My buds don't get that.

[justplugit]

[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?

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

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 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....

[scottw]

Originally Posted by scottw

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 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.

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by scottw

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.