Obama 1 year later - Page 2 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Cynthetiq · 01-21-2010, 01:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dippin

This is false. Again, unemployment insurance has NOTHING to do with how the unemployment rate is calculated.

Unemployment in calculated using surveys. Both the "regular" unemployment figure and the U6 unemployment figure.

How is the unemployment rate related to unemployment insurance claims?

The regular unemployment figure is based on a few questions on that survey. Basically: have you worked for pay in the reference period? If not, have you looked for work? To calculate U6 unemployment, they go beyond that: if the person has not looked for work they'll ask why, and those who say that they stopped looking for work because they couldnt find anything are counted as discouraged workers. If they have a job, they'll be asked about the nature of the job, and if they are still looking for work. That is where the marginally attached figures come from.

But, again, unemployment insurance data has nothing to do with how the unemployment rate is calculated.

Your wife's ability to collect unemployment insurance is irrelevant in counting her as unemployed or not. If she is still looking for a job and is surveyed, she will be counted as unemployed. If she stopped looking for a job because she couldn't find anything, she'll still be counted as a discouraged worker and included in U6 figures.

dippin, I'm not purposefully being dense. It's quite simply that the U-3 and the U-6 are in parallel as far as figures go, since U-3 is really a subset of the U-6. The fact that the UI claims reports are what the media reports, it's what people who just consume media take away from the table. You and I can agree it is not the whole picture of unemployment.

dippin · 01-21-2010, 01:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq

dippin, I'm not purposefully being dense. It's quite simply that the U-3 and the U-6 are in parallel as far as figures go, since U-3 is really a subset of the U-6. The fact that the UI claims reports are what the media reports, it's what people who just consume media take away from the table. You and I can agree it is not the whole picture of unemployment.

UI claims is what the media reports simply because it comes out earlier than the full unemployment figures.

And while no single number might be the whole picture of unemployment, the fact is that the notion that there are massive numbers of unemployed out there that are not counted is not true, especially if the argument is related to some shortcoming of unemployment insurance.

Cynthetiq · 01-21-2010, 02:26 PM

Well, hopefully this gets completed.

Quote:

President Obama: "Never Again Will the American Taxpayer be Held Hostage by a Bank that is 'Too Big to Fail'"

Posted by Jesse Lee on January 21, 2010 at 02:40 PM EST

Read the Transcript | Download Video: mp4 (166MB) | mp3 (8MB)

This morning the President proposed what he called "the Volcker Rule," named after one of the fiercest advocates for financial reform over the past year, and who has been particularly focused on addressing the issue of banks being "too big to fail." He also proposed addressing one of the clearest issues leading to the financial crisis of the past years, namely banks that stray wildly from their core mission: serving their customer. Having met with Paul Volcker this morning, and having last week proposed new fees on Wall Street to ensure the taxpayers get their money back, the President came with a direct message for banks that might object to these changes:

I welcome constructive input from folks in the financial sector. But what we've seen so far, in recent weeks, is an army of industry lobbyists from Wall Street descending on Capitol Hill to try and block basic and common-sense rules of the road that would protect our economy and the American people.
So if these folks want a fight, it's a fight I'm ready to have. And my resolve is only strengthened when I see a return to old practices at some of the very firms fighting reform; and when I see soaring profits and obscene bonuses at some of the very firms claiming that they can't lend more to small business, they can't keep credit card rates low, they can't pay a fee to refund taxpayers for the bailout without passing on the cost to shareholders or customers -- that's the claims they're making. It's exactly this kind of irresponsibility that makes clear reform is necessary.

President Barack Obama meets with Economic Recovery Advisory Board Chair Paul Volcker in the Oval Office January 21, 2010. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza)

The President went on to explain the reforms he was proposing in more detail:

First, we should no longer allow banks to stray too far from their central mission of serving their customers. In recent years, too many financial firms have put taxpayer money at risk by operating hedge funds and private equity funds and making riskier investments to reap a quick reward. And these firms have taken these risks while benefiting from special financial privileges that are reserved only for banks.
Our government provides deposit insurance and other safeguards and guarantees to firms that operate banks. We do so because a stable and reliable banking system promotes sustained growth, and because we learned how dangerous the failure of that system can be during the Great Depression.
But these privileges were not created to bestow banks operating hedge funds or private equity funds with an unfair advantage. When banks benefit from the safety net that taxpayers provide –- which includes lower-cost capital –- it is not appropriate for them to turn around and use that cheap money to trade for profit. And that is especially true when this kind of trading often puts banks in direct conflict with their customers' interests.
The fact is, these kinds of trading operations can create enormous and costly risks, endangering the entire bank if things go wrong. We simply cannot accept a system in which hedge funds or private equity firms inside banks can place huge, risky bets that are subsidized by taxpayers and that could pose a conflict of interest. And we cannot accept a system in which shareholders make money on these operations if the bank wins but taxpayers foot the bill if the bank loses.

Get much more from the White House fact sheet.

Derwood · 01-21-2010, 07:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

All I can say about the first year is if his goal was to push the centrist Dems further away and to look elsewhere for candidates, he accomplished his goal.

Obama IS a centrist democrat

aceventura3 · 01-22-2010, 04:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq

Well, hopefully this gets completed.

This is a game of smoke and mirrors and will have no meaningful impact on anything. It is like moving the deck chairs around on the Titanic. The Titanic needed a captain and crew with the ability to make minor course corrections well in advance of a collision with an iceberg. What comes from this WH is reactionary, too little too late.

The credit default obligations (CDO's, CMOS's, or CDS's) market often cited for the "crisis" is a zero sum game. On every trade someone was "long" (betting on increase) and someone was "short" (betting on decrease), and you have the "house's cut" (fees). When the government bailouts the "long" positions, like they did with AIG, there is a direct benefit to the "short" positions, like Goldman. So you end up with a company like Goldman being made whole, profiting on the risks they took and collecting fees. To go after these firms after the fact, does not leave me with a feeling that they know what they are doing. Now he announces a plan that with hurt some financial firms and benefit others.

And at the end of the day the guy with the mortgage, which was the basis for all this, still got his home foreclosed upon. Thanks a lot Mr. President.

pan6467 · 01-22-2010, 07:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dippin

UI claims is what the media reports simply because it comes out earlier than the full unemployment figures.

And while no single number might be the whole picture of unemployment, the fact is that the notion that there are massive numbers of unemployed out there that are not counted is not true, especially if the argument is related to some shortcoming of unemployment insurance.

See, the whole Unemployment figure the government gives is a crock. It doesn't take into effect the underemployed (part-timers, low wages and unable to make ends meet, etc), those that have given up looking, those that have lost houses and are homeless and have no way to collect if they could.....

I still believe you take those numbers into effect you are looking at 30+% of our population. And that is the tax base you are burdening with the bank bailouts that still allowed banks to give HUGE assed bonuses, cut lower management and raise all their rates. The tax base that you expect to pay for the health care, the cap and trade, the deficit spending and so on.

Meanwhile, people can't pay back their studenbt loans because the wages are too low.

Did Obama cause this? No. Rome had its "Barrack Room emperors" and we have had ours.Obama just inherited the mess and instead of finding ways to improve the landscape and help the PEOPLE... he has done nothing but deficit spend, allowed the tax base to shrivel up even more and bailout industries that have been causing the problems.

We are at a point where there are but 2 classes and we are taxing the class that supports all of us out of this country and to invest even deeper into others. If we lose the truly wealthy in this country and those poor schlubs that have a little are taxed to make up for the loss of that tax base, we're done. We may as well just give it all to China, the UN or whomever and watch our kids become illegals trying to get into Mexico.

dc_dux · 01-22-2010, 07:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

.....

Did Obama cause this? No. Rome had its "Barrack Room emperors" and we have had ours.Obama just inherited the mess and instead of finding ways to improve the landscape and help the PEOPLE... he has done nothing but deficit spend, allowed the tax base to shrivel up even more and bailout industries that have been causing the problems.
...

What would you have proposed as a comprehensive plan to not only keep the economy from the inherited collapse in the short term, but also retooling the economy to make it more competitive in the future?

The Lost Decade

Quote:

For most of the past 70 years, the U.S. economy has grown at a steady clip, generating perpetually higher incomes and wealth for American households. But since 2000, the story is starkly different.

The past decade was the worst for the U.S. economy in modern times, a sharp reversal from a long period of prosperity that is leading economists and policymakers to fundamentally rethink the underpinnings of the nation's growth...

... There has been zero net job creation since December 1999. No previous decade going back to the 1940s had job growth of less than 20 percent. Economic output rose at its slowest rate of any decade since the 1930s as well.

Middle-income households made less in 2008, when adjusted for inflation, than they did in 1999 -- and the number is sure to have declined further during a difficult 2009. The Aughts were the first decade of falling median incomes since figures were first compiled in the 1960s.

And the net worth of American households -- the value of their houses, retirement funds and other assets minus debts -- has also declined when adjusted for inflation, compared with sharp gains in every previous decade since data were initially collected in the 1950s...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...010101196.html

There is no quick fix that I can come up with. The Libertarians say stay out of the way and the economy will fix itself. The Republicans say supply side trickle down tax cuts will work (despite the $1 trillion in tax cuts in 01 and 03 that failed on the promise of economic prosperity for the middle class).

IMO, the stimulus plan designed on two tracks makes sense, with some short-term "shovel ready" jobs funding, short term assistance to those unemployed, stabilization funds for state/local government AND long-term retooling or redirecting the economy with investments in alternative energy technology and health technology, building a national broadband network, repairing the infrastructure, etc.

It takes time and it was envisioned as a 18-24 month plan. Will it work. Who knows, but IMO, it is too soon to declare it failed.

aceventura3 · 01-22-2010, 08:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

It takes time and it was envisioned as a 18-24 month plan. Will it work. Who knows, but IMO, it is too soon to declare it failed.

It is a failure because it should not take 18-24 for a government stimulus plan to create jobs.

It is a failure because the focus is not on the parts of the economy that actually creates net new jobs.

It is a failure because of contradictory policy and statements coming from Washington.

Obama's administration is hindering job growth.

dippin · 01-22-2010, 08:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

See, the whole Unemployment figure the government gives is a crock. It doesn't take into effect the underemployed (part-timers, low wages and unable to make ends meet, etc), those that have given up looking, those that have lost houses and are homeless and have no way to collect if they could.....

Actually, the U6 unemployment measure takes into account all of those things. Part timers with low wages are the so called marginally employed, and those who gave up looking are called discouraged workers, and collecting UI has nothing to do with the measure.

---------- Post added at 08:10 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:07 AM ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

It is a failure because it should not take 18-24 for a government stimulus plan to create jobs.

It is a failure because the focus is not on the parts of the economy that actually creates net new jobs.

It is a failure because of contradictory policy and statements coming from Washington.

Obama's administration is hindering job growth.

Funny that even the American Enterprise Institute disagrees with you. And funny it simply ignores the fact that in every single recovery there has been a lag between the economy bouncing back and and unemployment going down of at least 12 months.

aceventura3 · 01-22-2010, 08:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dippin

Funny that even the American Enterprise Institute disagrees with you. And funny it simply ignores the fact that in every single recovery there has been a lag between the economy bouncing back and and unemployment going down of at least 12 months.

Without being specific it is pretty easy to say who disagrees with me.

The basis of my post is pretty basic. Government stimulus needs to generate its impact before the costs off-sets the impact. If you find an economist who disagrees with that, let me know and we can take it from there. Government can "prime the pump" or get the party started and for that you need something immediate.

{added} Just for kicks I went to AEI's website, and read this:

Quote:

As we move from 2009 to 2010, we are not likely to see a continuation of the improving financial and economic trends that characterized the last three quarters of 2009. The intensity of the stimulus applied cannot be repeated.

http://www.aei.org/outlook/100928

seems like they may actually agree with me.

pan6467 · 01-23-2010, 06:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

What would you have proposed as a comprehensive plan to not only keep the economy from the inherited collapse in the short term, but also retooling the economy to make it more competitive in the future?

The Lost Decade

There is no quick fix that I can come up with. The Libertarians say stay out of the way and the economy will fix itself. The Republicans say supply side trickle down tax cuts will work (despite the $1 trillion in tax cuts in 01 and 03 that failed on the promise of economic prosperity for the middle class).

IMO, the stimulus plan designed on two tracks makes sense, with some short-term "shovel ready" jobs funding, short term assistance to those unemployed, stabilization funds for state/local government AND long-term retooling or redirecting the economy with investments in alternative energy technology and health technology, building a national broadband network, repairing the infrastructure, etc.

It takes time and it was envisioned as a 18-24 month plan. Will it work. Who knows, but IMO, it is too soon to declare it failed.

Quick fixes....

find someone interested in buying GM

instead of all that money to banks.... give it to the states to improve the roads, schools, bridges and so on... creat instant jobs the way FDR did by rebuilding the infrastructure that is crumbling before our eyes.

raise tariffs enforce labor laws in US owned corporations overseas.

go after, prosecute if possible those bankers that took high salaries and buyouts knowing they destroyed the company and ripped off investors and consumers...

start re regulating the banks, make the interest rates for savings and checking somewhat valuable and in some proportion to the interest rates we pay on credit cards, for loans etc.

You do that and the economy rebounds in less than 6 months.

---------- Post added at 09:07 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:58 AM ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by dippin

Actually, the U6 unemployment measure takes into account all of those things. Part timers with low wages are the so called marginally employed, and those who gave up looking are called discouraged workers, and collecting UI has nothing to do with the measure.

Really??? and exactly how does the government get this U6 number. How do they know exactly how many are homeless, discouraged, can't collect because they were salaried/owned their own small business or were independant contractors?

And what is the current U6 number given by the government and the number BEFORE Obama took office?

I'd like to know because I lost my job the past year and had to take a $3+ an hour paycut and was unable to file for unemployment.

My wife lost her job because Charter One (an RBS bank owned subsidiary) because they closed her branch and didn't take management with them.

So our household now pays lower income taxes (MUCH LOWER) and cannot afford to stimulate much in the economy world. Much like many of my friends and thousands in North East Ohio as a whole.

dc_dux · 01-23-2010, 07:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

Quick fixes....

find someone interested in buying GM

No one wants to absorb that debt.

Quote:

instead of all that money to banks.... give it to the states to improve the roads, schools, bridges and so on... creat instant jobs the way FDR did by rebuilding the infrastructure that is crumbling before our eyes.

The recovery plan, particularly the state stabilization funds, are creating jobs to improve roads, schools, bridges, etc...hundreds of thousands to-date.

And, w/o the bank bailouts, credit dries up and more small businesses fail.

Quote:

raise tariffs enforce labor laws in US owned corporations overseas.

Would have a minor impact and cause a trade war to the disadvantage of the US.

Quote:

go after, prosecute if possible those bankers that took high salaries and buyouts knowing they destroyed the company and ripped off investors and consumers...

Sure...but no impact on the economy.

Quote:

start re regulating the banks, make the interest rates for savings and checking somewhat valuable and in some proportion to the interest rates we pay on credit cards, for loans etc.

The House passed a banking/financial services bill, the Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act last year, with NO republican votes. It addresses:

sub-prime lending - The bill outlaws many of the egregious and predatory industry practices that fueled the subprime lending boom and establishes a simple standard for all home loans: institutions must ensure that borrowers can repay the loans they are sold

derivatives - the bill regulates the over-the-counter derivatives marketplace, requiring all standardized swap transactions to be cleared and traded on an exchange

bail-outs - the bill requires big banks and other financial institutions (with $50 billion in assets) to foot the bill for any bailouts in the future. These institutions would pay assessments based on a company’s potential risk to the whole financial system if they were to fail.

ponzi schemes - the bill strengthens the SEC’s powers so that it can better protect investors from Madoff type frauds

consumer protections - the bill creates a new Consumer Financial Protection Agency to protect consumers and small businesses by ensuring that bank loans, mortgages, credit cards are fair, affordable, understandable, and transparent.

It has been stalled in the Senate by the Republicans.

On the issue of credit card protections, Obama signed the Credit Card Holders Bill of Rights last year.

Quote:

You do that and the economy rebounds in less than 6 months.

Uh...I dont think so and I dont think you would find one economist who agree with you.

And, the best features of your plan are already included in the recovery act or the banking/financial services reform act that Obama and the Democrats have enacted or proposed.

There is a consensus among many economists across the spectrum, while disagreeing on details, that the recovery plan has helped.

New Consensus Sees Stimulus Package as Worthy Step

And your plan certainly doesnt address the long term need to retool the economy.

Here is an example:

The US has fallen behind nearly every industrialized country on developing a national broadband network....and fallen behind on fundamental research in numerous areas including nano-technology, quantum physics, bio-med, alternative energy technology, general health technology, etc....all critical to long-term economic development and are components of what should be part of a long-term economic restructuring plan....and the recovery act includes funding for all of these....probably not enough funding.

IMO, your approach is a band-aid and not a very good one.

dippin · 01-23-2010, 11:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

Really??? and exactly how does the government get this U6 number. How do they know exactly how many are homeless, discouraged, can't collect because they were salaried/owned their own small business or were independant contractors?

And what is the current U6 number given by the government and the number BEFORE Obama took office?

I'd like to know because I lost my job the past year and had to take a $3+ an hour paycut and was unable to file for unemployment.

My wife lost her job because Charter One (an RBS bank owned subsidiary) because they closed her branch and didn't take management with them.

So our household now pays lower income taxes (MUCH LOWER) and cannot afford to stimulate much in the economy world. Much like many of my friends and thousands in North East Ohio as a whole.

I've already provided a link to all of that in this very thread.

ratbastid · 01-23-2010, 09:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dippin

I've already provided a link to all of that in this very thread.

I know, it's weird, right? It's almost like some people's rhetorical agenda blinds them to facts.

dippin · 01-23-2010, 10:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

Without being specific it is pretty easy to say who disagrees with me.

The basis of my post is pretty basic. Government stimulus needs to generate its impact before the costs off-sets the impact. If you find an economist who disagrees with that, let me know and we can take it from there. Government can "prime the pump" or get the party started and for that you need something immediate.

{added} Just for kicks I went to AEI's website, and read this:

AEI - The Year Ahead

seems like they may actually agree with me.

Talk about moving the goal posts. You said

"It is a failure because it should not take 18-24 for a government stimulus plan to create jobs.

It is a failure because the focus is not on the parts of the economy that actually creates net new jobs."

And the link you provided clearly states that

Quote:

"The real economy also responded to the massive stimulus but remained heavily dependent on it. In the United States, growth during the second half of 2009 probably averaged about 3 percent. Absent temporary fiscal stimulus and inventory rebuilding, which taken together added about 4 percentage points to U.S. growth, the economy would have contracted at about a 1 percent annual rate during the second half of 2009."

So yes, even the highly partisan AEI disagrees with what you said. The section you quoted basically says that because the stimulus package is not as big in 2010 the economy should suffer a bit. It is actually the complete opposite of what you said in your first post.

cnredd · 01-24-2010, 12:55 AM

This all you need to know about how well Barack Obama has done in his first year...

On the day he was inaugurated, he had a 68% approval rating. He had a 12% disapproval rating. That's difference of +56...

One year later, his approval rating is less than half (47%...it dropped 21 percentage points), and his disapproval rating is the same as his approval rating, meaning it's increased 35 percentage points...thus, giving him a difference of ZERO...

Losing a 56 point lead in the approval/disapproval ratings explains everything...

Add the second "t" (for http) in the address below to see the graph...

htp://i189.photobucket.com/albums/z23/cnredd/Gallup_1yr.jpg

pan6467 · 01-24-2010, 05:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dippin

I've already provided a link to all of that in this very thread.

You mean this?

Table A-12. Alternative measures of labor underutilization

And I asked you what the numbers were before and after... you didn't give them let me.

Dec. '08 13.5

Dec. '09 17.1

Hmmmmm a gain when supposedly the stiumulus was putting people back to work.

This is how they get that U6 number

Quote:

NOTE: Marginally attached workers are persons who currently are neither working nor looking for work but indicate that they want and
are available for a job and have looked for work sometime in the recent past. Discouraged workers, a subset of the marginally attached,
have given a job-market related reason for not looking currently for a job. Persons employed part time for economic reasons are those
who want and are available for full-time work but have had to settle for a part-time schedule. For more information, see "BLS intro-
duces new range of alternative unemployment measures," in the October 1995 issue of the Monthly Labor Review. Updated population con-
trols are introduced annually with the release of January data.

Now, the funny thing is, no one I know has ever been asked if they are looking for a job or not. Nor has anyone I know been asked if they are part time looking for full time. Nor, does it say ANYTHING about those having lost jobs making less at a new on. Again, it does not include self employed or independent contractors who do not pay into unemployment and are now unemployed, making far less while working the same or more hours or working for less due to hours cut or lack of business. Or those plumbers, contractors I know that are doing jobs and getting bad checks and losing money due to having paid for supplies. Courts can't force someone who has no money to pay, they can try, but in the end it just destroys their credit while the plumber/roofer/etc loses money they need.

So, yeah the U6 number is a good government number that means dick and is easily manipulated.

---------- Post added at 08:46 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:45 AM ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by cnredd

This all you need to know about how well Barack Obama has done in his first year...

On the day he was inaugurated, he had a 68% approval rating. He had a 12% disapproval rating. That's difference of +56...

One year later, his approval rating is less than half (47%...it dropped 21 percentage points), and his disapproval rating is the same as his approval rating, meaning it's increased 35 percentage points...thus, giving him a difference of ZERO...

Losing a 56 point lead in the approval/disapproval ratings explains everything...

Add the second "t" (for http) in the address below to see the graph...

htp://i189.photobucket.com/albums/z23/cnredd/Gallup_1yr.jpg

Yeah, that pretty much says it all there.

dc_dux · 01-24-2010, 06:47 AM

In fact, given that he started with higher approval ratings than any recent president, one would expect a significant drop, particularly with taking on significant issues like health care reform and the worst economy in half a century.

If you look at job approval ratings from all polls, the majority still have it above 50%
Obama: Job Ratings

He has disappointed alot of people with lofty expectations, including me, in some policy areas. I want a president willing to take bold moves to address major problems, rather than just coast along. IMO, he has been too accommodating in attempting to build consensus and has not been bold enough.

But his favorability ratings are still high:
Obama: Favorability

Poll cherry picking is a FOX trick.

pan.....you want to try that recovery plan again...given that the good pieces of your first plan are already in Obama's recovery plan or the Democrats banking/financial services regulatory bill?

dippin · 01-24-2010, 09:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

You mean this?

Table A-12. Alternative measures of labor underutilization

And I asked you what the numbers were before and after... you didn't give them let me.

Dec. '08 13.5

Dec. '09 17.1

Hmmmmm a gain when supposedly the stiumulus was putting people back to work.

This is how they get that U6 number

Now, the funny thing is, no one I know has ever been asked if they are looking for a job or not. Nor has anyone I know been asked if they are part time looking for full time. Nor, does it say ANYTHING about those having lost jobs making less at a new on. Again, it does not include self employed or independent contractors who do not pay into unemployment and are now unemployed, making far less while working the same or more hours or working for less due to hours cut or lack of business. Or those plumbers, contractors I know that are doing jobs and getting bad checks and losing money due to having paid for supplies. Courts can't force someone who has no money to pay, they can try, but in the end it just destroys their credit while the plumber/roofer/etc loses money they need.

So, yeah the U6 number is a good government number that means dick and is easily manipulated.

---------- Post added at 08:46 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:45 AM ----------

Yeah, that pretty much says it all there.

It is called "sampling," and I find it ridiculously funny that you talk about the manipulation of the BLS survey, which has a sample size of 60000, and then proceed to make a point using a gallup poll, with it's sample size of ~1000.

As far as his job approval goes, sure, he has let down a number of people. But his decline in popularity is not unprecedented, nor is it notable, given the size of the recession:

Obama's job approval vs Reagan's:

In fact, let's look at other recent presidents:

Presidential Approval Ratings from 1945-2008

So Obama is doing better than Truman, Ford, Carter and Clinton, and just as well as Reagan. And he is doing worse than Bush I and II, Nixon, LBJ, Kennedy and Eisenhower.

aceventura3 · 01-24-2010, 01:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dippin

Talk about moving the goal posts. You said

"It is a failure because it should not take 18-24 for a government stimulus plan to create jobs.

It is a failure because the focus is not on the parts of the economy that actually creates net new jobs."

And the link you provided clearly states that

So yes, even the highly partisan AEI disagrees with what you said. The section you quoted basically says that because the stimulus package is not as big in 2010 the economy should suffer a bit. It is actually the complete opposite of what you said in your first post.

On one hand we have people saying give the stimulus more time, on the other we have people saying it is not as big in 2010.

What I am saying is that government can create stimulus in the short term and then the actions taken by government will have an equal but opposite effect, assuming no government waste. The costs have to be incurred and paid for, one way or the other.

What I am saying is a truism. Politicians and economist with political agendas can tap dance around the truism I pointed out all day long, but it doesn't change what is true. If what I write is not clear, it is because of my inability to communicate with you, like I wrote earlier, if you find an economist who disagrees with what I have presented - I would love to read his stuff or interact with him or her.

Obama is saying that he has been focused on jobs all along and now he is saying that he is going to focus on jobs. That seems to be a contradiction and an admission that his plan initially was ineffective. If his plan was on course, why not say that? Why not simply say to America to be patient, that the plan is going to work? He can't say that because he knows it is not true. Are you saying you don't see what is so obvious? Why does Obama assume "we" don't get it? Obama reminds me of a 4 year-old boy who is in trouble and tried to explain it away with a little lie, that gets bigger and bigger and bigger, a some point it ain't cute any more.

dippin · 01-24-2010, 02:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

On one hand we have people saying give the stimulus more time, on the other we have people saying it is not as big in 2010.

What I am saying is that government can create stimulus in the short term and then the actions taken by government will have an equal but opposite effect, assuming no government waste. The costs have to be incurred and paid for, one way or the other.

What I am saying is a truism. Politicians and economist with political agendas can tap dance around the truism I pointed out all day long, but it doesn't change what is true. If what I write is not clear, it is because of my inability to communicate with you, like I wrote earlier, if you find an economist who disagrees with what I have presented - I would love to read his stuff or interact with him or her.

Obama is saying that he has been focused on jobs all along and now he is saying that he is going to focus on jobs. That seems to be a contradiction and an admission that his plan initially was ineffective. If his plan was on course, why not say that? Why not simply say to America to be patient, that the plan is going to work? He can't say that because he knows it is not true. Are you saying you don't see what is so obvious? Why does Obama assume "we" don't get it? Obama reminds me of a 4 year-old boy who is in trouble and tried to explain it away with a little lie, that gets bigger and bigger and bigger, a some point it ain't cute any more.

My point was clear:

Your assertion that the stimulus did not create any jobs, or that it has taken 18-24 months to create jobs, is false. Even a higly partisan, highly republican AEI admits it to be so.

Regarding your "truism:" I bet you didn't know there was a name for it. It's called Ricardian Equivalence. It is far from being accepted as a "truism," never mind as truth.

There is a vast literature on the matter, just a few clicks away.

aceventura3 · 01-24-2010, 02:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dippin

My point was clear:

Your assertion that the stimulus did not create any jobs, or that it has taken 18-24 months to create jobs, is false. Even a higly partisan, highly republican AEI admits it to be so.

Please re-read what I wrote. Your characterization of what I wrote is not accurate.

Quote:

Regarding your "truism:" I bet you didn't know there was a name for it. It's called Ricardian Equivalence. It is far from being accepted as a "truism," never mind as truth.

There is a vast literature on the matter, just a few clicks away.

I am assuming this is meant to be condescending. And, for the sake of moving forward, let's assume I am not well read and just look at facts. Our economy has lost jobs on a net basis in2009. AEI is suggesting 2010 will not be better as a result of current government plans. I am suggesting 2010 will not be better as a result of government plans. What can make 2010 better is private sector activity. If all government had to do was to spend more money, solving unemployment would be pretty easy, don't you agree?

dippin · 01-24-2010, 02:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

Please re-read what I wrote. Your characterization of what I wrote is not accurate.

I am assuming this is meant to be condescending. And, for the sake of moving forward, let's assume I am not well read and just look at facts. Our economy has lost jobs on a net basis in2009. AEI is suggesting 2010 will not be better as a result of current government plans. I am suggesting 2010 will not be better as a result of government plans. What can make 2010 better is private sector activity. If all government had to do was to spend more money, solving unemployment would be pretty easy, don't you agree?

No one has ever said that government spending can "solve unemployment." What has been said was that fiscal stimulus can 1- improve the economic situation and 2- help an economy get out of a slump as the private sector reorganizes itself. That the stimulus improved the economic situation is beyond question, even by its detractors.

And if I was condescending in any way, it was in response to your claim of "truism" and your challenge to "find an economist who disagrees with what I have presented." The point remains, the issue you think is so true it has become a truism, that no one can possibly disagree with you, is actually far from being that, and if anything is a relatively minor position within economics.

aceventura3 · 01-25-2010, 07:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dippin

No one has ever said that government spending can "solve unemployment."

I am confused. What was the point of the government stimulus spending?

Quote:

What has been said was that fiscal stimulus can 1- improve the economic situation

I have agreed, with the qualification that the improvement is short-term. In the long-term the net impact will be zero, assuming no wasteful government spending.

Quote:

and 2- help an economy get out of a slump as the private sector reorganizes itself.

I am confused by this also. According to Obama what was the cause of the "slump", or the economy being on the "brink"? Was it government? Was it Wall St.? Was it governments lack of oversight of Wall St.? Depending on the answer, doesn't that tell us what the solution should be? In the first year what has he actually done in this regard? I would say - nothing!

Quote:

That the stimulus improved the economic situation is beyond question, even by its detractors.

You have got to be kidding!

My interests are tied to the American economy, when America does well I do well. I have a low tolerance for empty words. I don't have a government job, no big corporate job, no union job, not tenured, no trust fund, no vast holdings of real assets, no sugar momma and I have never won a state lottery. I need the economy to improve, and I need it to happen sooner rather than later. What we need is for Washington to simply nurture an environment for economic success. They need to get out of the way.

Quote:

And if I was condescending in any way, it was in response to your claim of "truism" and your challenge to "find an economist who disagrees with what I have presented." The point remains, the issue you think is so true it has become a truism, that no one can possibly disagree with you, is actually far from being that, and if anything is a relatively minor position within economics.

In order for the government to spend a $1 or to use a resource it has to take $1 or take a resource. How is that possibly not true?

Baraka_Guru · 01-25-2010, 08:20 AM

I hope most of you don't miss the point on unemployment from a government standpoint. The government isn't concerned so much about the total and actual number of people who are unemployed or underemployed or whatever. They are more concerned about the relative level of unemployment of their measure as compared to the level (of their measure) from previous business cycles. The goal of governments in general is not to strive for 0% unemployment (i.e. full employment)--which is impossible, by the way---the goal is to achieve a balance based on the economic capacity of the nation.

The problem with high unemployment we know: income drops, spending drops, economy slows, etc.

The problem with low unemployment relative to economic capacity is less known: wages spike, prices spike, inflation spikes, etc....

The role of government in this case is to achieve a balance. They aren't concerned about the U6 vs. the regular number. They are concerned about the current state of employment based on their own metrics and how it compares to previous business cycles.

I'll also repeat that unemployment numbers are a lagging indicator (i.e. they tell us about what the economy has already done, not what it's doing now or what it is expected to do). When you consider the stimulus, what's going to be most apparent first will be leading and coincident indicators such as stock markets (up), housing starts (down, but permits are way up), retail figures (fell 6.2% in 2009, but 1.2% increase expected in 1st quarter 2010), industrial production (?), GDP (growth has been slow but steady, and is expected to continue in 2010), etc. Why isn't anyone talking about these things? They'd be the most indicative of Obama's economic performance than unemployment at the moment. I'd look to his Year 2 Performance Report to see a hindsight of how unemployment was handled. At least as a start.

Cimarron29414 · 01-25-2010, 08:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Derwood

Obama IS a centrist democrat

...and I am the Easter bunny.

aceventura3 · 01-25-2010, 08:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru

I'd look to his Year 2 Performance Report to see a hindsight of how unemployment was handled. At least as a start.

I am reminded of "rain-men". People who would go into a community and promise rain for a fee. They would collect the fee, do their deed, and when it would eventually rain take credit for it. So it is with Obama and unemployment. His administration has not really done anything that will have a positive impact on employment, but when the numbers turn (and they will), he will take the credit.

Baraka_Guru · 01-25-2010, 08:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

I am reminded of "rain-men". People who would go into a community and promise rain for a fee. They would collect the fee, do their deed, and when it would eventually rain take credit for it. So it is with Obama and unemployment. His administration has not really done anything that will have a positive impact on employment, but when the numbers turn (and they will), he will take the credit.

Well, that would be the populist response. But when everyone is judging him based mostly on unemployment numbers, what do you expect?

Are you suggesting that a president has little or no effect on economies such as the U.S., or just Obama? Are you suggesting his decisions will have little or no effect on unemployment? How much intervention do you expect from him?

From what I've gathered from past speeches, I'd think Obama would give the American people credit before he'd take it for himself.

EDIT: I think governments only have so much of an impact on the economy. Dealing with interest rates, stimulus spending, and long-term economic policies (the latter of which I'd say is the biggest factor) only does so much. We are, after all, supposedly dealing with a relatively free market.

aceventura3 · 01-25-2010, 09:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru

Well, that would be the populist response. But when everyone is judging him based mostly on unemployment numbers, what do you expect?

I don't judge him based on unemployment.

Quote:

Are you suggesting that a president has little or no effect on economies such as the U.S., or just Obama?

I have consistently held the position that Presidents get too much cred and too much blame for economic conditions. I am a free market capitalist, I do not believe government or centralized control is effective in managing an economy. Government can maintain an environment that promote healthy economic growth or Government can do the opposite, so in that regard government can have an impact on economic conditions. Government is not the root cause of normal business cycles nor is government the answer to them.

Quote:

Are you suggesting his decisions will have little or no effect on unemployment? How much intervention do you expect from him?

At this point in time I think his rhetoric and attack against the financial sector, the "rich", etc. has hurt. I also believe the uncertainty of tax increases, increases in cost for health care, cap and trade, etc., has hurt. Banks are not lending, credit is frozen, he has not helped in this regard either. He said his stimulus would limit unemployment to 8%, we are well above that.

I want him to listen to the sectors of the economy that actually create jobs. His plans for targeted tax credits, ain't going to help. I don't need a child care tax credit, I need access to lines of credit at reasonable costs. I don't need a retirement savings, I need to be able to sell my home to a guy who can get a mortgage.

I am just letting off some steam. This is very frustrating and I am oh, so, tired of the meaningless jibber jabber coming from Washington. Doing nothing is o.k., saying no is o.k., gee.

Derwood · 01-25-2010, 09:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cimarron29414

...and I am the Easter bunny.

list me all of his left-leaning accomplishments in his first year

dippin · 01-25-2010, 10:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

I am confused. What was the point of the government stimulus spending?

I have agreed, with the qualification that the improvement is short-term. In the long-term the net impact will be zero, assuming no wasteful government spending.

I am confused by this also. According to Obama what was the cause of the "slump", or the economy being on the "brink"? Was it government? Was it Wall St.? Was it governments lack of oversight of Wall St.? Depending on the answer, doesn't that tell us what the solution should be? In the first year what has he actually done in this regard? I would say - nothing!

You have got to be kidding!

My interests are tied to the American economy, when America does well I do well. I have a low tolerance for empty words. I don't have a government job, no big corporate job, no union job, not tenured, no trust fund, no vast holdings of real assets, no sugar momma and I have never won a state lottery. I need the economy to improve, and I need it to happen sooner rather than later. What we need is for Washington to simply nurture an environment for economic success. They need to get out of the way.

In order for the government to spend a $1 or to use a resource it has to take $1 or take a resource. How is that possibly not true?

The point of government spending is and was to stave off a depression. Not to promote full employment forever and ever.

Even the AEI admits that, without the stimulus, the GDP would have dropped 1% instead of increasing their estimation of 3%. When even the people who oppose the stimulus claim that is has boosted GDP by 4%, you know the stimulus has had an effect.

Because here's the thing, the idea that a modest to small sized stimulus bill would reverse the slump in the court of less than a year all by itself is simply politicking by people trying to score a few political points, because no one ever claimed that it would.

Oh, and Im surprised that you think that a stimulus bill that was almost 1/3 tax cuts was completely ineffectual.

aceventura3 · 01-25-2010, 11:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dippin

The point of government spending is and was to stave off a depression. Not to promote full employment forever and ever.

Even the AEI admits that, without the stimulus, the GDP would have dropped 1% instead of increasing their estimation of 3%. When even the people who oppose the stimulus claim that is has boosted GDP by 4%, you know the stimulus has had an effect.

One more time. I do not dispute that government fiscal spending can have a short-term stimulative effect on the economy.

Quote:

Because here's the thing, the idea that a modest to small sized stimulus bill would reverse the slump in the court of less than a year all by itself is simply politicking by people trying to score a few political points, because no one ever claimed that it would.

I am not the guy saying that my actions saved the economy from the brink of economic disaster to the likes of the Great Depression.

I wish we could keep the talking points consistent. Did the small sized stimulus bill save us, reversing the "slump" or did it not?

Quote:

Oh, and Im surprised that you think that a stimulus bill that was almost 1/3 tax cuts was completely ineffectual.

I am a supply-sider. Among the things that involves, net tax reductions (in high tax environments) will have a stimulative affect on the economy. In order to have the maximum impact, you would want to see tax cuts for those who not only spend, but for those who invest in future economic growth. Giving the next Bill Gates a tax cut will have a bigger impact than giving the current Bill Gates a tax cut or the current Bill "six-pack" a tax cut, the guy who would spend his money on a new Japanese big screen TV. Don't misunderstand, I would support them all getting tax cuts, but there are differences in the impact targeted tax cuts will have. Our current tax environment for small business, the uncertainty of future tax increases, the phase out of Bush's tax cuts have worked against the tax cuts in Obama's plan.

rahl · 01-25-2010, 11:49 AM

^^^are you claiming that the Bush tax cuts were a positive force to our economy?

aceventura3 · 01-25-2010, 12:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rahl

^^^are you claiming that the Bush tax cuts were a positive force to our economy?

To the degree that people spending their own money is better for the economy than the government spending the people's money - yes.

Here is my bottom line- Whatever you folks want to believe is o.k., I just need business to improve and for that I need the economy to improve. Otherwise, I need one of you to hire me. Perhaps, when one of you get reduced payments on your student loan, or a bigger child care tax credit you can hire me. I am pretty good at being a general all around SOB, if you need one I am your man.

rahl · 01-25-2010, 12:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

To the degree that people spending their own money is better for the economy than the government spending the people's money - yes.

.

I'm sorry but you can't claim any success with the Bush tax cuts. His economic strategy basically caused the recession we are currently dealing with now.

Cimarron29414 · 01-25-2010, 12:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Derwood

list me all of his left-leaning accomplishments in his first year

The only way you could possibly view him as a centrist is by discounting all of his leftist initiatives which have failed due to justifiable resistance. To imply that he WANTS to rule from the center is ridiculous.

roachboy · 01-25-2010, 01:19 PM

cimmaron: so that means you can't answer the question.
because the fact is that obama is not a leftist except in the bizarre-o frames that conservatives and folk to the right of them want to lay over him.

ratbastid · 01-25-2010, 01:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

cimmaron: so that means you can't answer the question.
because the fact is that obama is not a leftist except in the bizarre-o frames that conservatives and folk to the right of them want to lay over him.

Exactly. Inside that frame, Obama's crazy-commie agenda has been successfully thwarted by a heroic group of 40 senators. Which is why asking about this accomplishments isn't a way to demonstrate Obama's centrism. Every communist thing he hasn't done is a win for Real Murkins who Stood Up and Said No.

Derwood · 01-25-2010, 01:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cimarron29414

The only way you could possibly view him as a centrist is by discounting all of his leftist initiatives which have failed due to justifiable resistance. To imply that he WANTS to rule from the center is ridiculous.

what are the FAILED leftist initiatives then? Has he championed gay marriage? Single payer, UHC? Immediate withdrawal from the Middle East? Major gun control?

aceventura3 · 01-25-2010, 01:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rahl

I'm sorry but you can't claim any success with the Bush tax cuts. His economic strategy basically caused the recession we are currently dealing with now.

We have been through the Bush years, there is a lot of stuff posted on his economic policies. I don't think Bush is responsible for the "bubble" in real estate or the "meltdown" in the financial sector and personally I was doing pretty good when he was in office. It was his TARP plan that Obama takes credit for when he says he saved the economy from the brink, look at the dates and compare what he did in office that would have "saved us" compared to when he started saying he "saved us".

01-24-2010, 12:55 AM	#56 (permalink)
cnredd Upright Location: Philadelphia, PA	This all you need to know about how well Barack Obama has done in his first year... On the day he was inaugurated, he had a 68% approval rating. He had a 12% disapproval rating. That's difference of +56... One year later, his approval rating is less than half (47%...it dropped 21 percentage points), and his disapproval rating is the same as his approval rating, meaning it's increased 35 percentage points...thus, giving him a difference of ZERO... Losing a 56 point lead in the approval/disapproval ratings explains everything... Add the second "t" (for http) in the address below to see the graph... htp://i189.photobucket.com/albums/z23/cnredd/Gallup_1yr.jpg __________________ Political Wrinkles "You get the respect that you give." - cnredd

01-24-2010, 06:47 AM	#58 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	In fact, given that he started with higher approval ratings than any recent president, one would expect a significant drop, particularly with taking on significant issues like health care reform and the worst economy in half a century. If you look at job approval ratings from all polls, the majority still have it above 50% Obama: Job Ratings He has disappointed alot of people with lofty expectations, including me, in some policy areas. I want a president willing to take bold moves to address major problems, rather than just coast along. IMO, he has been too accommodating in attempting to build consensus and has not been bold enough. But his favorability ratings are still high: Obama: Favorability Poll cherry picking is a FOX trick. pan.....you want to try that recovery plan again...given that the good pieces of your first plan are already in Obama's recovery plan or the Democrats banking/financial services regulatory bill? __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire Last edited by dc_dux; 01-24-2010 at 07:13 AM..

01-25-2010, 08:20 AM	#65 (permalink)
Baraka_Guru warrior bodhisattva Super Moderator Location: East-central Canada	I hope most of you don't miss the point on unemployment from a government standpoint. The government isn't concerned so much about the total and actual number of people who are unemployed or underemployed or whatever. They are more concerned about the relative level of unemployment of their measure as compared to the level (of their measure) from previous business cycles. The goal of governments in general is not to strive for 0% unemployment (i.e. full employment)--which is impossible, by the way---the goal is to achieve a balance based on the economic capacity of the nation. The problem with high unemployment we know: income drops, spending drops, economy slows, etc. The problem with low unemployment relative to economic capacity is less known: wages spike, prices spike, inflation spikes, etc.... The role of government in this case is to achieve a balance. They aren't concerned about the U6 vs. the regular number. They are concerned about the current state of employment based on their own metrics and how it compares to previous business cycles. I'll also repeat that unemployment numbers are a lagging indicator (i.e. they tell us about what the economy has already done, not what it's doing now or what it is expected to do). When you consider the stimulus, what's going to be most apparent first will be leading and coincident indicators such as stock markets (up), housing starts (down, but permits are way up), retail figures (fell 6.2% in 2009, but 1.2% increase expected in 1st quarter 2010), industrial production (?), GDP (growth has been slow but steady, and is expected to continue in 2010), etc. Why isn't anyone talking about these things? They'd be the most indicative of Obama's economic performance than unemployment at the moment. I'd look to his Year 2 Performance Report to see a hindsight of how unemployment was handled. At least as a start. __________________ Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing? —Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön Humankind cannot bear very much reality. —From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot Last edited by Baraka_Guru; 01-25-2010 at 08:29 AM..

01-25-2010, 11:49 AM	#73 (permalink)
rahl Junkie Location: Ohio	^^^are you claiming that the Bush tax cuts were a positive force to our economy? __________________ "Your life is Yours alone...Rise up and live it"

01-25-2010, 01:19 PM	#77 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	cimmaron: so that means you can't answer the question. because the fact is that obama is not a leftist except in the bizarre-o frames that conservatives and folk to the right of them want to lay over him. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite