Jump to content

Saved by the Stimulus


BubberMiley

Recommended Posts

As Bush and Cheney work hard to try and keep history from judging them too harshly, Obama is already on track to being able to take credit for overcoming one of the greatest financial crises in history. I guess that messiah stuff was true after all. :lol:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125185379218478087.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As Bush and Cheney work hard to try and keep history from judging them too harshly, Obama is already on track to being able to take credit for overcoming one of the greatest financial crises in history. I guess that messiah stuff was true after all. :lol:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125185379218478087.html

Nice try.

But there's little agreement about which programs are having the biggest impact. Some economists argue that efforts such as the Federal Reserve's aggressive buying of Treasury debt and mortgage-backed securities, as well as government efforts to shore up banks, are providing a bigger boost than the administration's $787 billion stimulus package.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As Bush and Cheney work hard to try and keep history from judging them too harshly, Obama is already on track to being able to take credit for overcoming one of the greatest financial crises in history. I guess that messiah stuff was true after all. :lol:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125185379218478087.html

I am actually happy that he is starting to take credit for the economy instead of blaming Bush.

They underestimated the budget by 2 trillion and initially misread how bad the economy was - gosh I think "overcoming" one of the greatest financial crises in history is a little bit of an overstatement. Just wait until his economic policies actually kick in. The economy probably improved somewhat because he is on vacation. :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps I should remind you of the title of the article: "U.S. Economy Gets Lift From Stimulus."

Though you could always try calling the WSJ a leftist, Obama-loving rag. That might work. :lol:

Hopefully they're right and it is turning around.

Myself I'm skeptical, and will wait for a little bit until we see some real progress before getting to excited.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Myself I'm skeptical, and will wait for a little bit until we see some real progress before getting to excited.

Cautious optimism like yours would seem to be the prudent route at this point.

Hysteria and wailing about the stimulus being a total disaster would, in contrast, best be left to the partisan wingnuts who would rather see our whole society collapse into chaos than see Obama prove them terribly, terribly wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps I should remind you of the title of the article:

Perhaps I need to remind you of what's contained in the article...

But there's little agreement about which programs are having the biggest impact. Some economists argue that efforts such as the Federal Reserve's aggressive buying of Treasury debt and mortgage-backed securities, as well as government efforts to shore up banks, are providing a bigger boost than the administration's $787 billion stimulus package

Especially considering a very small percentage of the stimulus has actually been spent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm no economist, but I'm wondering about what some people have been saying - ie, that this is just a small positive bounce from stimulus, cutbacks, etc, and could be followed by a bigger crash, like the 30's. However, the drought was a big factor in the 30's as well.

The Great Depression was triggered by a sudden, total collapse in the stock market. The stock market turned upward in early 1930, returning to early 1929 levels by April, though still almost 30 percent below the peak of September 1929.[11] Together, government and business actually spent more in the first half of 1930 than in the corresponding period of the previous year. But consumers, many of whom had suffered severe losses in the stock market the previous year, cut back their expenditures by ten percent, and a severe drought ravaged the agricultural heartland of the USA beginning in the summer of 1930.

In early 1930, credit was ample and available at low rates, but people were reluctant to add new debt by borrowing.[citation needed] By May 1930, auto sales had declined to below the levels of 1928. Prices in general began to decline, but wages held steady in 1930, then began to drop in 1931. Conditions were worse in farming areas, where commodity prices plunged, and in mining and logging areas, where unemployment was high and there were few other jobs. The decline in the US economy was the factor that pulled down most other countries at first, then internal weaknesses or strengths in each country made conditions worse or better. Frantic attempts to shore up the economies of individual nations through protectionist policies, such as the 1930 U.S. Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act and retaliatory tariffs in other countries, exacerbated the collapse in global trade. By late in 1930, a steady decline set in which reached bottom by March 1933.

Except for the drought (touch wood), we have the same situation now. Also, the major spenders - the baby boom bulge, now 45 - have done all their major spending: That won't pick up again. Now they are hunkering down, reining in to prepare for retirement, even moreso because of this economic uncertainty. However, this is somewhat balanced by the mini-boom of their kids and by immigration, but I suspect the following generations will not be the big spenders their parents were.

(Note: US data, and descriptions are out of alignment with graphs.)

http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2005/12/...t-and-boom.html

Edited by tango
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps I need to remind you of what's contained in the article...

Yes, there is some debate among economists about which of the government's initiatives is providing the greatest benefit, but the overall gist of the article is that the government's iniatives are benefiting the economy.

Now, what was that about them being a total failure? :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seems like propaganda to me. But the economy does respond to propaganda, so they are always trying to inspire "confidence" in some way. How odd though when all we heard just a few months ago was that this would be a long slog, perhaps years before there is recovery.

In the end its just a vicious circle, if consumers do not pick up their spending. Thats the bottom line, without which the economy is dead. They may inject their stimulus all they want, but if consumers don't join in there will be no lasting recovery. And there is not much to indicate that this has changed. Consumers, which are mostly middle class, are the first to take the hits when the economy falls, but last to get the benefits when it picks up again. Thats why the money has always gone in one direction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's quite a high bar you've set for your Messiah.

No, no. I was just commenting on your repeated description of the stimulus as a total disaster, and how your all-consuming hatred of Obama has caused you to make up these outright lies. But I see that by quoting (twice) how the government's initiatives are working, you must be coming around to realizing how wrong you are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Especially considering a very small percentage of the stimulus has actually been spent.

I'd love to see what happened if they did spend all of the stimulus package. We might have been out of this recession sooner!!!! But then again, Shady, in that scenario, you would probably complain that too much money was spent and on the wrong projects.

But as Blubber Miley says, parts of the package are working, and that is the key point here. Pick it apart if you want, but the point remains the same which you cannot argue about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps I should remind you of the title of the article: "U.S. Economy Gets Lift From Stimulus."

Though you could always try calling the WSJ a leftist, Obama-loving rag. That might work. :lol:

The WSJ isn't a leftist rag although financial analysts of the mainstream are at best presenting educated guesses.

Most of the stimulus hasn't kicked in yet.

Some people think the cash for clunkers program was a success. Overall it was a dismal failure.

It's over now and watch car sales numbers plunge. In the meantime people got rid of their older model cars, most of which were running perfectly well, and those consumers are now saddled with another 11 Billion dollars in new debt?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cautious optimism like yours would seem to be the prudent route at this point.

Hysteria and wailing about the stimulus being a total disaster would, in contrast, best be left to the partisan wingnuts who would rather see our whole society collapse into chaos than see Obama prove them terribly, terribly wrong.

Obama is terribly, terribly wrong and I think you would rather see the whole economy collapse than admit it.

Then again I'm reminded of a quote, ''Too much democracy. That's why socialists always go broke."

Edited by Pliny
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Obama is terribly, terribly wrong and I think you would rather see the whole economy collapse than admit it.

Then again I'm reminded of a quote, ''Too much democracy. That's why socialists always go broke."

Democracy in of itself is not the best way to go. A Republic, which the US is, seems to work better than a true democracy. By the way, there are no true democracies on this planet, by definition of Democracy.

Sure thing, we all want Obama to fail so the US fails, then everything else fails. Yes we all want failure. We would rather see the economy collapse (and be part of it) than to say Obama was right. I'd rather lose my shirt and my home, and my job and my life than to want Obama to be successful. There is just no pleasing some people.

The consequences of wanting Obama to fail and having everything else fail as well, is not in anyones best interest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

caused you to make up these outright lies.

Or reality, if you're not a disciple of Dear Leader.

Roubini Sees Increasing Risk of Double-Dip Recession

Aug. 24 (Bloomberg) -- Nouriel Roubini, the New York University professor who predicted the financial crisis, said the chance of a double-dip recession is increasing because of risks related to ending global monetary and fiscal stimulus.

Roubini currently expects a U-shaped recovery, where growth will be “anemic and below trend for at least a couple of years,” he said.

Bloomberg

Happy times are here again! All hail The Messiah!

Nevermind they explicitly stated that passing their porkulus bill would prevent unemployment from rising above 8%. It's now almost 10%. But we should all be greatful for Dear Leader's efforts. Cause nobody else could have equalled such "accomplishments."

LOL. You guys are stenographers for the White House. I hope you're being paid well. No doubt from stimulus money. :lol:

Edited by Shady
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Or reality, if you're not a disciple of Dear Leader.

Roubini Sees Increasing Risk of Double-Dip Recession

Aug. 24 (Bloomberg) -- Nouriel Roubini, the New York University professor who predicted the financial crisis, said the chance of a double-dip recession is increasing because of risks related to ending global monetary and fiscal stimulus.

Roubini currently expects a U-shaped recovery, where growth will be “anemic and below trend for at least a couple of years,” he said.

Bloomberg

Happy times are here again! All hail The Messiah!

Nevermind they explicitly stated that passing their porkulus bill would prevent unemployment from rising above 8%. It's now almost 10%. But we should all be greatful for Dear Leader's efforts. Cause nobody else could have equalled such "accomplishments."

LOL. You guys are stenographers for the White House. I hope you're being paid well. No doubt from stimulus money. :lol:

I can believe you are cheering for more recession. you kinda make me sick

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Roubini is not saying the stimulus isn't working. In fact, he says the risks are that the stimulus will end, causing a second dip. So, once again, your citations don't match your position, which is that the Obama's economic policies have been a disaster.

Keep trying to spin, but maybe you should read your references before you post them. :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

which is that the Obama's economic policies have been a disaster

They have been, and they will be, unfortunately. He's setup dismal long-term economic growth with his policies, instead of making tough decisions short-term. Because of his reckless spending now and what he projects over the next several years, interest rates will have to rise, in order to stem inflation. But if interest rates go up, he'll cut off any real economic growth and recovery. Not to mention his gargantuan budgets will continue to crowd out private sector recovery overall. He's the new Jimmy Carter. Without the sweater. :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They have been, and they will be, unfortunately. He's setup dismal long-term economic growth with his policies, instead of making tough decisions short-term. Because of his reckless spending now and what he projects over the next several years, interest rates will have to rise, in order to stem inflation. But if interest rates go up, he'll cut off any real economic growth and recovery. Not to mention his gargantuan budgets will continue to crowd out private sector recovery overall. He's the new Jimmy Carter. Without the sweater. :lol:

Nope Bush was the new Jimmy Carter. You will be hearing "He is the new Bush" for a long time to come about republicans. Right now Jimmy has a higher approval rating hahahahaha.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They have been, and they will be, unfortunately.

Odd then that the WSJ says the stimulus is working, and the only disagreement among economists is regarding which government initiative is working better. Even the sources you cite suggest the stimulus is what's keeping the economy afloat. You cite nothing that backs up your claim of "disaster."

All anyone else sees is imorovement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Odd then that the WSJ says the stimulus is working

It is odd, considering barely any of the stimulus has been spent. However, what isn't odd, is that you lied in the title of the thread. The WSJ doesn't claim that we've been "saved by the stimulus." That talking point is from you.

Even the sources you cite suggest the stimulus is what's keeping the economy afloat.

Complete nonsense. The stimulus isn't what's "keeping the economy afloat." Unless you're claiming that 60 billion dollars spent in a 13 trillion dollar economy is making a difference. That's like taking an eye dropper and claiming you've filled a pool, with a drop or two. Again, nice try Obama stenographer. :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is odd, considering barely any of the stimulus has been spent. However, what isn't odd, is that you lied in the title of the thread. The WSJ doesn't claim that we've been "saved by the stimulus." That talking point is from you.

Imagine if all of it was spent !!! We would have so much stimulus we would not know what to do with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
×
×
  • Create New...