Disgusted With Obama Administration.

• BoatShoes

  gut;1264145 wrote:SMH....Then why don't we give everybody food stamps? Surely that would be a net positive for the economy, it's not possible that there are crowding out effects, offsets or - gasp - actually a multiplier less than 1? C'mon Boat, Obama is running trillion dollar deficits yet it's the slowest, most anemic recovery since the Great Depression. Multipliers of 1.5+?!? If it worked, where's the tax revenues Boat? Receipts fell off a cliff, so there's not tax revenue coming in from this. Corporate profits are at an all-time high, but why was the % of GDP flat in 2010 at 15.1% and up just a smidgeon to 15.4% in 2011? Where's your multiplier effect?
  
  Where is you're vaunted multiplier effect? Because it doesn't exist (at least this go around), after 30 years no one is fooled any more. Let's see if we can walk you thru understanding why:
  1) What is the key principle in keynesian economics that has not been practiced?
  
  2) Why is that fundamental to the foundation of the theory?
  
  3) And what does classical theory say about deficit spending year after year with no end in sight?
  
  Even Krugman admits the stimulus didn't work, so why can't you? Now whether it was the design/structure of the stimulus or diminishing returns/tipping point, the fact is it didn't work and all we have to show is trillions more in debt.

  Gut, we've already gone over this...the State's have been undermining the recovery by deleveraging. Do you dispute the economic analysis of Macro Adviser's? Moody's? Had the lame American Jobs Act been passed, growth is faster and unemployment is lower, period. And, there's better things we could do than food stamps but it's better than nothing.
  
  And, keynesian's have not said the stimulus didn't work. It did work and unemployment would be higher and gdp slower without it...counterfactuals we can believe in! They just argue that it wasn't designed optimally nor large enough in comparison to the economic contraction.
  
  And you're going to lecture me about the key principle of keynesian economics that hasn't been practiced, namely, that we should have been running surpluses or at least balanced budgets when we had full employment and interest rates above the zero bound...but it's the GOP and Alan Greenspan who blew that wad with an irresponsible expansion of the welfare state, two wars and budget busting tax cuts! They actually argued that we would pay down our debt too fast. That is why the GOP must be repudiated, they run deficits at the wrong time and try to balance the budget at the wrong time.
  
  
  I'm sorry that we ran large deficits then but that doesn't mean that the correct policy isn't to run them now. And, I'm sorry but if the government came to a firm demanding them to build a bunch of F-22's they're going to do it even if it means large deficits despite the idea that it may mean higher taxes in the future. Because people/firms aren't ricardian. And, there has been no crowding out effects. Why are interest rates at historic lows if there's crowding out??
  
  
  Additionally, no keynesian has said the ARRA didn't work...it just could've been better. You and I have been going back and forth about this for years now. The evidence is clear...when interest rates are at the zero lower bound, deficit spending by the government raises gdp and lowers unemployment. Not all deficit spending is equal and some is better than others but the general point is true. Austerity measures by states in a federal system undermine this effect as does deleveraging in the private sector (one of the primary reasons you need to do federal government spending in this unique, specific, rare scenario).
  
  
  And, it's funny, you talk about firms being skittish because of the fiscal cliff but the CBO projects that it will reduce the deficit (i.e. meaning lower taxes in the future) if they were ricardian the fiscal cliff would have them spending and investing. However, without the spending cuts and tax raises, the deficit is projected to be higher again but unemployment lower and gdp higher...if firms/people were ricardian they would be predicting higher tax raises in the future and stopping the fiscal cliff to run deficits still would result in higher unemployment and slower gdp....but that is the opposite of what the experts predict.
  
  Oddly enough, if the American Jobs Act had been passed and we actually were getting closer to full employment, Obama would be a lock for re-election, there wouldn't be pressure on the FED for more monetary stimulus but instead to think about raising rates and I might even be joining you in the chorus about the need for a credible budget plan, but alas.
• gut

  BoatShoes;1264513 wrote:Gut, we've already gone over this...the State's have been undermining the recovery by deleveraging. Do you dispute the economic analysis of Macro Adviser's? Moody's? Had the lame American Jobs Act been passed, growth is faster and unemployment is lower, period. And, there's better things we could do than food stamps but it's better than nothing.

  One excuse after another. How is that deleveraging and fiscal restraint working for the states? Again, evidence your stimulus isn't working and is money down the toilet. And you do realize that you're now admitting the stimulus/deficit spending is not being productive, and so you are rattling off another excuse for failed policy.
  
  C'mon Boat, what is a theory worth, or what does a theory predict, when a key foundation does not apply? How can you defend something as dogma and predict results based on that model when it doesn't even apply? Republicans didn't kill the surplus created with fuzzy math, the internet bubble did. I don't see anyone other than the strawman you're arguing with advocating Bush's policies or pointing to that as a model of success. And, yet, here you are criticizing Bush and Greenspan and supporting those policies on steroids under Obama and Bernanke.
  
  And, um, "deleveraging as the govt gives them money" - what economic theory does that sound like?
• gut

  BoatShoes;1264513 wrote: Oddly enough, if the American Jobs Act had been passed and we actually were getting closer to full employment, Obama would be a lock for re-election, there wouldn't be pressure on the FED for more monetary stimulus but instead to think about raising rates and I might even be joining you in the chorus about the need for a credible budget plan, but alas.

  Oh yes, the first stimulus didn't work because we didn't have more and newer stimulus? You gotta branch out from reading Krugman.
  
  And now you are citing CBO estimates - they have a real history of accuracy don't they? Myself and others on here have been telling you what business people are actually saying and doing. Here you go again advocating 4 more years of the same - no, even MORE because it's not enough - even as results of that have undershot and grossly underperformed expectations. You will trot out one keynesian excuses after another, but it's failing all over the world. The weakest and most anemic recovery on record despite massive inceases in deficit spending - and that's global, not just in the US.
• Manhattan Buckeye

  http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444273704577635681206305056.html
  
  Zuckerman's latest entry.
• believer

  

  Manhattan Buckeye;1265162 wrote:http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444273704577635681206305056.html
  
  Zuckerman's latest entry.

  The alarming numbers proliferate the deeper you look: 40.7% of the people counted as unemployed have been out of work for 27 weeks or more—that's 5.2 million "long-term" unemployed. Fewer Americans are at work today than in April 2000, even though the population since then has grown by 31 million.
  
  
  We are still almost five million payrolls shy of where we were at the end of 2007, when the recession began. Think about that when you hear the Obama administration's talk of an economic recovery.

  Pretty much sums it up.
  
  But yeah Boatie, it's time to throw more gubmint spending at it. Crank up the printing presses. Time for more quantitative easing.
• BGFalcons82

  

  He just needs more time, believer. You see, the unemployment rate dropped .2% and 96,000 new jobs were "created". Doing a little math, by the time 3,888,000 more Americans find jobs, the unemployment rate will be 0%!!! All he needs is time to get there. Don't worry about the remaining 19,000,000 unemployed. They'll get some social security disability, more food stamps, and free mortgages.
• Footwedge

  BGFalcons82;1265217 wrote:He just needs more time, believer. You see, the unemployment rate dropped .2% and 96,000 new jobs were "created". Doing a little math, by the time 3,888,000 more Americans find jobs, the unemployment rate will be 0%!!! All he needs is time to get there. Don't worry about the remaining 19,000,000 unemployed. They'll get some social security disability, more food stamps, and free mortgages.

  Obama had nothing to do with the outsourcing of American jobs. Americans just need to suck it up and move to China...or India. Problem solved.
  
  I take it you are going to vote for Romney...whose business specialized in American job reduction. You think the oxymoronic thinking will work?
• gut

  And how many American jobs have been outsourced Foot? Please, educate us.
• Footwedge

  Manhattan Buckeye;1265162 wrote:http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444273704577635681206305056.html
  
  Zuckerman's latest entry.

  From your boy Zuckerman's article on how to "fix" the problem....
  
  
  1. Find the money to spur an expansion of public and private training programs with proven track records.
  2. Increase access to financing for small businesses and thus expand entrepreneurial opportunities.
  3. Lower government hurdles to the formation of new businesses.
  4. Explore special subsidies for private employers who hire the long-term unemployed.
  5. Get serious about the long decay in public works and infrastructure, which poses a dramatic national threat. Infrastructure projects should be tolled so that the users ultimately pay for them.
  
  1. Promoting Keynesianism I see. I'm surprised the WSJ doesn't fire him for that. Deficit spending is a proven failure and does not address the real problem.
  
  2. Idiotic statement by this author. Fiscal and monetary policies are at the all time apex for pro business investment. This guy needs to take some basic macro econ courses.
  
  3. What government hurdles? Small businesses don't have to answer for the crimes of the corporatacracy from2006 through 2008. Small businesses can be up and running for about $150 bucks.
  
  4. Obama initiated a bill in May of this year to do just that. The GOP slammed the door on it.
  
  5. LOL. Isn't that exactly the "shovel ready" jobs that the likes of the WSJ so heavily denounced?
  
  
  The author's summary of the true unemployment numbers are dead nuts accurate. You can thank the globalization crowd for ensuring America in turning to third status in the near future.
• Manhattan Buckeye

  "3. What government hurdles? Small businesses don't have to answer for the crimes of the corporatacracy from2006 through 2008. Small businesses can be up and running for about $150 bucks."
  
  This is the dumbest thing I've ever read, congrats Footie. I take it you have never employed anyone in your life.
• Manhattan Buckeye

  Oh and by the way I'm pretty sure Zuckerman is a DEM and works for US News, not the WSJ.
• Footwedge

  Manhattan Buckeye;1265286 wrote:"3. What government hurdles? Small businesses don't have to answer for the crimes of the corporatacracy from2006 through 2008. Small businesses can be up and running for about $150 bucks."
  
  This is the dumbest thing I've ever read, congrats Footie. I take it you have never employed anyone in your life.

  Is that it? I accept your concession. Hiring people have been under the same set of rules for about 15 years. You just make shit up as you go. Hilarious. You make it wayyy too easy.
• Footwedge

  Manhattan Buckeye;1265287 wrote:Oh and by the way I'm pretty sure Zuckerman is a DEM and works for US News, not the WSJ.

  You cited him....you linked him...his article appreared in your financial Bible, and now you want to cry that he's a Dem?
  
  Which is it MB? Did you cite him to condemn him or did you cite him to praise him? You are a very, very confused individual.
• BGFalcons82

  

  Footwedge;1265269 wrote:Obama had nothing to do with the outsourcing of American jobs. Americans just need to suck it up and move to China...or India. Problem solved.
  
  I take it you are going to vote for Romney...whose business specialized in American job reduction. You think the oxymoronic thinking will work?

  Say what? Outsourcing? I was referencing Barry's request for more time cuz he says 4 years isn't nearly enough time to fix whateverthefuck Bush did. I also extrapolated his fuzzy math wherein we should be at full employment with just under 4 million more jobs.
• Manhattan Buckeye

  Footwedge;1266106 wrote:You cited him....you linked him...his article appreared in your financial Bible, and now you want to cry that he's a Dem?
  
  Which is it MB? Did you cite him to condemn him or did you cite him to praise him? You are a very, very confused individual.

  My point was that even a DEM has noticed that the Obama administration is an economic disaster. I would think most Americans would recognize that as well, but on the the other hand we have so many people on the government dole that Obama might pull this out. From a future perspective that isn't good. We can only continue to borrow and tax and spend so much. At some point we need real growth.
• believer

  

  
• Ty Webb

  

  Gallup +5
  Reuters +4
  Rasmussen +4
  PPP(Ohio) +5
• IggyPride00

  

  Who let crazy uncle Joe out of the attic again? He looks like he is on the verge of catching a beating from that biker dude.
  
  
  
• superman

  Ty Webb;1266780 wrote:Gallup +5
  Reuters +4
  Rasmussen +4
  PPP(Ohio) +5

  Carter's numbers in Sept. 1980
• QuakerOats

  Footwedge;1265269 wrote: I take it you are going to vote for Romney...whose business specialized in American job reduction.

  
  So the new companies created and/or restructured under Bain, that employ hundreds of thousands of workers, don't count? Are you really that one-sided?
• QuakerOats

  Ty Webb;1266780 wrote:Gallup +5
  Reuters +4
  Rasmussen +4
  PPP(Ohio) +5

  Please, keep believing it.
• gut

  superman;1266990 wrote:Carter's numbers in Sept. 1980

  Yeah, we'll see if Obama can sustain the convention bounce.
  
  I'm kind of shocked he got a bounce, much less 5 pts. Clinton was very good, but Obama & Biden were very flat. And the entire DNC was strawman attacks and fear. It's disheartening that it would yield a 5pt bounce - "think how stupid the average American is, and then realize most liberals are dumber than that"
• fish82

  

  Ty Webb;1266780 wrote:Gallup +5
  Reuters +4
  Rasmussen +4
  PPP(Ohio) +5

  It's over. I'm officially checking out of this election.
• Ty Webb

  

  superman;1266990 wrote:Carter's numbers in Sept. 1980

  
  In 1980...you guys nominated a GREAT politician who could really connect with voters
  
  In 2012.... you guys nominated a man who middle class and minority voters don't like and can't connect with
  
  So please stop comparing this election to 1980. It's nothing like 1980. If anything it's like 2004
• Ty Webb

  

  QuakerOats;1267024 wrote:Please, keep believing it.

  I'm not the only one believing it Quaker.
  
  Republicans are the ones saying that Mitt blew his chance to really take hold of this race and that it's now going to take something catostrophic for President Obama to lose!