(09-07-2012 10:02 AM)Rebel Wrote:  

(09-07-2012 09:55 AM)firmbizzle Wrote:  

(09-07-2012 09:50 AM)mtsufan561 Wrote:  Huh. 8.1%, I didn't really expect that.

Yeah me either. I thought last month that there was a good chance it might go down, since it went up when we had stronger jobs numbers. We just have to keep adding jobs, keep the momentum going and let it build.

Look, Prog, I don't think you're understanding that we need at least 150K PER MONTH just to keep up with population growth and the fact that people are actually dropping out of the labor force is the reason for the drop in the unemployment rate. It doesn't mean they found jobs.

I keep seeing you guys say "dropping out of the labor force". What I am wondering(I actually don't know) is do those numbers include people retire? 'Cause as you know the country has a lot of babyboomers who are retiring everyday.

(09-07-2012 10:11 AM)RobertN Wrote:  

(09-07-2012 10:02 AM)Rebel Wrote:  

(09-07-2012 09:55 AM)firmbizzle Wrote:  

(09-07-2012 09:50 AM)mtsufan561 Wrote:  Huh. 8.1%, I didn't really expect that.

Yeah me either. I thought last month that there was a good chance it might go down, since it went up when we had stronger jobs numbers. We just have to keep adding jobs, keep the momentum going and let it build.

Look, Prog, I don't think you're understanding that we need at least 150K PER MONTH just to keep up with population growth and the fact that people are actually dropping out of the labor force is the reason for the drop in the unemployment rate. It doesn't mean they found jobs.

I keep seeing you guys say "dropping out of the labor force". What I am wondering(I actually don't know) is do those numbers include people retire? 'Cause as you know the country has a lot of babyboomers who are retiring everyday.

Nice thought, except that participation rates for seniors are actually increasing.

http://www.bls.gov/emp/ep_table_303.htm

Here are the numbers. Hoover did increase spending his last year with a couple works programs, which helped stop the bleeding, but FDR really ramped up spending and unemployment DID go down.

See:
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/data/budget.php

This shows federal spending outlays per year. (For some reason, the listed presidential terms are off-- FDR took office in 1933, not 1935. But anyway,) We jumped from $3.6 billion in spending in 1931 to $6.5 billion in 1934, to $8.2 billion in 1936. Then spending FELL in 1937 to $7.6 billion and in 1938 to $6.8 billion, before ramping up again in 1939 to $9.1 billion. Looking at the chart, you can see how from beginning in 1932 (the last year of Hoover's administration, in which he did ramp up spending a bit), the job hemorrhaging stopped and began to reverse.

1929 $3.1 billion
1931 $3.6
1932 $4.7
1933 $4.6 <---- FDR takes office, ramps up spending, unemployment falls continuously
1934 $6.5
1935 $6.4
1936 $8.2
1937 $7.6 <----Spending is cut, unemployment ticks up again
1938 $6.8
1939 $9.1 <----Spending ramped up (mostly defense), we've gone from 25% to 10% by the time we enter WWII

(09-07-2012 09:57 AM)firmbizzle Wrote:  

(09-07-2012 09:35 AM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  Well done firm. You posted yet more threads that show you to be lying. In none to I celebrate bad unemployment news. Not a single one.

Atlantic doesn't even support you on this, and as he stated, he's certainly no fan of mine.

But by all means you keep it up. You're too stupid not to.

Now I'm stupid and a liar, huh?

Your posts in this thread prove it.

(09-07-2012 10:08 AM)maximus Wrote:  

(09-07-2012 09:55 AM)firmbizzle Wrote:  

(09-07-2012 09:50 AM)mtsufan561 Wrote:  Huh. 8.1%, I didn't really expect that.

Yeah me either. I thought last month that there was a good chance it might go down, since it went up when we had stronger jobs numbers. We just have to keep adding jobs, keep the momentum going and let it build.

i really dont think you grasp what is going on

I understand exactly what is going on.

(09-07-2012 10:39 AM)firmbizzle Wrote:  

(09-07-2012 10:08 AM)maximus Wrote:  

(09-07-2012 09:55 AM)firmbizzle Wrote:  

(09-07-2012 09:50 AM)mtsufan561 Wrote:  Huh. 8.1%, I didn't really expect that.

Yeah me either. I thought last month that there was a good chance it might go down, since it went up when we had stronger jobs numbers. We just have to keep adding jobs, keep the momentum going and let it build.

i really dont think you grasp what is going on

I understand exactly what is going on.

Great post!

(09-07-2012 09:46 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-07-2012 09:34 AM)Max Power Wrote:  

(09-07-2012 09:08 AM)firmbizzle Wrote:  

(09-07-2012 09:06 AM)BlazerFan11 Wrote:  

(09-07-2012 08:50 AM)Max Power Wrote:  Sorry we have 30 straight months of private sector job growth after Obama inherited an economy from your last president losing 25,000 jobs every day, conservatives.

Every day for 8 years? Or you're taking a short term trend and trying to pretend it would have kept happening indefinitely if anyone but Obama had been in office?

Do you have proof that it was a short term trend?

It's a short term trend because Obama helped stop it. This was the largest financial shock since the Great Depression, and from 1929-1933 we spiraled ever downward as Hoover did nothing. That's what the GOP argued we should do-- nothing. And many independent analysts have determined a second depression would have come on if we did nothing.

It was a short term trend because it was a short term trend. It turned around before Obama had time to do anything but get elected. And since we all know that "employment is a trailing indicator," that graph that you keep posting in different forms shows very clearly that the turnaround was prompted by something other than any of Obama's policies.

Hoover did not "do nothing." Hoover did a fair amount of "stimulus" plus Smoot-Hawley was passed to "protect" American businesses plus a lot of Mexican workers were rounded up and shipped back to Mexico plus there was a bank "bailout" on his watch. None of it worked, just as the same things have not worked or would not work today. FDR's massive spending didn't get us out of it either. We stayed in a funk until WWII. I know you lefites don't like to hear that, but that's just too bad.

As for what "many independent analysts have determined," it's equally true that "many independent analysts" have determined exactly the opposite. Max, you can be relied upon to post consistently the most partisan leftist slant on every event and issue. You're a good advocate, if I got run over by an 18-wheeler in Illinois, I'd probably look you up. But right now what we need is a balanced view that looks at things from multiple directions to see the bigger picture, and that's not in your skill set.

It started turning around about 5 months into Obama's presidency and the stimulus certainly had en effect. As I've said, I also give some credit to Bush for having his own stimulus in late 2008 as well as TARP.


And the overwhelming majority of studies concluded it worked.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra...-left-out/

Studies that concluded the stimulus worked:

Auerbach and Gorodnichenko
Chahrour, Schmitt-Grohé and Uribe
Chodorow-Reich, Feiveson, Liscow and Woolston
Clemens and Miran
Favero and Giavazzi
Feyrer and Sacerdote
Mertens and Ravn
Perotti
Wilson
Congressional Budget Office
Council of Economic Advisers
Zandi and Blinder

Studies that concluded it may have worked:

Oh and Reis

Studies that concluded it did not work:

Conley and Dupor
Taylor

That graphic is pretty. But the 16 trillion national debt mark was recently surpassed, gents. You can blame who you'd like and spread it around - Obama, Bush, whoever. That's fair. But behold our federal government's display of fiscal management: $51,000 debt for every man, woman and child.

Like a household, a manageable debt where you are charged interest for borrowing is fine. To an extent. Sometimes you hit a financial rough patch. But this is more than a rough patch. These numbers are obscene, unsustainable, and while it may provide feel-good bandaids in the short term, it's highly reckless for long term health. Elephant or donkey, providing the government with a blank check is a road to nowhere.

(09-07-2012 10:43 AM)RobertN Wrote:  Great post!

Hey sheep, ever ask yourself, "Hmm, if all these jobs were added, why is unemployment higher today than it was when Obama took office?" Nah, that's too much thinking for you to do.

What's so significant about the $16 trillion debt mark?

(09-07-2012 11:04 AM)Max Power Wrote:  What's so significant about the $16 trillion debt mark?

How about because we're paying interest on that? No wonder so many Democrats have f'ed up finances.

(09-07-2012 11:07 AM)Rebel Wrote:  

(09-07-2012 11:04 AM)Max Power Wrote:  What's so significant about the $16 trillion debt mark?

How about because we're paying interest on that? No wonder so many Democrats have f'ed up finances.

We were paying interest at the $1 mark too. THe question was what is so significant about $16 trillion debt mark.

Okay. But interest rates now are at 0%, so new borrowing doesn't increase the interest payments. And if we have to pay $200 billion in interest this year on the debt, then my next question would be what's so significant about the $16.2 trillion debt mark?

(09-07-2012 11:04 AM)Max Power Wrote:  What's so significant about the $16 trillion debt mark?

It wasn't meant to convey that 15.99 trillion is "okay" and 16 trillion is now terrible, as if some sudden threshold was just crossed. It's simply another trillion-milestone surpassed with no sign of slowing down. Like the DJIA or yards-passing in football, people tend to notice more when an even numbers with lots of zeroes gets reached.

(09-07-2012 11:12 AM)Max Power Wrote:  Okay. But interest rates now are at 0%, so new borrowing doesn't increase the interest payments. And if we have to pay $200 billion in interest this year on the debt, then my next question would be what's so significant about the $16.2 trillion debt mark?

Something's gotta give Max...if not paid for with interest, the only alternative is to devalue the dollar....and print more. You got your wheelbarrow?

Also.....if this is your attitude, what about when we get to $100 Trillion....or a couple $Quadrillion? No biggie....cause it's all imaginary anyways?

I love how Max and Tom keep citing Ezra Klein as if he has even the slightest bit of credibility, or is not a partisan hack to the utmost extreme, or would have any interest in putting together an unbiased comparison.

Funny how the CBO counts for the "it worked" column, but at the same time admits it will have a negative effect in the long run. Or Zandi - whose numbers were the basis of many of the stimulus package's projections (do I need to post the link to his abysmal track record again?). If all you are looking for to say it worked is some short-term bump in GDP or change in unemployment, sure. When you pour that much money into the economy, of course it's going to have some short term effects. Giving money to state/local governments can delay job cuts, but not stop them forever. The stimulus did nothing to fix any of the underlying problems of our economy, it just kicked the can down the road. Keynesians say stimulus help spur demand and improve confidence so people start spending again. Now several years later, what do we have to show for it? Confidence is still low, uncertainty is high, GDP is sluggish, and jobs reports are going the wrong way. A lot of the assumptions made to say it "worked" simply haven't panned out. We added to the debt for something that should have gotten the economy back on track by now. It didn't work.

We've had 2 rounds of QE and inflation is still a very modest 2%. I'll pass on the wheelbarrow.

The question whether it's a net positive over the long run still is answered yes by most. I posted the UChicago survey of leading economists a few months ago and 95% said the stimulus create jobs; 80% said its long term benefits outweigh the negatives.

Consumer confidence has more than doubled since Obama took office. The stimulus wasn't big enough but it did work.



Productivity doesn't fall back to pre-stimulus levels when it runs out. Are we back to where we were when the stimulus passed? Last I checked we're growing at around 2%, compared to shrinking at 8%. The local school district which is able to keep its teachers on staff will see its economy and revenues grow faster as a result and will have less need for layoffs when the stimulus runs out.

(09-07-2012 11:04 AM)Rebel Wrote:  

(09-07-2012 10:43 AM)RobertN Wrote:  Great post!

Hey sheep, ever ask yourself, "Hmm, if all these jobs were added, why is unemployment higher today than it was when Obama took office?" Nah, that's too much thinking for you to do.

He's making up for all the job losses from Jan 2009-Jan 2010

Doesn't nearly every news source now say that the 4.5 mil new jobs is an outright lie? Don't they also say that when all the facts are considered over the last 3 years we've actually lost a net of around 300-400k jobs total. I'm no mathematician but to me that's less than what he started with. If you contort the facts with Obama the same way with Bush he created something like 12.5 mil jobs. Suck it.