Originally Posted by Wormhole
So you are saying that the president has a real impact on the economy (with TARP). That can only mean that he also is responsible for what happened before TARP. You are confirming that those massive job losses were indeed 100% Bush's making. I agree with you.
What? I'm not talking about assigning blame just because someone happens to be President at the time. I'm talking about analyzing specific actions and policies. Obama's stimulus has not been effective. TARP appears to have had some positive impact, and is actually being repaid (as opposed to stimulus funds).
If private companies get government contracts like in 100% of road work and utility contracts how do you title these jobs?
It's not "100%" of road work. That's the first thing. Secondly, these are only temporary jobs. They are not jobs created by the private sector as a result of growth in their business naturally. It's not Coca-Cola opening a new bottling plant because it needs more capacity. It's Bumble Township getting a $50,000 grant to repave 1/2 mile of road. They may go out an hire Ray's Paving to do the project. Then its over. Not a single job created.
Originally Posted by BR
So TARP worked, the stimulus didn't. No jobs were saved. We're a heathen country. Just making sure I got your viewpoints down.
TARP probably worked to some extent, at least as far as I can tell. The stimulus didn't "work" and won't. It may have temporarily saved some jobs. We do have some heathens...not sure we're a heathen country, but it made me chuckle.
So, had those automakers been allowed to completely fail, think the remaining workers who survived the first rounds of layoffs would still have jobs?
They weren't going to go Chapter 7. They might have had to declare bankruptcy. That doesn't mean they would go under. The employees who kept their jobs in this case ARE the problem, or at least part of it.
Think the banks who would have failed would have magically kept paying their employees?
That's not from the stimulus, friend. It's from TARP.
Agree or disagree with the idea of saving these companies, but being all silly and putting saved in quotes and italicizing "some" and claiming no private sector jobs were saved is absurd. Utterly absurd.
I emphasized it because the stimulus did save some jobs. Some.
They were mostly in government and/or were temporary.
Exactly Zero, huh? http://hotjobs.yahoo.com/career-arti...mulus_plan-900
I was going to say Hyperbole and try to figure out how to make you pronounce it with an upward lilt, but it doesn't really work very well over this medium. Instead, BOOM, HEADSHOT to your ridiculous assertion.[/QUOTE]
Pardon me, but you're fucking kidding, right? You link to a list of "new" jobs. She me the employment data showing actual jobs created.
Really, BR..you're defending the stimulus when its utterly indefensible in so many ways. It's not even Keynesian for christ's sake.
Originally Posted by jimmac
I'm guessing you're saying we can't get out of this economic downturn by spending. Tell that to the people who were around during WWII.
That's a bit different. In WWII, we actually manufactured things. Companies also improved their balance sheets dramatically. We unleashed our industrial capacity. Afterwards, we needed to build housing and provide products for hundreds of thousands of soldiers returning from war. We weren't throwing money at state and local governments to "save" jobs.
Besides we're talking about the downturn. That you can get out of by increased spending. For the debt question we have to do what we did last time and tighten our belts and pay for things. That can only happen after we get out of the recession. Two different things.
Agreed that it's two different things. For the downturn, I'm not sure I agree that spending will work. It hasn't before, other than the aforementioned WWII economy (though as mentioned that was a very different kind of spendings). Tax cuts have shown much better effect in getting us out of recessions. As for debt, well...we do need to tighten our belts and pay for things. I'd like to see what you'd cut, though.
Originally Posted by tonton
If Obama did nothing to improve the trend, his graph wouldn't look like a V ( \\/ ). If he continued to cause as much damage as Bush it would look like a straight line going down ( \\ ). If he stopped the damage with no improvement, it would look have just flattened out at the bottom ( \\_ ).
Yes, yes. "Cause as much damage as Bush." Meanwhile, you can't demonstrate what Bush DID to "cause damage."
The fact that you don't see that under Obama the increase in rate of unemployment has fully reversed only reflects on your inability to look at the data and understand rates of change.
I don't think anyone expected a full turnaround by now. I do think that there's no reason to believe what we're doing is working. I do think that Obama and team had to be completely stupid to believe that unemployment would not go above 8% by now.
Originally Posted by Wormhole
You are also saying here that Bush still has influence on what is going on, so it is still Bush's fault.SDW2001: It's still Bush's fault
That doesn't even make sense.