How Can One Possibly Support Obama's Economic Policies? - Page 4

Originally Posted by Camp David

Not to pile on here but that last request may be technically impossible as Kathleen Parker explains... read her whole article... lots of good points!

Obama: Our first female president
By Kathleen Parker
Washington Post
Wednesday, June 30, 2010
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...062903997.html
If Bill Clinton was our first black president, as Toni Morrison once proclaimed, then Barack Obama may be our first woman president.

lindalovejones wrote:




I wonder how many times Kathleen Parker was called the "B" word when she wrote this garbage.

Obviously, Parker hasn't ever been anywhere near any testosterone.

Btch.



7/1/2010 11:48:07 AM

israelgetty wrote:
I can't believe they pay her to write such junk. I wonder if she has the intellectual curiosity to write a substantive piece of news but I forgot, she's a columnist. This is an insult to women and men. How in the hell does money equate to confidence? Bush was a spoiled rich kid who lacked intelligence and the ability to rely on experts. She did not immediately respond to 911 or Katrina. He talked toughed but in reality he was a goofy idiot.
7/1/2010 11:48:07 AM

repudar711 wrote:
Keep it going Republicans, the Klan and the neocons will be the only people voting for you next elections but I don't see too much difference there.
7/1/2010 11:43:57 AM


lrey52 wrote:
Slow news day or progressive dementia ? The editor must be on vacation .

The United States added just 83,000 private-sector jobs in June, a dishearteningly low number that could add to the growing number of economists who warn that the economic recovery is stalling.

The median forecast from economists and economic forecasting firms was that the nation would add 110,000 private-sector jobs. The economy needs to add about 130,000 to 150,000 jobs a month just to keep pace with new workers entering the market. The labor pool is already packed with 15 million Americans looking for work.

The week or so leading up to Fridays report offered a grim rat-a-tat-tat of statistics pointing to a slowing economy. Auto sales were off more than expected, as sales plunged 30 percent in May, a far greater drop than expected. And unemployment claims rose by 13,000 to 472,000, which is far higher than usual if one is looking for signs that private payrolls are growing in a sustained fashion.

And just two weeks ago, Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. christened this Recovery Summer, with an emphasis on the jobs created by the administrations $787 billion economic stimulus measure passed in February 2009. In fact, reports have found that millions of jobs were saved or created by the stimulus, but those numbers have been enough, at most, to tamp down the highest peaks of unemployment.

And it is not clear that even this can be sustained.

Many see consumers tapped out, states readying plans to lay off tens of thousands, and now a declining stock market, and they wonder where the economy will derive the fuel for a robust takeoff.

The underlying narrative remains fairly grim, as there are nearly five unemployed people for every job opening, and nearly half of those have been out of work for at least six months. And 3.2 million workers are about to lose their unemployment benefits. If this should occur, Joshua Shapiro, an economist, noted Thursday, it would obviously not be a sign of economic strength.

Originally Posted by SDW2001

And the award for most senseless wink-smilie goes to....YOU! I'm not trying to convert "the world" to any way of thinking. I'm saying that the Democrats have created disaster. I'm saying Obama's policies are objectively disastrous, from the economy to the environment, to national security.

You're hilarious!

You're crazy!

Liberal lefty

Dick

There's WMD in there hills!

I'm saying Obama's policies are objectively disastrous, from the economy to the environment, to national security

Originally Posted by MJ1970

It is now more than 18 months into Obamatopia (aka Hope and Change) and what change have we seen?

Well...there are a lot less people employed:



And while Obama was fortunate enough to be president during the census so the employment numbers could be (temporarily) "goosed," overall it looks like Obamanomics ain't working out all that well. Mind you, this is no real surprise for those who are conditioned to look at reality and predict how certain actions will actually affect the economy (as opposed to how some might Hope it will).

Originally Posted by FormerLurker

According to your graph, there were more jobs lost between January '08 and January '09 than there were between January '09 and today.

Originally Posted by FloorJack

Never let a crisis go to waste. If the right crisis doesn't materialize then manufacture it. Wanna increase taxes? Then spend the nation into a crisis.

Originally Posted by SDW2001

How does my insulting you equate to trying to convince "the world" of my views? Pick a topic.



Doing what things, exactly?

Saturday, May 1, 2010

Latest Data Continue To Show Little Impact of Government Stimulus on GDP
The 3.2 percent growth rate of real GDP in the first quarter (released by BEA yesterday) [Max's Note: first quarter growth recently revised downward to 2.7%) confirms that the recovery is looking more U-shaped than V-shaped. But it also provides further evidence that the stimulus package of 2009 has had a small contribution to the recovery. Most of the recovery has been due to investmentincluding inventory investment, which was positive in the first quarter after declining for all of last yearand has little to do with discretionary stimulus packages. The two charts show the percentage contribution of investment and government purchases to real GDP growth in the first quarter and in the preceding quarters since 2007. The charts clearly indicate that the changes in real GDP growth have been mostly due to changes in investment and little to changes in government purchases. In fact, government purchases have been a drag (a negative contribution to real GDP growth) in the fourth quarter of 2009 and the first quarter of 2010. I also include similar charts for the other two components of GDP, consumption and net exports. The government purchases chart looks very similar if you exclude defense spending, as I have in previous posts on this subject.

... in the meantime these data at the least suggest that the simple Keynesian model frequently taught to beginning studentsin which government spending shifts up the aggregate spending line to counteract an investment-induced downward shift in that lineneeds to be reworked.

Friday, May 21, 2010
The Administration and the IMF on the Multiplier
In a soon to be published paper, several economists at the International Monetary Fund report estimates of government spending multipliers which are much smaller than those previously reported by the U.S. Administration. In order to obtain the estimates the IMF economists use a very large complex model called the Global Integrated Monetary and Fiscal (GIMF) Model developed by Douglas Laxton and his colleagues at the IMF . The paper is quite technical, but the bottom line summary is that a one percent increase in government purchases (as a share of GDP) increases GDP by a maximum of 0.7 percent and then fades out rapidly. This means that government spending crowds out other components of GDP (investment, consumption, net exports) immediately and by a large amount.

The IMF estimate is much less than the multiplier reported in a paper released last year by Christina Romer of the Presidents Council of Economic Advisers and Jared Bernstein of the Vice Presidents Office. The attached graph shows how huge the difference is. It shows the impact on GDP of a one percentage point permanent increase in government purchases as a share of GDP reported in the IMF paper (labeled GIMF) and in the Administration paper (labeled Romer-Bernstein).

Originally Posted by SDW2001

So...anyone who doesn't think like me on every issue is "nuts?" Please, do give examples of how I've demonstrated that attitude.

Originally Posted by SDW2001

1. Examples, please.
2. You realize that me saying "you guys are nuts" is not the same as me saying "anyone who doesn't think like me is nuts." Right?

Originally Posted by SDW2001

Once again you demonstrate your complete lack of understanding of this little thing called...CONTEXT.

Tomorrow's Lesson: Homonyms 101. http://www-personal.umich.edu/~cellis/heteronym.html

Originally Posted by jimmac

In other words you don't really have a point.

Originally Posted by jazzguru

New drinking game: every time jimmac writes "in other words".

Originally Posted by jimmac

Besides making quips your point is........?????

Originally Posted by jazzguru

New drinking game: every time jimmac writes "in other words".

Originally Posted by jimmac

Besides making quips your point is........?????

Originally Posted by NoahJ

Sorry guys, I did not intend to give him a new favorite phrase...

Originally Posted by jazzguru

Mission accomplished.

Originally Posted by Camp David

Even the liberal New York Times catching on, finally, to the disaster that Obama has brought to the American jobs and economic front, wondering in their daily politics feature about the disappearing jobs and the steadily increasing unemployment rate... Expect Alexlrod and Gibbs to throw the NYT under a bus shortly =>

Mystery for White House: Where Did the Jobs Go?
July 19, 2010, 12:40 am
The New York Times
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2...d-the-jobs-go/
Unemployment began rising steadily as Mr. Obama, then a senator, wrapped up the Democratic presidential nomination in 2008. That May, the jobless rate increased to 5.4 percent; by December it reached 7.4 percent. In January 2009, Mr. Obama’s economic advisers predicted that unemployment would peak around 8 percent if Congress passed their recommended stimulus program. As Republicans never tire of pointing out now, the rate hit 10.1 percent by October and has fallen less than one percentage point since.

With eight million jobs lost since the recession began, “We’re climbing out of a gigantic hole,” said David Axelrod, Mr. Obama’s top political adviser. “Until we fill the hole, we’ll get limited credit.”

The federal budget deficit, which hit a record $1.4 trillion last year, will exceed that figure this year and again in 2011, according to a White House forecast released Friday.

The $1.47 trillion budget gap predicted for 2010 represents a slight improvement over the administration's February forecast. But the outlook for 2011 has darkened considerably, primarily due to a drop in expected tax receipts from capital gains.

White House budget director Peter Orszag noted in a conference call with reporters that the president's budget is still on track to cut the deficit in half, as a percent of annual economic output, by the end of his first term. As the economy improves, the White House forecasts that the deficit will be just over $700 billion in 2013.

That approach, heralded by Obama last week in Detroit and sketched out in a memo to House Democrats as they headed home for the August break, is still evolving and so far focuses primarily on raising taxes on multinational corporations that Democrats accuse of shipping jobs overseas.

Previously known as the "Miscellaneous Tariff Bill," Democrats rechristened it the "U.S. Manufacturing Enhancement Act of 2010."

The Obama family will begin their sixth holiday of the year today, an 11-day sojourn in Martha’s Vineyard, the island destination of the wealthy and well-connected American elite.

The 500,000 unemployment applications submitted nationwide last week were the most in nine months.

Originally Posted by MJ1970

Well here's that word again:

New claims for unemployment benefits jump unexpectedly:



Well this was only unexpected to people who don't know how these things work. Let's see what happened just recently that might be connected and even a likely causal factor here?

Oh right, now I remember.

Originally Posted by tonton

Tax breaks for the rich and businesses should be contingent on hiring, wage increases and reducing the wage gap. Period.

Originally Posted by tonton

It makes no sense to inject money into businesses...

Originally Posted by tonton

Tell them if they hire, we deduct. If they don't hire, they get nothing.