• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obama: Unemployment likely to keep ticking up

Alex

DP Veteran
Joined
May 31, 2005
Messages
2,963
Reaction score
855
Location
Milwaukee, WI
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
"'How employment numbers are going to respond is not year clear,' the president said on a day when he was headed to Michigan, home of a particularly battered economy. 'My expectation is that we will probably continue to see unemployment tick up for several months.'"

"More than 2 million jobs have been lost since Congress passed Obama's $787 billion economic stimulus package."

Obama: Unemployment likely to keep ticking up - Yahoo! News

Wasn't the stimulus package meant to prevent this? Weren't we promised new jobs quickly? All this and also talk of another stimulus?

I think its time to wake up from the $787 billion dollar wet-dream.
 
Wasn't the stimulus package meant to prevent this? Weren't we promised new jobs quickly? All this and also talk of another stimulus?

I think its time to wake up from the $787 billion dollar wet-dream.

More like cancel the amounts not spent, repackage them into something that can be spent within the next month.

Anyone with a functioning brain should have expected this to occur when only a pathetic 6.5% of the stimulus has been spent so far. Stimulus as a concept is not bad. But as we've seen, it hasn't worked. But generally fiscal policy is almost virtually too slow to work well. Same thing happened under the Bush tax cuts. Too slow to make a difference.

What I don't get is why is there a trillion dollar deficit when only $51 billion has been spent so far? Where is the rest of the money? :confused:
 
Wasn't the stimulus package meant to prevent this? Weren't we promised new jobs quickly?

No, we were promised a recovering economy quickly...and we should indeed have one in the second half of this year. That is not the same as new jobs. Unemployment is always a lagging indicator; it will continue to increase for months after the economy has actually bottomed out and started growing again.

Alex said:
All this and also talk of another stimulus?

I think its time to wake up from the $787 billion dollar wet-dream.

I don't think Obama ever stated that the stimulus was going to make the economy recover within five months of it becoming law. :roll:
 
No, we were promised a recovering economy quickly...and we should indeed have one in the second half of this year. That is not the same as new jobs. Unemployment is always a lagging indicator; it will continue to increase for months after the economy has actually bottomed out and started growing again.

Nice try! :rofl
 
No, we were promised a recovering economy quickly...and we should indeed have one in the second half of this year. That is not the same as new jobs. Unemployment is always a lagging indicator; it will continue to increase for months after the economy has actually bottomed out and started growing again.



I don't think Obama ever stated that the stimulus was going to make the economy recover within five months of it becoming law. :roll:

He did say it would keep unemployment under 10%, until the package was passed, that is. Once the package was passed, he changed his tune.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QffRCDimg2E&feature=related"]YouTube - Obama's Double Digit Unemployment[/ame]
 
He did say it would keep unemployment under 10%, until the package was passed, that is. Once the package was passed, he changed his tune.

YouTube - Obama's Double Digit Unemployment

There's no way the President of the United States (or anyone else) can accurately predict the peak unemployment rate, with or without this policy. That may have been the political spin he put on it, in order to scare congressmen into voting for it. But the reality is that unemployment is always a lagging indicator.

Even in January/February, a lot of economists were saying that the recession was likely to hit bottom in summer 2009, but that unemployment would continue to rise until at least the end of the year. And that still seems likely to happen.
 
There's no way the President of the United States (or anyone else) can accurately predict the peak unemployment rate, with or without this policy. That may have been the political spin he put on it, in order to scare congressmen into voting for it. But the reality is that unemployment is always a lagging indicator.
In other words, Dear Leader lied to scare Congress into spending $787 Billion this country does not have.

And you're ok with this.

:confused:
 
In other words, Dear Leader lied to scare Congress into spending $787 Billion this country does not have.

I don't think I've ever stated that Obama was above politics. On the contrary, he's quite adept at the game.

celticlord said:
And you're ok with this.

:confused:

We needed an economic stimulus. If Barack Obama needs to claim that it could prevent double-digit employment, and Rahm Emanuel needs to twist the arms of some reluctant congressmen, that's just politics. You're never going to eliminate political spin and political pandering from Washington. So you might as well focus on the policies instead of the politics.
 
We needed an economic stimulus.

As you and I are likely the only two here who have actual university level business educations (the rest are clearly blowhards), do you think that the stimulus, with its paltry amount spent should be canceled and repackaged into something that can be spent within 60 days?
 
As you and I are likely the only two here who have actual university level business educations (the rest are clearly blowhards), do you think that the stimulus, with its paltry amount spent should be canceled and repackaged into something that can be spent within 60 days?

I don't think there is any way to spend it that fast. However, there is a lot of waste in the stimulus bill that ideally could be cancelled and repackaged. My top priorities for economic stimulus are:

1. Bailing out the banks and getting the toxic assets off their books
2. Extending and expanding unemployment insurance and COBRA for the next couple years
3. Giving money directly to the states, in proportion to their population (but not in proportion to their need)
4. A complete upgrade of our decaying infrastructure, including highways, electric grids, rail systems, water supplies, and emergency preparedness.
5. A one-year suspension or reduction in the corporate tax.


While these things are the most important IMO, I don't think that any of them can distribute all the money back into the economy at large within 60 days.
 
We needed an economic stimulus.
There's two huge problems with this statement:

1. We did not need and do not need economic stimulus. Economic stimulus has never worked, and there is zero evidence to give credence to the possibility of it working this time.

2. We did not get economic stimulus, regardless of whether we needed it or not. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 is not stimulative.
 
More like cancel the amounts not spent, repackage them into something that can be spent within the next month.

Anyone with a functioning brain should have expected this to occur when only a pathetic 6.5% of the stimulus has been spent so far. Stimulus as a concept is not bad. But as we've seen, it hasn't worked. But generally fiscal policy is almost virtually too slow to work well. Same thing happened under the Bush tax cuts. Too slow to make a difference.

What I don't get is why is there a trillion dollar deficit when only $51 billion has been spent so far? Where is the rest of the money? :confused:

"Stimulus" is an asinine concept invented by Libruls in their effort to fool the American people into agreeing with a vast power grab and Government expansion we have not seen since FDRs days.

The notion that any Government can BORROW and PRINT money to "stimulate" an economic recovery requires a level of willful ignorance I cannot fathom.

This effort to expand the role of Government into every facet of our lives is not over by any stretch; expect "stimulus II", Healthcare I and Cap & Trade I to be coming down the pike. I expect the deficit will exceed TWO TRILLION as a direct result of the nonsense we are seeing in Congress which is now infested with idiots on the Democrat side of the aisle who spend 8 years denouncing a Bush deficit of a mere $200 billion.

Makes you kind of wish for those days again don't it?

What is going to happen is a further meltdown of economic activity in the private sectors which translates to even lower tax revenues and if they do indeed pass their healthcare and cap and trade, expect a withering assault on the economy which will make the Carter years look like prosperity.

States and local Governments are currently compounding the problems and exacerbating them by raising their tax rates and trying to find every possible way to make up for their continuing lost revenue; California and New York being the best examples.

Obama was right about "change", but it isn't change we can BELIEVE in, it is change we will wish had never occurred.
 
:confused:
A brilliant rebuttal, good sir. Obviously a master of economics, you are.

Anyone who defends the massive policy of stupidity cannot have the first idea of economics 101.

I love the asinine notion that the Government can BORROW and PRINT trillions which will spark and economic recovery that if left alone, would have occurred anyway.

Never before in history have so many been so fooled by such ignorance that now infests the White House and Congress.

I used to give Obama credit for being very astute at fooling Americans into voting for him considering his complete lack of experience and background; but I am beginning to think that he and the other morons infesting the Congress actually believed their own asinine rhetoric; the belief that a VAST increase in Government bureaucracy by fear mongering the ignorant American public into agreeing to a policy of spending trillions of dollars they don't have without an honest debate about how they will pay for it.

What we will see is a continuing spiral into a spending abyss as revenue continues to decline and spending continues unabated.

The notion that we can SAVE enough money to cover the spending TRILLIONS on a National Healthcare program is laughable at best. I am surprised that they didn't use this asinine logic to support the vast increase they made in Medicare spending; whose funding will reach crisis levels by 2020.

What about Social Security; which is another program heading for a funding crisis. But hey, we will solve it by spending several trillions on a Government managed Healthcare Insurance plan that is going to SAVE so much money as to fund itself.

All this managed by the same morons who can't even balance a budget or deal with a looming banking crisis brought on by their own failed legislation in the name of making home ownership available to anyone who cannot afford a home.
 
As you and I are likely the only two here who have actual university level business educations (the rest are clearly blowhards), do you think that the stimulus, with its paltry amount spent should be canceled and repackaged into something that can be spent within 60 days?

:rofl ....yeah right; another of your intellectually lacking bloviations.
 
There's two huge problems with this statement:

1. We did not need and do not need economic stimulus. Economic stimulus has never worked, and there is zero evidence to give credence to the possibility of it working this time.

2. We did not get economic stimulus, regardless of whether we needed it or not. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 is not stimulative.

I have to agree. Tax rebates, whether it is a lump sum or tiny increments, do not create create the shift in aggregate demand that would justify giving money out in the first place.... For the most part, permanent spending is based on future income expectations. If tax rebates are not (at least for the near term), a greater portion will be saved (undesirable)....
 
We needed an economic stimulus.

We did, in the form of TAX CUTS. How can you possibly say we needed to print money to fix the economy? Let me remind you that there wasn't, and still isn't, any money in the kitty.

The only money available to stimulate the economy is in the private sector. You encourage them to free up that money by investing further in their businesses, not taking it away from them, which is only going to scare them further in the hole, let go of more employees, and bury the money they have left in the backyard.

It's not like this theory has never been tested. Good lord.
 
1. Bailing out the banks and getting the toxic assets off their books
This does need to be done, but I quibble about whether it falls under the heading of "stimulus". RTC v2 would not alter aggregate demand in the economy.
2. Extending and expanding unemployment insurance and COBRA for the next couple years
Actually, we should move in the opposite direction. As harsh as it sounds, it will move people back into the work force. Expanding unemployment insurance is essentially paying people not to work, and that is never productive.
3. Giving money directly to the states, in proportion to their population (but not in proportion to their need)
If FedZilla reduced federal spending and taxes, the states could more easily finance their budgets from within their own populations. Don't give money to states, return money to where it belongs, individuals' pockets.
4. A complete upgrade of our decaying infrastructure, including highways, electric grids, rail systems, water supplies, and emergency preparedness.
You could write an entire spending bill on this one thing alone--and Congress should do exactly that. I do quibble about it being stimulus, because it's not elevating aggregate demand but merely servicing existing demand--but it's spending that needs to be done.
5. A one-year suspension or reduction in the corporate tax.
Corporate income taxes should be eliminated in their entirety, and dividends taxed as ordinary income. If shareholders seek to defer taxes by keeping their share of the corporate profits at the corporate level, such accumulations of capital would be another store of savings to fuel financial activity and economic growth.
 
We did, in the form of TAX CUTS. How can you possibly say we needed to print money to fix the economy? Let me remind you that there wasn't, and still isn't, any money in the kitty.

Who said anything about printing money? And regardless of whether it comes in the form of tax cuts or more spending, it's going to increase the deficit.

Erod said:
The only money available to stimulate the economy is in the private sector. You encourage them to free up that money by investing further in their businesses, not taking it away from them, which is only going to scare them further in the hole, let go of more employees, and bury the money they have left in the backyard.

The problem is there isn't much money to invest right now. That's why it's so important that the government bails out the banks and pumps more money into the economy.
 
Who said anything about printing money? And regardless of whether it comes in the form of tax cuts or more spending, it's going to increase the deficit.
The printing of money is being done by Helicopter Ben Bernanke. If you look at money supply growth in recent months, you'll see he's running his printing press full out.

The problem is there isn't much money to invest right now. That's why it's so important that the government bails out the banks and pumps more money into the economy.
The money is there. The problem is that the toxic debt issue has pushed the capital to the sidelines.

In actuality, we need fewer "bailouts" and more aggressive action on removing the toxic securities from bank balance sheets. The bailouts thus far have done little to resolve the toxic debut issue, and have merely pruned superficial rotten assets; the systemic problems remain and continue to taint securities and bank balance sheets. We need to resolve the root of the problem, not just trim back rotten assets as they go bad.
 
This does need to be done, but I quibble about whether it falls under the heading of "stimulus". RTC v2 would not alter aggregate demand in the economy.

It would enable the banks to start loaning money to businesses and individuals again, which would stimulate demand.

celticlord said:
Actually, we should move in the opposite direction. As harsh as it sounds, it will move people back into the work force. Expanding unemployment insurance is essentially paying people not to work, and that is never productive.

While that idea has some merit during good economic times...there is a time and a place for everything. Right now, there are lots of people laid off who do want to work but are unable to find a job. We need an expanded safety net to tide them over (and keep them spending money) until the recession ends.

When the economy recovers, and there are very few people who are seriously seeking work who are unemployed for more than a couple months, *then* I would agree that we can cut back on unemployment insurance and COBRA. The potential for abuse is a lot higher during economic booms IMO.

celticlord said:
If FedZilla reduced federal spending and taxes, the states could more easily finance their budgets from within their own populations. Don't give money to states, return money to where it belongs, individuals' pockets.

Well, the states have the same problem the fed does, in terms of needing economic stimulus. But I think in many cases the states are able to address their problems better than the feds, since the problems vary from one state to another.

This wouldn't necessarily preclude giving the money to the individuals, if that's what individual states decide to do with it.

celticlord said:
You could write an entire spending bill on this one thing alone--and Congress should do exactly that. I do quibble about it being stimulus, because it's not elevating aggregate demand but merely servicing existing demand--but it's spending that needs to be done.

Ya, that can go in a separate bill if necessary. I think it's stimulus because many of the projects are ready to go, and they can start spending money and employing people right away.

celticlord said:
Corporate income taxes should be eliminated in their entirety, and dividends taxed as ordinary income. If shareholders seek to defer taxes by keeping their share of the corporate profits at the corporate level, such accumulations of capital would be another store of savings to fuel financial activity and economic growth.

I agree that corporate taxes should eventually be eliminated...but again, there's a time and a place for it. Until we have the deficit under control I think we should try to steer clear of more permanent tax cuts. However, given the dire state of the economy I would support a one-year reduction in the corporate tax.
 
Last edited:
While that idea has some merit during good economic times...there is a time and a place for everything. Right now, there are lots of people laid off who do want to work but are unable to find a job. We need an expanded safety net to tide them over (and keep them spending money) until the recession ends.
The problem is that people look for work in a certain profession, at a certain wage, et cetera. If they can find that sort of work, great, but how long of a search for that "good job" is too long?

The longer they sit idle the more unemployment we have. Underemployment is preferable to unemployment. Trim the safety net and compel people to look more for "steady jobs" as opposed to "good jobs".


Well, the states have the same problem the fed does, in terms of needing economic stimulus. But I think in many cases the states are able to address their problems better than the feds, since the problems vary from one state to another.

This wouldn't necessarily preclude giving the money to the individuals, if that's what individual states decide to do with it.
If government did not take the money from individuals in the first place, the economic benefits would be far greater than taking money (taxes) and then giving it right back to individuals.

I agree that corporate taxes should eventually be eliminated...but again, there's a time and a place for it. Until we have the deficit under control I think we should try to steer clear of more permanent tax cuts. However, given the dire state of the economy I would support a one-year reduction in the corporate tax.
Eliminating the double taxation effect of corporate income taxes would eliminate a lot of the financial inefficiencies introduced by companies seeking to lower their corporate tax bills. Also, eliminating the corporate income tax would attract corporate entities to the US. Both effects would facilitate economic expansion--and economic expansion raises tax revenues. After that, the burden is on government to use the marginal revenue increase to fund debt reduction rather than more spending.
 
There's two huge problems with this statement:

1. We did not need and do not need economic stimulus. Economic stimulus has never worked, and there is zero evidence to give credence to the possibility of it working this time.

Never worked? Germany 1930. So much for that argument. Furthermore, tax cuts are essentially stimulus.

I agree with your second point.
 
Never worked? Germany 1930. So much for that argument. Furthermore, tax cuts are essentially stimulus.

I agree with your second point.

Ah...Germany...Germany...what happened to Germany...OH YEAH....it's "stimulus" was the construction of a war machine.

Tell us, oh sage, what was going to happen to Germany once it was done building that war machine?

Oh, that's right, an empty economy, a national debt, and massive layoffs, reprising Germany, 1922.
 
Never worked? Germany 1930. So much for that argument. Furthermore, tax cuts are essentially stimulus.

I agree with your second point.

The Weimar government was a complete failure. I pray we're not headed down the same road.
 
Back
Top Bottom