• 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!

The weakest recovery in modern times.

katzgar said:
now you are making stuff up out of thin air
Click to expand...
David Axelrod, a senior adviser to the president, said: “This summer will be the most active Recovery Act season yet, with thousands of highly-visible road, bridge, water and other infrastructure projects breaking ground across the country, giving the American people a first-hand look at the Recovery Act in their own backyards and making it crystal clear what the cost would have been of doing nothing.”

Read more: Obama, Biden declare 'Recovery Summer' - POLITICO


but....
President Obama 'Recovery Summer' Stimulus Projects Fail to Yield Big Job Growth - ABC News

After months of withering job losses and weak economic growth, summer was going to be the season of recovery, the Obama administration heralded in June.

Thousands of infrastructure and construction projects funded by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act were to come on-line during June, July and August, helping to "create jobs for American workers and economic growth for businesses, large and small."










The White House dubbed it "Recovery Summer" and President Obama declared the economy had begun "growing at a good clip." Vice President Joe Biden predicted weeks earlier that creation of 250,000 to 500,000 new jobs a month could soon be on the horizon.
But with summer quickly coming to an end, those jobs gains and a robust economic recovery have not yet materialized, leaving Democrats on the verge of a fall election campaign in which Republicans are poised to make them eat their words.
 
MTAtech said:
Absolutely true. Friday's jobs numbers were also impressive. Right now, Obama's economy has added 14 million jobs -- which is more than Bush, even if you exclude all the jobs lost during the recession. But, conservatives will still insist that Obama policies are job-killing.
Click to expand...

Every country that went the austerity route is doing far worse than we are too. Its amazing really that are economy has been as robust as it has given the state of the world's economy. Other than in the aftermath of World War II, I would challenge anyone to point to a time in the last 70 years when the US economy consistently grew while the rest of the world was stagnant or in recession. To my knowledge, since 2008, this is the only time this has ever happened.

As to why wages for the bottom 80% of so have been stagnant since the late 70s after adjustment for inflation, you can blame that on the advent of container ships.
 
When did the president of the US take control of the economy? I must have missed it.
 
time for the far right to accept the fact that we have a black president. Time to get at other real issues.
 
katzgar said:
time for the far right to accept the fact that we have a black president. Time to get at other real issues.
Click to expand...

{Groan}

Pathetic .... Just ...pathetic.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
I'm not sure which is worse, posters who use false starting points in their arguments.....or those that are blind to the fact that the only lever the POTUS has had to effect the economy has been the FED/monetary policy, the fiscal lever has been controlled by the GOP Congress.

If you don't like the recovery, blame the GOP, this is exactly the recovery they wanted.
Click to expand...

Ouch. The government doesn't manage the economy. It is part of the economy. The government didn't cause the downturn and can't affect an upturn. The economy manages itself. The government can affect minor adjustments but it certainly isn't the cause of any of it. If you want to know what caused the current economic malaise, just look at the behavior of the American people over the past half century. We have been stupid enough to send most of our wealth and jobs abroad. We've gone from a manufacturing powerhouse to manufacturing also ran. We have a debilitating trade balance because we don't have anything really to trade in the international market place. We have embraced economic internationalism to the benefit of others and to the detriment of ourselves. We have put our workers in competition with the third world. I remember when Ross Perot talked about the great sucking sound as our jobs went to Mexico. Since then they have been sucked to China, Taiwan, Vietnam, Malaysia and on and on.

Oddly, the rest of the world should thank us for giving them so much of our wealth. Instead they appear to hate us and mock us. If you want to fix the economy, don't expect the government to do it for you. Find a way to reverse our disastrous behavior over the past half century. The government could help somewhat by putting some serious tariffs on imports. It would raise the costs of imported goods significantly but, in the long run, it could spur manufacturers to begin bringing manufacturing back home. There would be some pain but it might reverse the trend. The greater pain is continuing in the disastrous way we have in the past.

The government didn't do this to us. We did it to ourselves.
 
That this recovery is so weak after we invested so much money into it by way of bailouts and monetary gimmicks is proof that this economy sucks. It is a big part of the rise of Trump. There is now a lack of faith in those who run this economy, which will likely speed up the onset of the next recession/depression as well as make it worse.
 
KLATTU said:
Apparently MY point went over your head. Henry Ford made a decision that was best for HIS company( not anybody else's)

He , like most most business owner, knew more than some government bureaucrat what was the correct labor rate to maximize value for HIS ( not anybody else's ) company.
Click to expand...

Nonsense. Ford realized that by raising wages his workers could afford to buy his cars and open a whole new market for them. This was the start of many such "revelations" leading to the most productive and successful middle class in the world. If only the current oligarchs were so insightful. Greed has blinded them apparently. It's time to restore their sight before it is too late and it all comes tumbling down.
 
Last edited:
fmw said:
Ouch. The government doesn't manage the economy. It is part of the economy. The government didn't cause the downturn and can't affect an upturn. The economy manages itself. The government can affect minor adjustments but it certainly isn't the cause of any of it. If you want to know what caused the current economic malaise, just look at the behavior of the American people over the past half century. We have been stupid enough to send most of our wealth and jobs abroad. We've gone from a manufacturing powerhouse to manufacturing also ran. We have a debilitating trade balance because we don't have anything really to trade in the international market place. We have embraced economic internationalism to the benefit of others and to the detriment of ourselves. We have put our workers in competition with the third world. I remember when Ross Perot talked about the great sucking sound as our jobs went to Mexico. Since then they have been sucked to China, Taiwan, Vietnam, Malaysia and on and on.

Oddly, the rest of the world should thank us for giving them so much of our wealth. Instead they appear to hate us and mock us. If you want to fix the economy, don't expect the government to do it for you. Find a way to reverse our disastrous behavior over the past half century. The government could help somewhat by putting some serious tariffs on imports. It would raise the costs of imported goods significantly but, in the long run, it could spur manufacturers to begin bringing manufacturing back home. There would be some pain but it might reverse the trend. The greater pain is continuing in the disastrous way we have in the past.

The government didn't do this to us. We did it to ourselves.
Click to expand...


your comments ignore actual facts. conservative bubble facts arent real.
 
iguanaman said:
Nonsense. Ford realized that by raising wages his workers could afford to buy his cars and open a whole new market for them. .
Click to expand...

LAFF.

Paging GRUBER!!!

Just when you think liberals can't get any stoopider, one comes along and proves you wrong.

The other day, I noted in passing that it is arithmetically impossible, except in some bizarre situation with little bearing on the real world, to make money by paying your employees more and thus enabling them to afford your products.

Someone asked me to show my work. So let’s run a simple model based on Henry Ford’s legendary $5-a-day wage, introduced in 1914, which more than doubled the $2.25 workers were being paid.

That’s about $700 a year, almost enough to buy a Ford car (the Model T debuted at $825). Now let’s assume, unrealistically, that the workers devoted their extra wages to buying nothing but Model Ts; as soon as they bought the first one, they started saving for the next.

Is Ford making money on this transaction? No. At best, it could break even: It pays $700 a year in wages, gets $700 back in the form of car sales. But that assumes that it doesn’t cost anything except labor to make the cars. Unfortunately, automobiles are not conjured out of the ether by sheer force of will; they require things such as steel, rubber and copper wire. Those things have to be purchased. Once you factor in the cost of inputs, Ford is losing money on every unit.

But can the company make it up in volume, as the old economist’s joke goes? Perhaps by adding the workers to its customer base, Ford can get greater production volume and generate economies of scale. But Ford sold 300,000 units in 1914; its 14,000 employees are unlikely to have provided the extra juice it needed to drive mass efficiencies.

Henry Ford Paid His Workers $5 a Day So They Wouldn't Quit, Not So They Could Afford Model Ts - The Truth About Cars

Hey don't feel bad, you aren't the only pigignorant liberal to fall for this moronic meme..
Henry Ford Paid His Workers $5 a Day So They Wouldn't Quit, Not So They Could Afford Model Ts - The Truth About Cars
Obama Is The Latest To Fall For The Henry Ford Urban Myth
 
We are better now than we were in 2008 for sure
 
katzgar said:
now you are making stuff up out of thin air
Click to expand...

That's what we usually get from the reactionaries around here.

KLATTU said:
David Axelrod, a senior adviser to the president, said: "This summer will be the most active Recovery Act season yet, with thousands of highly-visible road, bridge, water and other infrastructure projects breaking ground across the country, giving the American people a first-hand look at the Recovery Act in their own backyards and making it crystal clear what the cost would have been of doing nothing."

but....

"with summer quickly coming to an end, those jobs gains and a robust economic recovery have not yet materialized."
Click to expand...

Between Mar and Aug 2010, employment in the "Heavy and civil engineering construction" industry expanded from 721K to 894K, a 24% increase. Now some of that was seasonal, but the unemployment rate in construction fell from 27.1% in Feb to 17% in Aug, a 37% decline.

I'll say it's true that these ARRA-related construction jobs weren't created as fast as the administration predicted. They were being political, but I figure they were also being patriotic. They were attempting to inspire confidence in the American people, which may be the best tonic there is for the economy.

Note that by Nov 2011, unemployment in construction had fallen to 13.1%, and by Sept 2013, it was 8.5%. It hit 5.5% last July, about as low as it's been in the last fifteen years.

unemp_in_construction_2000_2015.jpg

KLATTU said:
Ford sold 300,000 units in 1914; its 14,000 employees are unlikely to have provided the extra juice it needed to drive mass efficiencies.

you aren't the only pigignorant liberal to fall for this moronic meme
Click to expand...

And yer source (who studied religion in college and never graduated) isn't the only moronic reactionary to misrepresent the idea behind the Ford wage increase. No one has ever argued that Ford workers bought all the new cars produced, rather that their increased income allowed them to purchase one.
 
KLATTU said:
Equitable?
That's BS-our tax system is not designed to be equitable. It's progressive, so that rich pay more. And that's what happens. Somewhere around 40 % of taxpayers pay no income tax. Can't get much more progressive than that.
If you want ( and what liberal doesn't ? ) high eraners to pay more, just says so, stop lying and pretend it's because you want it mor 'equitable' And PLEASE spare us the dopey, cherry picked stats about how the rich don't pay their 'fair share' .
They don't. They pay more . PERIOD.
Click to expand...

Actually, we live with a de facto flat tax...everyone pays taxes. As it turns out, we pretty much all pay the same % of income, more or less (yes, the lowest 20% pays less).

Taxes - Paid by income group2.jpg




This is all a sideshow, however, as you missed the point and are arguing sidebars. Equitable, by the way, does not mean equal. You can spend a few minutes with Webster's if you would like to sharpen your vocabulary.

As it turns out, the higher income americans pay more, because they earn a higher percentage of the bounty. That is equitable.

Tax Revenue - Distribution of tax burden2.jpg


My issue is not with equitable taxation, it is with using tax policy to achieve equitable distribution of the bounty in the first place.

... as to "cherry-picked data"... hardly so. If you believe otherwise, then charts to the contrary would be easy to obtain. However, since the facts are on my side on this, you will not find charts that refute what I have set forth, which is why your post is devoid of fact and full of emotion. Emotion has no place in debate.
 
Last edited:
katzgar said:
your comments ignore actual facts. conservative bubble facts arent real.
Click to expand...

Well that certainly clears things up for me.
 
WCH said:
Without them....there would be no recovery or much of an economy
Click to expand...

It is literally impossible to know that as it is literally impossible to know how a past/present event would have turned out under different circumstances.

Also, considering there have been dozens and dozens of U.S. recessions - including the 1920-21 Depression - where a full recovery happened with little/no government assistance; the notion that major economic downturns require large government assistance to end has been proven completely false by history.
 
Last edited:
KLATTU said:
The economy, by every metric, is better than when I came into office," Obama told Jon Stewart during his last appearance on "The Daily Show.

View attachment 67195287

Even Liberal Politifact was buying that BS.

"Our ruling

Obama said, "The economy, by every metric, is better than when I came into office."

That claim is too sweeping. Certain measures of wages and income, the poverty rate and the duration of unemployment are all worse now than they were when Obama "came into office."

The statement contains an element of truth but ignores facts that would give a different impression, so we rate it Mostly False.
Barack Obama tells Jon Stewart the economy, 'by every metric, is better' than when he took office | PolitiFact

Six million more Americans live in poverty today than when Obama was elected. Median household income (in real dollars) was no higher at the end of 2015 than at the end of 2007. The labor force participation rate — the share of working-age Americans who have a job or are looking for one — has sunk to 62.5 percent, a level not seen since the Carter administration. Since the recession ended, the economy has grown at an annual rate of just 2.2 percent. That is way below average for post-recession recoveries. Indeed, this has been the weakest economic recovery in modern times......
Far from anticipating the limping slog of the last seven years, the White House confidently forecast an economic recovery that would feature robust GDP growth of 4 percent or more. It never came close.

More Americans would be working, paychecks would be larger, and public confidence would be sturdier if the economy had bounced back as vigorously as expected. Obama thought he had a better way to fix a recession. Turns out he had a worse way. Live and learn, voters.



The Weakest Economic Recovery in Modern Times - Jeff Jacoby - Page 2
Click to expand...

Not only that...comparing now to before the Great Recession (which officially began in December 2007):

- food stamp usage is still roughly 40% higher
- home ownership rates have plummeted
- the employment to population ratio of 25-54 aged Americans (by far the most imporatant demographic) is much lower
- the M2 money velocity is much lower - in fact it is at record recorded lows and still falling overall (which largely explains why there is little/no inflation). This means money is changing hands at a record low rate. Lower money velocities usually occur during recessions.
- and on and on...

Though I blame the Fed more then Obama...and Bush has to take much of the blame for 'running the show' when the whole mess started.

But whomever is at fault, this recovery is, IMO, a joke. And an expensive one as the national debt has skyrocketed since the Great Recession began.
 
Last edited:
DA60 said:
It is literally impossible to know that as it is literally impossible to know how a past/present event would have turned out under different circumstances.

Also, considering there have been dozens and dozens of U.S. recessions - including the 1920-21 Depression - where a full recovery happened with little/no government assistance; the notion that major economic downturns require large government assistance to end has been proven completely false by history.
Click to expand...

I agree. Usually when the FedGov throws massive amounts of money at a perceived problem, the results are financially disastrous and the problems continue..
 
WCH said:
I agree. Usually when the FedGov throws massive amounts of money at a perceived problem, the results are financially disastrous and the problems continue..
Click to expand...


facts arent relevant are they
 
mmi said:
T

And yer source (who studied religion in college and never graduated) isn't the only moronic reactionary to misrepresent the idea behind the Ford wage increase. No one has ever argued that Ford workers bought all the new cars produced, rather that their increased income allowed them to purchase one.
Click to expand...

"moronic reactionary" ? LOL
I put the wrong link up above-my bad. I meant to post a statement by a true 'moronic reactionary', falling for the urban myth that Henry Ford raised wages so workers could afford his cars.

“Henry Ford realized he could sell more cars if his workers made enough money to buy the cars. He had started this – factories and mass production and all that, but then he realized, if my workers aren’t getting paid, they won’t be able to buy the cars. And then I can’t make a profit….But if I pay my workers a good wage, they can buy my product, I make more cars. Ultimately… it’s a win-win for everybody"

Can anybody guess the moron who said that?
 
KLATTU said:
The economy, by every metric, is better than when I came into office," Obama told Jon Stewart during his last appearance on "The Daily Show.



Even Liberal Politifact was buying that BS.

"Our ruling

Obama said, "The economy, by every metric, is better than when I came into office."

That claim is too sweeping. Certain measures of wages and income, the poverty rate and the duration of unemployment are all worse now than they were when Obama "came into office."

The statement contains an element of truth but ignores facts that would give a different impression, so we rate it Mostly False.
Barack Obama tells Jon Stewart the economy, 'by every metric, is better' than when he took office | PolitiFact

Six million more Americans live in poverty today than when Obama was elected. Median household income (in real dollars) was no higher at the end of 2015 than at the end of 2007. The labor force participation rate — the share of working-age Americans who have a job or are looking for one — has sunk to 62.5 percent, a level not seen since the Carter administration. Since the recession ended, the economy has grown at an annual rate of just 2.2 percent. That is way below average for post-recession recoveries. Indeed, this has been the weakest economic recovery in modern times......
Far from anticipating the limping slog of the last seven years, the White House confidently forecast an economic recovery that would feature robust GDP growth of 4 percent or more. It never came close.

More Americans would be working, paychecks would be larger, and public confidence would be sturdier if the economy had bounced back as vigorously as expected. Obama thought he had a better way to fix a recession. Turns out he had a worse way. Live and learn, voters.



The Weakest Economic Recovery in Modern Times - Jeff Jacoby - Page 2
Click to expand...

And during this weak recovery which has NOT extended to the average working class person, unions are at their lowest power in the last 75 years. That is no coincidence and portends no good in the near future.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom