• 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

When you understand that Bush built the uemployment mountain it's not a big surprise that Bush's gift just keeps on giving.
 
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.

We did it backwards we had the Bushnyl Iraq war first which brought down the economy so poor ol O'bAMA ow is hold the proverbial economic bag.
 
Never worked? Germany 1930. So much for that argument. Furthermore, tax cuts are essentially stimulus.
Germany 1930--that was the year the Nazi Part won 107 seats in the Reichstag and became a major player in German politics.

Germany 1930--the year that Heinrich Bruning, the "hunger chancellor" became Chancellor, implementing an austerity program that raised taxes and lowered wages.

Germany 1930--the beginning of the end of the Weimar Republic and the rise of Adolf Hitler.

What part of this is a proof of effective economic stimulus?
 
When you understand that Bush built the uemployment mountain it's not a big surprise that Bush's gift just keeps on giving.
Ah yes, the default knee-jerk response of liberals everywhere: "But....but....Bush....blame Bush....Bad Bush!" :roll:

Bush didn't pass a perverse and non-stimulating "stimulus" bill that does little and adds $787 Billion to the 2009 deficit and the US national debt.

Bush didn't lie to Congress that passing said bill would keep unemployment below 9%.

Bush didn't lie to the American people to gather support for said bill.

Dear Leader did all these things. His defense is the same as yours: "But....but....Bush....blame Bush....Bad Bush!"

How.....typical.
 
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:

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.

Actually...

stimulus-vs-unemployment-june-dots.gif
 
Actually...

stimulus-vs-unemployment-june-dots.gif

From the graph, it looks like Obama's graph predicted that unemployment peaks in Q3 of 2009. We'll see. That's probably only a quarter or two ahead of schedule IMO. My guess is that unemployment doesn't peak until sometime this winter.

That graph doesn't make much sense though, from an economic perspective. If Obama truly thought that unemployment would peak in Q3, that would mean the economy would have ALREADY been recovering when his team made the graph, since unemployment is a lagging indicator. This seems more like political spin than an accurate economic analysis.
 
Last edited:
From the graph, it looks like Obama's graph predicted that unemployment peaks in Q3 of 2009. We'll see. That's probably only a quarter or two ahead of schedule IMO. My guess is that unemployment doesn't peak until sometime this winter.

That graph doesn't make much sense though, from an economic perspective. If Obama truly thought that unemployment would peak in Q3, that would mean the economy would have ALREADY been recovering when his team made the graph, since unemployment is a lagging indicator. This seems more like political spin than an accurate economic analysis.

Ummm....from the graph, the Messiah was predicting unemployment peaking at 7.8%.

Currently unemployment is 22% larger than that, at about 9.5%. Who gives a flying u-pick-it what the Messiah' predictions are, he's already totally and most completely wrong. If the unemployment curve actually peaks in the third quarter, so what? It's clear enough that the Messiah and Acolytes don't have the faintest clue what they're doing.

Also, given the current trends, if the unemployment did reach a peak in the third quarter, it's going to hit what, 11%? 12%? When was the last time the US saw those kinds of numbers?...

....and then the economy gets nuked in 2010, as the Messiah repeats the mistakes of the past and raises taxes across the board, both because he lacked the foresight to make the successful Bush tax cuts permanent and because Crap&Trade is going to put a huge hike in energy costs, and because the Messiah is going to attempt to steal the nation's health care industry using new taxpayer dollars. So, whatever happens in the third quarter of this year, it's gonna be a plateau, not a peak.
 
That graph doesn't make much sense though, from an economic perspective. If Obama truly thought that unemployment would peak in Q3, that would mean the economy would have ALREADY been recovering when his team made the graph, since unemployment is a lagging indicator. This seems more like political spin than an accurate economic analysis.
http://otrans.3cdn.net/45593e8ecbd339d074_l3m6bt1te.pdf

You're flailing.....badly.

The original graph (sans dots showing actual unemployment data) was produced by Christina Romer and Jared Bernstein in their January 10, 2009, report titled The Job Impact of The American Recovery And Reinvestment Plan. Dr. Romer, if you recall, is the Chair of the Council of Economic Advisers. Bernstein is Chief Economist and Economic Policy Adviser to Vice President Joseph Biden

The Council of Economic Advisers was created in the Employment Act of 1946 (PL 79-304, enrolled at 15 USC §1021 et seq). 15 USC §1023(c) describes the duties of the Council specifically:
(c) Duties It shall be the duty and function of the Council—
(1) to assist and advise the President in the preparation of the Economic Report;

(2) to gather timely and authoritative information concerning economic developments and economic trends, both current and prospective, to analyze and interpret such information in the light of the policy declared in section 1021 of this title for the purpose of determining whether such developments and trends are interfering, or are likely to interfere, with the achievement of such policy, and to compile and submit to the President studies relating to such developments and trends;

(3) to appraise the various programs and activities of the Federal Government in the light of the policy declared in section 1021 of this title for the purpose of determining the extent to which such programs and activities are contributing, and the extent to which they are not contributing, to the achievement of such policy, and to make recommendations to the President with respect thereto;

(4) to develop and recommend to the President national economic policies to foster and promote free competitive enterprise including small and larger business, to avoid economic fluctuations or to diminish the effects thereof, and to maintain full employment, production, and purchasing power;

(5) to make and furnish such studies, reports thereon, and recommendations with respect to matters of Federal economic policy and legislation as the President may request.​
Nowhere does it state that the Council or its Chair is to provide propaganda and political spin to advance and improve public perception of Presidential policy. Yet you argue that the original graphic, and the associated report, are "political spin."

The report containing the original graphic is quite emphatic that the stimulus plan proposed by Dear Leader and the Anti-Republicans in Congress would, by 2010 Q4, create roughly 3.6 million jobs. This was the assessment of a professional economist (Dr. Romer, remember, got her PhD in Economics from MIT in 1985) and her associates. This assessment was described by Paul Krugman (himself a professional economist and Nobel Laureate) in his NYT blog as "clear" and "honest".

In other words, the graphic might be wrong in its estimates, but it unequivocally purports to be a technical assessment of stimulus plans, not a marketing message meant to facilitate their enactment.
 
Gee boys and girls didn't the Messiah in Chief Obama say the unemployment rate would top out at 8%? Oh yes I forgot the the Savior may not be as good a suthsayer as he is a liar.
The rates will continue to climb and increase as the Dims (no spill error) begin their attack on the wealthy who create the jobs. The top 10% of wage earners pay something like 78% of the taxes now. Those at the bottom pay little or nothing. Higher taxes means fewer jobs, but the Dims don't get it. As Cap and Trade takes effect taxes will fall even faster as more jobs are lost and the higher costs are going result in fewer sales and the cycle will never end until smarter people say enough.
Everything they have planned and or are doing is the wrong thing, and America will not listen to reason because they have become full fledged disciples of the Liar in Chief Obama and operate with glazed over eyes.

Recession is when your neighbor loses their job.
Depression is when you lose your Job.
Recovery is when Obama loses his job.
 
Ah...Germany...Germany...what happened to Germany...OH YEAH....it's "stimulus" was the construction of a war machine

Way to fail to recognize the actual point. The stimulus worked. What came next is irrelevant as to whether or not the stimulus worked. How about you stay on the subject for a change?
 
What part of this is a proof of effective economic stimulus?

How about the low unemployment? Rising per capita GDP? Neither you nor Scarecrow are capable of actually addressing the point. Instead moving into tangents rather than the fact that the stimulus did bring Germany out of its depression. What it did next is irrelevant as to whether or not the stimulus worked.
 
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 can accurately predict-but he is predicting? Don't suppose there's a problem you have with that-no big surprise..............Puting a political spin (lying), to use scare tactics..............I'm guessing that you're ok with that too? Par for the course...............
 
Way to fail to recognize the actual point. The stimulus worked. What came next is irrelevant as to whether or not the stimulus worked. How about you stay on the subject for a change?

The stimulus was a heroin fix.

Obama's stimulus was a meth fix.

Obama is already talking about his next fix.
 
How about the low unemployment? Rising per capita GDP? Neither you nor Scarecrow are capable of actually addressing the point. Instead moving into tangents rather than the fact that the stimulus did bring Germany out of its depression. What it did next is irrelevant as to whether or not the stimulus worked.

Sure I was.

I chose instead to address the real issue.

So where was Germany getting the money to re-build it's war machine? Was it loans, printing presses, or chasing all the jews out of Germany with only the clothes on their backs?

Gee, maybe we should look VERY carefully at the effects of a Nazi stimulus regime, what do you think, so we can see what really went on.

What else did Germany do to stimulate their economy?

Well, it gobbled Austria.

It gobbled the Sudetenland.

Do you really want to compare the Nazi's "economic miracle" with the Messiah's?
 
Do you really want to compare the Nazi's "economic miracle" with the Messiah's?

You are forgetting that Jewish wealth was confiscated and redistributed in order to fulfill teachings of the Messiah, so such a comparison is not completely off the base.
 
Last edited:
This just basically says the Nazi's massaged the numbers. Not like that'd ever happen here in American nosireebob.

Which has what to do with the debate over whether or not the Nazi's actually had an economic miracle?
 
Which has what to do with the debate over whether or not the Nazi's actually had an economic miracle?

Your link doesn't function as a trump card, sorry to tell you.
 
Eh. No citations. No discussion of per capita GDP (nor total GDP). More or less it just says this without providing any support for it. Give me something tangible.

The trading policies of the Third Reich aimed at discouraging trade with countries outside the German sphere of influence, [5] while making southern Europe largely dependent on Germany.[6] Eventually, the Nazi party developed strong relationships with big business [7] and abolished trade unions[8], while real wages dropped by a fourth[4] and employees could not easily change employer.[8] Taxes, though, were still low well into the war.[9] Already before the war, people undesirable to the regime were used as slave labour, and in 1944 they reached one quarter of the workers.[10]

So all we have to do is cut wages by 25% and import approx. 41,000,000 slaves, and then we're golden.

Unlike Italy, however, Germany did not strive to achieve full autarky. Hitler was aware of the fact that Germany lacked reserves of raw materials, and full autarky was therefore impossible. Thus he chose a different approach. The Nazi government tried to limit the number of its trade partners, and, when possible, only trade with countries within the German sphere of influence. A number of bilateral trade agreements were signed between Germany and other European countries (mostly countries located in Southern and South-Eastern Europe) during the 1930s. The German government strongly encouraged trade with these countries but strongly discouraged trade with any others.[5]

By the late 1930s, the aims of German trade policy were to use economic and political power to make the countries of Southern Europe and the Balkans dependent on Germany. The German economy would draw its raw materials from that region, and the countries in question would receive German manufactured goods in exchange. Already in 1938, Yugoslavia, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria and Greece transacted 50% of all their foreign trade with Germany.[6] Throughout the 1930s, German businesses were encouraged to form cartels, monopolies and oligopolies, whose interests were then protected by the state.[28]

During the war, as Germany acquired new territories (either by direct annexation or by installing puppet governments in defeated countries), these new territories were forced to sell raw materials and agricultural products to German buyers at extremely low prices. Hitler's policy of lebensraum strongly emphasized the conquest of new lands in the East, and the exploitation of these lands to provide cheap goods to Germany. In practice, however, the intensity of the fighting on the Eastern Front and the Soviet scorched earth policy meant that the Germans found little they could use. On the other hand, a large quantity of goods flowed into Germany from conquered lands in the West. For example, two-thirds of all French trains in 1941 were used to carry goods to Germany. Norway lost 20% of its national income in 1940 and 40% in 1943. [31]

I don't see this being replicated any time soon.

The right to quit also disappeared: Labour books were introduced in 1935, and required the consent of the previous employer in order to be hired for another job. [8] In place of ordinary profit incentive to guide investment, investment was guided through regulation to accord with needs of the State. Government financing eventually came to dominate the investment process, which the proportion of private securities issued falling from over half of the total in 1933 and 1934 to approximately 10 percent in 1935–1938. Heavy taxes on profits limited self-financing of firms. The largest firms were mostly exempt from taxes on profits, however government control of these were extensive enough to leave "only the shell of private ownership."

Seems ideal.

[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Nazi_Germany]Economy of Nazi Germany - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]
 
Back
Top Bottom