• 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 recession may be over at last — so what now? [edited]

Goldenboy219 said:
So why did Bush continue to do so? He could/should have raised taxes to pay for the war(s)....
Click to expand...

What does any of this have to do with Bush? Do you have a point or just like to go off on tangents and blather the forum with nonsense?

You rant once again about Bush raising taxes, why don't you rant about the current Democrats raising taxes to pay for their unabashed deficit spending?

Why is it that you were pissed off when Bush spent us into a $200 billion deficit, but now want to avoid any discussion about the Democrats spending us into $1.4 trillion and claim it is somehow a GOOD thing?

What is your point? Do you even know what a point is?
 
Truth Detector said:
What does any of this have to do with Bush? Do you have a point or just like to go off on tangents and blather the forum with nonsense?
Click to expand...
Some people aren't here to debate, but just to spew partisan hackery.
 
Truth Detector said:
What is your point? Where do you think the "FED" gets the money to buy treasury notes?

Like GoldenBoy, what is your point? That DEBT is good and paying almost $500 million a day in interest is good for the American taxpayer?

What is your point?
Click to expand...

The point is that you do not have a clue.
 
winston53660 said:
The point is that you do not have a clue.
Click to expand...

You fail to make that point then; but I welcome any coherent arguments that suggest that I am wrong when I say that having a National Debt of $12 trillion and climbing, a deficit of $1.4 trillion and climbing and spending almost $500 million per day on interest on the debt is a BAD thing.

Good luck with that, but frankly based on your history here at DP, I wont hold my breath for anything that makes sense from you.

Carry on. :2wave:
 
chevydriver1123 said:
Calm before the storm.
Click to expand...

I hope you are wrong, but suspect that there is definitely more storm coming. This report is good news, but it is hardly proof, or even evidence, that we are out of the worst of things. Unemployment, which is the top measure of how well the people are doing, is going to stay bad for awhile yet.
 
Goobieman said:
Watch, as the faux growth you just described becomes the excuse to continue the related spending...
Click to expand...

You mean....to soothe the worried citizens that everything is soooo much better now, so how's about we pass Messiah Care right away? We can afford it, the economy is "growing" again!
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
You mean....to soothe the worried citizens that everything is soooo much better now, so how's about we pass Messiah Care right away? We can afford it, the economy is "growing" again!
Click to expand...
That is the logical follow-on.

The Obamanistas have repeatedly tried to argume that hoping The Obama fails [to implement His policies] = hoping that the US fails.

I am convinced that the only way to keep the US from failing is for The Obama to fail.
 
Obama's dilemma is that Wall Street, and corporate profits, jump when his policies fail. The more lame duck his agenda looks, the more confidence investors have in re-entering the market.

Meanwhile, Main Street doesn't budge. Corporations aren't about to take the risks associated with growth - which means hiring people - while this crew is in office.

The reason corporations are showing profits is that they eliminated lots of overhead and learned to operate in the climate their in. That's what made them brilliant in the first place.

Obama's getting cornered. Wall Street will boom, while Main Street will bust further.
 
jackalope said:
It's not Libruls who are saying it, it's economists, market makers, policy wonks, and more.
Click to expand...


Actually, it's how the "libruls" are reporting it that begets the hypocrisy. :mrgreen:


source
Identical Unemployment Numbers ‘Good’ News for Obama, But ‘All’ Bad under Reagan.

Executive Summary

A study from the Business & Media Institute

Unemployment under President Barack Obama is at a 26-year-high. The last time the economy had 9.7 percent or higher unemployment was under President Ronald Reagan. But despite similar periods of rising unemployment, Obama and Reagan received almost exactly opposite treatment from the network news media.
Under Obama reporters have gone to great lengths to spin rising unemployment by finding “positive trends” in the job losses, even focusing on as few as 25 jobs being “saved” by the economic stimulus package. But when Reagan was president journalists showed unemployed families living out of their cars under a bridge in Texas and quoted Democrats or union leaders’ attacks on the president’s “wicked” and “sadistic” fiscal policies.

ABC’s George Stephanopoulos looked on the bright side for Obama Sept. 4, 2009, telling viewers, “the unemployment rate nears 10 percent, but the numbers aren’t all bad.” Rewind to May 7, 1982, when unemployment hit 9.4 percent three-tenths of a percentage point lower than it would be in August 2009. That night, NBC found people in Seattle in dire straights.
“The lines for free food at food banks are four times what they were six months ago,” NBC’s Don Oliver told “Nightly News” viewers. Oliver’s report focused on the “new poor” and the emotional effects of unemployment, including suicide and battering.

The Media Research Center’s Business & Media Institute examined network unemployment stories on the evenings that unemployment data was released by the Bureau of Labor Statistics from March 2009 to September 2009 and March 1982 to September 1982. During that timeframe in 1982 unemployment ranged from 8.9 percent to 9.8 percent, and in 2009 it shot up even faster – from 8.1 percent to 9.7 percent. Here are some of our findings:

Network Reports 13 Times More Negative Under Reagan than Under Obama: An overwhelming majority of stories mentioning the Reagan administration were negative 91 percent (20 out of 22) while only 7 percent (1 out of 15) of Obama administration mentions were negative. Additionally, Obama mentions were favorable 87 percent of the time, but there were zero positive mentions of Reagan.
Networks Connect Reagan White House to Negative Jobs Numbers Almost Twice as Often as Obama: Unemployment stories in 1982 mentioned the Reagan administration 71 percent of the time (22 out of 31), but 2009 stories mentioned the Obama administration only 40 percent of the time (14 out of 35).
Charles Gibson: 9.4% Unemployment ‘Good News’ (Obama) and also ‘All’ Bad (Reagan): The unemployment rate reached 9.4 percent under Reagan and Obama. But ABC’s Charles Gibson covered the identical rate very differently in 1982 than in 2009. Gibson told viewers May 7, 1982, “[T]here really isn’t any good news in the statistics. All the numbers are bad.” But by 2009, Gibson had turned into an optimist citing “good news” June 5 and “hope the economy may be finally turning the corner” Aug. 7.
Click to expand...
 
So this is now a Obama bashing thred:lol:
 
winston53660 said:
So this is now a Obama bashing thred:lol:
Click to expand...

Well based on the fact that his crash for crunklers thing gave a false boost to the economy while yet increasing our debt even more.....yes, he will the focal point.

Hell, when Bush had 4.5% unemployment and a steady growth of 3.5% he was stated as being a bad president. That's starting to look like gold bricks to this idiot in office now.
 
dontworrybehappy said:
Well based on the fact that his crash for crunklers thing gave a false boost to the economy while yet increasing our debt even more.....yes, he will the focal point.

Hell, when Bush had 4.5% unemployment and a steady growth of 3.5% he was stated as being a bad president. That's starting to look like gold bricks to this idiot in office now.
Click to expand...

LOL - yeah, I actually looked into that and realized it was bunked and doomed to fail.

It was ridiculous - it was false hope. They started to amp up production only to find that it was extremely temporary and now all those people are in debt that they, before, were not in.

Though my credit is stellar it would have cost us - at least - $400.00 for a vehicle that could seat the whole family, at the least. That includes trade-in value and overall deduction via CFC.
 
TD and Goobie:

The state of the economy is mired by a full employment GDP gap, signaling an imbalance in the macro economy. Because we are considering the moment, and immediate future, it does justice to use a short run analysis where aggregate demand determines output (GDP). Due to the fact that prices in the short run are sticky, we are witnessing a discrepancy in what the market wants (falling demand leading to falling supply), and what reality dictates (people do not want their wages, assets, etc... to fall to equilibrium).

So we have a couple options. The first is that we allow prices to fall and the market to self correct. Sounds good, but what does that encompass exactly? High unemployment (not 10%, more like 20%-30%) where firms downsize, capital investment diminishes (high savings and interest rates), assets devalue (to attract buyers); which will cause the dollar to appreciate leading to greater purchasing power (it cost less dollars to purchase the same goods). Now you might say, "yeah, that sounds good", but does it really? If you own a home, it is now worth less than a year ago. As unemployment climbs, people will be willing to work for less (decreased wages). Borrowing money is now expensive because people/businesses are worried (higher interest rates). So now not only do we begin to experience lower wages, higher interest rates, and devalued assets, the majority of the economy still has a plethora of fixed cost obligations regardless of market sentiment (mortgages, credit cards, auto loans, business loans, health care, education costs, etc...)

To put it simply, everyone will suffer.

The alternative? The government runs deficits and begins to apply policies that will positively shift demand (stimulus, specifically government spending not tax rebates). In accordance, central banks go against market sentiment and begin flooding the financial system with liquidity thereby lowering interest rates and preventing a race to the bottom in asset prices (money is not scarce now). Inflation (higher prices) is sought as a way to cure falling asset prices (deflation) because costs in the short term are "fixed". As the psychology of markets leans towards optimism, prices will begin to rise (a signal of naturally improving demand) and these higher prices will attract producers to hire more workers which is necessary to increase production, in accordance with increasing capital spending (business investment) which is interest rate sensitive.

Once we see consecutive quarters of positive GDP growth, higher employment, greater lending, more monetary velocity; central banks will begin the necessary steps in draining excess liquidity, thereby raising rates (carefully). In accordance, the federal government (with careful timing and consideration) begins raising taxes on in a temporary fashion (to ensure the Ricardian equivalence holds).

All in the short run. We are now beginning to see real signs of improvement. There might be some more bumps in the road, but that is to be expected when "animal spirits" are released.

However in the long run, real growth is primarily a function of increased productivity via technological progress. In the long run, it is aggregate supply that determines real output (GDP).
 
3.5 is good, but i wouldn't say "the recession is over" quite yet

at least, not in public

america might fling fungoid fruit at you

by all accounts, the 3.5 is artificially inflated by 1.6% augmentation in the auto market, "stimulated" by a clunky contrivance which, now that it's concluded, leaves behind a DOWNWARD impetus on car sales

hundreds of thousands of consumers even contemplating an auto purchase in the foreseeable future just drove it home in july and won't be shopping for chevys again for years

the future of the car industry looks bleakly foreboding now that the artificiality is exhausted

the 8% tax credit for new home buyers is another inflater underlying the 3.5, still foreclosures are at an all time high

Foreclosures hit record in third quarter 2009 - Oct. 15, 2009

realtytrac also sees a sad prospectus---"the fastest growing area is in the 180-days late category, the most seriously delinquent borrowers, it's going to be a lingering problem"

i wouldn't inform those folks flung out of their flats that the famine is finished, even were i flaunting full pads and a football helmet

consumer confidence has also crashed

Worsening job picture fuels slide in confidence - Yahoo! Finance

THAT's the united states economy---no confidence

the stimulus, which was reported earlier this month to have "saved or created" a piddly 38000 jobs, is reported today to have overestimated even that measly sum by some 13%

My Way News - Stimulus jobs overstated by thousands

finally, where rubber meets road---JOBS

new claims rose by 530,000 in the WEEK ending 10-24

Initial jobless claims drop less than expected - Oct. 29, 2009

and we're experiencing a deep psychological, depressive freeze on hiring in the form of discomfiting fears of fines, mandates, taxes, enfolded in cap and trade, health care...

3.5% is a pretty number, but i'm afraid it's a statistic too abstract for americans with bellies that are substantial

politics is in the gut, not the head
 
What jobs? You mean the ones increasing the size of the federal government?

J.P. Bill
 
Last edited:
dontworrybehappy said:
Well based on the fact that his crash for crunklers thing gave a false boost to the economy while yet increasing our debt even more.....yes, he will the focal point.

Hell, when Bush had 4.5% unemployment and a steady growth of 3.5% he was stated as being a bad president. That's starting to look like gold bricks to this idiot in office now.
Click to expand...

You forget he inherited this mess {sarcasm}:roll:
 
Phoenix said:
signals end of recession, till the end of the 1st Quarter.
Cash for Clunkers gives us good numbers this time.
The Cash for appliances and Halloween, Thanksgiving, and Christmas will make Quarter 4 look at least decent.
Quarter 1 will tank again.
Click to expand...

Thats what one of the talking heads indicated on joe scarborough this AM. Another dip is on the way, says he.
 
Redress said:
I hope you are wrong, but suspect that there is definitely more storm coming. This report is good news, but it is hardly proof, or even evidence, that we are out of the worst of things. Unemployment, which is the top measure of how well the people are doing, is going to stay bad for awhile yet.
Click to expand...


We'll have to mark this one down Red.....I agree.....:2wave:


j-mac
 
bridge buff said:
What jobs? You mean the ones increasing the size of the federal government?

J.P. Bill
Click to expand...

A distinct possibility. :roll:


source

Huge government job growth ahead
Posted Sep 03 2009, 11:08 AM by Kim Peterson Rating: Filed under: Kim Peterson
The Obama administration is taking on so many issues -- out of ambition or necessity -- that it must hire 270,000 over the next three years for critical jobs, the Washington Post reported.

The jobs fall into five main categories: medical, security, law enforcement, legal and administrative. And they are needed as the government tackles everything from climate change to financial recovery to fighting two wars. A think tank came up with the jobs total after studying 35 federal agencies.

Bing: How to get a federal job


If you include all jobs -- not just the "mission-critical" ones -- the government will have to hire some 600,000 people during the four years of President Obama's term. That would bump up the current workforce by a third.

Is this crazy, or simply a result of these unusual times? The Post reports that the ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are resulting in major expansion at the Department of Veterans Affairs. That department will need to hire 48,000 in the next three years, including 19,000 nurses and 8,500 doctors.

The Department of Homeland Security is also planning to hire big numbers.

The Post points out that the federal payroll amounted to only .66% of the U.S. population last year, which is actually a decrease from 1970. But that doesn't include the ballooning number of government contractors that previous administrations have hired in attempts to privatize some work.....
Click to expand...
 
Goldenboy219 said:
The state of the economy is mired by a full employment GDP gap, signaling an imbalance in the macro economy.

Because we are considering the moment, and immediate future, it does justice to use a short run analysis where aggregate demand determines output (GDP).

So we have a couple options. The first is that we allow prices to fall and the market to self correct...To put it simply, everyone will suffer.

The alternative? The government runs deficits and begins to apply policies that will positively shift demand (stimulus, specifically government spending not tax rebates).

In the long run, it is aggregate supply that determines real output (GDP).
Click to expand...

This was very interesting. I have a couple of questions.

First is that you say that in the short run, aggregate demand determines output, but in the long run, aggregate supply that determines real output. Could you talk about that difference a little bit?

Second is that while we have deficit spending and stimulus, my understanding is that most of the stimulus is yet to be spent. So how much deficit spending and stimulus has there been so far and how much impact has it had supporting demand (I think that is what you said it does).

My point is how much of this "market recovery" (not unemployment recovery yet) is due to govt spending and how much is natural cycle correction?

Thanks!
 
Goldenboy219 said:
The alternative? The government runs deficits and begins to apply policies that will positively shift demand...
Click to expand...
... whch will then have any number of other terrible effects.
To put it simply, everyone will suffer.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom