Europe Recovers as U.S. Lags

[Calabrio]

Remember when Obama went to Europe and tried to pressure the Europeans to pass wasteful, irresponsible "stimulus" plans like we did, in order to save their economies..... They said no.

A reminder from March 2009
and another

This economic cycle/condition isn't over yet, but at least they don't have another trillion dollars of debt burdening their future.


Europe Recovers as U.S. Lags
Germany, France Escape Recession Even as Consumer Weakness Hobbles America

By MARCUS WALKER in Berlin and DAVID GAUTHIER-VILLARS in Paris

Germany and France have escaped from recession surprisingly quickly, outpacing the U.S. in returning to growth thanks in part to government stimulus efforts and consumer spending.

Germany, Europe's biggest economy, grew at an annualized pace of 1.3% in the second quarter, while France, the region's second-biggest economy, expanded at an annualized rate of 1.4%. Both countries recorded contractions for the previous four quarters, and bounced back earlier than other advanced economies including the U.S. and the U.K.

The news that Europe's economic engine is rebounding suggests the region is joining the recovery under way in China and increasingly elsewhere in Asia, exemplified by India's announcement Wednesday that industrial production in June rose nearly 8% from a year earlier.

That contrasts with uneven consumer spending in the U.S., where retail sales unexpectedly fell 0.1% in July, as American households are hurting from job losses, a weak housing market and tight credit.

This week, Federal Reserve officials said U.S. "economic activity is leveling out," but cautioned that it is likely to remain "weak for a time."

While previous global rebounds relied heavily on U.S. shoppers, the current recovering trends in Asia and Europe appear to hinge more on spending by governments and the region's households and businesses. That could benefit the U.S. economy in coming months by lifting American companies' exports while U.S. consumers rebuild their battered finances.

"We're used to the U.S. leading the way to recovery, but this time we're having to look eastwards to Asia and to a homegrown recovery in Europe," said Julian Callow, chief European economist at Barclays Capital in London. However, the rebound will probably turn global in the current quarter, he says, noting "just as it was a synchronized recession, it will largely be a synchronized upturn."

While U.S. consumer spending is expected to remain crucial to the world economy, its relative importance appears to have diminished in sparking the early stages of global recovery.

Although U.S. gross domestic product was still falling last quarter, there have been signs of improvement, including indications that housing prices are stabilizing and a report last week that the jobless rate fell to 9.4% in July, the first decline in more than a year.

The return to modest growth in Germany and France meant that GDP in the 16-nation euro currency zone fell at an annualized rate of 0.4% in the second quarter -- a big improvement on the euro zone's 9.7% pace of contraction in the first quarter.

Doubts persist about sustaining the recovery in Europe's economic heartland next year. Stimulus measures, including programs to scrap old cars for more fuel-efficient ones will expire, while European banks continue to pare lending as they try to digest losses from the financial crisis and rebuild capital.

Unemployment is still rising because continental Europe's strictly regulated labor markets trail the business cycle. Layoffs in France, for example, can involve lengthy legal proceedings. The strong euro, which rose to $1.42 Thursday, could hinder a recovery in exports. Some economists say a spreading swine-flu epidemic this fall might cripple business.

That makes some economists fear a W-shaped recovery, with a risk of stagnation ahead before growth becomes more robust.

Even in France and Germany, business activity is picking up at a very depressed level, making the tentative upturn feel like a recession to many.



http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125014420293928457.html

 

[foxpaws]

Remember when Obama went to Europe and tried to pressure the Europeans to pass wasteful, irresponsible "stimulus" plans like we did, in order to save their economies..... They said no.

This economic cycle/condition isn't over yet, but they don't another trillion dollars of debt burdening their future.

Cal - is this your lead in to the article? Are these your words?

 

[Calabrio]

In case there was some confusion, I cleaned it up for you....

 

[foxpaws]

thanks - and in case there is any confusion almost all European countries have had stimulus packages - I think totaling about 200 billion, and I think they are continuing to pump additional money (germany just announced a 6 billion energy stimulus)

They also had clunker programs, and other packages that were similar to ours, (in banking, shoring up the auto industry, etc) oh well, I guess that would be the other way around, we based a lot of our programs on what the Europeans have been doing.

Their stimulus packages seem to be working, don't they Cal?

They hit the recession wall a few months before we did - seems to make sense that they would crawl out of it before us.

 

[Calabrio]

thanks - and in case there is any confusion almost all European countries have had stimulus packages - I think totaling about 200 billion, and I think they are continuing to pump additional money (germany just announced a 6 billion energy stimulus)

Are you equating the two, or just trying to confuse things.
I provided links in the first post so you can't mislead so easily this time.

Obama asked them for increased stimulus spending, much like we did.
They said no.

While I don't think they made all of the right choices, they made less expensive ones than Obama and aren't any worse for it.

If economic recovery were as simple as just printing money and dumping it into the economy, why aren't we recovering at a faster rate? BECAUSE THAT DOESN'T WORK. Not even in the short term.

They also had clunker programs, and other packages that were similar to ours

And among all the other problems, they are starting to find unintended economic consequences associated with the C4C program here:
The popular US cash-for-clunkers programme may be drawing money from other consumer purchases and could also undermine future car sales, US economists have warned.

their stimulus packages seem to be working, don't they Cal?

Whatever they did, it may be working than what we did.
And whatever they did, it was a hell of a lot less expensive than what we did too.

They hit the recession wall a few months before we did - seems to make sense that they would crawl out of it before us.

Is that your argument?
But we committed to spending much more than they did, so shouldn't that have made us pull out even faster?

Instead, things have simply gotten worse.
And will likely continue to get worse. We're even monetizing our debt now.

Nice try fox, but your logic isn't working here.
We're not better off for the extra trillion or so in debt we've incurred.
"Just spend money" doesn't fix the economy. It's just making things worse in the long run.

 

[fossten]

Cat got your tongue, foxpaws?

 

[foxpaws]

Cat got your tongue, foxpaws?

Gosh, your originality overwhelms me Foss.... or are you just trying to 'conform'?

 

[foxpaws]

Are you equating the two, or just trying to confuse things.
I provided links in the first post so you can't mislead so easily this time.

Obama asked them for increased stimulus spending, much like we did.
They said no.

In October of last year germany approved a 23 billion euro stimulus package

In January of this year they approved another 50 billion euro package

So that is 73 billion euros (105 billion dollars)

Which equals about 3% of their GDP

But, the EU has also had a few stimulus packages go through on it’s own – most recently a 3.5 billion euro package for green energy.

So, Germany has benefited from those as well, estimates are about an additional 1% of GDP.

So a total of about 4% of their GDP in stimulus funds…

The individual countries in Europe had just passed large packages (mostly because the EU couldn’t get their act together), so, not surprising they said no to Obama’s plan.

And whatever they did, it was a hell of a lot less expensive than what we did too.

Ours was about 5% of our GDP, a huge difference Cal? 4% vs 5%…

 

[Calabrio]

The Obama Stimulus plan was equal to 5.7% of our nation's GDP.
And that's JUST the stimulus. It doesn't include bail outs, it doesn't include TARP, it doesn't include the omnibus spending bill. JUST THE STIMULUS.
5.7%

Despite the fact you understated the cost of the stimulus by .7% of GDP, just for the sake of discussion, I'll still just take the rest of your figures at face value.

You don't think the difference between 4% for a number of their programs to stimulate and 5.7% for just the U.S.stimulus is a big difference- particularly when you note the vast difference in economy sizes??

So why aren't we seeing the benefits yet?
If, as you have expressed, the government simply spending money and committing to spend money will stimulate the economy proporationate to the amount spent, why haven't things improved?

At the time of the stimulus, the proponents of the stimulus had the nerve to argue, with a straight face, that for every $1.00 the government spent, we'd see $1.50 of economic activity.

Didn't happen.
Won't happen.

If we spent "only" spent 5.7% of GDP and they spent about 3-4%, why aren't we recovering FASTER? Or stronger? Maybe we should have spent 2 or 3% less.

My point isn't that the European Stimulus worked.
It's that they spent less and they're recovering faster.
So the stimulus was a WASTE.

 

[fossten]

How much of Europe's stimulus was actually geared toward boosting the economy vs. how much of it was pork? Because more than half of Obama's stimulus was pork.

 

[foxpaws]

TThe Obama Stimulus plan was equal to 5.7% of our nation's GDP.
And that's JUST the stimulus. It doesn't include bail outs, it doesn't include TARP, it doesn't include the omnibus spending bill. JUST THE STIMULUS.
5.7%

And Cal, the numbers I quote don't have Germany's bail out fund for the banks and their industry. Heck, just their bank bailout program was $672 billion.

So, lets just add that in ok, sweetheart - since you want to look at the 'big picture.'

Germany stimulus - 105 billion, Germany Bank TARP - 672 billion, Germany GDP (2008) 3,668 billion for a big total of 21 percent of GDP (I didn't add in the EU stimulus stuff - it is really hard to track - since it is split between the EU countries, and the best people can do are estimates - so, to keep it simple, I left it out).

US stimulus - 789 billion, US TARP - 700 billion, US GDP (2008) 14,265 billion or 10% of GDP

Initially you implied that they had no stimulus like ours - they did, most of Europe, and certainly Germany and France the two countries specifically mentioned in your article, had lots of it. And they not only have it themselves, they get additional funds pumped in from EU. And then you said it was a hell of a lot less than what we spent, well obviously our definitions of 'hell' are quite different.

I used percentages Cal, to compare apples to apples - dollars to Euros don't make much sense... nor does giant US economy to european country economy.

How do you know we aren't seeing benefits - they are just about to declare us out of the recession.. At least in the same publication that you use for the story above... the Wall Street Journal

My point isn't that the European Stimulus worked.
It's that they spent less and they're recovering faster.
So the stimulus was a WASTE.

So, Europe entered the recession a bit before us - they are exiting it a bit before we are... We have yet to see if their recovery will be as strong as ours - ours could be better. Time Cal - don't be so quick to judge, just like you shouldn't be so quick to say Europe didn't have 'wasteful, irresponsible' stimulus packages... They were very similar to ours... including clunker programs, road programs, bailouts, etc... And as a percentage of GDP at least Germany significantly larger, if you include (and you did want to include them right?) bailout funds. They spent more overall, and so therefore they are recovering faster.

Foss, I believe in Germany, just as it is here in the US, it would depend on who you would talk to on the ratio of good spending vs pork. There were plenty of people who wanted absolutely no stimulus or bailouts at all, and are still arguing that there was too much waste.

 

[Calabrio]

You can dance around this all you'd like, but we're pressing up against the 10% unemployment mark right now.
We've begun to monetize our debt.
And every economic indicator is either flat or falling.
Unfortunately, any kind of sustained recovery will be highly unlikely due to the reckless policies that have been pursued in the past and with wild abandon since last Winter.

You can dance around this all day, but when Obama went to Europe and requested that they engage in a massive spending stimulus, they rejected the idea. You keep ignoring this point, instead choosing to either distract or bore me with statistical data that is not directly on point.

The article says the France and Germany are showing stronger signs than the U.S., but all of them are pretty deep in the :q:q:q:qe. The point is- THEY SPENT LESS and, at this moment, are SUPPOSED to be doing a little better. Most important, they aren't doing any worse despite reject the appeal of Obama.

England is doing terribly.
And the U.S. is only a couple years behind them.

The mere fact that a majority of the Keynsian economists who were incapable of foreshadowing what happened are saying this recessionary cycle is over is nice. It isn't reassuring though. No do I have any faith in that.

If you really want to start getting bogged down in details, and if you are confident that we've made it through the worst of this, only 15% of the stimulus has even been paid out, and 25% has been made available. So if you honestly believe that we're in the recovery, would you be willing to halt the funding of the other 75% or $591,000,000,000.00?

Since we don't have the money anyway, we could just refrain from printing it.

So, Europe entered the recession a bit before us - they are exiting it a bit before we are...

This logic makes sense, IF you're willing to acknowledge that economic cycles are often cyclical and if left alone, will resolve naturally in time. The stated goal of the "stimulus" was to inject fake inflated money into the system and stimulate thing, ACCELERATING the recovery. And based upon the massive size of the stimulus and the various monetary policies, we should have passed the Europeans... at least if the theory you embraced and defended were to have actually worked. Not just have recovered within the same amount of time.

Unfortunately it didn't. And as a result, the "stimulus" could easily end up costing us trillions. And that's without including the rest of the harmful policy coming out of Washington recently.

We have yet to see if their recovery will be as strong as ours - ours could be better.

Or, we could be dealing with another bubble pop and ridiculously high inflation. And trillions of dollars of additional debt- and that's before cap/trade/tax or the health care bill.....

 

[foxpaws]

You can dance around this all day, but when Obama went to Europe and requested that they engage in a massive spending stimulus, they rejected the idea. You keep ignoring this point, instead choosing to either distract or bore me with statistical data that is not directly on point.

No - I did address it Cal - European countries individually had already passed big stimulus packages on their own - he appealed to the EU, the EU had already tried at the end of 08 to work on something - but couldn't get enough countries to sign on - so everyone did their own thing. Obama did fail on them doing even more... but, they already had very large stimulus packages in the works. They weren't going to go for 'double' massive packages. They have stimulus packages - big ones - I have shown that Cal - You initially implied they didn't have any. They have the same type of programs we have.

England is doing terribly.
And the U.S. is only a couple years behind them.

That is opinion - not fact, the statement that we are behind England, is it not Cal?

If you really want to start getting bogged down in details, and if you are confident that we've made it through the worst of this, only 15% of the stimulus has even been paid out, and 25% has been made available. So if you honestly believe that we're in the recovery, would you be willing to halt the funding of the other 75% or $591,000,000,000.00?

I would be willing to put 1/2 on hold - sort of put it in the 'bank'. Certainly this could be a bounce... there has been lots of speculation on that.

This logic makes sense, IF you're willing to acknowledge that economic cycles are often cyclical and if left alone, will resolve naturally in time. The stated goal of the "stimulus" was to inject fake inflated money into the system and stimulate thing, ACCELERATING the recovery. And based upon the massive size of the stimulus and the various monetary policies, we should have passed the Europeans... at least if the theory you embraced and defended were to have actually worked. Not just have recovered within the same amount of time.

But, we didn't inject huge amounts more, you just admitted we have only spent 15% of it (what - about $118 bil?) - France has spent most of theirs (37 bil), and is on track to be the country in the best shape in Europe. Maybe we should be spending it...

 

[Calabrio]

Obama did fail on them doing even more..

That's what I said.
Thanks.

That is opinion - not fact, the statement that we are behind England, is it not Cal?

No, it's fact. Subject to interpretation, but inevitable.
Daniel Hannan, member of the European Parliment, agrees.
If we continue down the political and policy path that the current government is attempt to take us, is there any reason to disagree?
No.

I would be willing to put 1/2 on hold - sort of put it in the 'bank'.

o.k. Just a freeze on all additional budgeting?
Why half?
And you want them to print more money and then stick it in a "bank?"

But, we didn't inject huge amounts more

We've injected TRILLIONS into the money supply this past year. They can't print it fast enough.
The stimulus alone committed nearly another trillion and already has hundreds of billions available.

you just admitted we have only spent 15% of it

Yes, and we discussed that in the brief period BEFORE the bill was passed. That it was heavily back loaded and would do NOTHING to stimulate the economy. Yet you supported it anyway.

And you're currently trying to argue that it's responsible for aiding in our recovery. While simultaneously arguing that it hasn't spent enough. Will still arguing that the recession was actually cyclical in nature and the recovery will take a fixed amount of time.

The fact is, your arguments, as contradictory as they are, don't hold up to scrutiny.

My point is clear. The stimulus didn't stimulate the economy, it wasn't designed to stimulate the economy, and it will ultimately do more harm than possible good.

Europe didn't follow Obama further down that rabbit hole, DESPITE his arguments and the logic he applied here, and they are exhibiting some short term recovery signs... they aren't any worse for the decision to not continue along Obama's reckless, irresponsible, and negligent economic direction.

Maybe we should be spending it...

We don't have it to spend.

 

[foxpaws]

So, cal, europe has had large stimulus packages (that they are actually spending the funds from), they have had bailouts, clunker programs, infrastructure projects, etc. What is different from what we have? I would really like to know, tell me what they did that was sooo markedly different than what we are doing. We have even based a lot of our programs on theirs. So, what is so different?

o.k. Just a freeze on all additional budgeting?
Why half?
And you want them to print more money and then stick it in a "bank

If we don't need to spend it great - but, I think it should be available if this is a bounce. I would rather not have congress vote in even more money next time.

And you're currently trying to argue that it's responsible for aiding in our recovery. While simultaneously arguing that it hasn't spent enough. Will still arguing that the recession was actually cyclical in nature and the recovery will take a fixed amount of time.

I have never argued that there aren't cycles in the economy - but there extremes in those cycles. I think we avoid a depression, although I don't know if there is any way to prove or disprove that. I think like with most big recessions, we will have another one that follows on the heels of this one, and it could be pretty painful, if we aren't prepared for it with some funds available. I think that is why some of the spending is slated for next year -

My point is clear. The stimulus didn't stimulate the economy, it wasn't designed to stimulate the economy, and it will ultimately do more harm than possible good.

My point is that it looks like it worked in Europe - stimulus funds, bailouts, etc., and it looks like it is working here. Because economies are iffy things - my other point was how about waiting to judge.

Europe didn't follow Obama further down that rabbit hole, DESPITE his arguments and the logic he applied here, and they are exhibiting some short term recovery signs... they aren't any worse for the decision to not continue along Obama's reckless, irresponsible, and negligent economic direction.

They were already in that rabbit hole Cal, certainly before we wandered down it.

 

[fossten]

If we don't need to spend it great - but, I think it should be available if this is a bounce. I would rather not have congress vote in even more money next time.

Yeah, because it makes sense to a) print trillions of dollars b) borrow trillions of dollars c) not spend it d) not give it back to the creditors. Do you know anything about finance, fox?

I have never argued that there aren't cycles in the economy - but there extremes in those cycles. I think we avoid a depression, although I don't know if there is any way to prove or disprove that. I think like with most big recessions, we will have another one that follows on the heels of this one, and it could be pretty painful, if we aren't prepared for it with some funds available. I think that is why some of the spending is slated for next year -

How do you account for all the pork in the bill? How is that supposed to help the economy recover?

My point is that it looks like it worked in Europe - stimulus funds, bailouts, etc., and it looks like it is working here. Because economies are iffy things - my other point was how about waiting to judge.

So, on one hand, it's already working even though only about 5% of the stimulus has been spent, but on the other hand we need to wait to judge? Where are your numbers showing the recovery?

 

[Calabrio]

What is different from what we have? I would really like to know, tell me what they did that was sooo markedly different than what we are doing. We have even based a lot of our programs on theirs. So, what is so different?

What's different?
There isn't enough difference to make me happy, but there was enough difference for Obama to go over there and ask for help. You're right, we ARE following the old Europe model. We are in the process of making the same mistakes the Europeans have been making. There is no disagreement on that.

But, despite all they did, Obama made strong requests for them to engage in a giant, spending for the sake of spending stimulus along with the U.S. They refused his suggestion and aren't any worse for it.

I'd also argue that all of these countries would be better off if they'd refrained from engaging in any of these "stimulus" programs in the first place. Because, as you like to add, economic cycles will recover naturally.

If we don't need to spend it great - but, I think it should be available if this is a bounce. I would rather not have congress vote in even more money next time.

Why would we need to spend it?
You're logic is inconsistent.

If the more we spend, the more we stimulate, why not just spend it all.

If we're going to recover at the same rate, regardless what we spend- as you've implied- then why go so deeply into debt for no reason?

Of course, the other question is- what kind of an idiot would support a "stimulus" that waits YEARS before spending any more, or establishes government programs hat will require additional funding after the "stimulus" spending is exhausted.

I think we avoid a depression, although I don't know if there is any way to prove or disprove that

Isn't that convenient.....
I thought the idea of the stimulus was to prevent 8% unemployment.
OOPS!

And to save jobs!
....not quite...

Well... it was all part of a broader plan to keep banks from failing!
..yeah, about that....
Well, at least save the big ones....
....um.... not to big too fail?

I think like with most big recessions, we will have another one that follows on the heels of this one, and it could be pretty painful, if we aren't prepared for it with some funds available. I think that is why some of the spending is slated for next year -

You think that a genuine strong recovery will likely be followed by ANOTHER painful recession.

Be candid here- do you honestly believe this?
Are you full of it or really that naive regarding economics?

You're refusal to actually make a statement with any accountability can't ALWAYS be an accident.
The stimulus worked, we didn't spend enough, we should wait and see if it worked, if it worked we should save the money in the bank until we know if it didn't work..... what are you talking about.

DID THE STIMULUS WORK?
IF SO, how do you know.
IF NOT, why.

More importantly, why would you support a stimulus that was so back loaded?
And noting that it's so backloaded, how is it responsible for a recovery? Was it just 4 times too big or needless?

My point is that it looks like it worked in Europe - stimulus funds, bailouts, etc.,

How do you know it worked for Europe?
Why don't you think reducing the spending and taxes wouldn't have resulted in an ever greater "stimulus" and a substantially stronger recovery?
And on that point, why are "conservatives" gaining support in Europe?
Europeans governments are becoming more conservative than the Obama/Pelosi administration.

and it looks like it is working here.

Based on WHAT???
What hard data? What trend?
We can hope it's working here, some people can optomistically conclude it SHOULD be ending soon... but I'm not seeing a recovery anywhere. frankly, I think we're still waiting for the other shoe to drop.

If the media were covering THIS economy like it had been representing the Bush economy from 2001-2008, we'd all be hording food by now.

Because economies are iffy things - my other point was how about waiting to judge.

Why not just get another trillion dollar stimulus ready to go then?
Why not just make it two trillion dollars, since the first one might not have worked?

They were already in that rabbit hole Cal, certainly before we wandered down it.

I agree, they were.
But I said that they didn't go FURTHER down it, at our request.
In fact, a number of reports indicate that they might be staying put or trying to dig their way out.

Unfortunately, your right... our government certainly has wandered down there... and it's running towards the bottom.

 

[fossten]

Why not just get another trillion dollar stimulus ready to go then?
Why not just make it two trillion dollars, since the first one might not have worked?

I'll raise you eleven trillion! After all, that's how much has been spent on poverty!

Oh, wait...

 

[Calabrio]

I'll raise you eleven trillion! After all, that's how much has been spent on poverty!

Oh, wait...

What comes after a trillion? Let's just shoot for a Quadrillion!
Since we were promised $1.50 in economic activity for every $1.00 spent- it's ALL PROFIT!!
But who cares, we can always borrow more!!

oh, countries have begun to stop lending money?
Well, it's only money- we can just print more of it.
Fed monetizing debt.

China Warns U.S. about Debt monetization

What's the worst that could happen?
Hyper-inflation?
That's not so bad.
What's the worst the could happen?

 

[foxpaws]

Cal, don't you see that the reason the Europeans rejected Obama's request, is because they had already passed big stimulus packages. It wasn't because they thought it was wrong, it was because they had already done it. I would imaging if the EU had come here in June and told us they wanted us to pass another stimulus bill we would have told them to take a hike - we had just passed ours, and needed to see if it would work.

So cal - so, in Europe, their big spending packages are moving them out of the recession, maybe. It could be cyclic, it could be that it made it worse, it could be that it made it better, the people who wrote the article seem to think so....

thanks in part to government stimulus efforts and consumer spending.​

So, why won't our stimulus efforts do the same thing?

We look to be spending about 1/3 to 1/2 of the stimulus money this year - I think if it looks like we are well on the way to a strong recovery by the end of the year we should but the rest of the stimulus 'on hold'. Why go into that much more debt if 1/2 of the money did the job. If it looks like we are really doing well at the end of '10, why not just 'cancel' the rest of the stimulus. I see nothing wrong with that.

Your list of what the stimulus was suppose to do - I don't know if those are going to happen or not - but I do think one of the things it was suppose to do was keep us from going into a depression. It looks like maybe it did that. Once again - would we have gone into a depression? No one can say. Are we still heading for one - I hope not. But, unlike you Cal, I am not willing to judge this 6 months since passage.

Are you always this judgmental in such a short time frame? How do you know the stimulus hasn't worked? What will be your criteria to claim it a failure. What is your timeframe. Obviously 6 months... right?

I'll wait to call Europe 'right' until the national elections cal, the EU elections are just weird, and all sorts of fringe parties rise and fall each election.

So, you think the economy is getting worse - I think it is getting better (my portfolio certainly is saying that), but once again, time will tell, at this point they are both opinions. We can both find experts to back them.

But I said that they didn't go FURTHER down it, at our request.
In fact, a number of reports indicate that they might be staying put or trying to dig their way out.

Both Europe and the US went about the same distance down the rabbit hole (if we spend all the stimulus money). You seem to think Europe is heading in the right direction... maybe we are just behind them, just like we were just behind them entering the recession. Or maybe you think the Europeans are just better at this then we are. We both basically did the exact same thing, stimulus, bailouts, spending, and in pretty equal numbers - I personally would bank on the US ending up on top.

 

[Calabrio]

Cal, don't you see that the reason the Europeans rejected Obama's request, is because they had already passed big stimulus packages. It wasn't because they thought it was wrong, it was because they had already done it.

So to apply your reasoning, Obama went to the various Europe leaders and asked them to engage in additional wasteful stimulus. And the Europeans said, "I'm sorry, but we've already done that." And Obama responded, "Oh, I didn't realize that you already had. We were unaware of that. Disregard that request because you've already fulfilled my request. We weren't suggesting you spend any additional money you don't have."

Your list of what the stimulus was suppose to do - I don't know if those are going to happen or not -

Yes you do.
Because those thing already have.

But, unlike you Cal, I am not willing to judge this 6 months since passage.

That's because you are invested in arguing that it was a success. Depsite all evidence to the contrary.

Are you always this judgmental in such a short time frame? How do you know the stimulus hasn't worked? What will be your criteria to claim it a failure. What is your timeframe. Obviously 6 months... right?

You conveniently ignored them.
For the sake of this discussion, I held the administration accountable for what they said.

They said that the stimulus would prevent unemployment from reaching 8%. They said it would create jobs and save jobs. It said it would "save people's homes" and prevent banks for closing. And, I think I included links demonstrating how it's failed to do any of that.

Both Europe and the US went about the same distance down the rabbit hole (if we spend all the stimulus money). You seem to think Europe is heading in the right direction...

1. Europe has been socialist for a long time down. We haven't travelled as far as them yet. However, we are on moving in that direction.

I think there is growing political pressure in much of Europe that is demanding more fiscal and personal responsibility. A response to the failures of socialism over there and the devastating affect it's having on their economy and long term potential.

personally would bank on the US ending up on top.

I do too.
But that's despite people like you and the administration you worked so hard to elect and continue to invest such energy in defending.

 

[fossten]

Both Europe and the US went about the same distance down the rabbit hole (if we spend all the stimulus money). You seem to think Europe is heading in the right direction... maybe we are just behind them, just like we were just behind them entering the recession.

Clearly you're unaware that Angela Merkel has pledged to cut taxes. Apparently she believes that cutting taxes encourages growth.

Of course, unlike Obama, she probably actually means what she says.

 

[foxpaws]

So to apply your reasoning, Obama went to the various Europe leaders and asked them to engage in additional wasteful stimulus. And the Europeans said, "I'm sorry, but we've already done that." And Obama responded, "Oh, I didn't realize that you already had. We were unaware of that. Disregard that request because you've already fulfilled my request. We weren't suggesting you spend any additional money you don't have."

No he didn't say that - he wanted more - they said no, just as we would have probably have said no if the EU had come over here and asked the same thing.

You were indicating at the beginning of this thread that the countries in the EU didn't have stimulus packages - I wanted to make sure that everyone knew that they did... So they knew both the US and Europe are basically doing the same thing.

That's because you are invested in arguing that it was a success. Depsite all evidence to the contrary.

I do think it was a success -

They said that the stimulus would prevent unemployment from reaching 8%. They said it would create jobs and save jobs. It said it would "save people's homes" and prevent banks for closing. And, I think I included links demonstrating how it's failed to do any of that.

Your link showed unemployment at 9.4%, it did not show where Obama said that it would keep unemployment below 8% - do you have the link for that Cal?

Your jobs link even said that it is impossible to track jobs saved - and, isn't 2011 the ending date that the 'promise' from Obama uses - 3.5 million jobs created or saved by 2011? Anxious once again to judge early Cal?

How many more banks would have failed without the money Cal? I can name two that would have plunged this country into depression - BOA and Citi - who received bail out funds... Colonial (your example your link) - 25 billion - is small potatoes compared to say BOAs 570 billion - Homes saved - once again - perhaps it would be worse, I don't know Cal - you didn't have a link for saving homes...

I think there is growing political pressure in much of Europe that is demanding more fiscal and personal responsibility. A response to the failures of socialism over there and the devastating affect it's having on their economy and long term potential

I think that the Europeans talk a good talk sometimes, but when it actually comes to voting out the socialist programs, they probably won't.

I do too.

At least we can agree that American will come out on top. You say it is in spite of the administration, I say it is because of the administration.

 

[foxpaws]

Clearly you're unaware that Angela Merkel has pledged to cut taxes. Apparently she believes that cutting taxes encourages growth.

Of course, unlike Obama, she probably actually means what she says.

Really-Obama has lowered taxes... I am sure Merkel will lower some taxes, but they have huge debts to look at, and the EU is pretty picky on how much debt the member nations can hold. She won't be able to significantly lower taxes and stay within the EUs guidelines.

 

[Calabrio]

No he didn't say that - he wanted more -

Thanks for agreeing with me.
Again.

You were indicating at the beginning of this thread that the countries in the EU didn't have stimulus packages - I wanted to make sure that everyone knew that they did... So they knew both the US and Europe are basically doing the same thing.

And I wanted to make sure that everyone knew Obama wanted MORE stimulus, the Europeans said no, and they are doing fine, regardless. And that Obama and his economist were WRONG.

I do think it was a success -

What you mean is, you want it to be a success.... despite all evidence to the contrary.

Your link showed unemployment at 9.4%, it did not show where Obama said that it would keep unemployment below 8% - do you have the link for that Cal?

You're making busy work for me, I find that offensive because you know what I'm saying is true. You're just looking for some excuse to dismiss or ignore it.

Let's take a look at the:

The Job Impact of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan - Jan 10, 2009​

In it, you'll find that they anticipated 3 to 4 million NEW JOBS by the end of 2010. Do you think we'll create another 3 to 4 million jobs next year, because we're still losing jobs?

It also says that job growth will be in the private sector, but that hasn't been the case either. Healthcare and government are the fastest growing segments right now.... and governments trying to take that over as we speak.

And that without the stimulus we would have unemployment as high as 9%, but with it, it would get no higher than 8%.

Your jobs link even said that it is impossible to track jobs saved -

Of course it is, that's why it's such a popular thing for political weasels to use as a justification of anything.....

and, isn't 2011 the ending date that the 'promise' from Obama uses - 3.5 million jobs created or saved by 2011? Anxious once again to judge early Cal?

Anxious to mislead and spin, foxpaws?
Actually, it's Q4 of 2010. But if you think we'll create about 4 million jobs by then.... well,if you do, you're a fool.

How many more banks would have failed without the money

It's amazing how you use things that are unknown to justify everything.
"how many MIGHT have...." we'll never know, because the guy you worked so hard to get elected and have worked so hard defending in the face of decency and better judgment won't leave the markets alone.

But how many more are GOING TO FAIL, despite his intervention?
Colonial just failed. So did a number of others.
And what will happen to those banks, where do they go? The will be consumed by the other big banks, the ones that were previously bailed out.... Talk about too big too fail then.

At least we can agree that American will come out on top. You say it is in spite of the administration, I say it is because of the administration.

And how would you define your politics?
You don't have to do it in one word, but in a sentence.