What will make the stimulus successful?

A review of Reagan's presidency doesn't support the conservative myth being peddled today. Federal government expanded on his watch. He broke his promise to fight to outlaw abortion. Reagan compromised with the Soviets on arms control. He promised an assault on entitlements but he expanded them by saving Social Security in 1983. He ignored the principle that taxes should never be raised.

He was just another welfare state liberal.
 
Mick Jagger
This message is hidden because Mick Jagger is on your ignore list.
Click to expand...
:D

So, fox, do you count Mick Jagger as one of the 'enlightened left?' Is he a useful ally in debating this forum?
 
fossten said:
:D

So, fox, do you count Mick Jagger as one of the 'enlightened left?' Is he a useful ally in debating this forum?
Click to expand...

Let us join in a new determination to rebuild the foundation of our society, to work together, to act responsibly. Let us do so with the most profound respect for that which must be preserved as well as with sensitive understanding and compassion for those who must be protected.

--President Obama
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Calabrio said:
If you're arguing that the realistic benchmarks should be the Reagan recovery, then why aren't we just using the supply-side economist model that brought about the strong, prosperous Reagan recovery?

If you think supply-side economists doesn't work, then why would you use something you consider a failure as a reference?

You went on to elaborate though. So the trillion dollar stimulus will be a success provided:


I assume you mean the banking system, and not any individual bank.
Did you support the stimulus bill that was passed, and the way it was passed without review or debate?

I'm really stunned by how modest everyone's expectations are considering we are spending over a TRILLION DOLLARS for this stimulus. Don't you think it could have been done a hell of a lot cheaper?


In this situation, you've chosen to conveniently view the economy only in terms of unemployment figures. You haven't noted the rise in GDP, the bull market that started in 1982, and the incredible period of economic growth and mild nature of the cyclical recessions that came after wards as well.

But if by summer 2010 we see a bull stock market and recovery that eventually led to 18 consecutive years of business expansion (1982-2000), yeah, I'll consider the Obamanomics a success.

However, I don't think it's possible for any hypothetical Obama recovery to run the same course as the Reagan one because of the manner in which they are being done. Reagan was successful because he freed up the engines of our economy, Obama is doing something completely contrary. The Reagan recovery was not driven by deficit spending. And no, it's absolutely unacceptable for Obama to run the deficit up to $33 trillion dollars.

Reagan took office with a deficit of about 710B, and in 1988 it was about 2.1T.
Rather than tripling the debt, why don't you say merely expanding it by $1.5T
But we're only talking about first term figures here. In 1984 the deficit was still $1.3T- an increase of only about 500B.
If we adjust 500B 1984 dollars into real dollars, we'll get about a trillion dollars.
So, if Obama can do all of this while only expanding the federal deficit by a trillion dollars, then you have a fair comparison.
Click to expand...

EVEN ZeroBAMA Probably knows none of this is gonna work but he had to make THOSE CAR UNIONS think,,he tried.. Wonder when he's gonna have his
SECRET MEETING with them???
 
THEMOJOMAN said:
EVEN ZeroBAMA Probably knows none of this is gonna work but he had to make THOSE CAR UNIONS think,,he tried.. Wonder when he's gonna have his
SECRET MEETING with them???
Click to expand...


Joe Biden just had his closed door meeting with the AFL-CIO the other day.

It's hard to know what they're going to do, all this transparency must be blinding. :rolleyes:
 
By expanding rather than scaling back entitlements, Reagan--and Newt Gingrich after him--demonstrated that conservatives could not and would not launch a frontal assault on Social Security, effectively conceding that these cherished Socialist programs were central features of the American polity.

For the record, I love to snuggle with sheep.
 
Mick Jagger said:
http://www.conference-board.org/economics/bci/pressRelease_output.cfm?cid=1
Click to expand...
Can't trust those numbers anymore.
The government is dumping cheap money into the markets... and when that money runs out, we're going to be left with a hang-over and the bill.

CONFERENCE BOARD LEADING INDICATORS
Despite positive indicators, some fear recession is not over.
Numbers can't say when jobs outlook will improve.
By Tali Arbel
ASSOCIATED PRESS
Tuesday, September 22, 2009

The Conference Board's leading economic indicators are offering positive signs about the economy's future. They've risen for five months straight, a sign that the recession has likely ended, and that we'll probably see growth continue into next year.

Good news, right? Not so fast.

Some argue that the dramatic steps the government has taken to address the recession have skewed the indicators' ability to tell how much the economy is hurting. Also, the indicators don't say when we'll see new jobs.

Here are some questions and answers about the leading economic indicators and what they say about the state of the economy.

Who comes up with these leading indicators?

They come from the Conference Board, a research group that produces a variety of economic statistics, including the Consumer Confidence Index.

What do the indicators tell us?

The leading indicators are based on 10 factors. The combined index is meant to tell us when a downturn or recovery is coming.

The components include items such as:

• Average stock prices from the Standard & Poor's 500 index

• Employment data

• Building permits

• Estimates of manufacturers' new orders for consumer goods and materials and nondefense capital goods

• Deliveries by suppliers to businesses

• Consumer expectations

• Interest rate spread (the difference between yields on 10-year Treasury notes and the federal funds rate, set by the Federal Reserve; a big difference is seen as positive because it implies investors are willing to lend for longer periods)

• An estimate of the money supply

The indicators are designed to show what's going on with the economy in the next three to six months. That means that at the tail end of a recession, they tend to turn positive before the events associated with a vibrant economy start happening.

So the recession's over! Why are some economists still worried?

In the past, the indicators have done a "great job" of signaling upturns and downturns, said Jennifer Lee, economist at BMO Capital Markets, but perhaps not this time.

"I can't really say with great force or great confidence whether or not we will have solid growth in the next year," Lee said.

That's because the government's been so involved in this recovery. It has bailed out the financial and auto sectors, pumped money into the economy, helped people buy first homes and kept interest rates near zero. The question that the indicators don't answer, Lee said, is "whether or not the economy can keep itself going without the assistance from the government."

When will we see job creation?

The leading indicators can't tell us that, either. They're "telling us that the recovery's going to continue, and eventually a rising tide lifts all ships," said Ethan Harris, a Bank of America Merrill Lynch economist.

They can't pinpoint when hiring is going to occur, Harris said, also noting that the job market's been very slow to recover in recent rebound.
 
One year this week.
Second "stimulus" being discussed under the focus group tested guise of a "jobs bill."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Members online

Total: 97 (members: 1, guests: 96)
Back
Top