Jobless Rate Over 10%

[MSU '73]

Originally Posted by Bullwrinkle

First - get your facts straight. Reagan reduced income tax rates across the board and indexed them to inflation.

Second - Did Reagan promise that by more than tripling the previous record budget deficit that he would keep unemployment below a certain level?

Reagan nearly TRIPLED the Federal debt in 8 years, bully, while he campaigned promising to "balance the budget within three years" of taking office.


Get your facts right, bud.

[ming]

Originally Posted by Daft Punk

Indeed. The only talking point they can cling to is "it probably would have been way worse without the stimulus package".

Plain and simple, Obama bought this economy with the $787 billion porkulus bill that he promised would keep unemployment no higher than 8%.

What's the point of exaggerating? Are you trying to convince others or yourself? It took me 10 seconds to find the truth.

The claim that the Obama administration "promised" the stimulus would keep the unemployment rate below 8 percent is a popular talking point among Republican critics of the stimulus.


What we saw from the administration in January was a projection, not a promise. And it was a projection that came with heavy disclaimers.


"It should be understood that all of the estimates presented in this memo are subject to significant margins of error," the report states. "There is the more fundamental uncertainty that comes with any estimate of the effects of a program. Our estimates of economic relationships and rules of thumb are derived from historical experience and so will not apply exactly in any given episode. Furthermore, the uncertainty is surely higher than normal now because the current recession is unusual both in its fundamental causes and its severity."

We think it's a big stretch to call an economic projection a "promise." The administration never characterized it that way and included plenty of disclaimers saying the predictions had "significant margins of error" and a higher degree of uncertainty due to a recession that is "unusual both in its fundamental causes and its severity." And so we rule the statement by Cantor — and other Republicans who have said the same thing — Barely True.

PolitiFact | Cantor and other Republicans say Obama promised stimulus would keep unemployment rates below 8 percent

Here's another interesting piece from the article.

...projections from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office at the time were slightly less optimistic than the administration's. In January, the CBO projected the unemployment rate would climb to 8.3 percent in 2009 and peak at 9 percent in 2010. By February, the prediction was even higher — 9 percent in 2009 without the stimulus, and 7.7 to 8.5 percent with a stimulus.

Everyone got it wrong. Funny how that could happen in the midst of the most profound and unprecedented economic downturn in nearly a century.

[sparty_in_madtown]

First - get your facts straight. Reagan reduced income tax rates across the board and indexed them to inflation.

Second - Did Reagan promise that by more than tripling the previous record budget deficit that he would keep unemployment below a certain level?

You complain about deficits now - Yes Reagan hlowered taxes (just like Obama did in April) and he increased spending (like Obama) - the deficit went up -

Why complain now?

You offer no solutions just criticism

[Dr. Strangelove]

Originally Posted by ming

What's the point of exaggerating? Are you trying to convince others or yourself? It took me 10 seconds to find the truth.



PolitiFact | Cantor and other Republicans say Obama promised stimulus would keep unemployment rates below 8 percent

Here's another interesting piece from the article.



Everyone got it wrong. Funny how that could happen in the midst of the most profound and unprecedented economic downturn in nearly a century.

Keep tap dancing as fast as you can......

The economy has shed 3,473,000 jobs since Obama took office.

Obama rallies Democrats with tough partisan speech [Full Text] | Washington Examiner
February 6, 2009
THE PRESIDENT:
Now, I believe -- I just want to repeat, because I don't want any confusion here. I believe that legislation of this enormous magnitude, that by necessity we are moving quickly -- we're not moving quickly because we're trying to jamb something down people's throats. We're moving quickly because we're told that if we don't move quickly, that the economy is going keep on getting worse, and we'll have another 2 or 3 or 4 million jobs loss this year.

[Daft Punk]

Originally Posted by ming

What's the point of exaggerating? Are you trying to convince others or yourself? It took me 10 seconds to find the truth.



PolitiFact | Cantor and other Republicans say Obama promised stimulus would keep unemployment rates below 8 percent

Here's another interesting piece from the article.



Everyone got it wrong. Funny how that could happen in the midst of the most profound and unprecedented economic downturn in nearly a century.

You're tilting at windmills, ming. Fact is, his team used that "projection" to sell the need for a stimulus bill. A report containing "significant margins of error" shouldn't be used to sell anything, as we all learned from the sale of war in Iraq.

[Bullwrinkle]

Originally Posted by MSU '73

Reagan nearly TRIPLED the Federal debt in 8 years, bully, while he campaigned promising to "balance the budget within three years" of taking office.


Get your facts right, bud.

Sorry Ole 73, the Dem Congress tripled the deficit in 8 years. They do the spending.

Obama and the Dem Congress tripled the deficit in 1 year.

There - now your facts are straight - for once.

[Bullwrinkle]

Originally Posted by sparty_in_madtown

You complain about deficits now - Yes Reagan hlowered taxes (just like Obama did in April) and he increased spending (like Obama) - the deficit went up -

Why complain now?

You offer no solutions just criticism

I just pointed out the obvious. Massive government spending isn't a cure to a recession or unemployment. We learned that during the depression, under Reagan and during many other economic downtimes.

Yet Obama and Congress somehow felt the need to repeat the same failed policies as before - only on a much larger scale.

[MSU '73]

Originally Posted by Bullwrinkle

First - get your facts straight. Reagan reduced income tax rates across the board and indexed them to inflation.

Second - Did Reagan promise that by more than tripling the previous record budget deficit that he would keep unemployment below a certain level?

Well then, if keeping promises is so important to ole Bully, I expect bully to be fully outraged at his hero, Uncle Ronnie.

August 18, 1987

SANTA BARBARA — President Reagan knew before his 1980 election as President that a key campaign promise--to balance the federal budget within three years--could not be kept, he acknowledged in an interview released Monday.

Reagan said in the interview with Time magazine that he got the bad news from the same economists who had devised his campaign pledge to wipe out the federal deficit with a combination of tax and spending cuts.


"Before the election, those economists came to me and told me that the deterioration (in the economy) had now been so much greater than when they made their study that no, there was no way that we were going to in a few years be able to balance the budget," he said.

"But we put the plan into effect anyway, aimed at whenever it can happen."

The remarks appeared to suggest that the President misled the public on a crucial economic issue. Reagan did not reveal the bleak budget forecast during the campaign, and in fact stuck to his budget-balancing rhetoric long after coming to the White House.

So Reagan knowingly lied to the American public about the deficit. Absolute fact.

Then proceeded to go ahead with his plan anyway, resulting in a near TRIPLING of the Federal Debt, all the while preaching "balanced budgets".

And the righty morons somehow think Uncle Ronnie was a good President.

Simply amazing. To say nothing of being totally hypocritical by holding Obama to a standard that the evidently let slide with their "Uncle Ronnie".

[TheGhettoHeisman]

I get the feeling that 10% unemployment will be considered a good thing in the not so distant future.

[MSU '73]

I'm waiting for the righty outrage about Reagan blatantly lying about balancing the budget.

I would have thought those "deficit hawks" and "campaign promise keepers" would have been all over it.

worthless hypocrites.

[Redwingenator]

Originally Posted by MSU '73

I'm waiting for the righty outrage about Reagan blatantly lying about balancing the budget.

I would have thought those "deficit hawks" and "campaign promise keepers" would have been all over it.

worthless hypocrites.

You sure got up conservative with that, I'm so I could poop.

[ming]

Originally Posted by Dr. Strangelove

Keep tap dancing as fast as you can......

The economy has shed 3,473,000 jobs since Obama took office.

Obama rallies Democrats with tough partisan speech [Full Text] | Washington Examiner
February 6, 2009
THE PRESIDENT:
Now, I believe -- I just want to repeat, because I don't want any confusion here. I believe that legislation of this enormous magnitude, that by necessity we are moving quickly -- we're not moving quickly because we're trying to jamb something down people's throats. We're moving quickly because we're told that if we don't move quickly, that the economy is going keep on getting worse, and we'll have another 2 or 3 or 4 million jobs loss this year.

How am I tap dancing? What is the purpose of saying "The economy has shed 3,473,000 jobs since Obama took office." What possible point are you trying to make? That all those job losses are completely Obama's fault? That's being completely intellectually dishonest and you know it.

The country is in dire straights, NOT because we elected Obama, but because of all the dimwits we've elected in ALL parts of government for the last 20 years or so. This silly squabbling is getting in the way of REAL progress from being made. You can't solve a problem without first honestly identifying the what the problem really is first. Doesn't anyone care to tackle issues from a balanced and truthful perspective instead of exaggerations and half-truths?

I guess people would rather have politics operate like American Idol and Real Housewives of Orange County. Then don't bitch when things go pear shaped. You got out of politics exactly what you put into it.

[GRR Spartan]

So now Dr.Strange who is in favor of less government thinks Obama should have done something to stop job losses.

Sooo the GM bailout saved 1000's of jobs BUT GOVERNMENT TOOK OVER

The Tarp funds that Obama supported have saved 1000's of jobs in the financial sector BUT THE GOVERNMENT TOOK OVER

Can't walk on both sides of the fence and I have heard or seen nothing but CUT TAXES especially for the wealthiest Americans and corporations along with tort reform as the GOP's magic bullets that are suppose to fix everything.

[Dr. Strangelove]

I'm saying that Obama sold his $700 billion plus stimulus plan as a way to not have 3.5 million jobs lost.

We could have had the same results without spending all that cash.

[Zakath]

Originally Posted by sparty_in_madtown

For those of you are too young to remember - Ronald Reagan the star of the conservatives and righties of the world - took office in 1981with unemployment rate was below 8% and two years later the rate went up to almost 10%. It didn't come down to below 8% again till 1985.

And you might want to look up what the root cause of the 1982 recession was, and you might find that it was the Federal Reserve driving interest rates up to get rid of the stagflation which had plagued the country through most of the 1970's.

[spartanMF]

It is priceless to see the libs defend this ridiculous unemployment rate.

Come hell or high water we are going to get that cap and trade and health care bill through though.

Obama = FAIL.

[ming]

Originally Posted by Dr. Strangelove

I'm saying that Obama sold his $700 billion plus stimulus plan as a way to not have 3.5 million jobs lost.

We could have had the same results without spending all that cash.

Or a hell of a lot more job losses. I believe that there were very few economists that publicly advocated doing nothing. In fact, many prominent economists did say publicly that the stimulus was not enough. No one in government had the stomach to do what you suggest. I find it tiring that I have to keep making that same point to the same people and no one ever refutes it, they just conveniently ignore it.

So, again, what is your point? Obama was wrong to pass any kind of stimulus? If he had not and US economy was 2x as bad, you would be here applauding him? Pardon me if I'm not convinced. I think you enjoy the game too much.

I think it's safe to say that the US economy is in uncharted territory, no? I'm expecting a lot of mistakes and bad predictions mainly because what we are experiencing now is unprecedented. There is a part of me that also wishes that the bailout and the stimulus were never passed. A worldwide economic reboot, I'm relatively young enough to dust myself from the ashes, what the hell. But I'm old enough to understand that that was a political impossibility. So I don't allow myself to get carried away too much with that fantasy.

[GRR Spartan]

Originally Posted by Dr. Strangelove

I'm saying that Obama sold his $700 billion plus stimulus plan as a way to not have 3.5 million jobs lost.

We could have had the same results without spending all that cash.

I think you would have seen closer to 5 million jobs lost. In the sterile world of economic theory where the tough get going or they die and that's the cost of free market, the thought of just stopping spending, freezing governments (Federal,state and city) would be ideal.

So we know that you don't believe in deficit spending to have a controlled letdown/softer landing. The biggest issue I have with that is many of the same people crying about all the national debt don't blink an eye if defense spending is in the equation.

[Dr. Strangelove]

Originally Posted by GRR Spartan

I think you would have seen closer to 5 million jobs lost. In the sterile world of economic theory where the tough get going or they die and that's the cost of free market, the thought of just stopping spending, freezing governments (Federal,state and city) would be ideal.

So we know that you don't believe in deficit spending to have a controlled letdown/softer landing. The biggest issue I have with that is many of the same people crying about all the national debt don't blink an eye if defense spending is in the equation.

I never said that - I said we didn't need another 700 billion on top of the already 400 billion dollar annual deficit.

Please tell me you don't buy into that "jobs created or saved" nonsense.

[burnsmi4]

only a matter of time before the 2nd stimulus package is created

[spartanMF]

I have not read every post. Are we blaming Ronald Reagan now? Has it come to this?

Obama said unemployment would not go over 8%, which makes him a failure. By God dammit we are going pass that damn healthcare bill though

Come on Bob, Cym Jim, its time for you to high jack this thread and make fun of someone that goes to church. You are getting owned here.

[STSM]

Originally Posted by sparty_in_madtown

For those of you are too young to remember - Ronald Reagan the star of the conservatives and righties of the world - took office in 1981with unemployment rate was below 8% and two years later the rate went up to almost 10%. It didn't come down to below 8% again till 1985.

Would you be criticizing him now? We are only 9 months into Obama's presidency. It was clearly stated earlier in the year by many econmists that the stimulus was too small to make an impact. Too much went to tax cuts which in retrospect didn't help because people saved the money instead of spending it.

Governments are now having to downsize because of the lost tax revenues. When that happens people lose jobs. Colleges, schools, prisons etc are all being impacted big time. The stimulus is filling the gap here.

Reagan did the same thing Obama is doing but his "government" spending was on the military which saw dramatic increases. That was his stimulus bill.

No, I would not be criticizing Reagan. His policies are what anyone who took Econ 201 and 202 at MSU know are the prescriptions to fix an economy.

Also, in the last 25-30 years, we time lag is less given the increased efficiencies in communication, transportation, greater information availablity etc.

Barack Obama is like Matt Millen. If he gets 8 years with the US economy, then the US economy is going to be 0-16 in 2018.

[STSM]

Originally Posted by GRR Spartan

Bully is so smart he voted twice forBush2 who set the table for the current mess with his blind faith in market force correction.

Bully and Bush2 just don't think it matters if the entire economy grinds to a halt while the market corrects itself.

So is your idea of a freeze on government spending so we can be the new edition of Japan's stagnate economy?

Bully, you are always full of pithy remarks but you give no ideas and you are unwilling to discuss the consequences of your one size fits all draconian fixes.

Please tell us what Obama can do since the robust manufacturing segment that Reagan relied on in the 1981-1988 years is gone. A smart guy like you and all the conservative brain trusts must have something? Is it The Team? Is it Avon?

Is it tax cutting our way out so we have a middle class that can't afford to send their children to college because their earnings have been reduced, health care costs increased and they are stuck in their over priced mortgages?

Come on smart guy. No Limbaugh/Beck 15 second no explanation answers. Belly up to the bar for the second time in your life.

Hmmmm How much tax revenue would the government collect if the income tax rate was 100%? (HINT: The answer is less than $0.01.)

For those who have an IQ that is higher than room temperature, unlike GRR Spartan, understand that a government deficit is based on two factors. Revenue collected from taxes and other assessments, and SPENDING.

So it is possible to cut taxes, have a record amount of revenue come into the government coffers, yet increase the deficit because morans in DC spend and spend and spend.

It is like the man who made the highest income ever in his career, but he is more in debt because his dingbat wife keeps spending at the mall and running up the charge cards.

Per GRR Spartan, if a pizza shop needed to increase revenue, than all it has to do is raise its price for pizza to $100 each.

Somehow, I think government spending could be reduced by billions if not over a trillion if we did not have to fund stuff that could be better handled by the private sector. Why in the hell do we need the NEA anyway? You want money to paint a picture of a dick in chocolate frosting? Find a private sponsor.

[GRR Spartan]

For you dolts who think my thoughts are just the polar opposite of your simplistic, cut taxes , everything is peachy get a freakin' clue.

Economic simpletons like STSM have no clue except if we cut taxes it will be Big Rock Candy Mountain time. Rush, Hannity and Beck said it. It must be true.

We need to increase taxes to the Clinton levels, adjust the alternative minimum tax to 2010 dollars and tie it to the annual inflation rate. We also need to cut defense spending by 15-20%, let the rest of the free world pay for its own military (so we aren't the World Police) and revise the Bush2 Medicare social program for Big Pharma by making all drugs purchased by the Fed negotiated just like the drug companies do with private insurance. prices/ That's a start.

We need to have rational tax policy and what we saw under Reagan was an attempt at that. We didn't need the sky high rates of the 1950's. The error was the big jump in spending and the growth in government jobs and belief in Laffer theory where those getting the benefits of tax cuts would purchase and invest. Too small a group to drive an economy like a thriving large middle class and many invested in stocks that created paper profits but not real jobs. (They didn't start factories, invent widgets, make things)

So once again a simpletons like STSM who lives by 30 second sound bytes think there in no middle ground. In his simple black and white world he cannot tolerate opposing views as seen in his simplistic response.

STSM's arrogance is only exceeded by his philosophical tunnel vision.

[Dr. Strangelove]

Originally Posted by burnsmi4

only a matter of time before the 2nd stimulus package is created

Actually it will be the third or fourth or fifth depending on how you count it

W's checks to everyone last year
TARP
Cars (including cash for clunkers)
Obama's 700 billion plus