• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Revisiting OT's comment

Tam

Well-known member
Posted: Fri Jul 17, 2009 7:21 am Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sandhusker wrote:
Well, OT, now you've got Obama in office and a huge majority backslapping him, just taking his word on legislation and not even reading it - and the programs he and his sheep are putting in are failing miserably.


Oldtimer wrote:
The Jobs/Stimulus bill is not even 6 months into what is a 2 year plan...Many of the local jobs just started because of weather- others are held up because the factories can't get geared up fast enough to make the steel needed....
You don't just go from a country on the brink of oblivion (where Bush had taken us) to a full blown booming economy overnight.....
Talk to me about it 2 years down the line....

One Year later

OK Oldtimer can we discuss the so called successfulness of the Stimulus bill :wink:

18 months after Obama promised the Unemployment rate would not go passed 8%, the unemployment rate is and is forecasted to be

U.S. Civilian Unemployment Rate Forecast
Percent Unemployed Seasonally Adjusted.
Month Date Forecast
Jun 2010 9.50

Jul 2010 9.4

Aug 2010 9.4

Sep 2010 9.5

Oct 2010 9.5

Nov 2010 9.6

Dec 2010 9.7

Jan 2011 9.8

Feb 2011 9.9
Updated Thursday, July 22, 2010

Biden came out and said they have 3 million more jobs now than they did when they took office so please explain how that can be when over 2 million jobs have been lost which is reflected in the growing unemployment rate. Just how are they gauging the successfulness of a jobs bill when they are still LOOSING JOBS?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
And where would we be if those people now working under the Stimulus funded projects weren't?

The Bush Bust was/is much more serious and deep than anyone realized at first....And its my opinion not enough was spent soon enough with more emphasis on infrastructure...And many of those projects are still in progress/just being started....

But I suppose you would prefer to be giving them welfare- and living in Bushvilles and standing in souplines?

Interesting article put out by my internet provider on the dying rural America- and how internet/phone service networking may play a bigger role in slowing/halting/changing the mass exodus that took place in the last 20-30-50 years from the rural areas...Something your relatives may take advantage of- and get jobs from Tam..

Personally I like it with no people- but do want to see jobs stay for the kids, grandkids, and future generations- and realize the country can't progress or hope to keep up with the rest of the world with wanting to return to the 1950's or by just saying "NO"...

But again- just like the setting up of the first railroads, rural electrification, nationwide phone system, and interstate highway system-- Federal funding/subsides will play a big role .... All taxpayer investments that have paid them back 100 fold.....


Can Broadband Save Rural America?
Page 1 of 3
By Rick Schadelbauer


No doubt about it—rural America is shrinking. Over the course of the past century, as our economy has evolved from primarily agrarian to manufacturing to high-tech, the percentage of Americans living in rural areas (generally defined as areas with population densities of less than 1,000 people per square mile, and towns and villages with populations less than 2,500) has steadily fallen. According to the 1900 census, 60% of all Americans lived in rural areas. By 1950, that percentage had fallen to 36%. And by 2000, only 21% of the nation’s population was considered rural.

If this migration from rural America is to be slowed or reversed, the key will undoubtedly be jobs. In today’s information economy, many jobs can be done from virtually anywhere—as long as the worker has access to state-of-the-art broadband services. Absent the availability of high-quality broadband, however, rural America will not be able to leverage its estimable strengths to lure companies and workers.

Toward that end, two major initiatives have recently been taken that could dramatically hasten broadband deployment in rural areas. The first is $7.2 billion in funding made available through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) for loans and grants to qualified broadband infrastructure projects, with the specific goal of expanding broadband access to unserved and underserved communities throughout the United States. The second is the FCC’s recently unveiled national broadband plan, which sets as a goal ubiquitous broadband deployment by 2020. Together, these two initiatives have the potential to dramatically affect broadband deployment in—and, consequently, the economic future of—rural America.

Full Article:
http://www.ntca.org/index.php?option=co ... Itemid=987
 

Mike

Well-known member
1. The Stimulus Package Won't Stimulate The Economy

On the surface, it seems to make sense. The economy is doing poorly, so give it a fresh infusion of billions of dollars, and it will start to perk up. But the thing is that it isn't a fresh infusion of billions of dollars. This money won't be coming from some magical government storehouse of wealth to inject the economy with new cash- it will be coming from the economy. All the money the government will be spending to stimulate the economy is in the economy already. If you understand and can share just that one simple principle with others, the public will go a long way towards understanding why the stimulus package won't stimulate the economy. All this package does is move around money that already exists and is already in our economy.

And the likely scenario is that the government will move the money to less productive places than it would flow naturally, causing the opposite of its intended effect by making the economy less productive and stifling rather than stimulating it. This plan which seems so necessary and urgent to America's political leaders, is basically just a plan to destroy billions of dollars worth of productive capital. And even if the bill does work to create economic stimulus, most of it will take until 2010 to go into effect (only 11% of the funding will be released in 2009 and some of the funding won't be released for ten years), which doesn't jive well at all with our politicians' insistence that this stimulus is required by the utmost urgency. When one stops to remember that Congressional mid-term elections take place in 2010, the timing suddenly makes sense and it becomes clear that our leaders just might be more interested in political rather than economic considerations.


2. The Stimulus Package Isn't Really Aimed At Creating New Jobs

While the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act has been thinly veiled as an attempt to stimulate the economy and create jobs, just a brief review of its provisions is enough to see that it is nothing more than a political grab bag full of pork and pet projects designed to please every politician's constituents, every lobbyist, and every government bureaucrat happy to have more power and fun spending more money that isn't theirs to spend. Under all the scare tactics and all the sanctimony about unemployment rates and a possible second Great Depression, this legislation is little more than a glorified cash grab by the government, its greedy constituents, and lobbyists.

This is why the GOP unanimously voted down the Democrats' legislation and proposed an alternative that would release more funding and create more jobs now (but it's an alternative that I would also be very unhappy with for many of the same reasons that I am unhappy with the current stimulus bill). The media and American people should be taking President Obama and the Congressional Democratic leadership to task for so brazenly misleading the American people about the real purpose for this legislation. But as I said, I would still be unhappy with the GOP's solution, not only because it shares many of the same defects as the Democrats' solution, but because focusing on full employment and job creation is misplaced. Our real aim and end should be full production and value creation, which will result in the kind of employment we want as well as a higher standard of living and a robust economy. Here's an excellent explanation as to why this is true.

Last of all, even if the stimulus package did create a lot of jobs right now, they would not be sustainable, and as soon as the money from the package dries up and the projects are finished, the workers will go back to unemployment under worse conditions because the future capital that could have gone to employing them in productive, sustainable jobs will have been dried up to fund the stimulus package and will continue to be sucked dry by taxes and inflation to fund today's deficit spending on the package itself. This bill doesn't solve the problem of unemployment. It's a quick fix that pushes the problem into the future and simultaneously creates a worse future and more difficult future economic conditions for the unemployed.
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Job Market Fix Does Not Rest With Bernanke


By LAWRENCE KUDLOW
Posted 06:44 PM ET


Ben Bernanke threw a curveball in his midterm report to Congress last week.

The Fed view of the economy has been downgraded since it last reported in February. Although the official Fed forecast for 2010-11 is still 3% to 4% real growth, Bernanke sounded particularly gloomy when he characterized the economy as "unusually uncertain."

And he indicated that the majority view of the Fed Board of Governors and Reserve Bank presidents is that the risks to growth are "weighted to the downside."

But here's the disconnect. With no inflation and weaker growth, including stubbornly high unemployment, Bernanke mostly talked about an exit strategy that would shrink the Fed's balance sheet by removing liquidity.

This was the Fed's bias last winter when the recovery looked stronger. Now that the recovery looks weaker, the stock market was hoping to hear Bernanke hint of an easier policy that would increase liquidity if necessary. Didn't happen.

At the end of two days of testimony, Bernanke's message seemed to be this: Expect the zero-interest-rate policy to be extended for another year. Futures markets now predict free money until September 2011.

Whether the economic outlook is as downbeat as Bernanke suggests is an interesting question. The vast majority of corporate profit reports for the second quarter show better-than-expected earnings and top-line revenues.

In other words, the CEOs are a lot less pessimistic about the future economy than Wall Street or Main Street. And a combination of strong profits, a zero interest rate and a positively sloped Treasury yield curve would certainly seem to rule out a double-dip recession.

However, one year into recovery, private jobs should be growing much faster and unemployment should be a lot lower. Following a deep recession, economic growth should be closer to 8% than 3%.

But there are limits to Fed fine-tuning. The central bank can produce more money, but that doesn't mean it can produce more jobs.

Look, the Fed has already injected $1.4 trillion of new money into the economy, of which about $1 trillion of excess reserves are unused and on deposit at the central bank. Putting it another way, the economy has more liquidity than it knows what to do with. What's the problem? All that excess money is not being used. And this, I believe, is a fiscal problem, not a Fed problem.

Think of all the economic obstacles of spending, taxing and regulating coming out of Washington. What should be done to spur growth? Keep tax rates down. And stop passing massive regulatory bills, like the bank reform Obama just signed into law.

What else? The White House and Congress should end the war between business and Washington. Listen to what the CEOs are saying. Reduce the uncertainty premium caused by massive deficit spending and 2,500-page regulatory bills. Stop the assault against entrepreneurship. Keep down the cost of new job hires. Stay focused on free-trade expansion.

And then reduce tax rates for large and small businesses across the board. Speed up business investment tax write-offs. And extend the Bush tax cuts for another couple of years until a true pro-growth tax reform can be developed — one that will flatten rates, simplify the code and get rid of unnecessary tax expenditures (which really are spending increases, not tax cuts).

In other words, since businesses create jobs, provide businesses with a new round of tax incentives. Reduce their capital costs and raise their investment returns after-tax.

Noteworthy is a move by several Democratic senators — like Evan Bayh, Ben Nelson, and Kent Conrad — who are calling for an extension of all the Bush tax cuts, including lower tax rates for upper-end earners, capital gains and dividends. These brave souls are now in open revolt against the White House.

With gold near $1,200 an ounce, the Fed has done its job and then some in providing liquidity. Easier tax rates, rather than easier money, is what will spur jobs and a faster recovery.

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/ArticlePrint.aspx?id=541413&p=2
 

Texan

Well-known member
"The economic recovery is weakening in the face of falling home sales and rising claims for unemployment benefits, new data showed Thursday."

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/jul/22/new-jobless-claims-jump-two-year-low/


I suppose we just need to borrow more money to spend, Oldtimer? Is that how you run a ranch? When you have a bad year, you just go to your banker and beg him for more money to blow? Spending more will always fix things, right?
 

Tam

Well-known member
Seems to me economists said it would not get this bad if NOTHING WAS DONE, and that the economy would correct itself if LEFT ALONE. BUT that would not further the Dems. agenda of taking control of every aspect of the economy would it?
Accord to you the economy was much more serious than anyone realized. Just how much serious was it when Obama used these quotes to get his farce of a stimulus bill passed?
"We are experiencing an unprecedented, perhaps, economic crisis"

"A bad situation could become dramatically worse"

"The statistics every day underscore the urgency of the economic situation"

"This is a continuing disaster for America's working families"

"Rarely in history has our country faced economic problems as devastating as this crisis"

"The economy is in desperate straits"

"A failure to act, and act now, will turn crisis into a catastrophe"
Then you add all the claims of how they have pulled the US economy back from the Brink with their stimulus.

Were they just overstateing the problems to push their agenda when they made these statements or did they know unlike you claim.



NOW since not one person can tell us how bad it "would have been" how can Obama, Biden or you claim just how many jobs were "created" ? Since two million more people are unemployed than when they took office how can they say they "created" any jobs for sure? From what I have heard they claim they were Police and teachers jobs. Is it not closer to the truth that they just delayed the lay offs until the stimulus money ran out and now that the economy is going to take a second hit that is going to be worse as the Government is Bankrupt and the Tax payers are sick of the spending. As far as the "Stimulus" money spent on highway construction I'm sorry Oldtimer but we have two seasons Winter and Road Construction so to say the highways would not have been fixed I have a hard time believing that story.

And as far as how bad it was, may I remind you the Dems controlled the Congress for the last two years of Bush's Presidency!!!! If Obama didn't know maybe he should have spent a little more time in WASHINGTON DC. doing the job he was elected to. But hey he still doesn't stay in Washington DC as he is still on the campaign trail.

Economists also say extending unemployment beneifits does nothing to help, it only keeps people on the government tit longer but isn't that the Dems plan to begin with. Get people dependent on the Government so they look to the government to bail them out instead of bailing THEMSELVES OUT.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Texan said:
"The economic recovery is weakening in the face of falling home sales and rising claims for unemployment benefits, new data showed Thursday."

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/jul/22/new-jobless-claims-jump-two-year-low/


I suppose we just need to borrow more money to spend, Oldtimer? Is that how you run a ranch? When you have a bad year, you just go to your banker and beg him for more money to blow? Spending more will always fix things, right?

Thats what GW and the Repub controlled Congress told us for years when they spent money like it grew on trees sending it to build other countries as US infrastructure fell apart - while cutting taxes...Which Treasurey Secretary O'Neill said would bankrupt the country...So GW didn't listen, fired O'Neill, and put us into the Bush Bust....
Now its going to cost us if we want to keep moving forward into the 21st century....
 

Tam

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Texan said:
"The economic recovery is weakening in the face of falling home sales and rising claims for unemployment benefits, new data showed Thursday."

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/jul/22/new-jobless-claims-jump-two-year-low/


I suppose we just need to borrow more money to spend, Oldtimer? Is that how you run a ranch? When you have a bad year, you just go to your banker and beg him for more money to blow? Spending more will always fix things, right?

Thats what GW and the Repub controlled Congress told us for years when they spent money like it grew on trees sending it to build other countries as US infrastructure fell apart - while cutting taxes...Which Treasurey Secretary O'Neill said would bankrupt the country...So GW didn't listen, fired O'Neill, and put us into the Bush Bust....
Now its going to cost us if we want to keep moving forward into the 21st century....

I just love how you blame Bush and the Republicans for spending money but defend Obama and the Dems when they triple down on the spending. :roll: I guess it is not the fact money is being tossed around like there is no tomorrow it's just WHO IS DOING IT. :roll:
Obama administration reported a projected deficit for 2009 of $1.75 trillion. The deficit for 2008 was only $435 billion.
 

Larrry

Well-known member
Soot you condemn Bush's spending. I did also.

I condemn obamas spending.

Do you condemn obamas spending when it is many times more than Bush's spending?
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Tam said:
Oldtimer said:
Texan said:
"The economic recovery is weakening in the face of falling home sales and rising claims for unemployment benefits, new data showed Thursday."

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/jul/22/new-jobless-claims-jump-two-year-low/


I suppose we just need to borrow more money to spend, Oldtimer? Is that how you run a ranch? When you have a bad year, you just go to your banker and beg him for more money to blow? Spending more will always fix things, right?

Thats what GW and the Repub controlled Congress told us for years when they spent money like it grew on trees sending it to build other countries as US infrastructure fell apart - while cutting taxes...Which Treasurey Secretary O'Neill said would bankrupt the country...So GW didn't listen, fired O'Neill, and put us into the Bush Bust....
Now its going to cost us if we want to keep moving forward into the 21st century....

I just love how you blame Bush and the Republicans for spending money but defend Obama and the Dems when they triple down on the spending. :roll: I guess it is not the fact money is being tossed around like there is no tomorrow it's just WHO IS DOING IT. :roll:
Obama administration reported a projected deficit for 2009 of $1.75 trillion. The deficit for 2008 was only $435 billion.

Let's see if OT can answer a couple of simple questions.

What was the cause of the "Bush Bust"?

Can you estimate a total financial value of the cause(s)?

Was it more or less than the 2009 deficit, and by how much?
 

Mike

Well-known member
Now its going to cost us if we want to keep moving forward into the 21st century....

It's now costing our grandchildren and we're still going backwards.

You're too stupid for words. :roll:
 

redrobin

Well-known member
Mike said:
Now its going to cost us if we want to keep moving forward into the 21st century....

It's now costing our grandchildren and we're still going backwards.

You're too stupid for words. :roll:
...and he's got some association to agriculture. As juvenile as OT thinks can you imagine the thought processes of some of the city folk?
 

Mike

Well-known member
redrobin said:
Mike said:
Now its going to cost us if we want to keep moving forward into the 21st century....

It's now costing our grandchildren and we're still going backwards.

You're too stupid for words. :roll:
...and he's got some association to agriculture. As juvenile as OT thinks can you imagine the thought processes of some of the city folk?

His signal to noise ratio is badly out of whack too.

How many pounds of Okra are in a bushel?
 

loomixguy

Well-known member
Mike said:
Now its going to cost us if we want to keep moving forward into the 21st century....

It's now costing our grandchildren and we're still going backwards.

You're too stupid for words. :roll:

But then short timer will INSIST that he's only playing devil's advocate. Just offering a different point of view. Yup. And stirring more excrement than a honey wagon in the process. He should have been relieved of his moderator duties/privileges long ago.
 

Larrry

Well-known member
You give some guys some authority and it goes to their head.

After all the world revolves around him...either that or he's drunk and everything is spinning
 
Top