PDA

View Full Version : Economics The economy is in shambles


The Mad Crapper
02-02-2010, 06:56 AM
Obama's Polemics vs. the Economic Facts

In politics, whatever the president can get voters to believe becomes the truth. But in economics, the numbers establish the facts.

Unfortunately for President Obama, Americans can add and their sums are destroying fantasies the president would hoist upon a more gullible public.

Despite claims that the $787 billion stimulus package and bank bailout averted calamity, the U.S. economy is in shambles.

The Commerce Department reported gross domestic product grew 5.7% in the fourth quarter, but 60% of that was an accounting adjustment. Businesses ran down inventories at a slower pace, but in the arcane world of GDP accounting, that scores an increase in investment and growth.

Domestic consumption and real investment, which define the sustainable pace of economic expansion, contributed a paltry 1.8% to growth. That's less than half of productivity growth, indicating more pink slips are coming.

Fifteen million Americans are unemployed, more than 450,000 register for new jobless benefits each week, and, factoring in folks relegated to part-time work but preferring full-time employment and those too discouraged to seek jobs, the unemployment rate is much closer to 20% than 10%.

Campaigning for president, Obama promised to create 5 million jobs in green industries. Newly-elected Obama purported his stimulus package would create 3.5 million jobs, 90% in the private sector> The pesident's Council of Economic Advisors professes stimulus spending has created or saved 1.5 million to 2 million jobs.

Yet, the White House can tally only 599,000 paychecks that can be traced to stimulus spending. It touts all the government employees whose jobs have been saved.

Businesses need customers and capital to create jobs. They don't have enough of either, because Americans spend much more on imports than they export, and after receiving more than $2 trillion in federal aid, the banks simply won't lend to most worthy businesses.

In his State of the Union, the president pledged to double U.S. exports in five years and create 2 million jobs. Though exports are up a bit, thanks to a weaker dollar against the euro, China is where the big opportunities lie.

China exports about $330 billion annually to the United States but purchases less than $90 billion in the U.S., Simply, China suppresses the value of the yuan to make its products artificially cheap in U.S. stores and imposes protectionist obstacles to American exports.

Buicks are top sellers in China, but a 40% subsidy from an undervalued yuan and a 25% tariff on cars compels General Motors to produce there instead of Michigan.

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and Ron Bloom, manufacturing czar, refuse to even discuss Chinese protectionism.

Factoring out the inventory adjustment, GDP grew a paltry $176 billion the second half of 2009, and the banks paid out nearly $150 billion in bonuses on new profits more than double that.

It is easy to see who is benefiting from Obama's growth policies, and why most Americans feel a bit poorer each day.

Yet, the president wants another stimulus package, rebranded as a jobs initiative, and he plans to fix the banks by prohibiting them from sponsoring hedge funds or private-equity funds, investing their own capital through proprietary trading operations, and imposing a tax on bank capital.

Of the more than 8,000 banks, only a small handful sponsor such funds, very few invest through their own trading operations, and the bank tax will raise only about $10 billion annually but will drive financial activities offshore.

Until the president ceases grand promises and outlandish claims, wells up the courage to confront China and reins in abuses on Wall Street, Americans will see everything from their health care costs to their cable TV rates rise. But not their paychecks, if they are lucky enough to still have job.

If the president doesn't change strategies soon, the Democrats will take a shellacking in November even their statisticians cannot deny.

ByPeter Morici, TheStreet.com Senior Contributor , On Monday February 1, 2010, 8:45 am EST

Amnorix
02-02-2010, 07:11 AM
While all of you on the right seem to be reveling in the high unemployment and other bad economic indicators (pause to note that I seem to remember charges of Anti-Americanism when those on the left pointed to various bad data to support charges of BushCo's incompetency), I note that to be consistent you would have been SCREAMING for Ron Reagan's head, because the recession of '81-'82 was just as bad as what we're currently int he middle of.

What spins my head is the seeming inability to understand that some things do take more than just one year to turn around.

The Mad Crapper
02-02-2010, 07:14 AM
While all of you on the right seem to be reveling in the high unemployment and other bad economic indicators (pause to note that I seem to remember charges of Anti-Americanism when those on the left pointed to various bad data to support charges of BushCo's incompetency), I note that to be consistent you would have been SCREAMING for Ron Reagan's head, because the recession of '81-'82 was just as bad as what we're currently int he middle of.

What spins my head is the seeming inability to understand that some things do take more than just one year to turn around.

More leftist lying bullshit. :rolleyes:

B.O. is bankrupting the nation. Good job, O-Bot.

Amnorix
02-02-2010, 07:24 AM
More leftist lying bullshit. :rolleyes:

Look it up.

The Mad Crapper
02-02-2010, 07:29 AM
Look it up.

Do you know the difference between a billion dollars and a trillion dollars? I'm betting you do, but yet you continue to spread disinformation and leftist agitprop.

BigRedChief
02-02-2010, 07:42 AM
While all of you on the right seem to be reveling in the high unemployment and other bad economic indicators (pause to note that I seem to remember charges of Anti-Americanism when those on the left pointed to various bad data to support charges of BushCo's incompetency), I note that to be consistent you would have been SCREAMING for Ron Reagan's head, because the recession of '81-'82 was just as bad as what we're currently int he middle of.

What spins my head is the seeming inability to understand that some things do take more than just one year to turn around.
And the recession that Obama inherited was the worst since the great depression. The $ is way down. We don't make chit. We don't export like we use to. Thats all Obama's fault?

BucEyedPea
02-02-2010, 08:44 AM
And the recession that Obama inherited was the worst since the great depression. The $ is way down. We don't make chit. We don't export like we use to. Thats all Obama's fault?

Well, ahem, Bush inherited the Clinton recession ( whose bubble was the dot com stock boom) — also based on no real production. And Clinton inherited the RR/Bush Sr recession. Need I continue? This is the system we have of Boom and Bust. Both parties play it.

Now while it is true that Obama inherited the Bush recession, Obam and the Democrats are making it worse not better. The Democrats have had three years in power now. Why isn't Obama pointing any fingers at them? This blame the other party game has got to end. But there is no denying Obama is making it worse because he's acting much like Hoover and FDR. That gave us over ten years of economic depression, which only started out as a recession. Don't forget there was a recession in 1920-21 which ended in a year with no intervention by the govt.

False economic theories died hard. Yet, those who adhere to them call others out for being ideologues. The irony. Not to mention the gross irresponsibility of the left.

BucEyedPea
02-02-2010, 08:46 AM
And the recession that Obama inherited was the worst since the great depression. The $ is way down. We don't make chit. We don't export like we use to. Thats all Obama's fault?

You also need to focus on the Federal Reserve as a culprit here too.

The Mad Crapper
02-02-2010, 09:50 AM
You also need to focus on the Federal Reserve as a culprit here too.

BEP, they want to talk about the 80's. :rolleyes:

Remember the Safety Dance!

KC native
02-02-2010, 09:51 AM
You need to focus on the Alan Greenspan's time at the Federal Reserve as a culprit here.

FYP

petegz28
02-02-2010, 09:54 AM
FYP

I'll agree Greenspan set the tone. He was not a very good Fed Chair, imo.

KC native
02-02-2010, 09:56 AM
I'll agree Greenspan set the tone. He was not a very good Fed Chair, imo.

Yup he was horrible. He was probably the worst ever and his policies are what led to the largest dollar devaluation we've seen during the history of the Fed. The $ lost something like 40% of it's value during his reign.

The Mad Crapper
02-02-2010, 09:57 AM
Thats all Obama's fault?

B.O. was an agitator and intimidator making banks loan money for homes to people who couldn't pay them back.

How many times do we have to keep going over this?

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/_MGT_cSi7Rs&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/_MGT_cSi7Rs&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

KC native
02-02-2010, 09:59 AM
B.O. was an agitator and intimidator making banks loan money for homes to people who couldn't pay them back.

How many times do we have to keep going over this?



And how many times do you have to be shown that you are completely wrong on this?

The Mad Crapper
02-02-2010, 10:03 AM
Look it up.

Go start a thread about Ronald Reagan and the 80's. This one is about B.O.'s failed fiscal policies.

The Mad Crapper
02-06-2010, 12:11 PM
http://thepeoplescube.com/images/Obama_Coin_ExactChange_160.gif

The Mad Crapper
08-02-2010, 07:46 AM
And the recession that Obama inherited was the worst since the great depression.

ROFL

DEMS DEFICIT HAWK FAKERY

Come Jan. 1, Democrats will officially end their romance with John Maynard Keynes. That's the day they hope to sock America with the largest tax hike in years, all in the name of their supposed new love: deficit-cutting.

But don't expect that fling to last long, either; if you want to know who's really won their heart, ring Joe the Plumber. Or Robin Hood. They'd know.

Ever since President Obama took office, and Dems took Congress, they've insisted the right medicine for our ailing economy was deficit spending. Last year's nearly $1 trillion stimulus was all borrowed money -- intentionally.

It's basic Keynes: To jolt an economy back to good health, give folks more cash than you take from them and charge up the difference to a credit card. Consumers will spend the extra dough and stimulate the economy. Whatever you do, don't raise taxes -- at least not until the recession is safely behind you.

Yet Obama & Co. now claim that tax hikes are nothing to fear.

"I do not believe [raising taxes] will have a negative effect on growth,"

Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner said last week, in what may be Team O's sharpest U-turn since it offered Shirley Sherrod her job back.

Why the shift? Has the economy fully recovered? Is everyone who wants a job now happily employed -- so that even Keynesians don't mind a little tax-hiking and deficit-cutting?

If only. Unemployment is stuck at near 10 percent. Economic growth, the Commerce Department said Friday, is slowing.

Democrats themselves know the score, which is why they insisted last month on extending unemployment benefits, even as it meant paying for the weekly checks with, yup, the credit card.

So then, just why are they spurning Keynes, joining the anti-deficit parade and pushing new taxes? Two reasons:

* Politics. Voters are repulsed by Washington's massive, unprecedented outlays over the past 18 months and the alarming tidal wave of red ink they've produced. They've seen debt threaten Europe and how that continent embraced austerity in response.

A majority of Americans, polls show, are ready to risk harm to the recovery to stem the bleeding. Borrow-and-spend fecklessness has fueled the Tea Party movement and the donkeys' gloomy November electoral prospects. Democrats are desperate to prove they're responsible.

* Ideology. Truth is, Dems don't really mind debt so much, good times or bad, if it leads to more spending. After all, if they've truly got religion, Obama & Co. would be moving to fix Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare -- the biggest threats to America's balance sheet.

But tax hikes work, too. Fact is, it's not concern for deficits that's motivating them; it's that they can't resist the chance to grab more money for Washington to spend. Government isn't the problem, Obama argued during the health-care debate, but the solution. And the bigger, the better. Hiking taxes -- locking in funding streams now -- will drive public-sector growth far into the future. And with everyone else panicked by the gaps, well . . . who'd want to waste a good crisis?

Obama's revealing Joe the Plumber slip, that spreading the wealth is good for everybody, also explains sudden Dem swooning for tax hikes. Just as ObamaCare aims to bring health care to those who don't have it by taking from those who do, so, too, will bumping up taxes shift income. Higher levies -- on income, inheritances, dividends, capital gains -- will (supposedly) redirect money from better-off Americans to everyone else.

"The right thing, the fair thing" is to pump up rates on the over-$200,000 crowd, Geithner now says.

Let's be honest: Most Americans have no idea whether deficits can revive an economy, how large they should be, whether they should come from tax cuts or greater spending -- or when it's time rein them in. Economists themselves are divided.

But the brewing fight over taxes has little to do with those questions. For Democrats, Keynesian deficits are just a means to an end: an excuse to boost spending, grow government and redistribute wealth. Ditching John Maynard and jacking up taxes can help in that cause.

Nor, by the way, would true conservatives argue for lower taxes on the grounds that they preserve deficits and, a la Keynes, aid the recovery; to keep taxes down, the right would sooner curb government.

Hmm. Looks like we're all non-Keynesians now. abrodsky@nypost.com



Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/the_dems_deficit_hawk_fakery_aPewRAMpTKGq7OrnLxmTfO#ixzz0vS5Ma9Ug