Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Make sure you read past the pollyanna of the OP, when the details are exposed. This issue was thoroughly discussed here, along with all the relevant links.
Read something sometime. When was the H1N1 virus isolated and ready to go into vaccine production? How long does it take to culture an H1N1 vaccine in comparison to culturing a standard seasonal flu vaccine? The state of emergency is what allows hospitals and others to prepare for handling a large cohort of H1N1 patients effectively and efficiently. What is it that you fail to understand about that?
Obama stated early on that this was NOTHING TO WORRY ABOUT.
Guess he and his beer party summit groupies got this wrong also.
He's said he won't sign a bill that will ad to the deficit, but to only give one side of the numbers without showing what the correlating current costs are is simply disingenuous.
We can go round and round on the chart, the promises, and the resultant failures of the stimulus, as we usually do.
Well, there was a chart, so that's one out of three for you. Pretty good by your usual standards.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanrene
We left off last time with your hero, klugman, putting up that nice little chart of obama's, claiming with the stimulus, the UE would not exceed 8%.
Yeah, Krugman's article (that's spelled with an "r", btw) was written a couple of days after the chart was first released, and praised the administration-to-be for it, quibbling over the data only at the margins. As has been pointed out to you on several occasions, the values on the Y-axis of that chart were determined by the actual unemployment rate at the time, which was 6.7%. As has also been pointed out, the consensus of private forecasters at the time was that unemployment would peak in 2009 at between 8% and 8.25% without a stimulus.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanrene
Second quarter GDP was a negative 1%. 3rd Q was just revised downward, from 3.5 to 2.8% - and virtually ALL of that was government spending. No private investment, no consumer spending.
Second quarter GDP growth was actually -0.7%, but would have been in the neighborhood of -3.2% without the stimulus. Third quarter GDP will be revised again on December 22. That's how it works. Meanwhile, your characterization of the componentry is completely false. Personal consumption expenditures were UP by 2.9%, the largest increase since 2007-I. Gross private domestic investment was UP by 8.4%, the first increase at all since 2007-III.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanrene
Btw, "everyone's estimation" means the WH and Romer. All the analysis I've read say their jobs claims and numbers are more smoke and mirrors.
Uh, the WH IS Romer. And plainly, you haven't been reading anyone like CBO, Moody's, IHS Global Insight, James Grossman, Goldman Sachs, or Macroeconomic Advisers. Maybe NewsMax and Investors Business Daily are more up your alley...
What a load of crap. We have the best health care in the world, the newest technologies, inventions and cures come from this country.
There are problems to be sure, but that doesn't justify a government take over, which will surely result in all the things that ALWAYS come of government running things.
Then why is ours the most expensive?
Then why do we have major health crises other countries do not?
Then why do we not live as long if ours is so superior?
Please provide evidence of a proposed "government takeover". There is none. You've just listened to too much far right radio. The fact is they seek to create an OPTION that people can CHOOSE to use or not to fill in the gaps where the free market fails.
Anything else is just propaganda created by those with vested financial interests. Thank God we have a strong president with the backbone and foresight to overcome these petty self-interested parties.
and see for yourself. They start collecting taxes right away and don't provide benefits till 2013. That should be the definition of disingenuous.
What does that have to do with the fact that Obama won't sign a bill that increases the deficit? Of course it will require taxes from people who make over $250,000.
I'm not a fan of the progressive tax, but that's what Democrats value and it has some merit for the time being. If it keeps the deficit down, then so be it. Can't have it both ways.
Yeah, Krugman's article (that's spelled with an "r", btw) was written a couple of days after the chart was first released, and praised the administration-to-be for it, quibbling over the data only at the margins. As has been pointed out to you on several occasions, the values on the Y-axis of that chart were determined by the actual unemployment rate at the time, which was 6.7%. As has also been pointed out, the consensus of private forecasters at the time was that unemployment would peak in 2009 at between 8% and 8.25% without a stimulus.
OK, Christina Romer and Jared Bernstein have put out the official (?) Obama estimates of what the American Association of Retired Persons American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan would accomplish. The figure above summarizes the key result.
And what by gosh is that "figure above"?
In which he says;
Quote:
So they say the plan would lower unemployment by about 2 percentage points, I said 1.7, but their estimate may actually be a bit more pessimistic than mine.
Quote:
Second quarter GDP growth was actually -0.7%, but would have been in the neighborhood of -3.2% without the stimulus.
Complete speculation on your part and you have no evidence to back it up, do you?
Quote:
Gross private domestic investment was UP by 8.4%, the first increase at all since 2007-III.
Mind pointing the above out for me?
Quote:
Real federal government consumption expenditures and gross investment increased 8.3 percent in the third quarter
Quote:
Uh, the WH IS Romer. And plainly, you haven't been reading anyone like CBO, Moody's, IHS Global Insight, James Grossman, Goldman Sachs, or Macroeconomic Advisers. Maybe NewsMax and Investors Business Daily are more up your alley...
Exactly my point. All the rosy estimates are coming from the WH to cover their a**es on the stimulus failure. They have no credibility when it comes to the numbers, they shot it all with the promises from the stimulus that have not come to fruition. I'm still waiting for the repport, from the CBO, that says 1.5 million jobs were created.
This is really quite grim. At this growth rate it’s far from clear that we’re doing anything to reduce the output gap — the gap between what the economy could produce and what it’s actually producing. Correspondingly, there’s no reason now for even a bit of optimism on unemployment.
The odds are good that growth will slow down next year: the stimulus has already had its peak effect on growth and will turn into a net drag in the second half, the inventory bounce — which was a major factor in 3rd quarter growth, such as it was — will fade out.
Something many of us have been telling you about for a while. The stimulus failed to do as promises and will not have an effect in the future.
I'd say it's nothing more than a heap of your usual made-up hokem. By nearly everyone's estimation, there were about a million more jobs out there in the third quarter than what there would have been without the stimulus. Did public sector employment rise by a million in eight months?
By nearly everyones estimation, 1,000,000 more jobs? Not even Obama is projecting those numbers. Where do you get your made up data from?
Quote:
Originally Posted by saganista
The stimulus added about 2.5 percentage points to GDP in the second quarter of this year, and about 3.0 percentage points in the third quarter. Not half bad, considering ARRA didn't become law until February 17, i.e., just past halfway through the first quarter.
So without the stimulus, we still would have had a growth in GDP due to a natural economic business cycle (.3%), while not increasing the national debt by nearly $1TRILLION. You can pretend thats good but we all know better..
And the dems have controlled congress for how long? And the dems have controlled America and have a super majority for how long now?
You do need a super-majority in the House to pass a Consitutional amendment or to override a Presidential veto.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
Wait, who's talking about passing Constitutional Amendments?
What bills have Obama Veto'd that Congress needed to override?
Quote:
Originally Posted by saganista
Pay attention. No one was talking about specific anything. The general situation was what was referenced (incorrectly) and therefore what was under discussion. Then someone made a sweeping generalization which is not true. Exceptions to the supposed rule were pointed out. End of story.
So as usual, you just went off into kookville land discussing things that people werent even talking about in an effort to change the subject..
Want to discuss what country has better healthcare? Since you are proclaiming to be an expert on the subject..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
