Obama to Call for Major Road, Rail and Runway Spending

Originally Posted by Biggles

Didn't say it fixed it, I said it helped you fix it...

But it didn't help. If you can't see that it is only because you are used to the high unemployment rates of European nations.

US Unemployment in recent years

2002, 5.8%

2004, 5.5%

2006/2007, 4.6%

2008, 5.8%

EU Unemloyment 2005-2010

European Union
8.9/ 8.4/ 7.3/ 6.7/ 8.3/ 9.6

[tater]

Originally Posted by Biggles

Didn't say it fixed it, I said it helped you fix it...

Or it made it worse.

Certainly FDR created a sense that nothing was safe while he was around, which is not an environment for growth. The Amity Shales vs others thread already happened a while back, though

Originally Posted by tater

Or it made it worse.

Certainly FDR created a sense that nothing was safe while he was around, which is not an environment for growth.

Sounds familiar. If not by words, certainly by action.

But it didn't help. If you can't see that it is only because you are used to the high unemployment rates of European nations

Is there any particular reason you are using two completely different sets of years for your measure?
Though of course the only way you copuld be correct about the policy not working is to prove that the unemployment figures without the measures taken are lower than those which exist.
Not that it matters really as your president could bring full employment , discover a cure to cancer, settle the middle east conflicts and you would still start a topic tomorrow complaining that obama made it rain and you don't like rain so you need a new president

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Is there any particular reason you are using two completely different sets of years for your measure?

I cannot change the web postings. And official gov't statistics are often political in nature. So to be fair I tried to show the most recent figures for both. I am sorry if it strikes you as unfair, but I was trying to show all available information. For those who want to tread deeper into the weeds I have given them a place to start. Again is that wrong?

[Gerald]

certainly have a role for the long term to get people and economy of the interaction,work in a relevant way U.S. is a powerful engine in the global economy and are in many cases the foundation of other countries and decided to which benefits not only U.S. but all, so it must be likely in positive terms to get back,and if a significant part seeks to establish a positive test is a stimulus so well worth every cent.

I cannot change the web postings. And official gov't statistics are often political in nature. So to be fair I tried to show the most recent figures for both. I am sorry if it strikes you as unfair, but I was trying to show all available information. For those who want to tread deeper into the weeds I have given them a place to start. Again is that wrong?

Which is curious as one quick click off your link gives the numbers for both areas with matching years.
But onto the other thing, have you found the umnempoyment figures for the US without the stimulus?
After all as you said it hasn't worked you must be able to show how the inevitable increase in unemployment was smaller with the government not spending the money it spent.

[tater]

The "stimulus" is nonsense. Really. Very little of it can even be construed to potentially have an impact. For the most part it was political payback—pork—plain and simple.

The idea that we should spend our way out of overspending is... bizarre.

People need to remember that during the FDR administration, total federal spending was a fraction of what is is now—even before Obama—as a fraction of GDP. If FDR type spending solved depressions, it would be impossible for us to be in this predicament, since spending for the last decades has been a higher % of GDP than 1930s spending.

Total outlays in the 30s at most reached 10% of GDP. Most of the time it was closer to 1/2 that.

That hasn't touched 14% since 1950, and it's typ[ically 17-20% of GDP.

That means "normal" modern spending is 3-4 times 1930s averages, and 2x the most ever spent during the Depression.

2X FDR spending as the norm.

Spending doesn't help.

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy05/pdf/hist.pdf

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Which is curious as one quick click off your link gives the numbers for both areas with matching years.
But onto the other thing, have you found the umnempoyment figures for the US without the stimulus?
After all as you said it hasn't worked you must be able to show how the inevitable increase in unemployment was smaller with the government not spending the money it spent.

Funny. Show me how God exists and I will show you how Obama has helped anyone.

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by tater

The idea that we should spend our way out of overspending is... bizarre.

Economic stimulus is not meant to alleviate budget deficits. It's meant to jump start an economy.

And as far as trashing the New Deal goes:

"The government hired about 60 per cent of the unemployed in public works and conservation projects that planted a billion trees, saved the whooping crane, modernized rural America, and built such diverse projects as the Cathedral of Learning in Pittsburgh, the Montana state capitol, much of the Chicago lakefront, New York’s Lincoln Tunnel and Triborough Bridge complex, the Tennessee Valley Authority and the aircraft carriers Enterprise and Yorktown.

It also built or renovated 2,500 hospitals, 45,000 schools, 13,000 parks and playgrounds, 7,800 bridges, 700,000 miles of roads, and a thousand airfields. And it employed 50,000 teachers, rebuilt the country’s entire rural school system, and hired 3,000 writers, musicians, sculptors and painters, including Willem de Kooning and Jackson Pollock."

http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2010/09...ks/#more-58608

And what happens when you set upon a fiscal austerity course too early?

"Consequently, Roosevelt ran (in 1936) on a platform that he would try to reduce, if not eliminate, the deficit. He won the election by a landslide — understandably, as the U.S. was out of depression by 1937. True to his campaign promise, government spending was cut significantly in 1937 and 1938, and taxes were raised to “fund” the new Social Security program. By 1938 Roosevelt submitted a budget in which the deficit was virtually eliminated (0.1% of GDP). The resultant economic relapse, based on efforts to balance the budget, exacerbated by a nonsensically tight monetary policy brought on by the Fed, duly followed. This is unsurprising. Any type of fiscal austerity during a period of economic slowdown, whether via government spending cuts or higher taxes, will indeed depress economic activity."

Funny. Show me how God exists and I will show you how Obama has helped anyone.

So you do know that you cannot back up the claims you have made.
It won't stop you making up more claims though will it

[tater]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

Economic stimulus is not meant to alleviate budget deficits. It's meant to jump start an economy.

Most of the stimulus bill could not be construed as even trying to do that. Heck, it was passed in a total rush—must be passed INSTANTLY, because it was time critical... then the vast majority of spending doesn't even start for over a year.

Actual stimulus spending might well have a positive impact. I doubt 10% of that bill was actually "stimulating."

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by tater

Most of the stimulus bill could not be construed as even trying to do that. Heck, it was passed in a total rush—must be passed INSTANTLY, because it was time critical... then the vast majority of spending doesn't even start for over a year.

Actual stimulus spending might well have a positive impact. I doubt 10% of that bill was actually "stimulating."

Agree. Just being pedantic.

[tater]

Mookie, I have to say, of all the people who are usually on the opposite side, you're one of the few capable of changing my mind sometimes. I think I've posted to that effect before, but <S> anyway.

I still think this bill was utter rubbish, and was worse than doing nothing at all, IMO. Better to cut spending than wasting money on pork.

If 10% was "good" then keep that 8 billion, and cancel all the rest.

[mookiemookie]