- Joined
- Apr 14, 2008
- Messages
- 13,014
- Reaction score
- 5,742
- Location
- Huntsville, AL (USA)
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Moderate
So what job killing policies were you guys mouthing about then?
Source? Basic economics 101 dude. And yes....that would include wealthy Democrats as well.
You know,
I had to double check the record, but my memory was right - for the entire 8 years of the Bush presidency the GOP completely controlled both branches of government, including both the house & senate. There was majority control of both chambers for 6 out of 8 of those years, and a two year period where the house was in majority GOP control and the senate floor was evenly split - but the senate still stayed in GOP control due the the GOP VP tie-breaking vote.
Source: Composition of Congress, by Political Party, 1855–2017
To blame the Bush recession on a minority party seems ... a bit of ... a reach.
So now the GOP recession is due to (as you state) their having 'a liberal mindset'?
You gotta' be kidding!
Yet you and other GOP posters keep asking for what you just said he can't do.
GOPs are certainly first in line to bash economic news with their TPs no matter what the news.
While GOP posters also continue to damn the POTUS on every other front, even when they agree with him, such as on TPP .
Proof?
Proof?
Once again, no proof from the one who demands proof from lefties.
which he didn't so you've moved on to the blatant lie level.
Have you seen the pictures of GOP politicians digging in their shovels?
Again, no proof as our economy has moved on--try to catch up.
Repetitious and without proof--GOPs only care about NH every 4 years--how's that Christie doing defending a fellow cheater Brady?
Especially those used by governors like Perry of Texas to balance his budget.
Tell me those dollars didn't create private sector jobs--and prove it .
"U.S. Unemployment Falls to Lowest Level Since May 2008"
....and the labor participation rate is the lowest since the great depression. Take your pick.
The Great Depression was in 1978?
And since Labor Force Statistics weren't collected at all until 1942, and official data not available prior to 1948, it's clear you just made things up. Why did you do that?
Janet Reno AND Robert Rubin bragging about the effectiveness of Clintons CRA changes and the effectivness of his Fair lending task force is not in context ?
Ruben and Reno even quantified the sucess of his CRA changes and his Fair lending Task Force and I've posted their quotes over and over and over.
Its not in context with the debunked left wing narratives that blame the banks and Bush but its definitely relevant to what actually happened.
OK. The labor participation is the lowest since 1978. Take your pick.
Why would you just post something you made up with no consideration for reality?
Why would you just post something you made up with no consideration for reality?
Everything you need to know about stimulus money can be found on http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/03/02/the-minimal-impact-of-the-stimulus/?_r=0
Which means you know very little with respect to the subject matter. The Cato economist presented a false narrative.
Case and point: "If Keynesian stimulus advocates are correct, economic growth should have been sharply reduced when stimulus spending slowed."
The author does not understand Keynesian economics, which is rather apparent given her Cato and freshwater connections. Stimulus is never intended to be permanent. Instead, it's meant as a temporary boost to push economic activity back into action. By the time the stimulus funds ran their course, the U.S. economy was strong enough (given continued fiscal and monetary support) to continue growing sans stimulus.
Dr. Mulligan further exhibits his shortcomings with Keynesianism:
"After all, the stimulus spending penalized success, since its benefits — for example, extending unemployment insurance — were aimed at people and businesses with low incomes, and not at those who were working and/or achieving a certain income level. So it would be no surprise if the result was to keep incomes below what they would have been — as in other cases, a counterproductive result of a well-intentioned program."
How utterly ridiculous! How does providing money to people penalize success, unless you view helping those in need as a punishment for those without? Incomes fell because job losses mounted in the wake of deflationary pressure, not because unemployment benefits extended. In fact, the prevailing freshwater idea is that wages need to fall to a market clearing level. Yet experiences from the great depression, Japan, etc... show that downward nominal wage rigidity negates the classical hypothesis.
It seems your lack of exposure to both the data and literature have led you to be hopelessly outmatched on this topic.
Good grief. What a bunch of nonsense that had nothing to do with what I posted.
Ugh, stop quoting me. I can't read your liberal Obama worshipping drivel.
Dr. Mulligan further exhibits his shortcomings with Keynesianism:
"After all, the stimulus spending penalized success, since its benefits — for example, extending unemployment insurance — were aimed at people and businesses with low incomes, and not at those who were working and/or achieving a certain income level. So it would be no surprise if the result was to keep incomes below what they would have been — as in other cases, a counterproductive result of a well-intentioned program."
How utterly ridiculous! How does providing money to people penalize success, unless you view helping those in need as a punishment for those without? Incomes fell because job losses mounted in the wake of deflationary pressure, not because unemployment benefits extended. In fact, the prevailing freshwater idea is that wages need to fall to a market clearing level. Yet experiences from the great depression, Japan, etc... show that downward nominal wage rigidity negates the classical hypothesis.
It seems your lack of exposure to both the data and literature have led you to be hopelessly outmatched on this topic.
I've heard people complain about Keynesian economics for years and kinda laugh about it. It's as if people fail to realize that since the Great Depression each time there's been a major economic downturn the one thing governments turn to in order to turn the economy around is Keynesian economic in some shape, form or fashion. And once all the "stimulus" spending is over, things more or less go back to the way they were.
Like it or not, but there are times when the only entity that can give the economy the kick start it needs is government.
You lack the ability to respond; i get it. Perhaps the superior approach would be to hesitate to respond rather than putting your lack of knowledge of the subject on full display.
Do you have a problem with reading? Not once did i mention Obama in the post for which you chose to reply. It pains me to watch you stumble throughout this thread.
BTW, since Nov. 2007 (just before the Great Recession), there are now 1,277,000 LESS Americans employed full time and 3,113,000 MORE Americans employed part time.
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/empsit_12072007.pdf
Table A-9. Selected employment indicators
If " Keynesian " solutions worked Japan would be sitting pretty right now.
You have such a good handle on the US economy that you feel comfortable analyzing the Japanese experience. Interesting.
>>They've had to raise taxes twice
They have raised taxes. Are you sure they had to?
>>If Keynesian solutions worked
You do know that raising taxes in a recession runs counter to Keynesian theory.
Not everyone agrees with yer … analysis:
"Japan Shows Keynes Is Right and Austerity Is Wrong," The Hankyoreh, Apr 24, 2014
"Is the state of the Japanese economy proof that Keynesian economics doesn’t work?," Quora, Aug 2012
"Keynes, trains and automobiles," The Economist, reprinted on eastwestcenter.org, Jan 12, 2013
"Is Abenomics discrediting Keynesianism?," Pieria, an online magazine, Nov 27, 2014
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?