Did Bush and Obama prevent another depression? Influential economists say yes.

[Dinner]

Also, Oerdin clearly hasn't learned what the multiplier is and why it is important to any discussion of the efficacy of fiscal stimulus.

Drake still likes to make retarded and untrue one lines rather the engage in any real discussion.

[Drake Tungsten]

Drake still likes to make retarded and untrue one lines rather the engage in any real discussion.

I created an extremely lengthy thread devoted solely to discussing the efficacy of the ARRA. I invite you to read it and educate yourself on the topic.

[Hauldren Collider]

Did Bush and Obama prevent another depression?

Bush = Yes

Obama = No

TARP =

ARRA =

QFT.

The deficit will drop noticeably when Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy expire soon. If it weren't for those and the cost of his ill-begotten wars, we'd be in a lot better fiscal shape.

The bush tax cuts were great. They cut all the right taxes, ESPECIALLY capital gains and corporate income. The wars are also toilet paper compared to Social Security (I call it SS) and Medicare, and our newest government entitlement(I hate that word), the healthcare plan ().

[Boris Godunov]

Anyone who claims Social Security is a factor in the U.S. budget deficit is clearly an idiot and conversing with him on the subject is not necessary.

The only reason SS appears as a deficit line item is because the Fed owes the program for the billions it has borrowed from it (T-bills).

[Kuciwalker]

The wars are also toilet paper compared to Social Security (I call it SS) and Medicare

Um, no.

[Ben Kenobi]

How was Canadia affected by the downturn Ben?

That's a good question. We are in the enviable position of having fairly low debts among the G7 and although we suffer from deficits which are much higher than they need to be, they are far far lower than the Obama administration.

All I can say is thank God we got our debt down to around 60 percent of GDP from 110, that it was in the early 90s.

Where I am, employment is really scarce. Two of the mills have closed, and the other three are looking like they will eventually close as well. BC had a massive pine beetle infestation which destroyed 75 percent of the entire commercial timber stands. They are trying to diversify the industry base, but that will take time. The diversification is massively hindered by the recession.

The biggest effect this major collapse has had, is that gas was significantly lower. It's now come back up to where it was 2 years ago, but still well below the highs of 2007. We already had 20+ percent unemployment when the second mill shut down 3 years ago, so the recession really didn't hit that hard.

The other major effect has been is that housing prices are coming down from 250k to around 150k or so. They will probably freefall for another couple years.

From what I've heard other parts of Canada are not doing too badly, but certain areas, Alberta, Saskatchewan and eventually BC should be back in surplus in another couple years.

Overall, Canada faces the same long-term structural issues that appear in all industrialised nations, however, we are about 20 years out from the situation as it is in Germany. I wouldn't say we are as well off as the folks are out in Australia, and we have some serious long term issues to deal with that aren't present in the US.

[Theben]

Generally I don't open BK posts, but for this thread I made an exception. He's being quite amusing.

[giblets]

So are you suggesting that Obama will eliminate social security?

No.

Yeah, and I have a brooklyn bridge. Are these the same folks who said that Unemployment wouldn't top 8 percent even without the stimulus?

Thank god for the stimulus, it turned 4 percent unemployment into 10 percent unemployement, and the greatest overall job loss since the great depression.

What reason is there to think there would be 4% unemployment without the stimulus?

It's relevant, because it impacts the ability of stimulus to generate economic returns. People won't spend if they are burdened by debts.

So at least you admit Obama isn't responsible for consumer debt? In fact if they use the stimulus money to pay off debts then Obama caused a decrease in consumer debt. And if people decrease their debt I would expect that to free up credit, offsetting the effects of increased government borrowing.

[Ben Kenobi]

What reason is there to think there would be 4% unemployment without the stimulus?

Obama claimed that without stimulus the US would experience 8 percent unemployment, and with stimulus it wouldn't go above 7. Obviously, if Obama was correct about the first point, stimulus has actually created unemployment.

So at least you admit Obama isn't responsible for consumer debt?

Never said he was, but that measure of total debt, includes all government debt, which Obama has spiked. Obama has had a significant contribution to the indebtedness of the US in running the highest adjusted for inflation deficits that the US has ever seen, even higher than 44 and 45 during the peak of the second world war.

In fact if they use the stimulus money to pay off debts then Obama caused a decrease in consumer debt. And if people decrease their debt I would expect that to free up credit, offsetting the effects of increased government borrowing.

Which is not what we see. There's been an increase in consumer debt, as most people have their net worth tied up in their homes, and have lost most, if not all of their equity.

The reason why it's significant, is because stimulus isn't free. It comes from increased taxation or borrowing, which results in increased taxation. Keynesian spending generating revenue only works if debt is not high and people actually use the money to spend, not to pay off past debts.

[giblets]

Obama claimed that without stimulus the US would experience 8 percent unemployment, and with stimulus it wouldn't go above 7. Obviously, if Obama was correct about the first point, stimulus has actually created unemployment.

No, Obama could have been wrong on both points. And even if you accept that without the stimulus there would be eight percent unemployment, that would only make the stimulus responsible for an increase of two percentage point, not the six percentage point figure you pulled out of your ass.

Never said he was, but that measure of total debt, includes all government debt, which Obama has spiked. Obama has had a significant contribution to the indebtedness of the US in running the highest adjusted for inflation deficits that the US has ever seen, even higher than 44 and 45 during the peak of the second world war.

Obama isn't responsible for the fall in revenues and the increase in mandatory spending. He is responsible for including the $130 billion a year the US spends on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in the budget, but that's not an actual spending increase. WWII took a public debt of around 40% of GDP and left a public debt of around 100% GDP, so I seriously doubt Obama is going to match WWII.

Which is not what we see. There's been an increase in consumer debt, as most people have their net worth tied up in their homes, and have lost most, if not all of their equity.

If the government gives someone money and they use it to pay down debt, their debt is then smaller than it otherwise would be. It's pretty straightforward.

The reason why it's significant, is because stimulus isn't free. It comes from increased taxation or borrowing, which results in increased taxation. Keynesian spending generating revenue only works if debt is not high and people actually use the money to spend, not to pay off past debts.

One, government spending would still be expected to increase aggregate demand somewhat even if there's a high savings rate. And if the money is given to people in the form of extended unemployment benefits and increased food stamps it's very likely they will spend it. Two, if people save most of the money I think it would offset the effects of increasing the public debt.

[Dinner]

I created an extremely lengthy thread devoted solely to discussing the efficacy of the ARRA. I invite you to read it and educate yourself on the topic.

Post #5 already provided a direct response to the right wing talking points you cut and pasted in that thread. You are the "usual suspect" I referenced earlier. Please read the quote in post 5 because it basically refutes the entire premise of your "argument" (read: nonsense talking points).

Why don't you actually read the highly detailed economic report I linked to so you can actually make intelligent conversation or is that to much effort for you? Oh, who am I kidding. Of course you won't read it and instead will continue making your usual incorrect and inane comments.

[Al B. Sure!]

I created an extremely lengthy thread devoted solely to discussing the efficacy of the ARRA. I invite you to read it and educate yourself on the topic.

Yeah I saw the tail-end of that thread and there didn't seem much relevant discussion (a lot of threadjacks), especially not by you, Drake. I've noticed you never really make arguments for things. Just give a high five to KH everytime he says something.

[Dinner]

Anyone who claims Social Security is a factor in the U.S. budget deficit is clearly an idiot and conversing with him on the subject is not necessary.

The only reason SS appears as a deficit line item is because the Fed owes the program for the billions it has borrowed from it (T-bills).

Yeah, I don't get how someone could not understand that basic fact. The truth is SS should have been managed as a sovereign wealth fund but 1) Republicans claimed it was evil socialism to have a government run retirement program investing in private business and 2) Democrats wanted the loads of cheap money funneled into T-bills so that the governments effected interest rate on borrowing was lowered. SS would now be the largest fund in the world if it was managed like any other retirement fund. The good news is it is still generating net profits for itself to this very day and will continue to do so without any changes for the next 30 years. Not bad given how much abuse it has taken.

[Dinner]

Yeah I saw the tail-end of that thread and there didn't seem much relevant discussion (a lot of threadjacks), especially not by you, Drake. I've noticed you never really make arguments for things. Just give a high five to KH everytime he says something.

He loves to cut and past other people's arguments and then pretend they are his own. Failing that he posts glib one liners which are usually off topic and retarded just on their face. Notice how he continually claims because the unemployment rate went above 8% that some how this means the stimulus was a failure? Notice how he ignores that the 2.5 months it took to pass the stimulus saw the unemployment rate shoot up past 8% before the stimulus was even passed? Notice how even Moody's has admitted they grossly under estimated the size of this recession and so their graph contained faulty assumptions? Notice how Drake ignored all this and just kept posting partisan nonsense?

[Drake Tungsten]

Yeah I saw the tail-end of that thread and there didn't seem much relevant discussion (a lot of threadjacks), especially not by you, Drake.

I'm sure you got the gist of a 700+ post thread by reading the "tail-end"...

Why don't you actually read the highly detailed economic report I linked to so you can actually make intelligent conversation or is that to much effort for you?

I read the report yesterday when Matt Yglesias linked to it and then read some analysis that pointed out that the study doesn't seem to prove that the ARRA had a multiplier greater than 1. You don't understand why that's important, but that's ok...