From the same article our dear highly knowledgeable 4Play was quoting . . .

[size=17pt]But in the absence of that government stimulus, the grim economic headlines of 2008 will probably continue for some time, these forecasters acknowledge.

“Without this federal largess, the consensus forecast for 2009 is for the recession to continue through most of the year,” said Randell E. Moore, executive editor of Blue Chip Economic Indicators, which conducts the monthly survey of forecasters.[/size]

There is none more blind than he who refuses to see.

This of course in response to this obvious fraud . . .

4 Play:

As early as late January/early February, some economists were predicting positive GDP numbers in Q3. That argument was used during the stimulus debate to state that Obama the fiscal stimulus was unnecesary as the economy was bound to turn around.

The Fed is not an extension of the Obama administration and QE only started in March, not during the Bush era.

Infact if anything, the link 4Play provided for us was an even more strident case for why the fiscal stimulus was ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY.

but of course we are all obamabots! What do we know.

To continue arguing with the blind is a lost cause.

@ DAVID. Has the 'OPEN YOUR MIND' thread been locked? I've being trying to post a comment but It ain't coming up.

davidylan:

To continue arguing with the blind is a lost cause.

4play is right wing. His mind has already been made up.

A few minutes ago, it was clearly not true any such predictions were made in January/February 2009. Then, he rests his case on an article predicting Q3 growth even though he insists there will be no growth till next year.

There were predictions in January/February '09 of a return to growth. Some attributed the return to a variety of causes, one of each was the anticipated stimulus package. However, the Q3 growth we're experiencing is not as result of the stimulus package because it has been too slow in its implementation to create any impact already. Fairly simple argumnent for any lucid mind to grasp.

4 Play:

A few minutes ago, it was clearly not true any such predictions were made in January/February 2009. Then, he rests his case on an article predicting Q3 growth even though he insists there will be no growth till next year.

that's retarded because that was obviously NOT what i was saying. My point was that WITHOUT THE STIMULUS no economists saw the US coming out of the recession before 2010 which the article you ignorantly put up CORROBORATED.

4 Play:

There were predictions in January/February '09 of a return to growth. Some attributed the return to a variety of causes, one of each was the anticipated stimulus package.

err that FALSE, judging by the article YOU posted yourself without thoroughly reading . . . the US coming out of recession this yr was predicated SOLELY on the stimulus package not on a "variety of sources". The article is very clear on this point.

4 Play:

However, the Q3 growth we're experiencing is not as result of the stimulus package because it has been too slow in its implementation to create any impact already. Fairly simple argumnent for any lucid mind to grasp.

Even the WSJ completely blows this lie out of the water.




Stay on point pls.

davidylan:

that's retarded because that was obviously NOT what i was saying. My point was that WITHOUT THE STIMULUS no economists saw the US coming out of the recession before 2010 which the article you ignorantly put up CORROBORATED.

The above is startling idiocy. To claim that no economist saw the US coming out of recession pre-2010 without the stimulus is to claim that you are aware of the predictions of every single economist on the face of the earth. That's the hallmark of a mendacious oaf.

The article I posted does not corroborate such drivel. All it shows is that those particular economists cited by the NYT couldn't see recovery in '09 without the stimulus. It's stupid to deduce that reflected the view of every single economist at the time.

I posted the article because I thought you meant that no one foresaw recovery this year, stimulus or no stimulus. Since you are clutching at their stated reason for bullishness, the proposed stimulus package, I can easily show you examples of projections of recovery this year without the stimulus: Here is a report by the non-partisan CBO:The

Near-Term Outlook: In preparing its economic forecast, CBO assumes that current laws and policies governing federal spending and taxes do not change. This forecast, therefore, does not include the effects of a possible fiscal stimulus package. On that basis, CBO anticipates that real GDP will drop by 2.2 percent in calendar year 2009, a steep decline. [b]CBO expects the economy to begin a slow recovery in the second half of 2009 [/b]and to grow by a modest 1.5 percent in 2010.

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/99xx/doc9958/01-08-Outlook_Testimony.pdf

This report was prepared in February '09.

err that FALSE, judging by the article YOU posted yourself without thoroughly reading . . . the US coming out of recession this yr was predicated SOLELY on the stimulus package not on a "variety of sources". The article is very clear on this point.

Exercise in stupidity. The article does not represent the view of every single economist. The NYT, being to Obama what FoxNews is to Bush, was seeking to make a case why Obama's policies would save us from doom. I repeat, it did not represent the view of every economist. If you don't know that, you are being an idiot.

What you are effectively telling me is that you are aware of all the articles I read at the beginning of '09, that you are aware of the projections of every single economist. Obamania is a mental illness indeed.

Quote from: davidylan on Today at 04:15:32 AM
that's retarded because that was obviously NOT what i was saying. My point was that WITHOUT THE STIMULUS no economists saw the US coming out of the recession before 2010 which the article you ignorantly put up CORROBORATED.

The above is startling idiocy. To claim that no economist saw the US coming out of recession pre-2010 without the stimulus is to claim that you are aware of the predictions of every single economist on the face of the earth. That's the hallmark of a mendacious oaf.

The article I posted does not corroborate such drivel. All it shows is that those particular economists cited by the NYT couldn't see recovery in '09 without the stimulus. It's stupid to deduce that it reflected the view of every single economist at the time.

I posted the article because I thought you meant that no one foresaw recovery this year, stimulus or no stimulus. Since you are clutching at their stated reason for bullishness, the proposed stimulus package, I can easily show you examples of projections of recovery this year without the stimulus: Here is a report by the non-partisan CBO:

Near-Term Outlook: In preparing its economic forecast, CBO assumes that current laws and policies governing federal spending and taxes do not change. This forecast, therefore, does not include the effects of a possible fiscal stimulus package. On that basis, CBO anticipates that real GDP will drop by 2.2 percent in calendar year 2009, a steep decline. [b]CBO expects the economy to begin a slow recovery in the second half of 2009 [/b]and to grow by a modest 1.5 percent in 2010.

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/99xx/doc9958/01-08-Outlook_Testimony.pdf

This report was prepared in February '09.

Quote
err that FALSE, judging by the article YOU posted yourself without thoroughly reading . . . the US coming out of recession this yr was predicated SOLELY on the stimulus package not on a "variety of sources". The article is very clear on this point.

Exercise in stupidity. The article does not represent the view of every single economist. The NYT, being to Obama what FoxNews is to Bush, was seeking to make a case why Obama's policies would save us from doom. I repeat, it did not represent the view of every economist. If you don't know that, you are being an idiot.

What you are effectively telling me is that you are aware of all the articles I read at the beginning of '09, that you are aware of the projections of every single economist. Obamania is a mental illness indeed.

History has shown  that Neocons would do the same thing if faced with realities. No idealogical thinking in rescuing the economy. Bush started with the first Stimulus, then followed by bailout  bonanza, then followed by injection of funds into GM and Chrysler.  It was Bush edministration that first bailed out AIG even breaking a statued legislation for over 100 yrs that FEDs should be renders to banks not insurance. Bush took Fanie and Fredie into federal receivership.

All of these actions, there is no indication whatsoever to show that a party that embarked on these measures would lecture us about fiscal responsibility. Its really one of the reasons why  I detest democrats, cos they bicker and dont know how to play politics. They sometimes seem like advanced Naija politicians. Bush went to war and got all he wanted, anybody who dared challenged his  plans was called unpatriotic,now  to provide folks with affordable health care,  folks are being called, unpatriotic, Nazis and socialists. It clearly shows that Dems dont know how to frame the debate.

adconline:

History has shown  that Neocons would do the same thing if faced with realities. No idealogical thinking in rescuing the economy. Bush started with the first Stimulus, then followed by bailout  bonanza, then followed by injection of funds into GM and Chrysler.  It was Bush edministration that first bailed out AIG even breaking a statued legislation for over 100 yrs that FEDs should be renders to banks not insurance. Bush took Fanie and Fredie into federal receivership.
All of these actions, there is no indication whatsoever to show that a party that embarked on these measures would lecture us about fiscal responsibility. Its really one of the reasons why  I detest democrats, cos they bicker and dont know how to play politics. They sometimes seem like advanced Naija politicians. Bush went to war and got all he wanted, anybody who dared challenged his  plans was called unpatriotic,now to provide folks with affordable health care, folks are being called, unpatriotic, Nazis and socialists. It clearly shows that Dems dont know how to frame the debate.

l
Let me just comment on the few highlighted lines in your opinion
[1 ] The Bush TARP program was an emergency laon given to the banks which some of them had already paid off. In fact, the Stimulus bill passed by Obama is even the worst beacause most of his programs_porks has nothing to do with the immediate revival of the economy.

[2] No body is against health care reform but the modal of which it should be done. It was the father chrismas mentality that led to the current economic kaput . . . .  hmmm, did I say the liberal's affordable housing for all drove the irresponsible mortgage lending spearheaded by Fannie & Freddie mae.
                 Bush was quite unlucky that the inevitable outburst of past liberal agendas occurred during the final days of his presidency

[

igweusa
^{Let me just comment on the few highlighted lines in your opinion
[1 ] The Bush TARP program was an emergency laon given to the banks which some of them had already paid off. In fact, the Stimulus bill passed by Obama is even the worst beacause most of his programsporks has nothing to do with the immediate revival of the economy.[/b]}
This cannot be farther from the truth. Why did Bush pass a stimulus package that gave $152 Billion to Americans? This is about 20% of Obama's stimulus and yet it didnt stop millions of job loss and financial meltdown. Stock markets were  down. Comparative to Obama's package which has been expended by less than 20%, it has brought stability, stopped hemorrhaging of jobs, markets have peaked, confidence has been restored, credit freeze has eased up, housing index is up. If Bush's stimulus cannot be classified as a socialist policy, why do folks like you keep talking about socialism since Obama's package didnt give any father Christmas bonanza to Americans? TARP was not an emergency, it was meant to buy up troubled and toxic assets from troubled banks, and FEDs would sell them only when they could make money going by Swedish model. So it could not be an emergency loan when there was no time frame when the  markets would create a demand for these toxic assets, besides there are no ascribed values on these toxic assets since nobody wants t buy them. Dont get urself confused these banks are posting illusionary profits  since they still have toxic assets with no values .They simply dont want any legislation that would get in their old ways of doing business, that's why they are "paying' back. The issue with you guys on the extreme right is what you call your dog. If you give govt money to big corporation and don't demand any thing in return, its free market and capitalism at work, but when you demand for accountability, its called big government. Let a solvent corporation stay afloat without government intrusion and nobody will get in their  way of doing business, but immediately folks like you who shout capitalism or communism ask for them to be bailed out, big uncle Sam is going to wield a big stick.

^{[2 ] TNo body is against health care reform but the modal of which it should be done. It was the father chrismas mentality that led to the current economic kaput . . . .  hmmm, did I say the liberal's affordable housing for all drove the irresponsible mortgage lending spearheaded by Fannie & Freddie mae.
                 Bush was quite unlucky that the inevitable outburst of past liberal agendas occurred during the final days of his presidency .[/b]}
This is the most blatant disregard for factuality. Bush was handed an economy that was awash with hundreds of billions in surplus and an economy that was producing millions of jobs  and he  left behind the largest deficit, shattered economy that reduced GPD and American  global competitiveness. You call this unlucky? You are delusional with realities.    Folks like you with insurance pay for those without insurance  when they go to hospitals  since such visits are not outlawed. The hospitals would in turn pass the loss to big Uncle Sam and the government shoulders that loss. Simple capitalism  you only pay taxes on gains so the govt is the loser and you are taxed to cover the cost of providing health care to those who dont have it,  What is the way to go about this? Bring plans on board, not NO, NO like in immigration debate, but health care is taking 18% of the GDP and yet over 16% of of the population is not covered.  Tell me anything Republicans would have done differently since this financial crisis started under teir watch. John McCain voted for the bail out, so he would continued on Bush's path if he had won.

So Massachusetts health premiums just went up 10% . . . projected to go up even more next year. All of a sudden the govt' option or co-op ain't looking so bad 

JeSoul:

So Massachusetts health premiums just went up 10% . . . projected to go up even more next year. All of a sudden the govt' option or co-op ain't looking so bad 

the alternative is private insurance . . . those premiums arent any lower.

@topic,

I received a call yesterday from a credit company who wanted me to help them with access to one of my rental properties (which I declined of course). Apparently, my tenant provided my contact details in her application for the cash for clunkers program. Unfortunately, she has not been paying her car notes and the new truck is been repossessed. My dear tenant had a clunker that worked fine but she traded it in for a new one that she can't afford becuase of the govt credit.

The bottom line is this. She has lost her dependable clunker and is about to lose the new GMC truck she just acquired. Instead of her owning her dependable clunker and owing no man anything but love, she has now lost her clunker, received a hit on her credit history and is a wanted person by those she owes. All due to Obama's $.4.C program. Aint that typical?!

Tayo-D:

@topic,

I received a call yesterday from a credit company who wanted me to help them with access to one of my rental properties (which I declined of course). Apparently, my tenant provided my contact details in her application for the cash for clunkers program. Unfortunately, she has not been paying her car notes and the new truck is been repossessed. My dear tenant had a clunker that worked fine but she traded it in for a new one that she can't afford becuase of the govt credit.

The bottom line is this. She has lost her dependable clunker and is about to lose the new GMC truck she just acquired. Instead of her owning her dependable clunker and owing no man anything but love, she has now lost her clunker, received a hit on her credit history and is a wanted person by those she owes. All due to Obama's $.4.C program. Aint that typical?!

this is disgusting.

She was stupid enough to buy a car she couldnt afford even with govt credit and her car got repoed and somehow its the fault of Obama? Really you anti-Obama neocons have degenerated so far down one would be tempted to think the day you cant breath it will be the fault of Obama's cap n' trade program.

So all those who got their cars repossessed last yr was all Bush's fault?

Even dems didnt blame Bush this much!

Did Obama ask her to run and grab a car she couldn't afford?

@Davidylan and spoilt,

I expected such typical responses and I got them.

Question. Would she still have a car today if there was no $.4.C? The likely anwer is yes. So the bottomline remains that the program provided the incentive that got her into this mess.

It was this same principle that led to the mortgage crisis that almost brought down the entire economy. Govt continued actions of borrowing money to pay for people who can't afford a product just to appear humane. It backfired before and its backfiring again. Ever talk about unintended consequences.

Tayo-D:

@Davidylan and spoilt,

I expected such typical responses and I got them.

Question. Would she still have a car today if there was no $.4.C? The likely anwer is yes. So the bottomline remains that the program provided the incentive that got her into this mess.

It was this same principle that led to the mortgage crisis that almost brought down the entire economy. Govt continued actions of borrowing money to pay for people who can't afford a product just to appear humane. It backfired before and its backfiring again. Ever talk about unintended consequences.

Uncle Tayo, this your argument doesnt hold water o. So if i too traded my bicycle for a Mercedes Benz C550 2010 model i know i cant afford its all the fault of Obama?

Please lets be honest here, some people will ALWAYS love to game the system . . . to pick one individual and use her covetous example to smear a program that benefited auto industries once on the verge of collapse, auto salesmen and millions of middle class families who now have better fuel efficient vehicles at reduced costs is just plain disgusting.

When Bush was dashing out checks last yr did you complain?

@David,

My point is very simple. We have tried this kind of program before in the real estate side and it almost brought down the economy. What makes anyone think that this same principle will lead to success eventually. Now this is something that happens to someone that I know first hand. Who knows the experiences of others we know nothing about?

There are a lot of unintended negative consequences to every attempt by the govt to manipulate markets. Subsidizing farmers here in the US causes starvation in Africa, mandating ethanol in vehicles increases the price of corn globally. The Community Reinvestment Act may have spurred home ownership initially, but it led to massive foreclosures down the line. Even the cash for Clunker Program is not without its unintended consequences - from repos of vehicles (just like foreclosures), to keeping Mechanic shops less busy and increasing the cost of spare parts of those vehicles to the massive interests and debt that the govt will have to pay back.

So you see, it is not about Obama, but Govt interventions and mandates that have never had a history of success, whether under Republicans or Democrats.

Tayo.
U are not the standard and your tenant defaulting on her car loan cannot be a benchmark for measurng the stimulus. u ever heard of outlier is statistics? Having said that ,why is that all  the folks who are preaching non-government intervention right now didnt do so last year when Hank Paulson and Bush told us that the economy was on the brink of collapse?

@adcolie,

I was never in support of the bailout by Bush then and still not in support of the one by Obama. Stop generalising when you have no grasp of the facts.

tayo.
You were  not in support agreed, but those who u were in the rhetorical audience said that the best way to go was by having a large stimulus. It was a near consensus amongst economists on the left and right. Those at the corridor of power,influence  and knowledge in your party agreed that stimulus was the way to go.

On the other hand, a comparison is based on two or more  known conditions. Dont give me a hypothetical scenario, but a real situation in US history where a govt bailout or intervention wasn't not needed or implemented in a steep recession like this  and the economy pulled out on its own. If not, why did u think that Obama would do “undoables” to save the economy? Why is it that Bernanke a Bush appointee and scholar of great depression opened Fed's lending window to banks and some other companies. Mind you that federal reserve has an independent authority to set monetary/economic policies

@adconline,

It was a near consensus amongst economists on the left and right. Those at the corridor of power,influence  and knowledge in your party agreed that stimulus was the way to go.

This is what happens when you just ingest talking points from the dronic Left. It is part of the lies you guys just propagate.  How many Economists did you poll to make such a bold and very misleading statement?

Apart from the CBO that declared that the stimulus willdo more harm than good, here's some information for you to digest.

The Cato Institute, a non-partisan think tank that takes broadly free-market views, was frustrated enough by the conventional wisdom in Washington that it took out a full-page ad on page 11 of the New York Times on Wednesday. The ad, which will also appear in Roll Call magazine and Thursday's Washington Post, is signed by scores of economists and says "we do not believe that more government spending is a way to improve economic performance."

Greg Mankiw, a Harvard economics professor who was chairman of George W. Bush's Council of Economics Advisors, is a self-described stimulus skeptic; he recently pointed out the Democratic Congress' own budget office says that only 8 percent of the proposed "stimulus" spending will take place in the 2009 fiscal year. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/01/28/politics/otherpeoplesmoney/main4759532.shtml

Stop reproducing Washington's talking points here as facts.

Tayo-D:

@adconline,
This is what happens when you just ingest talking points from thedronic Left. It is part of the lies you guys just propagate. How many Economists did you poll to make such a bold and very misleading statement?

Apart from the CBO that declared that the stimulus willdo more harm than good, here's some information for you to digest.

The Cato Institute, a non-partisan think tank that takes broadly free-market views, was frustrated enough by the conventional wisdom in Washington that it took out a full-page ad on page 11 of the New York Times on Wednesday. The ad, which will also appear in Roll Call magazine and Thursday's Washington Post, is signed by scores of economists and says "we do not believe that more government spending is a way to improve economic performance."

Greg Mankiw, a Harvard economics professor who was chairman of George W. Bush's Council of Economics Advisors, is a self-described stimulus skeptic; he recently pointed out the Democratic Congress' own budget office says that only 8 percent of the proposed "stimulus" spending will take place in the 2009 fiscal year. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/01/28/politics/otherpeoplesmoney/main4759532.shtml

Stop reproducing Washington's talking points here as facts.

1. Where was this CATO institute when the economy was tanking? What did they think was the alternative solution?

2. Greg Mankiw says only 8% of the stimulus spending will take place in 2009, well SO DID THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION! Infact they told us unemployment would still go up and the recession would not end until 2010.
If 8% stimulus has slowed the recession this much, imagine what would happen when we spend 28%.

It is these same astro turf fools claiming to "protest" now who will be the beneficiaries of a much more robust economy in the next few yrs, trust the racists to deny Obama the credit anyway.

This is what happens when you just ingest talking points from the dronic Left. It is part of the lies you guys just propagate.  How many Economists did you poll to make such a bold and very misleading statement?

I meant economists who were in rhetorical audience. It was in bold characters in  my previous post. Not every economist's opinion mattered when stimulus debate was going on. My point is this, why aren't you telling us what right wing economists  saw in the economy that  made them come up with the idea of having  a stimulus? Who proposed to Pres. Bush the idea of having a stimulus? Why did Bush authorize  some stimuli before Obama came in?

Apart from the CBO that declared that the stimulus will do more harm than good, here's some information for you to digest.

Cherry picking CBO's endorsement.  Was in favor of a stimulus, but no need to use it as bench mark.

The Cato Institute, a non-partisan think tank that takes broadly free-market views, was frustrated enough by the conventional wisdom in Washington that it took out a full-page ad on page 11 of the New York Times on Wednesday. The ad, which will also appear in Roll Call magazine and Thursday's Washington Post, is signed by scores of economists and says "we do not believe that more government spending is a way to improve economic performance."

Any historical precedent in US to show that in  deep recession  Govt should not do anything?

Greg Mankiw, a Harvard economics professor who was chairman of George W. Bush's Council of Economics Advisors, is a self-described stimulus skeptic; he recently pointed out the Democratic Congress' own budget office says that only 8 percent of the proposed "stimulus" spending will take place in the 2009 fiscal year


Where was this fellow when his boss was mortgaging American future in order to fight the war in Iraq? Where was he when Bush signed  into  law economic stimuli?