Where is the US economy headed?

Whitehouse overstates job creation from stimulus. Why am I not surprised? Fact is I would be suspicious of any data coming out of the Whitehouse that his staff compiles.

WASHINGTON -- The White House is promising that new figures being released Friday will be a more accurate showing of progress in President Barack Obama's economic recovery plan. It aggressively defended an earlier, faulty count that overstated by thousands the jobs created or saved so far.

....

Even in its limited review, the AP found job counts that were more than 10 times as high as the actual number of paid positions; jobs credited to the stimulus program that were counted two and sometimes more than four times; and other jobs that were credited to stimulus spending when none was produced.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/10/29/early-white-house-counts-overstate-number-jobs-created-stimulus/?loomia_ow=t0:s0:a16:g2:r1:c0.061122:b28597367:z0

1 Reply

@okie,

Hey, dummy! Most of the stimulus plan money still hasn't been spent.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Distributing and Reporting

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 distributes the $787 billion as follows:
The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 distributes the $787 billion as follows - Total ARRA Funds:$288B in Tax Benefits; $275B in Contracts,Grants,Loans; $244B in Entitlements - Funds Paid Out: Total ARRA Funds:$62.5B in Tax Benefits; $47B in Contracts,Grants,Loans; $63.7B in Entitlements - Updated 10/9/09

Updated 10/08/2009

Source

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Now I'm all confused.....I thought someone had a number a while back that said that almost half the money had been spent.

I say now that the recession is over; we should only be spending money on unemployment benefits until businesses start to hire again.

Nothing else.

2 Replies

@maporsche,

Most of the articles I've read about the stimulus plan have shown that only part of the monies have really been spent; even those that have been "distributed" have not been spent. Since the numbers I posted above were released earlier this month, I'm sure the trend is somewhat similar, and believe 50% of the monies still have not been distributed.

You can get current information here: http://www.recovery.gov/Pages/home.aspx?q=content/report-progress

0 Replies

@maporsche,

maporsche wrote:

....I say now that the recession is over; ......

I don't think that belief is unanimous out there, maporsche. If you do a search of "recession is not over," you come up with 13 million hits. I know that is not conclusive, but it is interesting. Of course, if you search on "recession is over," you also come up with over 41 million hits. Maybe that means about 3/4 think its over, 1/4 does not, ha ha? I fall into the 1/4, I think the 4th quarter will be a downer. One of the reasons I believe that is the simple fact that runaway government spending and growing the government do not cure the economy.

Here is one of the 13 million hits:
http://www.businessinsider.com/gary-shilling-recession-not-over-q4-will-be-a-huge-disappointment-2009-9

0 Replies

Quote:

http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com/
http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/unabridged?va=Gross+Domestic+Product&x=29&y=10
Main Entry: gross domestic product
...
Function: noun
: the gross national product excluding the value of net income earned abroad -- abbreviation GDP

http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/unabridged?va=Gross+National+Product&x=30&y=7
Main Entry: gross national product
...
Function: noun
: the total value of the goods and services produced in a nation during a specific period (as a year) and also comprising the total of expenditures by consumers and government plus gross private investment

The GDP for 2008 was more than $14.3 trillion. If we assume government expenditures will increase $1.7 trillion in 2009, but the sum of all other components will decrease $0.7 trillion, then GDP will have increased 100% x ((1.7 -0.7)/14.3 = more than 6.99%!

How about that? All that's necessary for GDP to increase in any given year is for government expenditures to increase by more than the decrease in the sum of all the other components of GDP!

Does that mean we all will be better off if government's yearly increases in its expenditure are more more than the yearly decreases in the sum of all the other components of GDP?

~~~~ !????! ~~~~
~~~~ (O|O) ~~~~
.~~~~ ( O ) ~~~~.
Does anyone actually think so?

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

If you believe that paying bureaucrats to sort papers in an office is productive, then you might believe that government produces something, but I don't, Ican. The bureaurats in Russia did not prevent millions from starving under Stalin, nor did bureaucrats in China prevent it from happening under Chairman Mao. I don't care whether members of Obama's administration admired Mao or not, I don't.

1 Reply

@okie,

Now, show us how the US is similar to Russia and China?

BTW, okie, did you vote in the last election?

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

Now, show us how the US is similar to Russia and China?

Better yet, now you show us how the US is similar to Russia and China

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

okie the one claiming that our country is becoming more like Russia and China. It's up to you to prove his point.

Or, ask okie that question.

0 Replies

Interesting video interview with Ron Paul about the economy, as he says we haven't even begun to see the worst. And the opening point by Judge Napalitano was that everything the government has tried to run is bankrupt, which is of course so true. So why do they want to run more?

http://www.foxnews.com/video2/video08.html?maven_referralObject=11268335&maven_referralPlaylistId=&sRevUrl=http://www.foxnews.com/

1 Reply

@okie,

Quote:

Interesting video interview with Ron Paul about the economy, as he says we haven't even begun to see the worst.

considering that the run on the banks was caused by a crisis in confidence in the economic system, and nothing had been done to address the underlining problems so the lack of confidence continues.......yep.

we are standing around, waiting for the nearly inevitable "second dip"

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

Quote:

considering that the run on the banks was caused by a crisis in confidence in the economic system, and nothing had been done to address the underlining problems so the lack of confidence continues.......yep.

FYI: This happened during Bush's watch. He was responsible for the worst recession since the great depression. Mustn't forget this simple fact, because conservatives want Obama to cure everything in his first year in office.

2 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

Mustn't forget this simple fact, because conservatives want Obama to cure everything in his first year in office.

this is not a partisan issue, Obama is not even talking about fixing the problems that have caused the lack of confidence, if he was at least the DEM's would believe in him, believe that things will get better and start acting like it. Neither reds nor blues have any faith, and for good reason. As soon and the money movers get bailed out on our kids charge card they immediately went back to the same game that got us in this hole. No reform has taken place, nor is contemplated.

It is going to take a depression to fix this problem, so a depression we shall have.

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

You are naive; it is a partisan issue. Conservatives (like okie) wants Obama to have fixed everything by now. Haven't you been reading his garbage?

What part of TARP or the stimulus plan are you against, and why? What is your understanding of TARP and the stim plan?

How long do you think it'll take "anybody" to fix this world recession? How?

How would you approach this problem?
What are your solutions?

2 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

You are naive; it is a partisan issue. Conservatives (like okie) wants Obama to have fixed everything by now. Haven't you been reading his garbage

Hoover did not cause the last depression, but to this day he is blamed for being effective in getting out of it. Obama has shot his load, we are now gearing up the the next election cycle so it will be increasingly difficult for Obama to get anything done. We need jobs but it will be nearly impossible to get a proper stimulus bill now that we have spent so much on the candy give away, and we need to reform the financial sector which Obama refuses to do. Why, he can't even see his way clear to break up the banks, those "to big to fail" monsters who now have zero reason to do things right because they know that from now on the government has no choice but to bail them out as needed.

The entire society needs to reshuffle what is incentivized, and how, but we refuse to do the work. You don't need to be a wingnut to see that the building blocks for fixing America are not yet in place.

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

CI,
Obama was elected on Nov. 4th, 2008. The Repugs who are anti-everything wanted everything Bush screwed up, Nov.5th, 2008! Obama; too young, too inexperienced, too black, half white, is a muslim, has a pastor who is a black terrorist, etc., etc., etc.! OH, I forgot; he isn't even a citizen! Where's that damned birth certificate?

This morning the headline is" Christie Wins"! Okay, now what! He won't be able to roll back property taxes or stop the bleeding on high salaries for State Administrators that's bleeding the state dry! I live in NJ, so with the FAT Repug in office, more stealing is all I have to say!

1 Reply

@teenyboone,

teenyboone wrote:

CI,
Obama was elected on Nov. 4th, 2008. The Repugs who are anti-everything wanted everything Bush screwed up, Nov.5th, 2008! Obama; too young, too inexperienced, too black, half white, is a muslim, has a pastor who is a black terrorist, etc., etc., etc.! OH, I forgot; he isn't even a citizen! Where's that damned birth certificate?

This morning the headline is" Christie Wins"! Okay, now what! He won't be able to roll back property taxes or stop the bleeding on high salaries for State Administrators that's bleeding the state dry! I live in NJ, so with the FAT Repug in office, more stealing is all I have to say!

teeny, again, I do not recall any Republican saying "too black" to be president. That is a ridiculous claim. I did hear too young, too inexperienced, had a pastor that preached hatred and black liberation theology which is racist and Marxist, and also had other friends that included a former terrorist (white if you care to know), Marxists, and extreme leftists.

So if you believe in inexperience and extreme leftism - even Marxist philosophy, then Obama is your guy, keep supporting him, but I do not. I will vote for anyone that has conservative principles that has the character and leadership abilities that I think we need, be they black brown green white or yellow. Hows that, teeny, for a promise. I will go with content of character, not the color of their skin, so I will not be voting for Obama anytime ever.

2 Replies

@okie,

okie has preached more hatred than Rev Wright; so what can we make of this? If we count how many negatives posts okie has made here on a2k, I'm sure it exceeds any hatred expressed by Rev Wright - in numbers.

So, what does this prove? That okie is a hate monger.

0 Replies

Where is the US economy headed?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know