A Disastrous Presidency

[Texas Contrarian]

Doove, I'll take it from your post that you've never run a VC or private equity firm, and that you've probably never even owned a small business of any significance. In other words, your failure to understand this issue arises from the same lack of real-world experience affecting Obama's clueless advisors, such as the new CEA chair Alan Kreuger -- who pushed the ridiculous "cash for clunkers" program a couple of years ago:

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/obama...ry?id=14420759



[quote=Doove;1731244]"In all, the firm projected that the plan would add roughly 1.25 percentage points to gross domestic product and create 1.3 million jobs in 2012. JPMorgan Chase estimated that the plan would increase growth by 1.9 points and add 1.5 million jobs. Most bullish is Moody’s Analytics, which forecast that the package would add 1.9 million jobs, cutting the unemployment rate by a point, and increase growth by two percentage points."



A couple of clueless NYT reporters? You've got to be kidding! You do realize the far-left bias of The New York Times, don't you? Everyone knows the extent to which those folks are cheerleaders for things such as pseudo-Keynesian big-spending initiatives and phony, wasteful "stimulus" packages, no matter how poorly-designed or ineffective they may be. Did you see what these people were writing about the $860 billion stimulus package in 2009? (That is, when they weren't lamenting that it might not be big enough!)

For one thing, the authors of your linked NYT piece used the opininions of a couple of hack JPM analysts in a lame attempt to bolster their case. That's the same set of geniuses that had no understanding of the toxic brew of derivatives-laden crap they were peddling, and no clue that a housing bubble was brewing a few years ago.

And the name of Moody's Analytics appears twice in your post!

Do you have any idea who their chief economist is? That would be Mark Zandi, one of the most clueless fools around. He's the co-author of last year's famous paper which lamely attempted to defend the ARRA of 2009 on the basis that it created or "saved" about 3.5 million jobs, despite appearances to the contrary. And what did he base that on? The fact that the macro models he used said it would do that!

People who know what they're talking about openly made fun of this idiot, but left-wing bloggers and a complaisant media parroted his every word and he enjoyed a lot of TV appearances. He spends much of his time trying to ingratiate himself to politicians of all stripes, including McCain in 2008 as well as a number of Democrats.

By the way, Zandi is also the "famous economist" who said a couple of years ago that food stamps produce a fiscal multiplier of about 1.73! That's absolutely ridiculous, and that sort of macro model has been thoroughly discredited in recent years.

Originally Posted by Doove

While they work out the details of how to pay for it.

Senate Democrats' ideas of how to pay for this political (not economic!) stimulus package now mostly revolve around slapping a 5.6% surtax on income in excess of $1 million, even if it comes from capital gains or dividends. That won't pay for much of anything; it won't raise anywhere near as much revenue as the wealth-envy crowd thinks.

Do you really think that a number of senate Democrats want to block this deficit-busting lemon only because they're not sure how to pay for it? It should be obvious to almost everyone that both political parties are playing games with this and related issues. But some of you guys seem to think the motives of your favorite party are as pure as the driven snow, and that everything is always the fault of the opposing party.

If you don't understand that, you're simply a blind partisan.

Doove, if you're going to try to debate an issue, why not make an effort to engage in critical thinking and attempt to craft a cogent argument yourself, rather than simply parrot clueless and biased fools with axes to grind?

[JD Barleycorn]

You know better than that wellendowed; in the Congress no democratic has yet to submit the bill officially so they can't vote on it and in the Senate Harry Reid (d) has stopped the vote on the "jobs" bill. Even Obama gave a speech about his bill but waited almost a week before he actually turned anything in to the Congress while complaining that no one was voting on it. This whole thing is a ploy, recognize that or at least acknowlege that it is possible.

[Doove]

CM,

You seem to have this running theme in your posts that anyone who disagrees with your assessment is clueless. Don't you understand that it's we liberals who are supposed to be elitist?

Yeah, Macroeconomic Advisors, JPMorgan Chase, and Moody's, they're all clueless biased fools because you're the smartest guy in the room.

Forgive me if i take their clueless biased opinion over your clueless biased opinion - today, tomorrow and 6 months from now. If that makes me a "blind partisan", then too damn bad.

[BigLouie]

[BigLouie]

[Texas Contrarian]

Originally Posted by Doove

CM,

You seem to have this running theme in your posts that anyone who disagrees with your assessment is clueless. Don't you understand that it's we liberals who are supposed to be elitist?

Yeah, Macroeconomic Advisors, JPMorgan Chase, and Moody's, they're all clueless biased fools because you're the smartest guy in the room.

Forgive me if i take their clueless biased opinion over your clueless biased opinion - today, tomorrow and 6 months from now. If that makes me a "blind partisan", then too damn bad.

And you seem to have this running theme of snarkily insulting me every chance you get! Remember my calling you out on all your obnoxious insults in the D&T forum? For a while, you continually attacked anyone who disagreed with Obama on any issue by attempting to lump them in with "birthers." Remember?

Why don't you make an effort to think this through and try to gain a better understanding of the issue? How many times do pseudo-Keynesian stimulus packages have to fail in the real world before some of you guys begin to doubt their efficacy? Are you completely unaware of the robustness analyses commissioned by the ECB in recent years?

I've debated this and similar issues with a number of smart liberals on the finance blogs. The difference is that they actually craft their own arguments and know better than to parrot people everybody knows are either biased or fools. You seem not to know the difference.

My smart liberal friends, probably like you, are in favor of expanded social democracy (such as single-payer health care, greater unionization of the workforce, generous unemployment compensation, lavish public-sector pension plans, etc.) -- but they're also smart enough to know that it has to be paid for with something like a VAT, like in Europe. They understand arithmetic and know that restricting tax hikes to "the wealthy" ain't gonna do it.

They also manage to avoid obnoxious little jabs such as this:

Originally Posted by Doove

...because you're the smartest guy in the room

...but to a person, I'd say they are secure with themselves and don't suffer from feelings of inadequacy. They don't feel a need to say things like that.

[BigLouie]

Sounds like the Republican platform doesn't it.

[BigLouie]

What a lot of people do not realize and probably do not want to accept is that the federal debt has gone up with EVERY president. You basically cannot stop it.

Under Reagen it went from 1.9 billion to 3.7
Under Bush sr. it went from 3.7 billion to 4.9
Under Clinton it went from 4.9 billion to 5.6
Under Bush jr it went from 5.6 billion to 8.2
Under Obama it has gone from 8.2 billion to 9.2

It will go up under the next president as well.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by BigLouie

Sounds like the Republican platform doesn't it.

Actually, many of those characteristics can be ascribed to the current administration.

[BigLouie]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Actually, many of those characteristics can be ascribed to the current administration.

Actually it describes the Bush presidency to a T

[Texas Contrarian]

Originally Posted by BigLouie

Actually it describes the Bush presidency to a T

The Bush administration was a disaster in a variety of ways, especially from a fiscal standpoint. Everybody knows that, and Bush has few (if any) defenders in this forum. But that dead horse continues to be beaten by some of you guys who seem oblivious to the fact that the Obama administartion is also an unmitigated disaster.

We're in serious trouble as a nation. Can't you guys on the left coherently discuss ways to get our economy back on track?

We have structural problems that are being mentioned by very few people in either of our dysfunctional political parties.

More than ever, the U.S. is desperate for serious leadership by someone who is willing to make tough decisions and step on a few toes, not just another empty suit.

Barack Obama is not capable of leading an army of ants to a 4th of July picnic basket.

[Doove]

Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

And you seem to have this running theme of snarkily insulting me every chance you get! Remember my calling you out on all your obnoxious insults in the D&T forum? For a while, you continually attacked anyone who disagreed with Obama on any issue by attempting to lump them in with "birthers." Remember?

Yeah, i remember you getting pissed off because i was doing the exact same thing you were doing. Remember?

Why don't you make an effort to think this through and try to gain a better understanding of the issue? How many times do pseudo-Keynesian stimulus packages have to fail in the real world before some of you guys begin to doubt their efficacy?

Your claiming they failed in the real world doesn't mean they failed in the real world. That's my point. You don't know any more than anyone else regarding what succeeded and what failed. For every 'you' out there, i can find someone who's just as smart, maybe even smarter who will say the opposite. And why i should believe some anonymous poster on an escort review board over Moody's or JPMorgan Chase is anyone's guess. Frankly, when it comes to ideological hacks, the only difference between the people you claim are hacks and yourself is that you're anonymous.

Your economics are based on nothing but theories. There is no way to prove, definitively, whether you're right or whether Moody's is right. Even after the fact, since the only way to know who was right is by knowing what would have happened if the other philosophy was followed at any given point in time. An utter impossibility.

My economics are based on one very simple fact - capitalism is set up so that there are going to be rich people, and there are going to be poor people. And the poor people are just as necessary for its success as the rich people are. Period. End of story. So because of that, rich people are living off the backs of poor people just as much as poor people are living off the backs of rich people. The only difference is, as i see it, the rich people can't stop bitching about it.

...but to a person, I'd say they are secure with themselves and don't suffer from feelings of inadequacy. They don't feel a need to say things like that.

You mean, things like this?

Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

In other words, your failure to understand this issue....Obama's clueless advisors... A couple of clueless NYT reporters? You've got to be kidding!....those folks are cheerleaders... phony, wasteful "stimulus" packages...used the opininions of a couple of hack JPM analysts in a lame attempt to bolster their case. That's the same set of geniuses that had no understanding of the toxic brew of derivatives-laden crap they were peddling, and no clue that a housing bubble was brewing a few years ago....That would be Mark Zandi, one of the most clueless fools around....it won't raise anywhere near as much revenue as the wealth-envy crowd thinks...Do you really think that a number of senate Democrats want to block this deficit-busting lemon only because they're not sure how to pay for it?..If you don't understand that, you're simply a blind partisan....rather than simply parrot clueless and biased fools with axes to grind?

You're a very intelligent man. But you're also a bit of a fool.

[Whirlaway]

Where did you get these numbers from? I think you have wrong numbers !

Our debt is now at $14.7 trillion (without Obamacare added in).........

Originally Posted by BigLouie

What a lot of people do not realize and probably do not want to accept is that the federal debt has gone up with EVERY president. You basically cannot stop it.

Under Reagen it went from 1.9 billion to 3.7
Under Bush sr. it went from 3.7 billion to 4.9
Under Clinton it went from 4.9 billion to 5.6
Under Bush jr it went from 5.6 billion to 8.2
Under Obama it has gone from 8.2 billion to 9.2

It will go up under the next president as well.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by BigLouie

Actually it describes the Bush presidency to a T

Obama has expanded the use of military force into Yemen, Pakistan and Libya. Obama rewarded his supporters on Wall Street. Obama has continued to employ the Homeland Security Act to justify his expanded executive prerogatives. What about the assassination of an American citizen? Some say that's a violation of both civil rights and human rights. The Obama administration has been described as oppressively sexist. The Obama administration is using AttackWatch.com to compile a list of those who speak unkindly of the administration, and there is Soro's "tax exempt" media conglomerate that actively seeks to discredit those who write or speak against the Obama administration: how's that for cronyism and media control? Larry Summers, "Fast and Furious" and Solyndra more than cover cronyism and corruption. And when hasn't Obama and the left scapegoated and vilified the Tea Party and the "fat-cat millionaires"? You are a true Kool-Aid addict, and you only see what you want to see.

[Texas Contrarian]

Originally Posted by Doove

Yeah, i remember you getting pissed off because i was doing the exact same thing you were doing. Remember?

Yeah, I do -- but apparently you don't have an accurate recollection, since you mischaracterized what happened. You started right off the bat by attacking me and one other member with gratuitous cheap shots. It quickly became apparent that you had difficulty engaging in a debate without tossing snide little barbs. When someone does that, they shouldn't be surprised when they get it handed right back to them, along with having their cluelessness ridiculed when they place it so starkly on display.

Originally Posted by Doove

Your claiming they failed in the real world doesn't mean they failed in the real world.

Go ahead and believe whatever you wish, but I can assure you that fewer and fewer people believe that massive $860 billion stimulus package was anything more than a big disappointment. It obviously produced nothing like the intended set of results and frittered away the lion's share of a trillion bucks. But then, I hang around in the private sector. You know, the place from which all productive job creation emanates.

This may surprise you, but the view from here looks a little different from the one enjoyed by those who hang out in the faculty lounges of our major universities.

Our problems are deep and structural. They can't be successfully addressed by simply applying another dose of pseudo-Keynesianism. That isn't going to work any better than it did last time.

In my opinion, one of the most fundamental reasons why this "jobs act" will not work is that it's largely based on temporary and obviously unsustainable measures. Its biggest feature is a $250 billion collection of tax cuts, mostly consisting of temporary payroll tax cuts and suspensions on the employer side. (We already put in place a big payroll tax cut on the employee side earlier this year.) Presumably, this amounts to something tantamount to a small one-time credit for creating a job. This may do a tiny bit of good at the margin -- in other words, a few incremental jobs that would otherwise not be created might come into existence.

The problem with all this is quite obvious to those who make hiring decisions. We rarely hire someone based only on what it's going to cost this year and next year. The key determinant is how much it's going to cost to hire someone over the longer term -- perhaps 5-10 years or more. It's expensive to hire and train someone who might only be a short-termer.

Another impediment to job-creation is the uncertainty overhang arising from the new health care bill. Nobody can be sure what the mandates are going to end up costing, and whether the legislation will even survive an upcoming court date. For decades, smaller businesses have been the primary job-creators in the U.S., and this issue is far more difficult for them to navigate than for their larger competitors.

Originally Posted by Doove

My economics are based on one very simple fact - capitalism is set up so that there are going to be rich people, and there are going to be poor people. And the poor people are just as necessary for its success as the rich people are. Period. End of story. So because of that, rich people are living off the backs of poor people just as much as poor people are living off the backs of rich people. The only difference is, as i see it, the rich people can't stop bitching about it.

OK, now I see!

It looks like you are not quite satisfied with something like a European-style social democracy. You'd like to go for the Full Monty!

Maybe a leader such as a modern-day Huey Long would be more to your liking? Or maybe Father Coughlin?

And if you think I'm "bitching" about something, it's that the current disastrous mix of incoherent policy proposals is going to do little to set the nation on a more prosperous course. If we stay on our present course, I think income inequality will get worse and the American middle class is at risk of being badly crushed. That wouldn't be good for any of us -- rich, poor, or in-between.

Originally Posted by Doove

...But you're also a bit of a fool.

Thanks!

(Coming from you, I'll take that as a compliment.)