Well, the October unemplyment numbers came out this morning.

Experts had been expecting a 0.1% increase from 9.8% to 9.9% for the month of October. The Obama Administration was going to argue that there was a slowdown in the rate at which people were losing jobs, and this was proof that the stimulus was working.

Well, reality has just come out and bit them on the butt.

Unemployment increased by 0.4%, or 4 times what they were expecting, to 10.2%.

Additionally, the number of average hours worked by employees in the USA has decreased as well, from 33.3 hours per week in February to 33.1 hours per week in August, to 33.0 in October. That means that those who still have jobs are working (and therefore earning) less than before. Just 1 year ago, that average had been 33.5 hours per week. (Please note that these numbers are seasonally adjusted.)

Of course Obama is going to claim that his stimulus "created or saved" hundreds of thousands, maybe even millions of jobs. Well which is it, created or saved? Because these numbers certainly don't show any job creation. And I don't see very many jobs being saved either.

Is there anyone who is still arguing that the stimulus bill has been effective in any way, shape or form? Is there anyone who believes that the economy is on the upswing due to anything that Obama or the Dems have done?

C'mon folks... are you awake yet?

Elliot

tomder55

The stimulus package effectively inflated the price of gold.

Even libtard Paul Krugman thinks the economic policy has been a big zerO.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/06/op...=1&ref=opinion

Of course Krugman is an idiot who thinks the President should double down on an already failed policy.

excon

Hello Elliot:

That's the wrong question. The right question is, how far would the economy have tanked had they NOT done what they did?

But, in answer to the question you DID ask, my answer is, it's too soon to tell. I say that, knowing that any economic stimulous on the front end, takes about 18 months to show up in the back end numbers..

But, I agree with you in your overall disaproval of Obama in the economic arena... But, NOT for the reasons YOU are.. He didn't do anything with "too big to fail". He shoulda nationalized ANY institution deemed too big to fail, broken them up, and resold them. The Dems should pass laws that prevent ANY institution from every getting too big to fail again. They didn't do that.

Having said that, and in terms of our unemployed... Obama should have REQUIRED that the banks LEND the money they were bailed out with. IF they had LOANED that money, small business would have been the benefactor, and maybe, just maybe they'd be hiring again.

He didn't do that. The banks still are not loaning money. They're making money in the stock market. Obama and the Dems have done NOTHING about that.

The REAL underlying problem that caused this mess, is the huge unregulated derivatives market the huge backlog of toxic securities that haven't yet been shaken out of the economy. Obama and the Dems have done NOTHING about that.

Oh, and in terms of change you can believe in... The despised insurance lobby is SECOND only to the even more hated financial services lobby. Obama and the Dems have done NOTHING about that.

Yes, there's another shoe gonna drop.

excon

ETWolverine

And in answer to that question, if Obama had not wasted $3 trillion of taxpayer money on this failed scheme, he could have used that same $3 trillion to prime the economic pump with a tax cut which has been successful at pulling the country out of recession EVERY SINGLE TIME IT HAS BEEN TRIED.

So the answer to your question is, if Obama had not created that stimulus bill, we'd be in FAR better shape than we are today.

Uh huh... and when Bush cut taxes, which pulled us out of a recession in 2003, did you wait 18 months to see the results? Nope, because it was Bush. Back then you were one of the loudest complainers.

Fact is, though, as soon as Bush cut taxes, we saw the unemployment numbers flatten out immediately... within 3 months unemployment stopped increasing. Unemployment didn't DECREASE for another 12-15 months later. But they stopped increasing almost immdediately.

So... when is unemployment going to stop increasing as a result of this stimulus bill?

NEVER!!! that's when. Because the stimulus bill can't create jobs.

And I assume that there's a constitutional basis for such a law...

Nah, of course not. The Constitution doesn't really count. Private property law doesn't count. The right to increase personal or company wealth doesn't count. You believe that the government should have the power to take people's wealth away from them and break it up as they see fit, regardless of what the Constitution says about SEIZURE OF PROPERTY.

You complain about RICO all the time, but what you are proposing is no different from RICO... the seizure of personal assets by the government at whim.

You are such a hypocrit.

The government REQUIRING banks to make loans is what got us into this mess, excon. The government has spent the past 40 years since Carter created the Community Reinvestment Act forcing banks to make bad loans to customers who can't pay for those loans. They're STILL requiring it. And so your solution to the problem caused by requiring banks to lend money is to make the banks have a requirement to lend more money.

What a brilliant solution.

No, the real solution was to let the banks fail, let them declaire bankruptcy, and then let them come out of bankruptcy with stronger balance sheets and no bad assets on their books. Deposits would have been protected by the government, the banks would have been managed in the interim period by a receivorship, and customers would have had access to their monies. And in the end, the banks that came out on the other side of bankruptcy would have been stronger, leaner and more capable of making loans. Instead, Obama wasted another trillion dollars or so on taking over these banks. Money that could also have been used for tax cuts that would help the economy.

No, the REAL underlying problem is the bad loans themselves... which only occured because the government FORCED banks to make the loans in the first place. Without those loans existing, there would be no derivatives market for those loans, there would be no secondary market for packaging and selling those loans, and there would have been no requirement for banks to buy bad assets to satisfy the requirements of CRA, and none of these problems would have occured. You look at the secondary market as the problem, when in fact the problem began in the PRIMARY market due to over-regulation and bad government policy.

You mean the same financial services lobby that has been warning congress for decades about the problems that would be caused by CRA, but that were completely ignored by the likes of Barney Franks and Chucky Schumer? You mean that lobby? Sorry to tell you this, excon, but the financial services industry lobby is probably the weakest lobby in existence, and has been for 40 years.

Perhaps you should place the blame for this fiasco where it belongs... right at Congress' doorstep. Stop blaming those "evil" corporations for doing what the government forced them to do in the first place.

Nah... that would require admitting that corporations aren't the bad guys, and you just can't do that, can you.

Elliot

excon

Hello again, Elliot:

Sooo, you, a fellow who believes that the Constitution isn't a suicide pact, is FOR allowing this nuclear bomb, otherwise known as an institution that's too big to fail, to grow in our midst unchecked, because the Constitution says so???? Dude!

And, I'm the hypocrite??? Dude, again!

excon

NeedKarma

Great point ex!

phlanx

Of course looking at the just one country doesnt provide the answers you need

Nearly every western country is in exactly the same situation, and it will not be till next year that everybody will start to see things inproving

This is of course market influence, and demonstrates the tangled web of finance the world has

There will no longer be just a single country recession that is part of this web, purely one giant market moving on the same tides

ETWolverine

GM was called "too big to fail".

Chrysler was called "too big to fail".

Both were given bailout money and nationalized.

Both failed anyway.

And we survived.

Ergo, there is no such thing as "too big to fail". That's just an argument used by those who want to nationalize big companies.

There was no "nuclear bomb" of companies too big to fail. Never was, never will be. ANY COMPANY CAN FAIL and we will still survive. Any GROUP of companies can fail, and we'll still survive.

Stop using "too big to fail" as an excuse to nationalize and regulate companies. The Constitution doesn't allow for it, and there is no danger in letting them fail.

End of lesson.

Elliot

ETWolverine

Yes, it was... but it was also wrong.

ETWolverine

Are you arguing that the monetary, fiscal and economic policies of individual countries no longer have an effect on how a recession is handled?

Sorry but I disagree with that. Yes, the recession of one country will effect another country. But the economic, monetary and fiscal policies of those countries will determine how each of them weathers that recession, and how each of them is insulated from the effects of the recession. Different policies by different countries will produce different effects.

While I believe that there is a global economy, I do not believe that what happens to one will happen to all equally. There is strong evidence to the contrary. Policy really does matter.

Elliot