Facebook
Fark
Digg
Reddit
Stumble
Tuesday, June 1, 2010 | 2:01 a.m.
A report by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office released last week says the Recovery Act has had a significant effect on the economy, including lowering unemployment and increasing the nation’s gross domestic product.
The CBO said the act, which has been much maligned by the right wing, has helped the economy every quarter since it took effect, and analysts expects that trend to continue. For the first quarter of this year, the CBO said the act’s policies have:
-- Raised the GDP by up to 4.2 percent;
-- Lowered the unemployment rate by up to 1.5 percentage points; and
-- Increased the number of full-time equivalent jobs by up to 4.1 million.
Democratic Rep. George Miller of California, chairman of the House Education and Labor Committee, said the report makes it “clear that the Recovery Act was the right decision.”
“Before this Congress and President Obama took decisive action, our nation was losing more than 750,000 jobs a month,” he said. “It is clear that without the Recovery Act, our nation would be still dealing with an economic catastrophe caused by the financial scandals.”
Miller said more should be done to continue spurring the economy forward, and he is correct. Unemployment, at 9.9 percent nationally and 13.7 percent in Nevada, is still too high. The Commerce Department reported last week that consumer spending was stagnant in April.
Congress continues to work to find ways to stimulate the economy and help people who have been hurt, but Republicans and some Democrats have tried to stop or slow those efforts. Conservatives have tried to paint stimulus spending as wasteful and ineffective, and that has slowed progress.
On Friday, the House narrowly passed a bill that extends benefits to unemployed workers and provides a series of tax cuts to stimulate the economy. The legislation was scaled down because of complaints about spending, no matter what the CBO report showed.
It is a shame that some members of Congress don’t see the facts. As the CBO report shows, without the Recovery Act, the nation would have been more deeply mired in the economic downturn — but the nation still needs more help. Yet some members of Congress don’t get that.
Republicans in the Senate, for example, tried last week to siphon off stimulus money to go toward immigration enforcement — instead of creating jobs. Thankfully, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., was able to work to kill that plan.
Reid has been diligent in his efforts to improve the economy, for Nevada as well as the nation. For example, last week he led the Senate in passing an appropriations bill that includes funding to help Nevada, and he introduced legislation aimed at spurring the creation of renewable energy jobs here.
The nation needs more of that kind of thinking because we are not out of the economic woods yet. Hopefully, enough members of Congress will see that Americans are still suffering and will take action to do something about it.
So once again we get see that Democrats are liars when it comes to enforcing the immigration laws of this country. They talk the talk about "border security" and "enforcement" but don't walk the walk. Hmm, here's a thought, if there were less illegals up here working jobs those jobs just might go to an out of work American citizen.
Obama's adminstration promised that the "stimulus" would lowered unemployment under 7% by now.
So did they lie or are they incompetent?
CorporalPebble.....
Relax! The economy Obama inherited from "clueless George" was a lot worse off
than every one thought......it's going to take more time that originally believed.....
I realize the recent news saying that the economy is slowly improving is not something that you want to hear but a word of advice....suck it up my little buddy. The stimulus plan is working....
-- Lowered the unemployment rate by up to 1.5 percentage points; and
-- Increased the number of full-time equivalent jobs by up to 4.1 million.
1. Is the income of new jobs comparable to the jobs lost prior?
2. How many people leaving the ranks of the unemployed are now part-time versus full time prior.
3. How many of the jobs created are jobs paid for by taxpayers versus jobs created by private businesses.
All I've noticed in the past few years are more retail centers closing down, businesses shutting their doors, and little or no effort to refurbish downtrodden retail corridors.
If this 'growth' is simply a function of more government created publically paid jobs, it isn't sustainable, and further, will leave us far worse down the road then we are now.
Would one of you kind liberals give me a few examples of how Obama's policies have benefitted privately owned Las Vegas businesses.
Cadaver...
So, according to you, Harry Reid is solely to blame for the current economic situation that we have in Nevada...."Its all Harry's fault." Do I have that right?
In other words, Nevada's other senator, John Ensign shares none of the responsibility for our current situation....do I have that right?
Of course, I've always believed that the economy of a state is tied to the leadership or lack of leadership displayed by the governor and the legislature of that state.... Am I wrong in believing that?
I'm all ears! Fill me in.....
Cadaver...
Take the same advice that I gave CorporalPebble.......relax, be patient & suck it up! The economy is slowly getting better!
That actually doesn't mean it is working to improve the economy.
For example you could lower the unemployment rate by outlawing trucking and hiring people to ship goods via backpack. Overall, our wealth would significantly decrease because of the inefficiency. What I am implying here is that government spending to create jobs doesn't necessarily mean they are creating jobs that, in turn, create wealth.
BTW, unemployment increased from 9.7 to 9.9 between March and April.
Furthermore, government spending is included in the GDP calculation. So spending more money doesn't necessarily mean you've increased the national wealth.
http://www.writeonnevada.com/2010/05/us-...
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, unemployment among adults in April averaged 9.9 percent nationally but was 25.4 percent among teenagers. White teenagers averaged an unemployment rate of 23.5 percent, while 37.3 percent of African-American teenagers were estimated to be unemployed. There is no data on teenage unemployment for Hispanics or Asians.
There is also a large disparity in unemployment among adults age 20 and older:
White: 9 percent
Black: 16.5 percent
Hispanic: 12.5 percent
Asian: 6.8 percent
Does anyone really trust the CBO to put out unbiased numbers? For it is supposed to be non-partisian, I find it hard to believe that someone doesn't have a thumb on the scale so to speak. CBO has been all too favorable to the administration in its reports.
Everybody trusts the CBO whenever it issues numbers that fit their beliefs. I don't question that. I also do not question that without the stimulus, the economy would be even worse. Look at it this way: we got into this mess through unregulated stupidity. Now, thanks to the government stepping in, we are getting out of it, slowly but surely. If you think the solution in '08 was that lying hypocrite from Arizona with his dimwitted sidekick ... and if you think the solution in '10 is Chicken for Brains or She Who Wants to be Rand Paul ... then you really do need to move to another planet.
Cadaver...
You didn't answer all three of my questions....no surprise there!
Is the governor and the legislature of a state responsible for the economic situation found in that state?
Also, what role, if any, does the Senators from that state play in the economy of their state?
I see you and Gibby joined hands on this one.....no surprise there! Gibby never gives credit where credit is due, especially if the person that should be recognized is a Democrat...
In the final get go, take the advice that I gave you before:
"relax, be patient & suck it up! The economy is slowly getting better!"
I'm also extending the same advice to dhvincent1, Gibby and boftx.....
Look for Harry Reid to win re-election come November. The people of this state are starting to wake-up and see what their choices are, and many are starting to realize that the logical choice is Harry!
Six more years of Harry Reid! That has a special sound to it, don't you think?
Job creation is a lagging indicator. We've gone from losing 700,000 jobs per month to gaining a few hundred thousand jobs a month. During the downturn of the Reagan era it took 40 months to start creating jobs. During this downturn job creation started at 16 months. In addition the banking system is solvent and the banks are beginning to pay back many of the loans they received with interest. The car companies are making money again. Chrysler just announced they're going to put 1000 people back on the line to make jeeps. GM is coming back. GM built 70 million cars over the last 10 years. How many jobs would we have lost in the United States had GM gone under? Lumber prices have gone through the roof which indicates construction is picking up all over the country.
Housing prices have stabilized in most parts of the country and are starting to move up in other parts. In places like the Hamptons housing prices are nearly at pre-recession levels. Auction houses around the country are reporting brisk sales of art and collectables.
Even the stock market is coming off a 70% year. Last year was one of the best years of history. Even the low-quality bond market had an explosive year last year.
Every major indicator is far stronger than a couple of years ago during the collapse.
Zip, its likely to be artificial and we are probably going to languish for a few years. All we've done is shuffle problems from one sector of the economy to another.
PS, if job growth continues to be in the public sector rather than the private, don't expect a vigorous recovery - public sector jobs are far less likely to produce wealth which is necessary for more jobs, higher wages, and a better quality of life.
The creation of wealth is a consumption driven phenomenon. Because of an aging world consumption is going to be very lax for decades to come. Our own economy is consumption driven with over 70% of the economy being consumer driven. There are 90 million aging people in this country alone. Most people's incomes drop off substantially as they voluntarily go into retirement or get forced into it. This affects consumption. The problems that are occurring in the world today have very little to do with government and everything to do with vast numbers of aging people, reduced spending, and increased entitlement costs.
The 18-45 demographic is the group that spends all the cash. There are fewer of these folks and more of the 60 and older folks that don't consume as much.
In addition the wealth affect is working in reverse with trillions in lost wealth in almost all investment catagories. People are old , have less and spend less.
So then you really should be against Social Security shouldn't you, since it is taking money from poorer people to give to older wealthier (older people have more, not less as you stated) people leaving the poorer young people with fewer dollars to use for consumable goods and services...
Have you noticed how the sycophant supporters of the extremist radical republicans pick and choose the facts, twist and distort them, and then propagandize, propagandize, and propagandize.
Last year the casinos in the Las Vegas area took in $15,694,000,000 which is a stimulus, but the sycophant wingnuts state that the Federal stimulus funds are not a stimulus. Money is money and acts as a stimulus irregardless of where it comes from.
People work and pay into Social Security for 40 years or more and it becomes a basic income for the Seniors and the disabled. Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid also act as a stimulus. The wingnut political operatives with their insidious lies try to drive a wedge between the races and between the Senior and their children. How low can they go?
The fiscally irresponsible radical extremist republicans want to privatize SS for their Wall St. criminal cronies that collapsed the Economy that cost America 20% of it's total wealth. If they had been able to privatize Social Security, the Seniors and the disabled would have received a 20% in the reduction of their SS checks. Many would have reduced their medical care, cut back on food, shelter, etc.
My friends, the wingnut supporters are advocating subtle "death panels" for the Seniors and the disabled. This would be a slow "euthansia", and they are despicable for even suggesting so.
This has nothing to do with wingnuttery and everything to do with logic.
If you take $10 from your left pocket and put it in your right pocket are you better off by $10?
Cadaver said....
"There is no point in answering your questions. You would just proceed to waste additional bandwidth with your banter."
Hmmmmmm......I must remember that....That's a new twist by some one over on the right who has backed themselves into a corner and has not a clue on what to say....
Keep in mind what I said....
"relax, be patient & suck it up! The economy is slowly getting better!"
El Lobo is right the economy will recover. The problem is that it will recover inspite of the bailouts and stimulus not because of it.
People spending money stimulates the economy, irregardless of where it comes from.
Patrick_R_Gibbons is the Education Policy Analyst at NPRI/NV at 2073 E.Sahara Ave., Ste.B, LV,NV 89104.
From the content of his posts, would you say that he is a paid propagandist?
What radical extremist republican training school did PGR attend?
zippert1......
Good post! I agree with you when you said "every major indicator is far stronger than a couple of years ago during the collapse."
Of course, good luck getting Gibby, Cadaver, and several others to understand & accept what you're saying....
The economy is slowly getting better. The recovery will take some time but it's starting to happen.
Adam Smith......oops', I mean Gibby believes that the government stimulus is nothing more than taking $10.00 from one pocket & putting it into the other pocket....
No surprise there.....I guess Gibby believes that the Obama administration should be using the old Herbert Hoover approach to this whole thing.....
I think most of us know who Hoover was and how successful he was in pulling us out of the Great Depression...
Hoover left office in March of 1933 with 23.8% of the work force unemployed. Of course, the farm population wasn't figured into those stats.
If that had been the case, the unemployment rate would have been over 30%, maybe as high as 35%....
Yep, that Hoover & his side-kick Republicans were "economic supermen."
Their belief that the economy would get better all by itself, if left alone, was one of the biggest misnomer's of the 20th Century....
No just a political junkie who enjoys debate with well-reasoned rational people (of which you are not). And I'm not affiliated with any party, never have been. You know that -- you just don't care because you are a political zealot.
I attended Penn State and Oklahoma (neither PLSC departments are right wing) in fact the department head of PLSC in Oklahoma was elected the Democrat mayor of Norman -- she is a feminist who really likes smart growth and loathes economic growth -- hardly libertarian, right wing, capitalist, or free market ideals. But again, facts don't seem to stop you.
El Lobo,
Where do you think the stimulus money comes from?
Yes, we must remember that Gibby is nothing more than a "paid propagandist."
His job as an "Education Policy Analyst" tells the story....
In other words, always take what Gibby says with "a grain of salt."
PS,
Herbert Hoover signed the Davis Bacon Act, Mexican Repatriation Act, Smoot Holly Tariff Act, Federal Home Loan Bank Act, Emergency Relief and Construction Act and created the Reconstruction Finance Corporation. Most of this was part of the New Deal btw.
You sure have a funny definition of "doing nothing"
Ahem, El Lobo, you didn't answer the question (as usual).
Where do you think the stimulus money comes from?
Most colleges are ran by liberals, and/or democrats. I could make a joke and say "thats because they're smart" but the time for divissive rhetoric is over.
Part of human nature is to find a sole reason for our troubles, and in this political climate we have its easy to point the finger. The truth is both parties act the same, they just have different agendas. Republicans really want us to believe that they are about lowering taxes by responsible spending? When did this happen, as soon as Obama took office? Both parties are trapped in the cycle, its like a drug addiction only its lobbying and campaign finance. For us to sit here and blame George Bush or Harry Reid shows how ignorant we truly are. As a Union member I got a lot of flack for buying a Toyota. Most guys drive chevy's or fords. My truck was made in Texas with alot of the engine components coming from Michigan. Now I bought the truck because of how it drove and how it looked (its sweet) but look at the facts, at a time when the big 3 were sending manafacturing out of the country as fast as they could come up with new lines, companies like Toyota and Hyuandai were investing in our country. Now faced with that I am presented with the all to common "its a foreign company" thats traded on an international stock market, most people cant seem to comprehend the intricacies involved in economics. For instance rather than blame Harry Reid, lets blame ourselves. I mean we shop at Wal Mart (I dont but most people do), Target, Sears, Kohls. Next time your there try only buying products made in America, I gaurentee you will not get what you want, yet we spend all our dollars at these stores and these stores invest their money overseas. Frankly its borderline colonialism, but do we question the corporations? Know we blame our politicians and keep trying to save a dime. Next time as the store manager why none of the stuff they sell is made in America, you should see the look on these peoples faces. Better yet go buy school supplies, pretty much all of it that Ive found at the sotres is made ovwerseas, so explain to me how we can continue to fund education if all the money we spend on the supplies for school is invested overseas? For once I would like to hear US take responsibility instead of blaming the President or Congress. America is a union and a union is only as strong as its membership.
Gibby.....
You and I have gone down this road before. Yes, you are correct, Hoover did attempt a few things, but over-all he did not believe that government interference into the economy would work...
He believed that if left alone, the economy would get better by its self.... That seems to be your belief!
His personal philosophy kept him from doing very much that was productive in terms of getting the economy back on its feet and moving forward!
Most of the things that he attempted failed badly & it took the leadership of FDR to pick-up the pieces and get things going again...
Hoover didn't have his heart in what he was doing, and he was unable to get the American people behind him......
By November of 1932, they were determined to get rid of him and they did. FDR carried 42 of 48 states & had almost 500 electoral votes....
Hoover's beliefs were pretty much the same beliefs held by present day Republicans...DO NEXT TO NOTHING!
Gibby.....Gibby....
The stimulus money comes indirectly from the people by way of the government. Of course, I say that knowing that the government comes up with the money by just printing more money or borrowing more money....
It's called deficit spending which four of the last five presidents have done to one degree or another....
Your problem is that you ACTUALLY believe that the government should do NOTHING and the economy will get better all by itself.....that's just not true!
I was surprised to hear you say that you agreed with me that the economy will recover.
I was not surprised when you did not give credit to the stimulus program and its role in bringing that about....you will never do that!
ElLobo, I have to disagree with your last sentence..."DO NEXT TO NOTHING!"
The radical extremist republicans want to do "ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!"
Their idea of being a fireman is to just "let it burn."
Patrick Gibbons, of the Nevada Policy Research Institute, which is funded by the conservative Cato Institute and calls itself "a free-market think tank that seeks private solutions to public challenges" not surprisingly is pushing his company's and the Cato Institute's position again here:
"So then you really should be against Social Security shouldn't you, since it is taking money from poorer people to give to older wealthier (older people have more, not less as you stated) people leaving the poorer young people with fewer dollars to use for consumable goods and services...."
Patrick's employer would like to privatize social security and basically roll back Roosevelt's New Deal, even in the midst of a massive recession created in part by a dismantling of the New Deal's financial regulations.
As I've said before, Patrick, if you're going to push your employer's position--at least add to your moniker "I get my paycheck from the Cato Institute and I am working on company time here."
That way, the unsuspecting will realize that you are a paid lobbyist and can act accordingly.
AP
"If you take $10 from your left pocket and put it in your right pocket are you better off by $10?"
Of course, that's not what happened, is it?
What kind of policy analyst doesn't understand multipliers?
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/arch...
Looks like NPRI doesn't study macroeconomics.
Patrick.. Regarding your above comments that old people have "more". It depends how you define old. My 21-year-old son thinks everybody over the age of 40 is old. I am 20 years past that and still consider myself young and energetic.
The average woman gets a $900 a month Social Security check. The average man $1100. For about a third of those recipients that is their sole source of income. Families headed by people 70 and over have something in common with families headed by people 24 years and younger. They are the poorest groups in our entire economy. Last time I checked average family income for people in those groups was about $20,000 a year.
I was involved in health trust work in California for many years. A report was thrown on my desk with an interesting statistic. The elderly people in this country over 70 consume the most animal food outside of animals themselves. Seniors are particularly fond of wet cat food. If you're getting $900 a month and eating Friskies I'm not sure that you have "more" .
There are about 60 million people in this country that have less than $20,000 a year in earnings. Seniors make up a big part of that group.
Ksand99.. A great deal of the stimulus was funded through deficits. It's not coming out in anybody's pocket. It's coming out of thin air. All they're doing is printing money and giving it to people that need it.
The reason Greece is having so many problems is that they are part of the Euro zone. They can no longer print money. If they still had the Drachma they would print as much money as they needed and the currency would adjust accordingly. That would be the end of it.
I love reading how the spin doctors feed us a line of crap.
There isn't anything this administration has done to help America; they've done just the opposite.
Show me a liberal or any politician that has helped us a whole, I'll show you a liar every time.
Obama isn't any better than Bush, Obama is just different, he's a better liar and fooled his followers into voting his not good for nothing pathetic life into a lifetime of free income. Obama pulled played you all for the best scam of a lifetime, he lied and he's being paid $400,000.00 for life for his lie and he broke no laws, the perfect scam pulled off and you idiots fell for it. Now who is the stupid one? Look in the mirror, you voted this idiot into office.
It's up to Americans to save America. All the politicians do is smooth out the rough spots.
Hmmmmm...I see its2hot has decided that the present Obama administration hasn't done anything positive for this country....
That's interesting......
I wonder if he/she voted for "cluelsss George " in 2000 & 2004. Maybe he/she didn't vote at all?
I bet its2hot believes that Obama will not win re-election in 2012.... I wonder who he/she believes is the front runner in up seating Obama.....
JEB "little brother" Bush? Sarah Palin? Newt Gingrich? Mitt Romney? "Insanity" Hannity? Mickey Mouse? Donald Duck?Elmer Fudd? ...candidate to be named later?
"Ksand99.. A great deal of the stimulus was funded through deficits. It's not coming out in anybody's pocket. It's coming out of thin air. All they're doing is printing money and giving it to people that need it."
Zippert, the money's being borrowed. I believe Japan now holds the largest amount of U.S. debt.
The republicans would have us cut spending, which would have made the recession that much worse. You think the Vegas economy is bad now? Just imagine if the 17% unemployed could not receive assistance!
Cutting spending is a sure-fire way to prolong the recession. Our debt and deficits can be dealt with after the worst is over. The United States is not insolvent.
Ksand and El Lobo
1) Multiplier effects are often overstated.
2) Multiplier effects ignore the multiplier effects of what could have happened if the money went somewhere else
3) Borrowing money means you take money from other sectors of the economy. If the government borrows it, the private sector cannot. Hardly anyone argues that government spending is more efficient than private sector spending
4) Macroeconomists have very bad logic. They get bent out of shape on aggregate spending and hate when people save in recessions, totally forgetting that savings is rewarded by interest which is paid by people who want to spend now.
5) If government was printing money to spend (it doesn't literally do that today, more or less it just adds 0's to bank books) that means the real growth is eaten away by inflation -- its like swimming in a tidal current. To overcome the forces of inflation you have to print more, and more and more and more until you have hyperinflation and you've wrecked the economy. No macroeconomist advocates this though they are happy with modest inflation because it eats away at people's savings.
So if the money comes from borrowing (which means other people can't borrow) or from printing money (which means inflation thus reducing our purchasing power) how do you not see that we are just taking money out of one pocket and putting it another?
PS, if by "do nothing" you mean cut government spending, slash taxes, eliminate trade restrictions and tariffs, reform entitlement programs, create a sustainable consumer driven health care reform, simplify the tax code, and eliminate burdensome regulations that are designed to protect insiders and crush their competition? Then yes, that is the "nothing" I want done.
Stop the mindless rhetoric yourself guys.
ksand99 said:
"Cutting spending is a sure-fire way to prolong the recession. Our debt and deficits can be dealt with after the worst is over. The United States is not insolvent."
I believe this sums it up! There's no question that the stimulus is working and will continue to be the main reason we're able to pull our selves out of the current recession....
Gibby's "pie in the sky" approach is the last thing we need. If one listens to Gibby, one starts to believe that one of the main reasons why we're in the mess that we're in would be a huge factor in pulling us out of our current debacle....."deregulation."
Obama needs to bring back the Glass-Steagall Act and restore to the system the various regulations that worked so well for over 70+ years. FDR knew what was going on, and he did what had to be done....
Big business and Wall Street will never regulate themselves. Government must do that....
"Trickle down economics" works only in the short term and right now it's the last thing we need. If tax cuts for the wealthy actually works as well (creating jobs...) as some would have you believe, we wouldn't be in our current mess....
We must get people back working, buying things and creating jobs by putting money back into the economy. If that requires us to spend government stimulus money in order to get that going, so be it...
We can worry about our debt and deficits once the economy improves....
There is no evidence the stimulus is working. Any positive movement you guys claim it works, any negative movement you dismiss. The economy will heal in spite of the efforts of Obama/Bush not because of it.
All you can do is point to one deregulation bill. You completely ignore the role of government in the crisis - laws which artificially increased credit and forced lenders to give money to people who didn't have it. Past bailouts that created moral hazards, an unwillingness to properly oversee giant semi governmental entities.
If putting people back to work was the thing that got the economy going why not have people dig ditches and fill them in again?
We can't worry about our debt, because that burdens the economy and weakens our recovery. Between 2015 and 2020 we will be as upside down as Greece if this continues.
We need to limit federal power so your side can go ruin its own economy without dragging the rest of us down with old dead ideas that get reborn with different names.
Gibby.....
Believe what you will....it really has NOTHING to do with anything. The stimulus is working! I know that you refuse to believe that but I would be shocked if you did.
Your beliefs in a complete "free market" system is nothing new. We've always had a few people running around chanting that nonsense...
The comparison between our economy & what is going on in Greece is quite a leap on your part...by 2015, most people in this country will have forgotten all about the Great Recession of 2008-2010...
I just get a kick out of the fact that you NEVER give credit where credit is due....
Because the Bush/Obama stimulus deserves none of it. Taking money from one pocket to put in the other creates no additional wealth. We just shifted wealth from one sector of the economy to the other (in the case of government bailouts it is taking money from healthy parts of the economy to fund those who wasted a fortune and just got destroying tons of wealth).
On its face macro theories are absurd and illogical. We need limited federal power to mitigate the damage your theories do -- they really are dangerous and regressive for the welfare of all humanity.
El Lobo asks Its2hot the following:
"Jeb "little brother" Bush? Sarah Palin? Newt Gingrich? Mitt Romney? "Insanity" Hannity? Mickey Mouse? Donald Duck?Elmer Fudd?"
Too funny.
AP
Patrick Gibbons writes:
"We need to limit federal power so your side can go ruin its own economy without dragging the rest of us down with old dead ideas that get reborn with different names."
Yeah, it was too much federal power that allowed BP to destroy the Gulf of Mexico for the next half century.
Sure.
AP
Oh yeah the gulf was sure destroyed from the last oil spill. Oh yeah, that was a government run oil rig too. Hyperbole alert from AP...again.