# Economic Recovery

by Phrak
Tags: economic, recovery
PF Gold
P: 3,021
 Quote by Ivan Seeking Obama's recovery continues:...
Yes Help Us Obi Wan Obama, You're Our Only Hope
PF Gold
P: 3,021
 Quote by Office_Shredder It should be obvious the argument is that the stimulus, y'know, stimulated the economy. I.e. got people not receiving economic stimulus funds to spend more money, or even just encouraging the people who did get those funds to spend more than just that money.
Why? Because Obama signed a piece of paper with 'stimulus' written on it and announced it with fan fair on the news? Because some guy two states away got some money, I'll go out and spend more? This essentially argues that the government can just announce "I stimulate you, I stimulate you, I stimulate you" three times and we'll all go out and spend more. This was the second recent stimulus by the way. The first one, the Bush 2008 stimulus, was ~$150B back Feb 2008 (as Russ notes more than three times the amount spent so far in the 2009 stimulus.) The entire amount went out by April-May 2008 and we now know it stimulated spending nearly ... none at all. One could go argue, as we hear now, that the 2008 money kept things from getting worse, it 'saved X jobs', but Im not buying it. A reasonable assumption based on cause and effect, is that the sometimes stumbling actions of Bernanke, Paulson, Geitner[1] and the TARP guarantee money from 2008 through now eventually stabilized the banks and credit markets. So though the free fall has stopped, it is quite possible credit won't get much better, as lenders now have a valid fear that their loans will inflated away given the run away spending. [1] Geitner I'm less sure of, as he calculated the best way to sell his own long sitting house was to raise the price.  Emeritus Sci Advisor PF Gold P: 12,493 Obama's recovery continues: The cash for clunkers program a raging success! http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=328229 Mentor P: 21,998  Quote by Office_Shredder It should be obvious the argument is that the stimulus, y'know, stimulated the economy. I.e. got people not receiving economic stimulus funds to spend more money, or even just encouraging the people who did get those funds to spend more than just that money. Your argument that the stimulus package can only contribute to the economy its face value is wrong. So....then what is the point of the$700 billion? Are you saying that the point of the stimulus wasn't to spend money to stimulate the economy but was to cause people to stimulate it themselves via cheerleading?

Should I point out that that's not what Obama or his supporters (see poster above me) claimed was going on?
P: 1,295
 Quote by russ_watters So....then what is the point of the $700 billion? Are you saying that the point of the stimulus wasn't to spend money to stimulate the economy but was to cause people to stimulate it themselves via cheerleading? Should I point out that that's not what Obama or his supporters (see poster above me) claimed was going on? I don't see them rejecting that argument either. The only point of the government injections is to (1) create confidence and (2) give economy a tiny push 1 and 2 are not mutually exclusive. Mentor P: 21,998  Quote by rootX I don't see them rejecting that argument either. The only point of the government injections is to (1) create confidence and (2) give economy a tiny push 1 and 2 are not mutually exclusive. Indeed, they are not mutually exclusive, but republicans are contributors to the economy too - bigger contributors than democrats, I would suspect. And his plan to spend$700 billion doesn't give them confidence, it scares them. So if this was all a trick, he at least half succeeded: he was able to trick democrats and republicans like into thinking that he really intended to spend $700 billion, instead of this "tiny" amount. But as a result of that trick, democrats got confidence and republicans got convinced he didn't know the first thing about economics. So that doesn't even make Obama a good cheerleader. And could we clarify this, please: do you and Office Shredder believe that Obama never intended to spend that money? Mentor P: 21,998  Quote by Ivan Seeking Obama's recovery... I suppose with that stance, you would also give Bush credit for turning the biggest crash in the stock market since 1929 into the softest recession we've ever had? You believe Bush prevented another great depression in 2001, right?  PF Gold P: 1,369 All of my stocks, bonds, and funds are in the black. Of course, without the market collapse, I'd have never been interested in the first place, and would probably have gone to my grave without having ever directly invested a penny. Has anyone else noticed that stock prices seemed unreasonably deflated over the last 8 months, and decided to pump money in? P: 1,409  Quote by russ_watters Indeed, they are not mutually exclusive, but republicans are contributors to the economy too - bigger contributors than democrats, I would suspect. And his plan to spend$700 billion doesn't give them confidence, it scares them. So if this was all a trick, he at least half succeeded: he was able to trick democrats and republicans like into thinking that he really intended to spend $700 billion, instead of this "tiny" amount. But as a result of that trick, democrats got confidence and republicans got convinced he didn't know the first thing about economics. So that doesn't even make Obama a good cheerleader. And could we clarify this, please: do you and Office Shredder believe that Obama never intended to spend that money? Republicans follow economic indicators just like Democrats. It is not the stimulus that is scaring the Republicans... it's the noise machine.  P: 464 Will somebody answer my questions in the liberalism thread more thoroughly? Emeritus Sci Advisor PF Gold P: 12,493  Quote by russ_watters So....then what is the point of the$700 billion?
Jobs, infrastructure, energy conservation, expansion of programs like wind power, future growth to help reduce the ratio of debt to GDP.

Why is it that Republicans always seem willing to do nation-building everywhere but here in the US?

For a nice review of the progress and who gets the credit,
http://abcnews.go.com/thisweek

Their main veiwer isn't working yet for me, but you can select the individual segments at the top of the page, beginning with Geitner.
 Emeritus Sci Advisor PF Gold P: 12,493 It is also interesting to note that when Bush took over, our debt to GDP ratio was at about 60%. Under Bush it rose to about 78% with a nearly vertical ascent during the last part of his Presidency, and now the Republicans are complaining that it will go above 80% under Obama - the guy who was handed an economy spiralling out of control and about to collapse. The hypocrisy is beyond belief!
Mentor
P: 4,499
 Quote by russ_watters Indeed, they are not mutually exclusive, but republicans are contributors to the economy too - bigger contributors than democrats, I would suspect. And his plan to spend $700 billion doesn't give them confidence, it scares them. So if this was all a trick, he at least half succeeded: he was able to trick democrats and republicans like into thinking that he really intended to spend$700 billion, instead of this "tiny" amount. But as a result of that trick, democrats got confidence and republicans got convinced he didn't know the first thing about economics. So that doesn't even make Obama a good cheerleader. And could we clarify this, please: do you and Office Shredder believe that Obama never intended to spend that money?
Democrats and Republicans have nothing to do with it. We're talking about generic people here. If Obama spends more government money, more money is being spent. This is fact. This is undeniable. If more money is being spent, more people are being paid. Fact. If more people are being paid, more people can then spend their own money. And the cycle continues.

Somehow you seem to have confused Obama's confidence boosting for the economy with political maneuvering
PF Gold
P: 3,021
 Quote by Office_Shredder Democrats and Republicans have nothing to do with it. We're talking about generic people here. If Obama spends more government money, more money is being spent. This is fact. This is undeniable. If more money is being spent, more people are being paid. Fact. If more people are being paid, more people can then spend their own money. And the cycle continues. Somehow you seem to have confused Obama's confidence boosting for the economy with political maneuvering
Office_S, Obama is not the great and powerful Oz. The money has to come from somewhere. Where do you think that is? Consider the logic of your argument: If spending in and of itself was all that was needed to create a bigger economy, then we could simply have the government spend us all into vast wealth. Visibly it doesn't work that way.
Mentor
P: 4,499
 Quote by mheslep Office_S, Obama is not the great and powerful Oz. The money has to come from somewhere. Where do you think that is? Consider the logic of your argument: If spending in and of itself was all that was needed to create a bigger economy, then we could simply have the government spend us all into vast wealth. Visibly it doesn't work that way.
That's fine, but has nothing to do with political affiliation. A small business owner whose getting paid more because one of his clients received stimulus funding isn't going to say "Well, I'm a Republican, so I'm going to burn this cash in my backyard"

We're not talking about how he got the stimulus passed, or the political ramifications of it, we're talking about the effects of the stimulus on the economy. You still haven't demonstrated where political affiliation comes into play for this
Mentor
P: 21,998
 Quote by Ivan Seeking Jobs, infrastructure, energy conservation, expansion of programs like wind power, future growth to help reduce the ratio of debt to GDP.
It doesn't matter how many times how many people say it: He barely spent any money, so the stimulus could not possibly have made a significant difference yet. Every effect needs a cause and he did virtually nothing to cause the improvements seen over the past two months.

All this turnaround shows us is that his stimulus spending isn't necessary and should be cancelled.
 Why is it that Republicans always seem willing to do nation-building everywhere but here in the US?
Why do democrats only complain about deficit spending when it is a Republican doing it?

There is nothing wrong with doing some infrastructure. There is nothing wrong with promoting wind power. But to disguise those as "economic stimulus", when they realy just are his pet projects that he wanted whether there was a recession or not is dishonest. Obama was given a blank check when he got into office due to with recession and he's going to do his best to spend as much as he can, regardless of if what he's doing is what is best for the economy.
 It is also interesting to note that when Bush took over, our debt to GDP ratio was at about 60%. Under Bush it rose to about 78% with a nearly vertical ascent during the last part of his Presidency, and now the Republicans are complaining that it will go above 80% under Obama - the guy who was handed an economy spiralling out of control and about to collapse. The hypocrisy is beyond belief!
Should I pull out more of your quotes from the past few years where you talk about the deficit/debt being too high? Look in the mirror, Ivan!

And by the way - how can you possibly believe any of Obama's economic predictions when his unemployment prediction was way off, just a month after he made it? And the GAO says his numbers on the debt are just rediculous. But I guess reality can't get in the way of your beliefs.

Also, the "vertical ascent"? That's the financial bailout last year. And guess what: we're getting that money back! So it's a pretty misleading picture we get from that graph you like to post. Obama is just plain spending money. Bush was investing it. Yeah, turning a profit wasn't of high importance, but the odds are good his spending will turn a profit. Obama's is pure debt, like he put it on a credit card.
Mentor
P: 21,998
 Quote by Skyhunter Republicans follow economic indicators just like Democrats.
And indicators follow improvements - so Republicans and Democrats still have to make the improvements happen before the indicators will show them.
 It is not the stimulus that is scaring the Republicans... it's the noise machine.
Says you. I am a Republican and I'm very nervous about doubling our national debt. The ironic thing is that we had lots of threads about the national debt over the past few years and most of the democrats on this forum were worried about Bush's spending too! The inconsistency is telling - this forum is full of partisans; reality be damned.
Mentor
P: 21,998
 Quote by OmCheeto All of my stocks, bonds, and funds are in the black. Of course, without the market collapse, I'd have never been interested in the first place, and would probably have gone to my grave without having ever directly invested a penny. Has anyone else noticed that stock prices seemed unreasonably deflated over the last 8 months, and decided to pump money in?
Unfortunately, I didn't have any to put in except for my 401K, but yeah, at the beginning of the year, I really wanted to dump a lot in. After the crash last fall, the stock market was severely undervalued.

 Related Discussions General Engineering 20 Current Events 7 Chemistry 10 Earth 0