BojanglesPaladin:
As I recall it was at 8.2% when he was sworn in and it is at 8.24% or something as of the last report. I would call that being where it was when he took office.

About a percent of that is from government jobs that were slashed. You can do that math of what that meant for private sector jobs.

Lord Dimwit: qorkfiend: BojanglesPaladin: we must also make significant cuts in a federal budget we can no longer afford.

What, specifically, would you cut?

I realize you weren't asking me, but I'm curious how much we would save if we closed every single military base we had overseas except for those specifically required by NATO. Let the rest of the world defend itself. I bet it would save at least as much as if we had cut NPR's funding.

We don't have bases out there to defend other countries for their sale. We have them to defend our empire.

cameroncrazy1984: Yes, but it's not like the rate has stayed static.

I did not say that it did. But what I DID say was and is correct, and you were in error when you said "unemployment is not where it was when he took office".

By the way, you have not articulated why the fact that it got much worse before it got better means that Obama's policies worked, or even what specific policies you think have increased employment. Out of curiosity, which specific policies do you attribute Obama's job growth to?

Spazmojack: Lord Dimwit: qorkfiend: BojanglesPaladin: we must also make significant cuts in a federal budget we can no longer afford.

What, specifically, would you cut?

I realize you weren't asking me, but I'm curious how much we would save if we closed every single military base we had overseas except for those specifically required by NATO. Let the rest of the world defend itself. I bet it would save at least as much as if we had cut NPR's funding.

We don't have bases out there to defend other countries for their sale. We have them to defend our empire.

*sake

*Sigh*

The Republitards and their current obsession with US debt and austerity is backwards. I doubt their is a single one of them that understands economics.

See the US can currently borrow money at the rate of 0.6% for five years, 1.5% for 10 years and 2.55% over 30 years, these low rates mean that effectively it is free money. The expected increase in inflation wipes out the interest, no makes the interest paid on these rates effectively negative.

The argument about taxes is illogical when the US government should be borrowing and spending as much money as it can possible get it's hands on. The US government should be spending a trillion dollars a year on nothing but infrastructure. Road repair, electrical grid repair, new roads, expansion of the electrical grid, new schools, new water treatment plants, new hospitals, last mile fiber optic cables to everyone's homes, expansion of NASA, etc... should be the priority.

Yes, we can jump start this economy, create jobs, and put the US back to work if the Repulitards would just give up their partisan bickering and obstructionism.

Well to be fair, the "Clinton boom" was not so much a boom as so much the development of a brand new sector. While it created a lot of new wealth, most of it was a bubble. But what it did prove is that the whole "raising taxes will destroy the economy" is nothing more than a horseshiat platitude that Republicans harp on about while attempting to raise taxes on the lower and middle classes.

BojanglesPaladin: By the way, you have not articulated why the fact that it got much worse before it got better means that Obama's policies worked, or even what specific policies you think have increased employment. Out of curiosity, which specific policies do you attribute Obama's job growth to?

Yes I have. I've said the stimulus brought it down. Twice. In posts that you have quoted.

Skyrmion: Clearly, the boom came from Clinton's middle-class tax cut. The higher taxes on the rich must have just stopped the boom from being even bigger.

Actually it was the middle class tax cut which did it in a lot of ways. It took the money from Republican tax cuts that never trickled back down and made it trickle down. The problem back then is like the problem now, there just isn't enough money to go around for the consumer class, most is stuck at the top because the tax cuts promote the hoarding of cash and not the reinvestment of it back into the economy.

Lord Dimwit: Sure, but I'm saying anyone can go out and buy a computer and an "intro to programming" book and progress from there. Some of the best programmers in the world are self-taught. You can't go out and buy a "DNA sequencing for dummies" kit and "beginning virus creation" books and go from there.

If you could, I think those books would be easier to understand than the intro to programming book. The DNA sequencing for dummies book would be on par with any cooking book with a recipe.

Lord Dimwit: The potential number of man-years of education is an order of magnitude larger for computer science, is I guess what I'm saying.

Perhaps we are both biased, I see computer programming as significantly more difficult to understand. I think the reason for the disparity, why you can get a programming for dummies and not a sequencing for dummies book, is because programming is orders of magnitude cheaper than biotech.

qorkfiend: What, specifically, would you cut?

I dunno. I don't have a list. I would unceremoneously freeze any automatic annual increases in any federal budget at a dead stop period. Without reducing anything, I believe that will knock 2-5% off the top . I would also put a hold on any non-critical endowments, funding for the arts, funding for D.A.R.E., etc. for a one year period. Not permenantly, but just until some equilibrium is reached. Since this congress seems very prone to passing temorary stop-gap measures that only last 6 months to a year, that should be no problem.

How about you?

Lord Dimwit: I realize you weren't asking me, but I'm curious how much we would save if we closed every single military base we had overseas except for those specifically required by NATO. Let the rest of the world defend itself. I bet it would save at least as much as if we had cut NPR's funding.

Certainly more. But NPR does nothing for protecting our national interests abroad, Since this is a direct and exclusive repsponsibility of the Federal Government, and funding NPR is not, I would favor cutting funding to NPR over closing all our bases.

I don't remember where I read it, but there was some print article I picked up in 2009 that insisted that every Republican administration was met with an economic Golden Age that carried through the duration of the term and collapsed the second a Democrat took office. It sang the praises of Nixonomics and tarred Carter with the "national malaise." It found a justification for every single economic twist that could be credited or blamed on whoever the current administration was at the time - and it ENTIRELY left out the Clinton administration. Didn't even mention him; implied the recession George W. Bush inherited was the same one George H.W. Bush was fighting. Against increased regulations from Congress, of course, probably.

The last paragraph managed to blame January 2009 job losses on Obama. It was a masterpiece in intellectual dishonesty. There's no way the writer didn't know he was lying through his teeth. You can't even Google "economic trends 1968-2009" without getting information that invalidated his entire premise. I really wish I'd kept it - I would have put it in my scrapbook next to "blame Clinton for Hurricane Andrew because 1992 is close enough."

hurdboy: Cute. The very wealthy benefit the most from the "Bush Tax Cuts." So do many dual-income fifty-somethings. Bill Clinton got a strongly-worded rebuke from the Administration for pointing out that the lower bracket cuts aren't free. In fact, they make up a not-insubstantial portion (something like 40%, if memory serves). Let me reiterate -- I support raising taxes on everybody.

And? There can't possibly be any negative effects from raising taxes on the lowest bracket? What benefits do you see (besides a personal desire to make sure they have "skin in the game") coming from a tax increase on the lowest bracket? How is it beneficial for anyone to have the income bracket with the highest propensity to spend, spend less money?

Slaves2Darkness: *Sigh*

The Republitards and their current obsession with US debt and austerity is backwards. I doubt their is a single one of them that understands economics.

There is a big difference between understanding and caring. For some, its the end of days, so the most important thing is to hate.

cameroncrazy1984: Yes I have. I've said the stimulus brought it down.

Can you articulate what specific policies?

BojanglesPaladin: cameroncrazy1984: Yes I have. I've said the stimulus brought it down.

Can you articulate what specific policies?

What part of "the stimulus" is not specific enough for you? It was a $787 billion package of jobs initiatives and tax cuts.

Spazmojack: Lord Dimwit: qorkfiend: BojanglesPaladin: we must also make significant cuts in a federal budget we can no longer afford.

What, specifically, would you cut?

I realize you weren't asking me, but I'm curious how much we would save if we closed every single military base we had overseas except for those specifically required by NATO. Let the rest of the world defend itself. I bet it would save at least as much as if we had cut NPR's funding.

We don't have bases out there to defend other countries for their sale. We have them to defend our empire.

I realize that. I was being slightly trolly (hence the NPR dig; for the record I'm very pro-NPR).

That being said, a lot of our overseas military infrastructure is designed to counter a threat that no longer exists (the USSR). We need a blue-water navy to protect shipping routes, and I understand the realpolitik reasons behind having military bases in the Middle East (maintaining regional stability and protecting Saudi Arabia means cheap, plentiful oil).

The problem is that the greatest current military threat is China, and for that we don't need bases in Germany, for example. And to be more honest, if we ever got into a shooting war with China, we'll have bigger problems than whether or not we have forward deployment points. The other main problem is North Korea, but that's mostly South Korea's problem. I don't know that they (DPRK) is crazy enough to actually invade ROK even if we left (and I don't think China would let them, though I'm probably overestimating the amount of control China can exert over DPRK), so I'm wondering how much of a troop draw-down we could get there - especially if we ask for the ROK to build up their forces and ask other interested parties to foot more of the bill.

(Yes, I know the forces in Korea are officially under the UN flag, that doesn't mean we're not the lion's share of the troops there.)

So yeah, we could dismantle most/all of our European bases, rethink our obligations to South Korea, shift a bit of the savings to our Pacific bases and our Navy, and think very seriously about what we're doing in the Middle East. That would result in a reasonable amount of savings, I would think, since defense is our largest single expenditure.

The other big nut to crack is Social Security. I'm not really sure what to do there but, to be honest, the problem will kinda solve itself after the Boomer generation dies off. There is a very large demographic hump that will age itself out of the system over the next thirty years and the worker-retiree ratio will be drastically different. In the meantime, a huge chunk of the Social Security problem would be fixed by removing the upper limits on SS contributions in taxes and having post-age-65 income limits for collecting SS.

BojanglesPaladin: qorkfiend: What, specifically, would you cut?

I dunno.

How can you call for cuts if you don't know what you would cut?

BojanglesPaladin: Without reducing anything, I believe...

I'm sure you believe that. I'm not sure doing what you totally imagine to be true is the right way forward.

BojanglesPaladin: How about you?

I'd cut the fark out of the military budget.

BojanglesPaladin: But NPR does nothing for protecting our national interests abroad, Since this is a direct and exclusive repsponsibility of the Federal Government, and funding NPR is not, I would favor cutting funding to NPR over closing all our bases.

A free, unbiased press is crucial to the foundation of our democracy. It's in the first amendment dude. Our country greatly benefits from a press with information that is not driven by private money. When deciding what to cut, why would you fund a foreign interest over a domestic one?

cameroncrazy1984: What part of "the stimulus" is not specific enough for you? It was a $787 billion package of jobs initiatives and tax cuts.

Exactly. It was HUGE and did a lot of different things. Some were succesful, some were not.

Can you articulate what specific policies you think countered unemployment? And maybe how?

lennavan: Lord Dimwit: Sure, but I'm saying anyone can go out and buy a computer and an "intro to programming" book and progress from there. Some of the best programmers in the world are self-taught. You can't go out and buy a "DNA sequencing for dummies" kit and "beginning virus creation" books and go from there.

If you could, I think those books would be easier to understand than the intro to programming book. The DNA sequencing for dummies book would be on par with any cooking book with a recipe.

Lord Dimwit: The potential number of man-years of education is an order of magnitude larger for computer science, is I guess what I'm saying.

Perhaps we are both biased, I see computer programming as significantly more difficult to understand. I think the reason for the disparity, why you can get a programming for dummies and not a sequencing for dummies book, is because programming is orders of magnitude cheaper than biotech.

I see computer programming as easier than cooking. :)

But yeah, the cost factor is part of what I was saying, though not very well. There's also the...results...factor. Anyone who writes a program, no matter how bad a programmer they are, has immediate tangible results and, if they're halfway decent, it's something they can actually use. For example, I've written tools that I end up actually using on a daily basis that make my job and life easier. I will admit I don't know enough to know how accurate the following statement is for biotech, but, I can't imagine what I would do that would get results (i.e. make it more than a hobby) in biotech. If it were easy to create customized bacteria that whitened your teeth and freshened your breath, they'd already exist.

There's also the danger factor. Despite what the media tells you, it's very hard to do a whole lot of real-world damage with a computer. If home biotech kits had the same penetration as home computers, hundreds of millions around the world, someone would cook up a virus that could be very, very bad.

lennavan: How can you

I didn't ask for your input, and did not respond to you in any way, so your comments are neither required or requested. But you are always free to provide them.Just be clear that you are responding to an answer to someone else..

Unfortunately I don't see anything of merit in your poost other than a sometwhat blatant and boorish attempt to start some sort of online trolly slap-fight.

I just don't find that at all interesting. You may have better luck with someone else.

anelson41: Step 1. Repeal Depression Era Law "Glass-Steagal Act" that kept banks from wildly speculation and fraudulent activity
Step 2. Banks wildly speculate and commit fraudulant activity
Step 3. "Dot Com" Boom occurs -- funded by wild speculation and fraudulent activity
Step 4. Politicians claim victory
Step 5. Wall Street profits and pulls the plug

Step 6. Blame poor people

/You missed the final one

BojanglesPaladin: cameroncrazy1984: What part of "the stimulus" is not specific enough for you? It was a $787 billion package of jobs initiatives and tax cuts.

Exactly. It was HUGE and did a lot of different things. Some were succesful, some were not.

Can you articulate what specific policies you think countered unemployment? And maybe how?

Link

dittybopper: cman: Same reason why the economy rocked during the industrial revolution. The Internet/computer (or digital) revolution brought upon a time of significant investing in new technologies. While a lot of it was real growth, most of it was just a bubble

This. And that bubble popped before Clinton left office.

/Was laid off in the post-Y2K programmer glut.

If I'm hearing you both right, you're saying that government investment into DARPANet led to significant private investment in new technologies. Most of which was just a bubble, but some of which was real growth.

Am I right so far?

The famous example of Pets.com is ... discouraging, but Amazon went from a 3 digit stock evaluation in 1999 to a single-digit evaluation in 2001, and now it's back up to 234 bucks a share. I think Cisco was also one of the near-casualties, and they're also back above their dot-com bubble prices.

I'm no expert, but I've lived through two "bubbles" and one seemed a good deal more bubblish than the other.

The Dot Com bust seemed like a market correction more than anything else.

The Housing bust seemed like a shiatload of money literally disappeared. Not because it was poorly spent, but because it didn't exist in the first place. A "bubble" of money was "inflated" by private industry in the same way that drawing and redrawing did back in the 18th-19th centuries.

I've thought for a few years now that the dot-com bubble worked out to REAL LOSS, whereas the housing bust was more FAKE GAINS.

/not actually arguing so much as talkin' at ya'll.

bhcompy: The Dotcom crash and subsequent recession caused the surplus to go away. Bush wasn't any part of that

The massive tax cuts and rebates didn't help.

Jodeo: The "Clinton Boom" explained... ...sorta

1. The end/wrap-up of the Savings and Loan Bail-out at the end of the 1980s in the 1990s.
2. Increased IT spending in anticipation of the Y2Kpocalypse.
3. The Dot-Com boom.
4. China promoted to most favored nation trade status.
...among other factors.

* Bush 1 was fired for bringing on the largest tax increase in history: $500 Billion.
* The dems in Congress were fired for doing it again: Another $500 Billion increase (net $1 Trillion roughly).
* The net effect of Bush 2's tax cuts was about reducing those tax increases by one-third, or $350 Billion.

The economy grew despite the tax increases because of the opportunities that existed (especially Y2K and the internet). Those fizzled going into 2001. W's cuts stimulated economic growth until the housing crisis blew up the economy (a natural market correction to the unintended consequences of government action coupled with horrific investment strategies to mask high-risk investments).

Hey, if the Clinton years were so great, why not go back to the spending levels of the latter 1990s as well?

The solution is to have a flexible tax rate that can be adjusted (up or down, modestly) as we can with interest rates. Implement gradual increases as the economy grows and decreases as the economy stabelizes or slows. The balanced budgets of the 1990s was due to fiscal restraint, sure, but also because these two tax increases were still in effect. W's tax cuts helped, but RIGHT NOW we need to overhaul the tax code.

Unfortunately, we are spending our nation out of existence (bi-partisan blame for all). I hear Costa Rica's nice.


Oh, wait - shoot. This is a Fark Politics thread: WHY DO I DO THIS TO MYSELF???

Increased taxation on businesses and rich lead to greater investment of funds into expansion and jobs. This was proven during the 1940s and 1950s (Eisenhower anyone?).

CPennypacker: Link

I have the Googles too. (BTW that link is a report from over a year ago). I know what the CBO thinks.

But that does not answer the question of which specific polices Cameron 1984 thinks countered unemployment? And maybe how?

But hey, maybe he needs some time to fire up the Google and go research whisch ones he thinks did.

BojanglesPaladin: cameroncrazy1984: What part of "the stimulus" is not specific enough for you? It was a $787 billion package of jobs initiatives and tax cuts.

Exactly. It was HUGE and did a lot of different things. Some were succesful, some were not.

Can you articulate what specific policies you think countered unemployment? And maybe how?

Juan Williams can do it better than I can. And he's such a lib, isn't he?

Starting in April 2009, shortly after the stimulus was enacted, the outlook began to improve. The economy began losing fewer jobs per month and eventually started gaining jobs each month. In January 2012, the economy added 243,000 jobs. GDP in the final quarter of 2011 increased at a rate of 2.8 percent. Private-sector layoffs are now well below pre-2008 crisis levels. The stock market stabilized and there are now some signs of improvement in the national real estate market.

By all those factual economic measures, the stimulus was successful.

In 2012, a similar question can be asked: "Is the economy better off than it was four years ago?"

The factual answer is yes, and the stimulus is a large part of the reason why.

BojanglesPaladin: CPennypacker: Link

I have the Googles too. (BTW that link is a report from over a year ago). I know what the CBO thinks.

But that does not answer the question of which specific polices Cameron 1984 thinks countered unemployment? And maybe how?

But hey, maybe he needs some time to fire up the Google and go research whisch ones he thinks did.

I didn't need google. Read my last link. It's full of facts and figures and all kinds of good stuff.

BeesNuts: The Dot Com bust seemed like a market correction more than anything else.

The Housing bust seemed like a shiatload of money literally disappeared. Not because it was poorly spent, but because it didn't exist in the first place. A "bubble" of money was "inflated" by private industry in the same way that drawing and redrawing did back in the 18th-19th centuries.

I don't know enough to be expert-y at this, but I agree with your assessment. It certainly seemed as though some investments in the dot com bubble went to stupid things, but they didn't just *vanish* as it seemed with the housing bubble.

Dusk-You-n-Me: hurdboy: Why'd you have to point those out? You're gonna make Paul Krugman cry.

I can't speak for Krugman but I would guess he'd be on board with raising taxes on high income earners and investing in education and infrastructure.

Oh look, he is!

BojanglesPaladin: CPennypacker: Link

I have the Googles too. (BTW that link is a report from over a year ago). I know what the CBO thinks.

But that does not answer the question of which specific polices Cameron 1984 thinks countered unemployment? And maybe how?

But hey, maybe he needs some time to fire up the Google and go research whisch ones he thinks did.

Link

Fine there's one from May

I appreciate how you dismiss the link as a google search and press for more evidence when all you have done is question his assertion that the stimulus had the impact that he claimed it had.

May have played a hand in it.

hurdboy: Dusk-You-n-Me: I would guess he'd be on board with raising taxes on high income earners and investing in education and infrastructure.

Which isn't what Clinton/Reich did (Or GHW Bush and Reagan before). Next?

Clinton didn't raise taxes? Are you high?

Bush 41's bootstrappy and Randian policies? Clinton inherited that boom...

cameroncrazy1984: Juan Williams can do it better than I can. And he's such a lib, isn't he?

I don't know why this person's political leanings would affect which specific policies YOU think had an impact. And yes, I have the Googles too.

Also, this says basically that "The Stimulus helped unemployment". I get that. You think the Stimulus curbed unemployment.

I would also point out something else he said that you didn't quote:

"The president's critics can, however, fairly argue that the stimulus was not as successful as the Obama White House claimed it would be when it was selling it. Some of their predictions about the scale of improvements the stimulus would bring turned out to be flat wrong."

But anyway, I wasn't asking him.

Can you articulate what specific policies you think countered unemployment? And maybe how?

CPennypacker: I appreciate how you dismiss the link as a google search and press for more evidence when all you have done is question his assertion that the stimulus had the impact that he claimed it had.

I didn't press for more evidence, nor did I even ask you. I asked Cameron for HIS(Her) thoughts, not for a collection of linked data points.

Nor have I asserted that the Stimulus did not have the effect he says it did. I am aksing whihc specific policies he attributes this percieved effect to.

BojanglesPaladin: Can you articulate what specific policies you think countered unemployment? And maybe how?

Maybe you should read the article. It articulates my position quite well. Also "as" successful is not the same as "successful"

Can you name any programs you would cut? It's interesting that you keep badgering me on a question I've answered several times and given citations to, and you won't name one single program you would cut that won't affect the economy in an adverse way