Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Mainstream Politics and Economics -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Steve Lokness who wrote (6616)	1/9/2012 11:53:39 AM
From: Paul Smith	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 85487

only reason it fails in your eyes is that it was proposed by Obama Did it do what the administration said it would do? No. Result not achieved = failure

To: Steve Lokness who wrote (6616)	1/9/2012 11:55:34 AM
From: Murrey Walker	1 Recommendation Respond to of 85487

…like exploding inflation or rapidly rising interest rates. My guess Steve, is that you don't do much in the way of shopping for food. The cost of a basket of food has exploded! And that's not a political statement. I suspect (TIC) one could also consider the rising cost of gas, too. ;-)

To: Steve Lokness who wrote (6616)	1/9/2012 12:02:26 PM
From: Bearcatbob	2 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 85487

What has failed? First of all our current "recovery" is the result of many initiatives. I will grant that some of the components of the stimulus effort were good - eg 100% expensing of equipment and actual infrastructure. I think approximately 1/3 of the stimulus was spent this way. The expensing of equipment investments and actual infrastructure will actually continue to yield results. Also, do not forget there was the extension of the Bush tax cuts and QE 2. This is in contrast to money that went into payoffs to cronies For instance, many of the government employees simply continued in their bubble world and are now being laid off. Nothing was gained for that delay - except payoffs to those who supported him. If money was to be given to government employees some give back should have been obtained - give back that would yield long term benefit. Hell, some of the money was used to give government employees raises. Additionally, I do not know how much of the spending has been made permanent - as the deficit has not gone down. The money should have been spent on projects that produce ongoing results - not simply postpone pain. Also, I would have unleashed the domestic energy industry to displace foreign oil and the $800 million a day we send overseas. Bob

To: Steve Lokness who wrote (6616)	1/9/2012 1:54:38 PM
From: HPilot	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 85487

What has failed? It's all about unemployment, stupid! Not that you, just that's how the quote "It's all about the economy, stupid", ended. But if the shoe fits?

To: Steve Lokness who wrote (6616)	1/9/2012 9:11:14 PM
From: Little Joe	2 Recommendations Respond to of 85487

Actually it was not until after the tea party came into existence and the revolt at the polls in the last election that the economy began to improve. (If in fact it has begun to improve, which is in dispute). So the teaparty can claim they are responsible for the recovery with as much credibility as Obama can make that claim. lj

To: Steve Lokness who wrote (6616)	1/18/2012 7:41:37 PM
From: TimF	1 Recommendation Respond to of 85487

What has failed? The plunging loss of jobs under Bush has been stopped and we are on the uptick. Failed doesn't mean "destroyed the economy". It would be expected that unemployment would eventually go down. In this case 1 - The job decline continued after Obama was in office. 2 - A big portion of the shrink of unemployment from the peak is the decrease in size of the labor force, not new jobs. 3 - Slowest recovery since WWII From Gene Epstein at Barron's: . . . The recovery from the 2008-09 recession has been the slowest since any recession in the post-World War II era. It has taken nine calendar quarters since the recession ended in the second quarter of 2009 for real gross domestic product to climb back to its fourth-quarter '07 peak. Assume the same rates of growth during the recoveries from the two previous recessions that rank second and third in severity since World War II -- '81-'82 and '74-'75 -- and the recovery from the recent recession should have taken half as long. Try other comparisons. In the more than 41 years since 1970, the average quarterly rate of growth, calculated on an annual basis, has been 2.8% -- and that includes all negative quarters in recessions. By contrast, over the recent nine quarters of recovery, the annual rate of growth has averaged just 2.4% -- and as mentioned in last week's column, the Blue Chip consensus forecast calls for more of the same through 2012. Following the recessions of '74-'75 and '81-'82, the first nine quarters of growth averaged, respectively, 5.1% and 6.3%... johnrlott.blogspot.com 4 - All all with a noticeable increase in the federal government's debt level.