How would you fix the economy and budget issues?

[12thMan]

Here's a study on the effect ethanol production has on food prices, particularly the price of corn.

Opponents argue that it's disrupting to the food supply, which is true, and there's a direct link to the higher food prices. Proponents argue the opposite.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by 12thMan

Here's a study on the effect ethanol production has on food prices, particularly the price of corn.

Opponents argue that it's disrupting to the food supply, which is true, and there's a direct link to the higher food prices. Proponents argue the opposite.

I've looked and it seems to be one study saying it does not affect food prices then there is one that says it does drive up food prices. I don't have a problem with using E10 in my car but it really sucks for boats. It does three things. If its an older boat the hoses cannot handle E10 and the hoses break down causing even bigger motor problems. The other problem is that E10 holds and attracts moistuer and cause issues there. It does not store very well and seperates causing issues for people who store their boats for the winter.

[firstdown]

Funny now the Dems are trying to say the Rep are sabotaging the economy for political gain. Thats funny because it was the right that said that 1 trillion Obama spent would not help and it looks like we were right. So I guess the only thing the Dems can try to do is blame the Rep.

[GMScud]

Originally Posted by firstdown

Funny now the Dems are trying to say the Rep are sabotaging the economy for political gain. Thats funny because it was the right that said that 1 trillion Obama spent would not help and it looks like we were right. So I guess the only thing the Dems can try to do is blame the Rep.

Greenspan concurs.

News Headlines

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by GMScud

Greenspan concurs.

News Headlines

The stimulas was around 870 billion and we have around 300 million us citizens if I'm correct. That works out to be around 2500 per person. Seems like given families the money directly would have really been a true stimulas. That would mean a family of 3 like myself would have received around 7,500. Wow imagine how much spending would have occured.

[GMScud]

Originally Posted by firstdown

The stimulas was around 870 billion and we have around 300 million us citizens if I'm correct. That works out to be around 2500 per person. Seems like given families the money directly would have really been a true stimulas. That would mean a family of 3 like myself would have received around 7,500. Wow imagine how much spending would have occured.

The numbers in the 7th Quarterly Report (7 quarters since the "stimulus" was passed) released on Friday certainly don't help Big O. His own handpicked trio of economists put the report together, and it paints a pretty grim picture of just how ineffective this stimulus has been thus far. $278K spent for each job gained? Eeeesh.

Obama’s Economists: ‘Stimulus’ Has Cost $278,000 per Job | The Weekly Standard

[12thMan]

You guys are totally confusing the facts here. This article is referring to the stimulus passed by the Fed Reserve under Ben Bernanke, not President Obama. Under the direction of Ben Bernanke the Fed purchased $600 Billion in Treasury Bonds, also known as QE2. This has absolutely nothing to do with the "stimulus" Congress passed shortly after President Obama took office. In fact, the president of the United States doesn't control monetary policy, the Federal Reserve is the monetary authority. Alan Greenspan's critique was directed at Ben Bernanke's actions, not President Obama.

But since we're now talking about Obama's stimulus, anyone know what portion represented tax cuts? Firstdown, how come I don't hear you crowing about that?

[12thMan]

No one --not a single economist-- thought the recovery would take this long. The Administration's biggest mistake was floating that 8% unemployment number from the jump, not trying to stimulate the economy.

Historically speaking it takes time for an economy this large to recovery from a recession, such as the one we're coming out of, and even longer to replace all the lost jobs. They caved to the intense political environment and the urgency to grease the wheels and get things going so they threw out 8%. It was stupid and they know it, but they saved and created a lot of damn jobs in the process.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by 12thMan

No one --not a single economist-- thought the recovery would take this long. The Administration's biggest mistake was floating that 8% unemployment number from the jump, not trying to stimulate the economy.

Historically speaking it takes time for an economy this large to recovery from a recession, such as the one we're coming out of, and even longer to replace all the lost jobs. They caved to the intense political environment and the urgency to grease the wheels and get things going so they threw out 8%. It was stupid and they know it, but they saved and created a lot of damn jobs in the process.

A good portion of the stimulus spending amounted to spitting into the wind. You're right in saying they caved to the political environment, and consequently they lost sight of the long term good.

First time homebuyer credit was one of the stupidest things I've ever seen. We had a bunch of people who were underwater on bad mortgages, which this administration blamed on predatory lending practices, yet they turn around and give first time homebuyer credits to people who had never bought a house before. Wha?? So we're going to help the people who got screwed buying a house by helping the people who've never bought one?

Once first time homebuyer credits dried up the market went where the market should have gone, back to Earth. Houses are for people who can afford them without government help and without sketchy loans. The market was headed south whether Obama liked it or not, he just drove us into further debt by spitting into the wind.

[GMScud]

Originally Posted by 12thMan

You guys are totally confusing the facts here. This article is referring to the stimulus passed by the Fed Reserve under Ben Bernanke, not President Obama. Under the direction of Ben Bernanke the Fed purchased $600 Billion in Treasury Bonds, also known as QE2. This has absolutely nothing to do with the "stimulus" Congress passed shortly after President Obama took office. In fact, the president of the United States doesn't control monetary policy, the Federal Reserve is the monetary authority. Alan Greenspan's critique was directed at Ben Bernanke's actions, not President Obama.

But since we're now talking about Obama's stimulus, anyone know what portion represented tax cuts? Firstdown, how come I don't hear you crowing about that?

I'm not confusing anything. All I said was these numbers don't help Obama. He may not have been directly responsible for the QE2 pump, but it happened on his watch. Wrong or right, he'll ultimately be held largely responsible.

[GMScud]

You know, I'm going to apologize. I shouldn't have posted anything political today. The 4th is all about celebrating what's great about this country. So that's my bad.

Happy 4th of July, Warpath. Ive got a BBQ to attend... Softshell crab sandwiches here I come! Cheers y'all.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by 12thMan

No one --not a single economist-- thought the recovery would take this long. The Administration's biggest mistake was floating that 8% unemployment number from the jump, not trying to stimulate the economy.

Historically speaking it takes time for an economy this large to recovery from a recession, such as the one we're coming out of, and even longer to replace all the lost jobs. They caved to the intense political environment and the urgency to grease the wheels and get things going so they threw out 8%. It was stupid and they know it, but they saved and created a lot of damn jobs in the process.

Ok these numbers come from the White House. It cost us around 280,000 for each job they claimed to create but they quit using that term because they know it failed.

WASHINGTON - White House economists say the $821 billion economic stimulus passed early in 2009 is responsible for at least 2.4 million jobs that otherwise would not have existed because of the recession.
A new report by the White House Council of Economic Advisers says the spending and tax breaks in the package are phasing out and their effect on economic growth and hiring is declining.
When passed, the Obama administration said the stimulus would halt rising unemployment at about 8 percent.
Unemployment, however, peaked at 10.1 percent in October of 2009. The White House has said it underestimated the force of the recession.
The administration no longer uses the much maligned phrase "saved or created" jobs. Instead, it says the stimulus "raised employment relative to what it otherwise would have been."
(Copyright 2011 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.)

[12thMan]

Originally Posted by GMScud

I'm not confusing anything. All I said was these numbers don't help Obama. He may not have been directly responsible for the QE2 pump, but it happened on his watch. Wrong or right, he'll ultimately be held largely responsible.

Your link attached to Firstdown's statement certainly implied you did. It's all good.

Hope you had good Fourth.

[12thMan]

And I gotta say the idea that there's some magic unemployment number that will sink President Obama's chances of getting re-elected is nonsense. It's going to be hard no matter what. But it's going to much more difficult, in my opinion, for the GOP nominee to convince the American people that things would have been appreciably better under his/her stewardship. Obama sucks. Obama failed, Obama's a socialist ain't gonna fly gonna fly in a general election.

So I wouldn't hang my hat on every little economic indicator, poll, statistic, or whatever in an attempt to gauge the president's re-election prospects. No doubt the economy will be the main issue, but it's going to be a tough slog either way.

[12thMan]

Originally Posted by firstdown

Ok these numbers come from the White House. It cost us around 280,000 for each job they claimed to create but they quit using that term because they know it failed.

WASHINGTON - White House economists say the $821 billion economic stimulus passed early in 2009 is responsible for at least 2.4 million jobs that otherwise would not have existed because of the recession.
A new report by the White House Council of Economic Advisers says the spending and tax breaks in the package are phasing out and their effect on economic growth and hiring is declining.
When passed, the Obama administration said the stimulus would halt rising unemployment at about 8 percent.
Unemployment, however, peaked at 10.1 percent in October of 2009. The White House has said it underestimated the force of the recession.
The administration no longer uses the much maligned phrase "saved or created" jobs. Instead, it says the stimulus "raised employment relative to what it otherwise would have been."
(Copyright 2011 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.)

The numbers indeed came from the White House, but the Weekly Standard did the number crunching. Google Bill Kristol if you want to know how much the Weekly Standard loves Obama.

Here's the White House's rebuttal: $278K per Stimulus Job? White House Says No. - Political Punch