The American Spectator : Romer Resurrects 'Created or Saved'

Text Size

Breaking News

Romer Resurrects ‘Created or Saved’

By Philip Klein on 1.13.10 @ 12:01AM

Obama adviser admits economic models “often wrong,” but touts new administration report claiming stimulus responsible for 2 million jobs.

Christina Romer, chair of the Obama administration’s Council of Economic Advisers, on Tuesday evening touted the office’s latest quarterly report to Congress finding that 1.5 million to 2 million jobs have been “created or saved” by the economic stimulus package.

“Close to two million jobs have been created or saved by the Recovery Act as of the end of 2009,” Romer said on a conference call with reporters. She called it “a truly stunning and important effect of the Act.”

Earlier this week, ABC News had reported that the administration would retire the phrase after it became the subject of ridicule.

The CEA report also claimed that while the stimulus package had boosted gross domestic product by 3 percent to 4 percent in the third quarter of 2009, its effect was only 1.5 percent to 3 percent in the fourth quarter. Romer said that the impact on growth is typically the largest when spending initially gets “ramped up.”

During the call, I had a chance to press Romer on the methodology used to calculate how many jobs were “created or saved.” I noted that a lot of economists were predicting that there would be positive job growth in December, but it turned out that 85,000 jobs were lost. If economic forecasts based on statistical models are often proven wrong, I asked, then why did she feel confident touting the fact that nearly 2 million jobs were “created or saved”?

She acknowledged that economists were often wrong, but still said she had reason to be confident in the administration’s assumptions about what the job market would have looked like without the stimulus.

“I will be the first to admit that none of us have a crystal ball, and you’re absolutely right,” Romer told me. “What I do, what any professional economist does, what any professional forecaster does, is to use everything we have from historical relationships, to knowledge of economic theory, to advanced statistical methods to try to do the best we can to say, ‘what does the data suggest about the path we were on?’ And things like that. So, fundamentally what you’re saying is, ‘This is hard,’ and I would agree completely. That’s why my office spends a lot of time on this. That’s why professional forecasters across both the government and in private industry spend a lot of time trying to do the best that they can. You’re right, we are often wrong. But I think after the fact, we are often correct.”

Romer said that the fact that other economists have come up with estimates that are in the ballpark of the administration’s numbers increases her confidence.

“I very much believe that we have done a careful and credible job and I do stand very much behind these numbers,” Romer said.

She said that the estimates were further corroborated by reports coming in from recipients of federal aid.

“This I think is a sign of how seriously both we and the Congress have taken trying to measure the impact of this,” she said. “This is something that hasn’t been done before on a major fiscal stimulus like this one.”

However, the jobs data coming in from recipients has been largely discredited after the revelation that jobs were said to be created in non-existent Congressional districts.

In December, the unemployment rate stood at 10 percent, and the number of jobs lost since the signing of the stimulus bill rose to over 2.7 million. Romer argued that since the average monthly job losses were much higher this time last year, it bolsters the view that the stimulus is working.

As of the end of 2009, Romer said, about one-third of the $787 billion in stimulus spending and tax measures had been distributed, and that number rises to about one-half when obligations to spend the money on certain projects are taken into account.

Putting aside the fact that modeling what the job market would have hypothetically looked like without the stimulus bill is subject to a high degree of uncertainty, touting the number of jobs that were “created or saved” is not useful politically.

People don’t cast their votes during elections based on hypothetical scenarios, but on how they perceive reality. Once Americans turned against the Iraq War, all they saw was that Bush had created a huge mess. It didn’t do Republicans any good in 2006 and 2008 to argue that we would have been at greater risk if Saddam Hussein were still in power, or to emphasize that “Bush kept us safe” since Sept. 11. By the same measure, if the job climate is still weak come November, Romer’s statistical models suggesting that millions more jobs would have been lost were it not for Obama’s actions will be of little comfort.

About the Author

Philip Klein is The American Spectator’s Washington correspondent. You can follow him on Twitter at: http://twitter.com/Philipaklein

Letter to the Editor View all comments (131) | Leave a comment Leave a comment

Osamas Pajamas| 1.13.10 @ 1:33AM

Amazing. This administration tells flat-out lies and their unindicted co-conspirators in the Democrat-captured media report this bullshirt with a straight face and the benign smile of the pickpocket who has just insinuated his hand into your pants and made off with your wallet.

Son Of Sam | 1.13.10 @ 12:54PM

It won't matter what kind of spin they put on this, and in fact, I believe they've made their own electoral situation even worse. How? Well think for a minute: how many people are already jobless, or waiting for the ax to fall, and then these smug, heartless dumbasses get their fat heads on TV to say how everything is "sunshine and lollipops": how do you think that makes them feel? Pretty pissed off, I'd say! If I were unemployed (or under employed, like I was last year), and I heard about all these jobs being created or saved, I'd be wondering "alright, where the hell is MY job?"

Time to take their hands out of our pants and put them in handcuffs.

stand strong until freedom dawns
Son Of Sam
http://www.samadamssos.bravehost.com/
samadams1765@gmail.com

Marcell| 1.13.10 @ 6:10AM

Obama is doing a better job than Bu$h thus far.

The Federal Reserve Made $52 Billion In 2009
Jan 12 2010, 1:00 pm by Daniel Indiviglio

The Federal Reserve reaped quite a nice reward for its rescue efforts during the financial crisis. According to its preliminary unaudited 2009 results, the central bank made a whopping $52.1 billion in profit. Somewhere, Ron Paul's blood is boiling. But before populist outrage at these profits take hold, let's consider a few things.

First, the vast, vast majority of these profits are going back to taxpayers -- $46.1 billion. As the release says:

Under the Board's policy, the Reserve Banks are required to transfer their net income to the U.S. Treasury after providing for the payment of statutory dividends to member banks and equating surplus to paid-in capital.

Those statutory dividends were $1.4 billion, while the surplus capital was $4.6 billion. Taxpayers get the rest.

So the first point is that taxpayers actually benefit from the Fed's profits. A lot. They got 89% of its net income. As a taxpayer, I'm pretty happy about that.

Now how did the Fed manage to do so well? Well, at the end of the day, the Fed is just a bank. And if you read much business news in 2009, then you know that it was a pretty good year for banks. In late 2008 and early 2009, when most of the Fed's intervention took place, assets were traded at very low prices. Since then, many of those assets' prices have increased. Thus, a lot of those assets that the Fed purchased appreciated substantially in value during 2009. And the Fed had bought a lot of assets through its rescue efforts.

I'll be curious, however, to see the Fed's full financial statements, which have not yet been released. I'd be interested to know which types of securities, specifically had the biggest gains. It must have had some losses on the assets it purchased, so the gains from other assets must have been quite substantial to wipe out those losses and still result in such a healthy profit overall.

Lastly, I wonder what the Treasury will do with a cool $46 billion? Will it reduce the deficit? Put it towards a jobs stimulus program? Lower the amount of money it plans on forcing banks to pay in the form of a putative tax? Or maybe just squander it.

Ryan| 1.13.10 @ 8:14AM

Here's the problem - the Fed didn't have to purchase those assets. They could just as well been sold on the private market.

Rank and File| 1.13.10 @ 10:33AM

Unemployment this time last year was at 7.6 percent. Today it's around 10.2 with threats of going toward 10.5. Instead of focusing on the employment bloodletting, Mr. President thought it was a good idea to push through social programs that make it even more difficult for the private sector (the place where jobs come from) to start moving and hire people. How is it that Obama is doing better? Are you measuring "better" in something that we can measure?

Flee| 1.13.10 @ 12:44PM

How will the taxpayers get paid? This was all borrowed $ in the first place. Will the treasury give taxpayers a refund with this windfall? Not all taxpayers wanted to bailout institutions or companies. They received a return on $ they printed. Yeah for them but how does it help us?

Chet| 1.13.10 @ 10:55PM

Marcell: THEY'RE PRINTING MONEY AS FAST AS THEY CAN....
THERE IS NO "PROFIT"...
...and you're wondering what they're gonna' do with a "cool 46 billion" ??
I THOUGHT IT WAS OURS, MARCELL ...
Isn't that what you said ??
Since we're just ROLLING IN THESE HUGE PROFITS, we didn't really experience the LARGEST DEFICIT EVER IN THE HISTORY OF THE WORLD which was reported TODAY??

Marc Jeric| 1.13.10 @ 6:24AM

What a scam this "jobs created or saved"! Let us see:
1) unemployment stays the same; you have only to say that without stimulus this unemployment rate would have been higher by 2 million;
2) unemployment goes up by one million; you have only to say that without stimulus it would have gone up by three million more; and
3) unemployment goes down by one million; all you have to say that without stimulus it would have gone up by one million.
In all three cases Abu Hussein can state that his stimulus has "created or saved" two million jobs.
They really think we are stupid!

Ret. Marine| 1.13.10 @ 6:27AM

"Close to 2 million jobs have been created or saved by the Recovery Act as of the end of 2009" Increditable to say the least. Don't we all wish we had the ability to conjur up numbers out of thin air and claim them to beneficial to ( state your claim)
Only in the world of a corrupt centerfuge of mindless boobs does any of this make any sense. While the "real not imagined" numbers of unemployed, underemployed, and flat out of hope of anything resembling a job, (17-25% )numbers read like the dow jones in 31.
My bet is on the numbers this summer. What most of us understand, and apparently this admin. does not, is there will be a ground swell of folks sitting atop the Capital asking for relief of any kind, in these numbers we will see the true numbers that are curently (S.O.L.) sheet outta luck when it comes to their future. More telling will be these numbers times 200 come election day as I believe these numbers will reflect a mindset of ridding ourselves of the political class bent upon enslaving the average Joe and Mary USA. Having placed their hope and change in their pockets, not ours, as in We the People, these corruptocrates will not only take a toungue lashing for thier incompitence but will be not so politely handed thier arses on the way out.
What the political scene will look like in the spring of 11 will be anyone's quess. If I were the "won" I'd fire this entire administration from top to bottom and resign. However, he is not me and I am not this stupid as to believe this country's guiding principles are slanted so far left it makes one's head hurt from muscle fatige.

Bill| 1.13.10 @ 6:44AM

First, the vast, vast majority of these profits are going back to taxpayers -- $46.1 billion. As the release says:
Marcell, when can I expect my check? Don't make me laugh. That money does not come back to tye taxpayer. It goes back in the hands of these creeps in Washington to piss it away on someother BS program that lines the pockets of their buddies.

Richard Baker| 1.13.10 @ 6:58AM

Addle-headed is the best description for this woman and her "intelligence."

charliemax| 1.13.10 @ 1:13PM

Doesn't Miss Piggy's grin just fly all over you?

Marcell| 1.13.10 @ 7:08AM

It might be time for us to take off the war paint, & put things in their proper prospective for a week or two, because" Obama is not making things worse. "

Beyond spin, Obama's productive year

Jan. 12: Michael Beschloss, presidential historian for NBC News, talks with Rachel Maddow about how the first year's accomplishments of President Obama rate in the context of typical presidential productivity.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26.....7#34833567

ds80| 1.13.10 @ 9:01AM

Keep sucking on legacy media swill, Marcel, and stay happy as an ignorant clam.

Darin| 1.13.10 @ 7:18AM

Simple question: prove it.

It's a proven fact that some portion of the stimulous spending went to non-existant Congressional districts. Therefore, it's a logical conclusion that some portion of the "saved or created" jobs are also non-existant.

Big J| 1.13.10 @ 7:43AM

All I can say to Marcell's comment is this:

Anyone that believes printing $850 billion (many forget that TARP was actually signed into law at this value, after the obligatory vote-buying, not $700 billion) to make $46 billion is a good thing, must either be completely delusional, totally ignorant of basic economic principles, or clinically insane.

As for Christina Romer: as are many who inhabit this administration, she is a serial liar.

Rome is burning while they fiddle away (or play golf, or whatever).

Howard| 1.13.10 @ 8:20AM

Romer is somewhat correct. However, the jobs saved were state and local government jobs. The "Stimulus" was primarily a payback to Democrat supporters; i.e. teachers, municipal workers, etc. There was some slight tax cutting, not important, unemployment extension, and a hodgepodge of spending. The bill was a farce put together by old line Congressional dinosaurs. Obama didn't get his hands dirty. This was an overpriced pig that accomplishes little.

Mattled| 1.13.10 @ 8:33AM

Anyone who uses Media Matters (aka MSNBC) as a source possesses instant credibility loss.

That and having Ross's pet monkeys name

Grzmlyk| 1.13.10 @ 8:38AM

Please don't feed Marcell. He's typing while stupid.

The reason I believe the administration's figures is that you all are forgetting unicorns and leprechauns and global warming gnomes. If you count those, the administration has actually created or saved over 3 billion jobs.

Mattled| 1.13.10 @ 8:49AM

You're right Grzmlyk.

If you don't feed a monkey, they freak out.

Marcell| 1.13.10 @ 8:59AM

I am more like an Al Gorerrrilla .

Marcell| 1.13.10 @ 9:18AM

It doesn't take much to beat your guy Bu$h.

Aughts were a lost decade for U.S. economy, workers

By Neil Irwin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, January 2, 2010; A01
For most of the past 70 years, the U.S. economy has grown at a steady clip, generating perpetually higher incomes and wealth for American households. But since 2000, the story is starkly different.
The past decade was the worst for the U.S. economy in modern times, a sharp reversal from a long period of prosperity that is leading economists and policymakers to fundamentally rethink the underpinnings of the nation's growth.
It was, according to a wide range of data, a lost decade for American workers. The decade began in a moment of triumphalism -- there was a current of thought among economists in 1999 that recessions were a thing of the past. By the end, there were two, bookends to a debt-driven expansion that was neither robust nor sustainable.
There has been zero net job creation since December 1999. No previous decade going back to the 1940s had job growth of less than 20 percent. Economic output rose at its slowest rate of any decade since the 1930s as well.
Middle-income households made less in 2008, when adjusted for inflation, than they did in 1999 -- and the number is sure to have declined further during a difficult 2009. The Aughts were the first decade of falling median incomes since figures were first compiled in the 1960s.
And the net worth of American households -- the value of their houses, retirement funds and other assets minus debts -- has also declined when adjusted for inflation, compared with sharp gains in every previous decade since data were initially collected in the 1950s.
"This was the first business cycle where a working-age household ended up worse at the end of it than the beginning, and this in spite of substantial growth in productivity, which should have been able to improve everyone's well-being," said Lawrence Mishel, president of the Economic Policy Institute, a liberal think tank.
Question of timing
The miserable economic track record is, in part, a quirk of timing. The 1990s ended near the top of a stock market and investment bubble. Three months after champagne corks popped to celebrate the dawn of the year 2000, the market turned south, a recession soon following. The decade finished near the trough of a severe recession.
But beyond these dramatic ups and downs lies an even more sobering reality: long-term economic stagnation. The trillions of dollars that poured into housing investment and consumer spending in the first part of the decade distorted economic activity.
Capital was funneled to build mini-mansions in Sun Belt suburbs, many of which now sit empty, rather than toward industrial machines or other business investment that might generate economic output and jobs for years to come.
"The problem is that we mismanaged the macroeconomy, and that got us in big trouble," said Nariman Behravesh, chief economist at IHS Global Insight. "The big bad thing that happened was that, in the U.S. and parts of Europe, we let housing bubbles get out of control. That came back to haunt us big-time."
The housing bubble both caused, and was enabled by, a boom in indebtedness. Total household debt rose 117 percent from 1999 to its peak in early 2008, according to Federal Reserve data, as Americans borrowed to buy ever more expensive homes and to support consumption more generally.
Consumers weren't the only ones. The same turn to debt played out in commercial real estate and at financial firms. It resulted in a corporate buyout boom that often produced little of lasting value. It is a truism of finance that for businesses, relying heavily on borrowed money makes the good times better but the bad times far worse. The same thing, as it turns out, could be said of the nation as a whole.
The first decade of the new century was an experiment in what happens when an economy comes to rely heavily on borrowed money.
"A big part of what happened this decade was that people engaged in excessively risky behavior without realizing the risks associated," said Karen Dynan, co-director of economic studies at the Brookings Institution. "It's true not just among consumers but among regulators, financial institutions, lenders, everyone."
The experiment has ended badly. While the stock market bubble that popped in 2000 caused only a mild recession, the housing and credit bubble has had a much greater punch -- driving the unemployment rate to a high, so far, of 10.2 percent, compared with a peak of 6.3 percent following the last such downturn.
The impact of the real estate crash has been broad. Among middle-income families, 69 percent owned a home in 2007, more than four times the proportion owning stocks. And as the housing meltdown cascaded through credit markets, the banking system was buffeted, rocking the whole financial system on which the world's economy rests.
With luck, lessons
Economists and policymakers will be chewing on the lessons of the Aughts for many years to come; the events of the past two years alone are enough to launch a thousand economics dissertations. If past periods of economic trauma are a guide, this research will yield a deeper understanding of how to manage the economy.
The Great Depression of the 1930s led to new insights about the impact a financial collapse can have. The primary lesson -- espoused by Ben S. Bernanke as an academic before acting on it as Fed chairman -- was "Don't let the financial system collapse."
The Great Inflation of the 1970s brought a rethinking of what drives inflation, such that economists now put a premium on maintaining the credibility of central banks and keeping inflation expectations in check.
The lessons of the Bubble Decade are still being formed. At the Federal Reserve, the major lesson that top officials have taken is that bank regulation shouldn't occur in a vacuum; rather than monitor how individual institutions are doing, bank supervisors should try to understand the risks and frailties that the banking system creates for the economy as a whole -- and manage those risks.
Fed leaders have been more skeptical of the idea that they should routinely raise interest rates to try to pop bubbles. "I can't rule out circumstances in which additional monetary policy actions specifically targeted at perceived asset price or credit imbalances and vulnerabilities" would be advisable, Fed Vice Chairman Donald L. Kohn said in a recent speech.
"But given the bluntness of monetary policy as a tool for addressing developments that could lead to financial instability, the side effects of using policy for this purpose, and other difficulties, such circumstances are likely to be very rare."
And the question of how Washington can prevent a recurrence is an overarching theme in the Obama administration's efforts to overhaul the financial system and support growth through investments in clean energy and other areas. "One of our challenges now," President Obama said in November, "is how do we get what I call a post-bubble growth model, one that is sustainable."
The financial crisis is, for all practical purposes, over, and forecasters are now generally expecting the job market to turn around early in 2010 and begin creating jobs. The task ahead for the next generation of economists is to figure out how, in a decade that began with such economic promise, things went so wrong.

Chet| 1.13.10 @ 11:15PM

MARCELL: Your source said:
" The past decade was the worst for the U.S. economy in modern times".
That feckless fascist FORGOT TO MENTION 2009 which was CERTAINLY a part of the "..last 70 years" and was a year in which FOUR MILLION jobs were lost while that Inexperienced Chicago Punk was in office, appointing SCUM like Geithner, Lloyd, Jones, Daschelle and all those other PROFESSIONAL LIARS like Romer...
* FOUR MILLION JOBS LOST since your jug-eared PUNK took office...
* LARGEST DEFICIT IN THE HISTORY OF THIS PLANET, while YOUR jug-eared dummazz is in office.
AREN'T YOU PROUD !!!
...saved or created... Can I use that with the IRS?

Marcell| 1.13.10 @ 9:31AM

Conservatives totally ignore what wall street has done to this country; to bad none of the banks are named Obama. Right wingers lost their jobs & homes as well.

What is wrong with you people?

Chet| 1.13.10 @ 11:22PM

Right wingers who HAVE lost their jobs are getting them back, as my fellow Small Biz Owners have started to do what I and thousands of others have advocated, which is:
* FIRE your socialists who helped this PUNK get elected
* REPLACE that socialist SCUM with conservatives who will AT LEAST show up for work everyday...
I invite those managers ( who may not have an ownership interest in their employer ) to DO THE SAME. This is WAR....
Give them a DOSE of that "saved or created" that they HELPED to bring to power WHILE ON YOUR TIME CLOCK.

Ret. Marine | 1.14.10 @ 5:27AM

Marcell, you have got to be one of the most ignorant individuals to visit this site since, well....take a look at the Community Recovery Act, for all the drivel you spout you never once explained how this mess got started from the get go....now go away little man of the demonrat party, thank jimmmmmmah, billlllllly-boy and mr. big ears now for this remarkable acheivement in how to bankrupt a nation by the three stooges of democracy land.......good day

Marcell| 1.13.10 @ 9:43AM

Superiority is a must:

21. If he is secure at all points, be prepared for him.
If he is in superior strength, evade him.
Sun Tzu
=====

Was greed the economy's downfall?

Jan. 12: Msnbc's Dylan Ratigan and panel talk about what led to the country's financial crisis and how the Obama administration plans to fix it.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32.....0#34829760

Chet| 1.13.10 @ 11:26PM

Quoting Sun Tzu while worshiping at the altar of Chris Matthews, Rachel Madow & Michael Moore.

Rank and File| 1.13.10 @ 10:05AM

I would love to have seen the look on Romer's face as she told those whoppers! What a hilarious prank! haha We are "often wrong" but we are "often correct." Hilarious! I didn't think the Obama administration had a sense of humor, but I haven't seen such good telephonic practical jokes since the old "is your refrigerator running...." yarn. Good stuff! LOL

...she was joking, right?

Roscoe| 1.13.10 @ 10:43AM

Of course she is. And she's getting her material from the same book as is J. "the system worked" Napolitano. The freaking Bobsey twins. Sheesh.

Margie| 1.13.10 @ 3:39PM

"..but I haven't seen such good telephonic practical jokes since the old "is your refrigerator running...." yarn."
~Or the old "Got any chicken necks? Yeah? must've had a really hard time buttoning up your shirts."

Rank and File| 1.13.10 @ 10:17AM

Marcell:

I shouldn't bother but, after reading Romer's obvious stand-up (telephonically) routine with reporters, I'm in a jovial mood.

Wall Street did what to America? Wall Street forced Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae to push loans on subprime borrowers? Wall Street refused to increase the regulations on the very same lending practices in 2007? Wall Street defaulted on billions and trillions of dollars worth of mortgages that it couldn't afford? Wall Street had a romantic relationship with Fannie Mae's director while Fannie Mae continued it's ill-advised lending practices with the blessings of Congressional Democrats? Wall Street pushed borrowing strategies that took away requirements like down payments and proof of income so that anyone with a pulse and a decent credit score could get into a home and eventually into a foreclosure?

Shall I go on?

Wall Street traded securities that were placed into the marketplace by Congressional policies that explicitly pushed home ownership onto people who were not prepared for it. The securities represented high risk mortgages and the government was complicit in giving the securities misleadingly high ratings.

Wall Street?

What is it about this that you don't get? Barney Frank and Congress pushed home owner policies that turned the subprime industry from 4 to 20 percent of the mortgage business. And when they crashed based on home prices falling and people being unable to make their payments on funkified lending strategies that pushed the big money payments back a couple of years, they took us all with them.

You, me, and everyone else.

You're embarrassing.

Marcell| 1.13.10 @ 10:23AM

The fascinating thing I like about debating conservatives is that they call me (racist) names because I really care; I am not a sell out phony like they are.

Here is an example:

The conservatives are very smart people, who stay informed, & they know that the bankers stole the money. But, that is not the issue.

I / we see the corruption & how the politicians are responding.

Here is what I see:

Congress, & to a certain extent the President, has been paid off.

Check this out: I am supposed to be some sico- pathic Obama worshiper, who wants to turn a blind eye on the corruption. But, I am not.

Here is my example:

Banks continue to take more risks

Jan. 12: Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., explains why the latest bank fees plan issued by the government needs more transparency.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32.....8#34829078

… Yeah, it a link to msnbc, so you better not... be an IDIOT!!

“I am here, & want to talk about the corruption.”

Now, let's go back to the point that I was making in the beginning of this post; when I said, “But, that is not the issue.”

Here is the point:

The Republican / Conservative party is so corrupt, bought & paid for, that they wouldn't dare use the best winning political strategy to market themselves, because they would actually have to lock up the corporate crooks, who happen to be their best friends who undermined our finacual system.

Do the math.

If you are helping the Republicans /Conservatives undermine your families wealth, while spewing your hate towards the people who are not afraid to say STOP, becuase you were toaght to hate me.

YOU ARE SICK

Ps. Just imagine if the corperate crooks were black.

George F| 1.13.10 @ 5:54PM

It is so obvious that you don't have a grasp on the fact but maybe that's not entirely your fault. It could be because you get your news from companies like MSNBC who do reports on the lies the Dems tell making the lies sound like the truth. They then repeat those lies ad nauseum until the public begins to believe them.

To find this out for yourself, you need to pay attention to and remember the details in the speeches the Dems give. Check that with the views of independent reporting agencies, what you know first hand and the facts of accurate history.

Knowing the truth actually feels good and you don't have to ridicule people. You'll know that what you're saying is accurate.

WilliamInWien| 1.13.10 @ 10:52AM

Figures Lie and Liars Figure! I do NOT listen to these "economists" any longer. When I hear that the US Congress is actually cutting real spending, cutting real taxes and simplifying the rediculous US tax code, then I will begin listening again. Right now and for some time, it has been "smoke and mirrors" and certainly more "art" than "science" when it comes to the economic situation in the US. Ever try to get your elected officials to explain why they continue to vote for porked up bills and NEVER seek to reduce spending or taxes? Don't throw the tea overboard, throw the elected officials overboard via the coming election cycles!

Marcell| 1.13.10 @ 11:02AM

Don't throw the tea overboard, throw the elected officials overboard via the coming election cycles!

====

Throw out the corrupt Democrat for the even more corrupted Republican /Conservative; I'd rather force them to clean up the mess, right today.

The term, "Throw the bombs out," is part of the scam.

Dustoff| 1.13.10 @ 11:09AM

Marcell
The fascinating thing I like about debating conservatives is that they call me (racist) names because I really care; I am not a sell out phony like they are.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
Racist names??
Say what.
No they call you a FOOL and everyone of your posts prove it.

Now if you want to talk about Racist comments, talk to Reid.

Marcell| 1.13.10 @ 3:28PM

No they call you a FOOL and everyone of your posts prove it.
----------------
I dare you to prove your point..."Monkey."

Bob| 1.13.10 @ 11:10AM

I know the people who post here lack intellectual heft, but Romer is the best economist in the Obama administration. My daughter knew Romer personally when she went to Berkeley, and Romer is one of the most honest people you will find. She is probably the least political person in the Obama administration. Her academic work supports the danger of our debt growing and she has been one of the major forces in the Obama administration pushing deficit reduction. In point of fact, her positions are probably the most conservative in the administration. If she says the analysis shows 2 million jobs saved, she has done her homework and believes strongly what she says.

On the other hand, there is strong evidence that much of the stimulus was not effective in reducing unemployment. This is not surprising since much of consumer spending (70% of our economy), was financed through people's homes. Therefore, without a stimulus the results surely would have been worse.

The problem with Romer's calculations is that it assumes extrapolation of the data with the slope of the line continuing in a downward direction. Historically, we would see a natural, temporary improvement in business profits without any stimulus. The problem with Romer's calculations is that it cannot include this "natural" temporary, cyclical recovery.

Do I believe that some jobs were saved by the stimulus plan? Absolutely. Do I think that number was 2 million? Probably not, but I wouldn't be surprised to see at least a 1 million number even with very conservative estimates. Was it worth the money we spent on the stimulus? Probably not. The stimulus needed to be more targeted with less pork. Unfortunately, the Republicans put as much pork in the bill as Dems. (That's why we need term limits.)

From a political perspective, it is only the unemployment number that is important. About 40% of the people who have lost their jobs have been unemployed for over 2 years now. Given health care costs and our debt, we will continue to lose manufacturing jobs. However, historically, we should see an improvement in the unemployment rate prior to the November election. Probabilities show that this rate should be somewhere between 8-9%. This assumes that we don't have another downturn in housing from conventional loans with the adjustable and subprime loans already having occurred.

Thus, Obama's approval ratings will grow slightly. Remember that it took Reagan a full two years before his ratings began to rise after a low that was far lower than Obama has right now. Here's a chart of approval ratings. If you look closely, you'll see that they are tied closely to the health of the economy, and not to any political party.

http://online.wsj.com/public/r.....05-31.html

Again, Romer is an honest broker and not a politician. She has great integrity, does her homework, and believes what she says. I can't say that about very many people in the Obama (or Bush) administrations.

Rank and File| 1.13.10 @ 11:45AM

Bob:
I don't doubt whether Ms. Romer was decent to your daughter at Berkley but I'm not sure that has anything to do with her policies. This is not the party of identity politics, this is the party of substance and effective policies. Her kindness and integrity aside, she's just pushing bad policy.
I'm also not sure whether you comment about the intellectual "heft" on these posts gives your post any more of the same. I think it tends not to.
Romer might not have been a politician before being brought into the administration, but now, by virtue of her position with the current administration, she is proxy for a very specific politician and his very particular political agenda. Obama's economic policies are ideologically driven and that is his right. He has Romer now making claims in support of an unsupportable claim about "jobs saved" let alone jobs created. There is no question whether a near $800 billion investment in the economy will create or save jobs -- in the short term. Of course it will. Just as my converting a DVD rental store into a Betamax store, then investing a million dollars into it would create and save jobs. That would work, too -- for the short term. But ultimately, the thing has to sell itself and sustain a market.
I'm pretty sure Betamax videocasettes would not.

But could I claim having "created or saved" jobs? You betcha.

I don't think Romer is a bad person. I don't care, either. I just think she's taken up with an economic team that is trying to push the wrong kind of economic policies on Americans. Not wrong for everyone, just wrong for a market-based economy that is best driven by a carrot and not a stick.

Bob| 1.13.10 @ 1:02PM

I see you prefer the Herbert Hoover approach to economics. Your microexample of changing your store to Betamax makes absolutely no sense on a macro basis. It's like looking out of your front door and coming to the conclusion that the world is flat. Unfortunately, government spending is a large portion of our GDP, whether it is for Medicare or the the Military/Industrial complex or for infrastructure projects. Therefore government spending will have some short term, temporary effect. Besides, no bank would give you a loan for Betamax downgrades, so your example makes no sense.

Remember, it was also the Bush/Paulson team that pushed stimulus spending and bank bailouts. This is not a Democrat thing, it is a government thing.

You have to remember that market based economies have bubbles and irrational highs and lows. In terms of this recession, there is no doubt it would have been far worse without the stimulus spending because of this market exuberance. However, the politics of Washington, used to pork (and all legislators, Republican and Democrat do a lot of local pork) is driven by local elections where a constituency asks what they have done for them lately. If you can point to a park or a bicycle path, you get votes no matter which party you are from.

So yes, there is no "intellectual heft" on this board or among the tea party people. There is no data driven analyses and only political drivel. The difference between Democrat and Republican administrations in Washington is small no matter what the rhetoric.

Therefore, I don't believe that Obama is pursuing drastically different economic policies than the Bush administration. That claim is rather foolish if you look at the numbers. The rise in debt is primarily do to the spending of the last administration and the extreme recession. Even if McCain would have been elected, you would have still seen this problem. Remember that non-military discretionary spending is less than 20% of the federal budget. McCain would have done nothing to Medicare, Social Security, Medicaid, SCHIP, and would have spent more on military -- thereby increasing the debt substantially. In relation to that spending, the stimulus program was relatively minor. If you had the intellectual heft to actually push the numbers, you'd see that. I encourage you to look at the federal budget and verify that for yourself. Under Bush, the tax cuts substantially reduced federal revenues and did not grow the economy. It was the housing bubble and securitizations (derivatives/swaps) that caused the economy bubble growth. Tax cuts did stimulate the short term bubble, however. Take a look at inflation adjusted debt levels over time and you'll see what I mean:

http://zfacts.com/p/318.html

If you've had any math, look at the numbers and do your homework. Then come back and argue your case factually.

Rank and File| 1.13.10 @ 2:17PM

Bob:

Thanks for the ad homenims. They're colorful.

You're getting off track, however: Romer, remember?

Created and saved jobs. It's nonsense. You seem like a semi-intelligent guy, I can't imagine you can honestly think that it will be evidence of anything. You claimed that the unemployment number is all that matters in a political debate. Whether that is true or not, it is important. And it's climbed from 7.6 percent to upwards of 10.5 percent if you believe most of the economic prognosticators. I happen to believe them.

Re: my Betamax example. I'll tell you why it works. You unwittingly hit the nail right on the head. Banks SHOULD not be stupid enough to give loans for the conversion of a DVD store to a Betamax store. But giving bogus and irresponsible loans can and will be done if Congress authorizes, and even PUSHES that kind of fiscally irresponsible behavior. What happened in the subprime mortgage mess? Do you think it was wise for financial institutions to lend hundreds of thousands of dollars -- even millions of dollars -- to people who had no proof of income, no real way to pay the loan back, and no business qualifying? They should not have but they did. Subprime lending gave hundreds of billions of dollars to people (i.e., similar to Betamax store owners) who ended up foreclosing. So, you're right that my example doesn’t work, but not for the reasons you say. , it doesn't work on a micro OR a macro scale. And for that we have (mostly) the chairman of the financial services committee to thank, Congressman Barney Frank. He refused to step up regulations of such irresponsible practices, the same regulations that the Republicans were pushing for -- against the social and ill-advised DEMOCRATS policy (pushed especially hard under Clinton and continued under Frank and Dodd) of irresponsible lending.

Moreover, the Betamax analogy illustrates that Betamax, an unmarketable product in 2010 would not work in a village, in a city, or on a global scale. It's time has come and gone. Similarly, pushing big social spending and government plans has also been tried. It did not work. It failed. Your FDR love, aside, there is overwhelming evidence that the market was correcting itself as Roosevelt enacted hefty (your word) policies that caused the continual slowing of the recovery. Roosevelt created jobs, but because they were government created, they were short term. Perhaps they kept people's spirit up and they kept food on the table. Let's just call it what it was -- not government stimulus, but welfare. It kept people employed but it did not develop a demand that brought us out of the Depression. The switch from the gold standard, production for the war, and inventions in technology were much more responsible for the recovery than FDR. But because FDR took care of the Germans and the Japanese, I think he was still an okay guy.

I can appreciate your wanting to compare Obama to Bush. But why do that? Should I compare Obama to Buchanan or maybe Ross Perot? It's not a relative game of identity politics, it's good policy versus bad policy argument. The fact is, Bush was not a fiscally conservative Republican. His tax cuts were naive and short-term. The job-creating section of this economy is not fooled by a rebate or a tax refund. It is motivated by commitment to long-term tax cuts and the promise of continual low taxes. That will bring the entrepreneurs and job-creators out of hiding. I wasn't a supporter of much of Bush's fiscal policies so I'll just leave it at that. If you want to compare Obama to Bush, that's fine. Just know that I won't be reading that portion of whatever you choose to write. It doesn't interest me.

And as for the relative similarities between McCain and Bush or Obama on economic policies, remember that economic policies are affected by more than your anecdotal examples.

Everything from foreign treaties on climate control to judicial nominations color economic policies.

Moreover, if you think Obama would support the same tax policies as a Republican of almost any stripe, you don't deserve a response.. Your statement stands or falls on its own.

Chet| 1.13.10 @ 11:33PM

"Romer is the BEST in the Obama admin...."
THAT is like a HONEY-WAGON driver looking into a septic tank and saying "...that floater RIGHT THERE is the Cleanest one in there..."
THAT IS WHAT WE think of Romer & Obama & their shameless BS.
Your daughter knew Romer ??
WOW, that really cements it for me...

Richard Baker| 1.13.10 @ 11:29AM

Saving a "government" job involves saving another non-productive drain on the private sector where the wealth is created. We need more government like we need a hole in the head.

Mattled| 1.13.10 @ 11:48AM

Everything Bush=Bad
Everything Obama=Good

We got the memo.

*Yawn*.

Marcell| 1.13.10 @ 3:38PM

Everything Repugs do=Good
Everything Obama= Bad

We got the memo.

*Yawn*.

Chet| 1.13.10 @ 11:35PM

We didn't get THAT memo....
Obama's Telememograph was BUSTED...

JP| 1.13.10 @ 12:31PM

Almost all of the job growth since Jan (and increases in GDP) has come through the public sector. The Beltway is currently going through a constructin boom. Life is good for those who can find employment in DC.

However, there are some very disturbing trends in both the financial markets and monetary policies. Despite record liquidity injections, 0 % interest rates, banks aren't lending, consumers aren't spending, and businesses refuse to expand. As far as banks are concerned, the Fed has created incentives that go in the opposite direction. With 0% interest from the Fed, banks are borrowing, but instead of lending they are purchasing short term Treasuries (at 3-3.7% interest). That is where thier record profits are coming from. Why lend to businesses and consumers when you can safely borrow from Ben Bernecke? Essientially, Geihtner is just cycling cash through the system in order to subsidize Obama and Congress's spending. The banks are picking up the crumbs, and my what profits they are reaping (thanks to the taxpayers). It's a nice racket while interest rates remain at 0%.

In the meantime, the dollar is getting pounded. And foreigners are selling off dollars for things like corn, beans, oil, and metals. I know a broker who said that buy orders are coming in from Asia and Europe with no real understanding of how our commodity markets work; that's how desperate investors are to hedge against a weakening dollar.

Now Bernecke has gotten himself into a real pickle. His talk of exit strategy is occuring during another round of ARM foreclosures, which is freaking out investors. Bernecke wants to soak up excess cash at a time when real estate losses could sink more banks (and cause another liquidity crisis). But the Fed can't keep the spigot open forever.

So, this fantasy talk about jobs saved is pure spin. The truth be told, most of the work done to save Wall St occured in Dec 2008 through early Jan 2009 by Paulson, Congress, and Bernecke. By taking advantage of this crisis, Obama and the Dems have backed themselves into a tight corner. Organic job growth cannot occur again until investors know that all of the losses from the 2008 crash have been absorbed and written down. The Fed's loose money policy has reinflated Wall St to such a degree that no one really knows what the correct valuations are. Most of the recapitilization is the result of speculators who have created a new asset bubble. As a result, confusion, fear and uncertainty abound. A few months ago I thought as Bob does, that 2010 will see a drop in unemployment to below 8%. But now I am not so sure it will even go below 9%. If anything, it could go above 11% as investors look to Asia and the commodity markets for safe havens. Cash is still King. Unfortunately, the federal government holds most of it.

Bob| 1.13.10 @ 1:19PM

Great post! The unemployment number will depend on whether we have a W shaped recession. Personally, I don't see that because business growth of U.S. companies is strong. There is a significant rise in temporary employment right now. Hours worked is going up, but they are not hiring PERMANENT employees. Inventories are below demand levels right now. If we don't have a W shaped recession, you still won't see a significant drop in unemployment because people who have stopped looking for employment will start looking. So even if employment levels increase, the unemployment level will not drop much. If you take a look at the trends in previous recessions, even taking this into account, you will see a slight (very slight) drop in unemployment by next November.

I don't think monetary policy or the strength of the dollar will have a significant effect on this as U.S. demand still drives the rest of the world. Right now, international U.S. companies are prices rather cheaply so I don't see the world heading for commodity markets that fast. The worst thing China can do is to stop supporting treasuries. Remember that growth in China right now is also government stimulus driven.

The next bubble to hit will be the treasuries bubble. When that will happen, I don't know, but it will occur in the next 1-10 years.

Howard| 1.13.10 @ 12:33PM

The debate should be Keynes/Krugman on one side and Friedman/Hayek on the other. I believe that the results of the Obama efforts will be to further debunk the effectiveness of Keynesian theory regarding growth and employment. This should have been evident during the 1970's, when even Nixon proclaimed he was a Keynesian. I am not against some government spending, i.e research & development, defense, infrastructure. But trying to micromanage a huge economy is a fools game.

Tony in Central PA| 1.13.10 @ 12:43PM

There was an editorial in my local paper last night by Mona Charen who quoted government figures indicating the cost of each " saved or created " job from the ARRA bill at about $264,000. I can't comment on the methodology for calculating this amount, but its about what I would expect from this Administration.

Bob| 1.13.10 @ 1:08PM

The populist comment by Mona Charen is extremely misleading as you might expect. The "net" annual cost is a much lower figure if you realize that many of the jobs exist for multiple years and much of that amount will, in turn, be spent on goods and services as well as taxes, both federal and state. I'm not saying there wasn't significant pork and waste in the stimulus, only that if you believe Mona's number, you need to learn something about economics.

Tom| 1.13.10 @ 2:18PM

The cost per job could also be higher, for what should be obvious reasons. First and most importantly we have no idea how many jobs were 'created or saved'. The data is corrupt, the confounds are enormous, and frankly I doubt anyone is really trying that hard. Secondly, government creates nothing. It either taxes or borrows to finace its programs. The money taken from the private economy could have 'created or saved' a lot more than 2 million jobs. And finally, it discounts the destructive effect of on going government outlays, which means more taxes and borrowing, going forward. Any short term benefit to this stimulus program is out weighed by the costs.

Bob| 1.13.10 @ 2:29PM

Actually, Tom, I see you haven't pushed the numbers. If you had, you'll see it could not be higher. Secondly, the government is the largest employer in the U.S., so it does create jobs. Lastly, there is no macroeconomic connection between tax cuts and the growth of GDP once you account for inflation. The only macroeconomic effect of tax cuts is to increase debt. This is a wive's tale propounded by right wing politicians based on microeconomic gibberish.

However, you are certainly correct that we have no idea of the jobs that were created or saved. The data is, indeed, corrupt because local politicians (both Republican and Democrat) want to make the case that spending money in their districts pays off.

Regarding the longer term destructive effect of government outlays, the only way to really combat that is to reduce Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid which accounts for 53% of federal spending. Interest payments account for about 9% and military spending about 20%. Do you really want to cut military spending?

That said, the debt is a real problem for longer term growth and so is the amount we pay for health care. In the end, we need to cut Medicare and Social security and military spending to have any lasting impact. However, try telling Grandma that her Medicare will be rationed and try telling right wingers we need to cut military spending and then try to get elected. That's the real problem.

Tom| 1.13.10 @ 6:30PM

Bob,
Yes, Bob the number certainly could be higher. You fail to address my first point: we do not have any real knowledge of how many jobs were created or saved. Certainly, if we accept that 2 million jobs were created or saved the number could not go higher. But the data on used to estimate that number is at best corrupt and at worse risible. If I was to say 1 job was created the cost for that job would be easy to figure out. Finding the true cost for each job created needs two inputs: how much was spent and how many jobs were created. We only know one of those numbers.

I will politely disagree with you on the point of tax cuts spurring GDP growth. However, I will ask you to ponder one thing: What would the effect of 100% tax rates on ALL income be on GDP?

I agree with your points on Social Security, Medicare, and Defense. And to answer your question, yes I might not mind defense outlays being cut. I think too often we have a situation where defense dollars chase missions.

Dai Alanye | 1.13.10 @ 7:14PM

The Boob: "Secondly, the government is the largest employer in the U.S., so it does create jobs."

This statement is, in microcosm, an illustration of what is usually wrong with Bob's reasoning. He is not stupid in terms of IQ—I honestly believe he compares favorably with, for instance, John Kerry or Al Gore. His problem is lack of judgment. Because of his lack of discrimination he makes more stupid statements on economic matters than any other commentator.

Government employment—however necessary it might sometimes be—does not consist of productive jobs. On the contrary, it is similar to the Mafia claiming to produce jobs because the protection money it extorts is used in part to hire enforcers and hit men. But as we know, protection rackets do not improve the economy. Likewise, adding bureaucrats and governmental leeches fails to have any positive effects.

Most of the small percentage of stimulus money that has been encumbered thus far has gone to governmental entities. Much of the balance has gone into questionable and short-term projects. Most of these jobs will disappear when the funds run out—few if any are permanent or even long-term jobs.

With the exception, of course, of the non-productive government jobs, which are likely to continue to absorb our taxes in perpetuity.

exploison proof light | 11.25.10 @ 2:01AM

HI Tom, For most Americans, Obama doesn't seem to be giving them something they don't have, but instead to be taking away something they already value.

Tony in Central PA| 1.13.10 @ 4:31PM

You might disagree, but I think history will show that the people who " need to know something about economics " are the people in this Administration. One thing I did not mention is that a significant number of these alleged created jobs are in fact government jobs.

If you happen to know a lot about economics, perhaps you can tell us all what's going to happen when our country can no longer afford the interest on its debt. It doesn't seem to be a concern any more to Dems since the 2008 election.

Chet| 1.13.10 @ 11:44PM

(...learning about economics... )
We are Bob.... we ARE.
We're learning that:
** Obama's VOODOO economics SAVES & CREATES jobs while unemployment RISES ...

** Obama's clunker debacle only cost taxpayers $ 24,000 EACH

Bob| 1.13.10 @ 1:53PM

You also do realize that 37% of the stimulus went for tax cuts, don't you? That 37% is in Mona's numbers. The problem is that all of you don't realize this.

Rank and File| 1.13.10 @ 2:24PM

That is an absurd statement. The stimulus (money spent by the government) went to tax cuts? I understand what you're saying, theoretically, but that is the problem that you do not understand. That is not a "tax cut." Not by anyone who seeks to remove a tax burden on companies and allow them to grow and expand due to the low cost of production. If that doesn't happen, there is no tax cut. That is just government shifting the money around. A tax cut goes like this: taxes were 20% and they get cut to 16%. It is not a cut in expected increase, it is (if it is to be effective) a cut in an existing tax rate. So, no. Not a tax cut, irrespective of anyone's semantics. Real tax cuts work. Fake ones don't.

Bob| 1.13.10 @ 2:37PM

Can you really prove that "real tax cuts work"? Here is an inflation adjusted chart of GDP over several decades. Notice that growth in GDP was not any higher with tax cuts than it has been with tax increases. This is a fairy tale. The reason for this is the growth in this country has more to do with private enterprise than it has to do with government action. In other words, if markets grow, tax rates have little effect on business growth.

http://www.data360.org/dsg.asp.....oup_Id=230

Think of it this way. I have a company. The way I make this company grow is to develop new products or services. The market determines whether these products will be successful or not, not the fact that I get a few dollars more in tax cuts. This whole thing is really a fairy tale.

That said, high tax rates over a very long period of time make the U.S. less competitive -- especially in the manufacturing sector. In addition, the amount we pay for health care in this country reduces job creation dramatically over the longer term.

Given that reducing taxes doesn't grow the GDP any faster than not reducing taxes, your argument is absolutely dumb. If you think it isn't, please show me the inflation adjusted graphical data trend charts that prove otherwise.

Rank and File| 1.13.10 @ 3:58PM

Again, you didn't respond to what I wrote, you changed the issue. Would you like to read what I wrote again? Tax cuts do not = stimulus with a smattreing of claims of "tax cutting." Private enterprise is stifled with higher taxes, and you admit this. Good.
If growth is so unaffected by low taxes, why does President Obama continue to promise that he won't raise taxes on small businesses--the real job-creator of over 60% of the new jobs in the US economy? Perhaps he got a better Harvard degree than you did.
Low taxes keep the economy running smoothly and your chart shows a curve up and to the right. That's growth and it continues from the time of the 81-83 tax cuts Reagan sought and got. The following chart shows the growth and revenues from the tax cuts of 1981 - 1983. http://www.heritage.org/Resear...../chart.gif
It's the Heritage Foundation, citing the OMB in case you're concerned about the source. I know how you like ad hominem attacks. So, attack the OMB.
"Given that reducing taxes doesn't grow the GDP any faster than not reducing taxes..." presupposes your own conclusion. Saying something doesn't make it so. Reagan cut marginal tax rates from upwards of 70% and the economy grew. You can say there were other factors, which there were, but you cannot admit that "real tax cuts" do not correspond with growth. Even your chart shows that they do.

Bob| 1.13.10 @ 4:08PM

I see you got duped by the use of selected data. Here's the full chart of federal revenues from 1965 to 2009. This is from Heritage as well. You'll see that the growth during Reagan's time was just about average. Furthermore, growth of revenues was greater under the tax increases of Clinton than the tax cuts of Reagan.

Perhaps you should learn how to analyze data. As far as marginal tax rates, you have looked at effective tax rates, haven't you? I thought not. Effective tax rates have remained relatively stable over time between 20-22%. The effect of this relatively stable effective tax rate is shown in the following Heritage chart:

http://www.heritage.org/resear.....cline.aspx

Perhaps I need to start charging you tuition for your classes here.....

Here's an analytical tip. Don't use selected data to come to conclusions. Most mathematicians/statisticians can use selected periods of time to come to very different conclusions. How would you know that the growth prior to Reagan was about the same and the growth during Reagan if you only look at selected periods of time?

By the way, the Heritage Foundation has the best charts in the business. I use them all of the time. Unfortunately, they get used by politicians all of the time to come to the wrong conclusions because you economic neophytes have no idea how to analyze these data.

Bob| 1.13.10 @ 4:10PM

Whoops, I didn't put the link to the revenues chart:

http://www.heritage.org/resear.....-1965.aspx

Rank and File| 1.13.10 @ 5:37PM

"[The growth during Reagan's time was just about average." And the growth before Reagan's time? Not so "average" was it?

Additionally, just when was "Reagan's time"? I'll tell you. His tax cuts stayed in place for decades. Reagan's time extended to the period when the cuts first took effect and revenues/growth increased in the mid 80's until the time when Bush '41 started to tinker with them. Still, taxes were considerably lower than the 70 percentage, marginal rates of the Pre-Reagan era. So, his time wasn't 80-88; his "time" covered decades.

Astounding that you would miss that. You must have been distracted accusing me of using selected data as you "selected data" that did not include his lowering of corporate tax rates and changes to the alternative minimum tax. You somehow limited your chart to individual tax rates. Was that just an innocent oversight in that you selected some and failed to include other materials?

The evidence is that there were significant amounts of revenue from the mid 80's, and beyond. I have never said that Reagan's cuts were the only thing responsible, only that they are pro-growth. However, you should try and prove that this growth it was not a product of the Reagan tax cuts. In fact, enlighten me, as to how tax cuts did not help bring us out of the stagflation that existed pre-Reagan and into the growth and prosperity that even Clinton didn't really mess with it thanks to a Republican Congress (he just started pushing government sponsored entities ("GSE's") like the idea of government sponsored home-ownership that snowballed with the help of bad/no accountability by the Democratic chairs of banking and financial services in Congress).

"Reagan's time" for growth went from his bringing down marginal tax rates up and until 9/11. There were other blips like the dot.com bubble and the subprime mess, neither of which are your fault, but low taxes, they opened up the economy.

Your revenues chart is a good one. It shows exactly what I have graciously taught you above. Reagan's tax cuts had a long-standing effect, didn't they.

I'm not usually so snarky but your love of colorful descriptors brought it out in me. I hope you're still able to compose yourself.

Chet| 1.13.10 @ 11:55PM

I HAVE a business. The GDP is a yardstick used by NUMBERS CRUNCHERS, not REAL business....
DO YOU consult with the latest copy of WSJ to see what the GDP projections are before you develop your next new product or service area ?
REALLY ?

Mattled| 1.13.10 @ 1:12PM

Ran across this website a few months ago:

http://www.nakedemperornews.com/

No Mr. Biden, J-O-B-S is not a three letter word---but L-I-E is.

Worth a look at seeing unedited, unfiltered-in-their-own-words (lies).

No need for FNC or LSDNC er, MSDNC, er, PMSNBC---ok MSNBC to "filter" anything.

Gary in IN| 1.13.10 @ 1:29PM

http://www.washingtonexaminer......mulus.html

The above link has some fascinating information. For instance, the Olympia, WA school district claimed that the stimulus money "saved or created" 34,500 jobs.

California State University claimed that the
stimulus money "saved or created" 26,000 jobs. They admit that no new jobs were created and there were no plans to lay anyone off.

Kankakee, IL school district claimed that the stimulus money "saved or created" 665 jobs even though they have less than 600 employees.

Michigan admits that 3,000 of the jobs they claim were "created or saved" were summer-only jobs created for youths and only lasted 2 months.

Moutrie, GA. The Southwest Georgia Community Action Council claimed to have "created or saved" 935 jobs - even though they only have 508 employees. They now admit that almost all of the money went to give their employees raises and they only hired new 9 people.

Douglas, GA. East Central Technical College claimed that they "saved or created" 280 jobs but now admit that 280 was actually the number of students who would be able to sign up for a new truck driving class.

Blooming Grove, TX. $30,000 was spent on a one-month long roofing contract and they claimed that it created 449 jobs.

Fayettville, AR. $1,000 of stimulus money was used to purchase a lawn mower for use in a municipal graveyard. They claim that it "saved or created" 50 jobs.

Oldefarte| 1.13.10 @ 2:02PM

As asininely untrue as her statements are concerning the stimulus saving jobs; much more outrageous are this pig's proclamation that this administration's reducing unemployment numbers will REDUCE THE FEDERAL DEFICIT. Any first year college business student [and any four year old child] could tell you that that is nothing more than BULLEXCREMENT. It is justification for this corrupt bunch's upcoming spending more of our taxpayer dollars on a second round of non-stumulas. It is BS because, if the federal income/receipts are stable or declining, while the federal expendatures/expenses [unstimulus] are increasing/rising; then any moron should be able to discern that the federal deficit will increase, not decrease!!!!!!!!!!!

Bob| 1.13.10 @ 2:19PM

I guess you haven't reached your 4th birthday yet. As unemployment decreases, the federal government gets more income taxes, more social security revenue, and more medicare payments. Furthermore, a decrease in unemployment means that businesses are growing (they wouldn't hire otherwise) and thus business taxes will increase. Any imbecile should know that. Furthermore, the Bush tax cuts will expire in 2011 and we'll go back to the same levels as under Clinton. Perhaps you need to continue with your pre-school education.

Northern Rebel| 1.13.10 @ 2:36PM

Barak Obama Is the Anti-Christ, and Marcell is one of his enablers.

Try to explain your way out of HELL, pal!

Paul from SA| 1.13.10 @ 2:45PM

Marcell,

Obama has the worst record for any first-year president in U.S. history. He hasn't accomplished anything.

Gov't spending harms the economy.

Marcell| 1.13.10 @ 3:36PM

Oh, yeah!!

Gov't spending harms the economy.

http://www.google.com/finance?.....DEXDJX:DJI

Good news is bad news for you people.

Dustoff| 1.13.10 @ 2:59PM

Bob
As unemployment decreases, the federal government gets more income taxes.
+++++++++++++++++++
O-brother. If the jobs are GOV the feds get zip.
Gov jobs never pay for themselves.

Let me guess, you went to Berkeley too.

Bob| 1.13.10 @ 3:20PM

No, Harvard...

If unemployment decreases, it will be because of job growth in the private sector, not government. And your statements the government jobs do not increase federal revenues is just dumb. That spending may not pay for itself, but federal revenues will rise.

It's hard to believe that people on this site know so little about economics.

Tony in Central PA| 1.13.10 @ 5:05PM

Bob, didn't this President and his team of " experts " claim the ARRA would stop unemployment from rising above 8% ? How's that working out ?

As long as the subject is unemployment, I know the government has kept track of the average number of hours in a workweek for about 45 years. The last figure I saw ( late October ) from the gov't for this was 33.5 hours. This is the shortest since it has been measured.

Bob| 1.13.10 @ 5:16PM

Tony, I said here that unemployment would reach the 10-11% range as I never believed the 8% number. That's the difference between politics and economic analysis. It was never going to be reduced to 8% as that is the number needed to create enough jobs in the model they ran. By the way, Romer said the number was going to be the same as mine. As to workweek hours, this is a complex number. It is being kept short by the higher use of temporary workers. Employers would rather keep the temp's hours short so they will not have to pay health care.

Tony in Central PA| 1.13.10 @ 8:55PM

Where and when did you make this 11% predicition ? Do you work for this Administration ? Also, if the Romer and the Administration knew 8% was wrong, why would they make themselves look bad when they knew it was going higher ? Maybe its a rhetorical question to ask an Obamaphile, but do they think people are that stupid they wouldn't notice ?

As far as the " temporary workers " reasoning for the record short workweek, I'm willing to bet that unpaid furloughs are a bigger factor in most cases.

A big reason the people I know who run businesses aren't hiring right now is because of all of the uncertainty. A lot of that uncertainty comes down to taxes.

Chet| 1.14.10 @ 12:03AM

That's PURE Azz Liquor, pal....
Your assertion that government jobs increase federal revenues is dumb.
Government job: $ 45,000 OUT in payroll
Associated costs with that job: MORE money
Taxes paid by employee: A FRACTION...
Taxes paid w/ employee purchases: FRACTION
YOU PAID for that Harvard deception ??
Payroll taxes:

Louis Jenkins| 1.13.10 @ 3:16PM

So when the game isn't going your way, just change the rules or move the goal post. This from Money.CNN.com of all places.

http://money.cnn.com/2010/01/1...../index.htm

Now Romer can make grandiose claims.

Big J| 1.13.10 @ 4:03PM

I hate to break this to the highly educated Hah-Vahd grads among us (and the Marcell's on the site), but GOVERNMENT PRODUCES ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.

The only thing the government can do is confiscate funds from the productive side of society and distribute it to the non-productive side. And they don't even do that very efficiently. Anyone call the Internal Revenue Service lately? How about the Social Security office?

And Bob, I really don't give a damn about your charts disproving the theory that tax cuts don't increase revenues. None of them hold water. A low-rate flat tax or consumption tax would send our economy into a growth spurt that hasn't been realized since the Reagan years.

If the entrepreneurs of this country knew that they weren't going to be penalized based on how hard they worked, they would start doubling, tripling and quadrupling their efforts.

Here's a common sense analysis - you might stick this in your chart and smoke it:

50% of $100,000 = $50,000
15% of $500,000 = $75,000

Of course, a major part of the equation is for the government to stop wasting our money. That would include competitive bids on contracts, not union mandates. That would mean cutting down on the "Cadillac" retirement plan they currently enjoy (full pay for the duration of their life). That would mean an end to the $300 million here, $50 billion there pork barrel projects they procure in every single piece of legislation passed through both houses of congress. This crap has got to stop. No business could sustain these things, and neither can our government.

Macro, micro, whatever. Bob has never signed a paycheck in his life. Bob has never had to go without so another family doesn't have to. Bob has never lost sleep because he had such a bad year in business that he couldn't write even the smallest bonus check for an employee. Bob has never waken up at 2 am, wondering where the funds for payroll that week were going to come from.

Bob is not the expert he screams so loudly that he is.

And Marcell IS a monkey. Don't know what color he is, but he writes like one.

I guess that makes me a raaaaaaacist! Help me, Harry Reid!

Marcell| 1.13.10 @ 5:10PM

And Marcell IS a monkey. Don't know what color he is, but he writes like one.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kkf2k7yNLfU

Grzmlyk| 1.13.10 @ 4:14PM

Looks like I've missed another exciting bedtime story from Bob, in which, as always, Bob is the hero.

Bob didn't go to harvard. And he's never run anything except away.

You gotta wonder about a guy who shows up at a gethering of people he regards as stupid and spends his entire afternoon alternately posturing and taunting them.

Is this puerile behavior consistent with a real economist? A real business leader? Dare I say it, a real Hah-vad man? Is the rigidity of his thinking consistent with someone who really knows what they're talking about?

Bob's a fraud through and through - an emotionally immature putz whose dream, this late in his life, seems to be to be a playground bully.

Live the dream, Bob. Live the dream.

Bob| 1.13.10 @ 4:20PM

Grzmlyk -- I'm retired now and having fun. Do you want to bet on my background? The people at AmSpec can verify it, you know. I guess I can count on you for responses that include no facts or information. Please go back to your playpen.

Grzmlyk| 1.13.10 @ 4:24PM

Silly, I'm typing from within my playpen.

I am not disputing your argument. I'm commenting on something much more relevant, and enduring: The state of your mind and the pathology you exhibit.

Well, if you tell me the people at AmSpec can verify it, gosh darn it that's good enough for me. Prove it to me, ahole.

You are a liar and a fraud and a would-be bully. Nothing more.

Bob| 1.13.10 @ 5:24PM

Email me at factual.conservative@gmail.com and I'll send you a non-disclosure agreement and then you can know any facts you'd like about me. Given my positions, I don't want all of your hate mail to fill my inbox. Again, AmSpec knows who I am...

Next time you have anything relevant to say, let me know....

Bob| 1.13.10 @ 4:18PM

BigJ -- the way educated people verify whether a theory is correct or not is to look at the data. Your populist theories are just not proven by the data.

And entrepreneurs will create businesses notwithstanding the tax rate as they will always gain more by doing so. Great entrepreneurs always work at their greatest levels. You must not be an entrepreneur.

Regarding government waste, it is obvious you don't understand the federal budget. There is very little relative money spent on non-military discretionary spending (

Big J| 1.13.10 @ 4:57PM

Bob,

For some reason, I thought naivete was for the young - you have proven me wrong.

Sure entrepreneurs will create businesses - that's what we do. The question becomes (as has been proven in New York, California and other states that never saw a tax hike they didn't like), where? Moving to a low tax state or country is very tempting to someone that takes high risk in order to (cough) MAKE A PROFIT.

Your "you must not be an entrepreneur" comment is proof positive that you haven't the first clue of what one is. After having endured the struggles listed in my post above for 8 years, I am not inclined to try and prove such to the likes of you - waaaaaay above my pay grade to parse with the likes of BOB THE WISE.

Your last paragraph was probably more comical than any post I've seen.

My response?

BWAAAAAAH-HAAAAAAAH-HAAAAAAH!

Bob| 1.13.10 @ 5:20PM

BigJ -- I started two companies in my lifetime -- one successful and the other not. So I know what it takes to start a company and make a profit. One of those companies, the successful one, was in California.

It is not surprising that you cannot backup your thesis with data -- I wouldn't expect it from someone who doesn't understand the first thing about economics.

Big J| 1.13.10 @ 10:42PM

Oh, Bob.

I have started one company in my lifetime. Your infinite wisdom trumps my hard work, callouses and bruises (along with a shock or two) once again. You are the best, Bob.

Still didn't catch the number of men and women that you have provided jobs for?

Wait - do we count Amway in the number of companies that we have started? That makes 2 for me too, Bob!

I don't have a thesis, and maybe I don't understand the first thing about economics. I am just a regular guy, trying to make a regular living, and I know that the current congress and administration are doing everything in their power to stop that from happening. That's fact, like it or not. I believe one day you're going to wake up and regret your support for the community organizer occupying the white house. Obviously, you're not there yet (thanks a lot, by the way).

So just sit back, enjoy your retirement (I assume it's from the one company you started that was successful?), and leave the rest of us uneducated slobs to our ignorance.

Pah Leez!

Marcell| 1.13.10 @ 5:16PM

It's why I call them phony Christians, " Need I say more?"

The Repugs are a WMD.

The fascinating thing I like about debating conservatives is that they call me (racist) names because I really care; I am not a sell out phony like they are.

Here is an example:

The conservatives are very smart people, who stay informed, & they know that the bankers stole the money. But, that is not the issue.

I / we see the corruption & how the politicians are responding.

Here is what I see:

Congress, & to a certain extent the President, has been paid off.

Check this out: I am supposed to be some sico- pathic Obama worshiper, who wants to turn a blind eye on the corruption. But, I am not.

Here is my example:

Banks continue to take more risks

Jan. 12: Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., explains why the latest bank fees plan issued by the government needs more transparency.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32.....8#34829078

… Yeah, it a link to msnbc, so you better not... be an IDIOT!!

“I am here, & want to talk about the corruption.”

Now, let's go back to the point that I was making in the beginning of this post; when I said, “But, that is not the issue.”

Here is the point:

Do the math.

If you are helping the Republicans /Conservatives undermine your families wealth, while spewing your hate towards the people who are not afraid to say STOP, becuase you were toaght to hate me.

YOU ARE SICK

Ps. Just imagine if the corperate crooks were black.

REPLY TO THIS

George F| 1.13.10 @ 6:06PM

It would be a very good idea for people who are posting on this blog to take their meds first.

It would also be very good if people on this blog would stop calling people names.

If all you have to say uses only emotion, disgust and hate find another blog more suitable to your style.

Chet| 1.14.10 @ 12:16AM

I'm not required nor advised by any healthcare professional to "take meds"
I say what I want, when I want...
I don't temper my language so that you are comfortable...
( sound of screen door hitting George )

Ran / Si Vis Pacem | 1.13.10 @ 9:47PM

Mr. Klein,
It's interesting how people like Romer have rediscovered the appeals of both Creation and Salvation...

Big J... Are you familiar with Bob's AmSpec Blog résumé? (Calling SoCon! Come in SoCon!)

Albert Frevele| 1.13.10 @ 10:49PM

Can you imagine how bad things would be now if we DIDN’T have the Stimulus package? That’s the line being peddled by President Bozo’s administration right now. This is the same baseless argument that logic and debate classes teach is a “fallacy argument.” I had a “Critical Thinking” class professor at Sonoma State University use just this form of argument in favor of gun control. “Can you imagine how much crime and violence there would be if we DIDN’T pass gun control laws?” It's horse manure. President Bozo and his “economic advisers” will never admit that THEY screwed the pooch. It could NEVER be their fault! Socialists can never admit failure. Never admit defeat. Never admit they are just plain wrong. They just redefine the problem! "Socialist economics" is an oxymoron. The Bozo Administration is costing jobs, not creating them. We have a government of criminals and idiots. Shame America.

Pingback| 1.14.10 @ 12:50AM

The American Spectator : Romer Resurrects 'Created or Saved' | Drakz Free Online Serv links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

…practical jokes since the old “is your refrigerator running….” yarn. Good stuff! LOL …she was joking, right Go here to see the original: The American Spectator : Romer Resurrects 'Created or Saved' Share and Enjoy: Related Articles Bookmarks Tags April Fool's (Signing) Day! | The B... Kevin Hart, a lineman from Nevada, gathered his entire school in the gymnasium…

Pingback| 1.14.10 @ 12:50AM

The American Spectator : Romer Resurrects 'Created or Saved' | Drakz Free Online Serv links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

…telephonic practical jokes since the old “is your refrigerator running….” yarn. Good stuff! LOL …she was joking, right? Go here to read the rest: The American Spectator : Romer Resurrects 'Created or Saved' Share and Enjoy: Related Articles Bookmarks Tags April Fool's (Signing) Day! | The B... Kevin Hart, a lineman from Nevada, gathered his entire school in the gymnasium…

Yosemeti Sam| 1.14.10 @ 2:48AM

" Romer Resurrects 'Created or Saved' ...."

Well then, there is gots to be an equation for this
analysis.

Like as is E=MC² .

Or is it 'fools gold' proffered to gullible fickle voters?

Have they - BHO et al - no embarrassment; have they no shame in perpetrating a hoax?

Pingback| 1.14.10 @ 4:36AM

Twitter Trackbacks for The American Spectator : Romer Resurrects 'Created or Saved' links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

…Topsy Retweet Button to your Blog or Web Site. WordPress Web Sites 1 Shortened Links Linking to the spectator.org page http://bit.ly/5pk6Xg info 2 tweets tweet The American Spectator : Romer Resurrects 'Created or Saved' spectator.org/archives/2010/01/13/romer-resurrects-created-or-sa – view page – cached Christina Romer, chair of the Obama administration’s Council of Economic…

jd| 1.14.10 @ 6:03AM

Bob,

For all your Harvard education, it's obvious you don't even understand the difference between tax cuts and tax CREDITS. To say that tax cuts do not stimulate the economy is dumbfounding, but I am not surprised given your background. I am not impressed at all with your haughty bs. Many posters here have debated with you on your misconceptions. Trying to denigrate one's intellectualness on this site because you are a Harvard man is truly nauseating.

Scott Alden Stabler | 1.14.10 @ 1:09PM

Sadly, the Obama Administration continues to dither on the economy. The financial derivative industry, which Christina Romer never seems to bring up and talk about, has destroyed our banking reserve sysytem. Instead of our newly minted monies being invested into plant and equiptment, we are paying off the credit default swap bets of the Big bank Boys. The stimulus plan
has been a side show to deflect attention from the
real problems of massive bribe schemes paid to
pension investors and board memebers to buy the
derivative ponzi products. Christina Romer is CLUELESS as to what has caused our economy to collaspe or how to fix it. She still thinks that 27%
unemployment or underemployemnt is a recession. She should go back to the college where she came from and teach hung over college co-eds supply and demand theories. She is way over her head in this epic financial crisis. For her to not focus on the damge of derivatives and the need for the re-enactment of Glass Steagall Act shows complete lack of understanding of why our banking system has broken our economy and all of America's dreams for a better future.

Office 2007 Professional | 1.29.10 @ 2:05AM

Office 2007 Professional
Office 2007 Ultimate

www.us-bapeoutlet.com | 4.2.10 @ 7:24AM

www.us-bapeoutlet.com

Converse | 8.11.11 @ 9:56PM

is good

Latest Headlines

Green Flags, Yellow Flags, and Black Flags

John Tabin|44 comments

Barack’s Brave New World Blarney

George Neumayr|37 comments

There’s Something About Cambridge

Daniel J. Flynn|26 comments

Obama’s Unaffordable Act

Peter Ferrara|48 comments

Celebrating Our Lady of Paris

Joseph A. Harriss|9 comments

Charter Schooling? Why Not Charter Housing?

Wayne Woodman|15 comments

Cash for Organs?

Eric Boehm|16 comments

Back in the Fray

Kyle Peterson|102 comments

The Spectacle Blog

Elbert Guillory: ‘Why I Am a Republican’

Patrick Ryan | 10:13AM

The One Party State

F.H. Buckley | 9:47AM

Cummings Accused of Subverting IRS Investigation

Jeffrey Lord | 6:20AM

Let Pitchers Throw Complete Games

Aaron Goldstein | 12:10AM

Thoughts on New U.S.-Taliban Peace Talks

Aaron Goldstein | 6.18.13

Thank You, Bobby Jindal

Matt Purple | 6.18.13

Buzzfeed Faces $3.6 Million Lawsuit for Copyright Infringement

Kaylin Bugos | 6.18.13

Democrat Dan Maffei Blames Budget Cuts for Girl’s Rape, Mother’s Murder

Robert Stacy McCain | 6.18.13

FLASHBACK TO: 1995

Pope Culture

By George Sim Johnston

A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck

By P.J. O'Rourke

Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
Dames at Sea

By John Corry
In the Absence of Guns

By Mark Steyn

In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
The Metaphysical Martini

By Werner J. Dannhauser
Counting the Costs of Clintonism

By Robert H. Bork

The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
Chuck McHagel

By George Neumayr

It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted

By Douglas Bartholomew
It’s the Best Time of the Year

By Mark Steyn

The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
The Bush Crack-Up

By Brit Hume

Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?