Now it's time to focus on Demand-Side Economics!

Here it is, one main reason the USA is stagnating economically:

This next chart shows similar information, again showing flat wages but including rising Productivity!

Together, they include....the way to fix the economy!


We tried several versions of "Supply-Side economics in the past thirty years. Just take care of the top % (the "Investing Class" or lately "Job Creators") and the prosperity will 'trickle-down' to the middle and lower class.  Trickle Down. As Reverend Al says, "we got the down, but no Trickle.

Bottom line? It hasn't worked, not during Reagan, and not under Bush. Twice.

Reagan Tripled the debt. Tripled the debt. Trible down, Ronnie.

Well then, how 'bout Bush, what did he do to the Deficit?


Here's what he did


2007    161   billion
2008     459    billion
2009   1413  billion 

What is that?   Really?  We went from 169 up to 1413?  Billion?  Dollars? No way!

Yes, way.

How many times does 161 go into 1413?  8.something?

So if Reagan Tripled the debt, Bush Octoogled the Deficit!

What about Obama?  

2010   1293
2011   1300
2012   1089
2013     901

Wow. It goes down?  Yes, it does!  Obama reduced the deficit.

Check it out. If you learn this stuff, you will sound really smart when talking politics and economy. Or you an ignore it and be thought of as a Republican. Ouch.

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/federal_deficit_chart.html  


 So what do we do to fix the economy? Look at the next chart. It shows us that the Middle Class has been getting a smaller share of the overall wealth than anytime in the last 80 years.

 That's because the top 1% is taking a higher share than anytime since the Great Depression.  Let's do the math.   If the top 1% takes 25%, how much does that leave for everyone else?

75%  YES! GOOD!  SO 400 PEOPLE GET 25%, HOW MANY PEOPLE SPLIT THE REST?

Consider this:
 As of 2011,  the top 400 people in America own more than the entire bottom 60% of Americans.
 

We should spend money on the Middle Class.  Just like the plan that saved the Auto-Industry, which was direct government loans to the industry, in place of private loans which were not available.  Government investment saved that industry. And we are making a profit as they pay back the loans.

This money stimulated the industry, enabled a structured bankruptcy and debt renegotiation, and the resulting economic vigor has made the auto industry vibrant again.. 

The Middle Class is the Demand Side of supply and demand.  When  Demand has the ability to buy stuff,  (desire & resources),  Supply can step up, hire people, open factories and make stuff to sell. Then Investors can jump on that economic activity, and assist businesses large and small to fight for that business.

It really helps to have a 'new product' a wave of excitement, either through new product or a new technology to get an economic push going.

Taht da da daaah! Anouncing 
"The Green Look American Makeover, USA! 
 ("GLAM USA")

The main motive behind the rebound should be repairing our infrastructure. It's needed, it uses a wide variety
of skills that American Workers have in spades, and it's patriotic! 

Don't just Rebuild it, Re-Brand it. 

Join "The Big Build"! A series of Big Projects requiring a Giant manufacturing and Construction overhaul

Join the Green Movement" - Glam USA 's leap into the future Greening of America, learn New skills, bring old ones to a new industry from wind to solar to Geo thermal.

The Old Bulls, GLAM USA's Old-school energy players competing for efficiency and safety records as the way to win government contracts. Challenge traditional industrys to show how clean, safe and efficient energy can be delivered, using old-school philosophies and modern technonligies.

Reward clean and safe over pure volume.  

The varieyt of ways to join the project cna build team unity and freindly copetition betewwen the agencies to make America the best looking, nost productive nation on earth. Set up[ so that the invesment class can win and retain the glory position, by changing the corporate outlook of oil at all costs, to clean energy and safe delivery. That wins contracts, as do favorable tax positions.

By investing in the country we can take every area of society up to the H-N-L, a hole-nudder-lebel.  



By providing the original investment and the market (government contracts, the government can put people to work, help raise incomes and lower the unemplopyment rate, and repair our crumbling infrastucture. American reboot!

A perfect nations project to inspire pride and get community involvement. When you raise the GDP, you really do generate more income, enough to run a surplus. and raise wages.

By raising the Middle Class's stature and abilioty to buy, and buy making 'supporting the rebuld' a patriotic endeavor, we can create a new young-persons volunteer crew to manage the work and bring it to our communties. We can generate civic pride and contributios from every sector of our society.

A bright and shining rebuilt and remodeled, economically secure  America will rebuild our tourism brand and viatlize travel ni both directions. our stronger dollar and viable economy will spark similar efforts across the first world nations, and the rising GDP will raise enough income to lower our debt and being Europe's economy along with us.

This is a golden opportunity, folks. We need to get behind Obama's Rebuild America plan ! (well, I'm sure he will see the wisdom of this assoon as I teach it to him!)

Don't Be Ignorant

I keep talking to my republican friends and they keep on believing the strangest things. I am not sure what it is that turns otherwise reasonably smart and sane people into gullible obedient little GOP defenders but it is an amazing thing to watch.

I do present the facts to them, such as how we were losing hundreds of thousands of jobs every month for almost a year before Obama took over, and now we have had over three years straight of job increases, doesn't matter.

Even though I point out that in order to make Obama's statistics look worse, the GOP counts everything in the 1st Quarter of 2009, even though Obama hadn't put any policies in place in 1st 6-7 weeks in office.  In fact, Obama wasn't even sworn into office until January 20th, they count January's job losses as something Obama could have done something about!

You wouldn't accept being held responsible at work for something the guy who had your job last year did, Obama can't be blamed for jobs lost before he took office! Try blaming your current wife or husband for something that happened in your previous marriage, see how that works out for you.

Yet that's what you have to be willing to do to accept the phony picture the GOP / Tea Party has been painting since the day Obama took office.

Obama has actually lowered the number of government employees drastically. Not only does the GOP still cry 'socialist', they don't come to the same, sane conclusion a normal person would, that if we have been adding overall jobs every month, yet government jobs have gone down, we must be doing much better in the private sector that the overall unemployment rate reflects.

Of course, the GOP uses the January 2009 rate of about 7.6% to argue Obama has 'raised the unemployment rate', but in fact as of the day Obama took office the rate is now lower.  Romney uses the claim "Obama 'promised' he would lower the rate to under 4%", which is true, but since it  happened in 2008 when the Bush rate was still around 4-5%, to knowingly use that as a political attack is deceitful. 

And If you look at the fast-rising line in a chart since the Bush recession started in 2008, you can see how it took a few months for the rate to stop climbing, but once it did we have had a fairly successful jobs rate since then, a large improvement over what Obama was handed.  (Bush took the unemployment rate from around 4% to over 8% in his eight years in office). By the end of his first year, Obama had stopped that catastrophic trend and has us headed in the right direction.

And regarding the charge of 'Obama the socialist', is it possible that well educated, normal people can so misunderstand that word they think it's true about Obama? or is it that they haven't bothered to see if it's true?

I'm guessing it's being ignorant of facts, rather than being under-educated or simply in denial. At least I hope that's what it is, I hate to think some of my friends and family are willingly being deceitful, or that they don't really care what happens to the country.

Time and again, though, presenting them with facts never elicits a surprising 'wow, didn't know that' or some other type of acknowledgement that the reason they just gave for hating Obama is wrong on the facts. They just ignore that, change the topic to some other (equally vacuous) charge, and of course continue to use the same, discredited argument in the next conversation.

I understand this kind of stubborn intentional ignorance and strongly held belief system when it regards religion, everyone wants their God to be The God. But that's personal, and their holding those beliefs are their right, and don't really impact others too much ( I know that's arguable, I am trying to be generous here).

But in politics, an ignorant belief in political lies has a huge impact on the rest of us, it happened when we 'elected' Bush, and if enough people hold this irrational position and hatred of President Obama, it will harm the country again.

There is evidence out there, much of it is presented in these essays. All you need to do is pay attention and be willing to discuss and seek the truth. Good luck.

Hey Big Spender! (psst, that's you, Mr. Bush)

This chart, from http://www.usgovernmentspending.com,  shows very clearly that President Bush was responsible for the huge rise in spending and subsequent deficits. Following the Clinton surplus years Mr. Bush raised spending by around 400 billion (at the same time lowering taxes!), and again in 2009 under Bush spending jumped from 500 billion to almost 1500! (Yes, the 2009 budget belongs to Mr.Bush, it was put into place four months before Obama took office).

These are facts. They clearly show who was responsible for the huge rise in spending, and totally eliminates the 'big spender' argument against Obama.





Considering these facts, will any of you who might have supported Romney because you thought Obama was the big spender now change your position? 

Spending claims aren't the only phony charges the GOP has invented to attack Obama with. They also add job losses from January 2009 into Obama's jobs record, even though he wasn't sworn in until January 20th. That's over 800,000 jobs lost, in one month!

Here are a few other facts as collected by factcheckorg, along with a chart that mkaes it esy to see what the spending facts really look like.

• Fiscal 2009 began Oct. 1, 2008. That was before Obama was elected, and nearly four months before he took office on Jan. 20, 2009.
• President Bush signed the massive spending bill under which the government was operating when Obama took office. That was Sept. 30, 2008.

• On Jan. 7, 2009 — two weeks before Obama took office — the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office issued its regular budget outlook, stating: “CBO projects that the deficit this year will total $1.2 trillion.”

• CBO attributed the rapid rise in spending to the bank bailout and the federal takeover of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac –  plus rising costs for unemployment insurance and other factors driven by the collapsing economy (which shed 818,000 jobs in January alone).
• 
  
• Another factor beyond Obama’s control was an automatic 5.8 percent cost of living increase announced in October 2008 and given to Social Security beneficiaries in January 2009. It was the largest since 1982. Social Security spending alone rose $66 billion in fiscal 2009, and Medicare spending, driven by rising medical costs, rose $39 billion.

see how spending went up every year under Bush? See how it went down in 2010, Obama's first budget?



Is it too much to ask that rational people who might otherwise have blamed Obama for outrageous spending will now revise their position to include the facts, rather than the 'spin' by the GOP? 

Sadly, they probably won't. When people say they hate politics, this is why.

When you judge the 'Fake Obama' that the GOP made up, he does look bad.

But that isn't a real person.

The real President Obama has done a reasonably good job in trying to repair the damage caused by the previous administration. The country would be in a lot better shape if the GOP in the Senate hadn't filibustered everything Obama tried to do, such as the 2009 jobs bill, which passed the House and had 55 votes lined up in the Senate. The GOP prevented it from even getting a vote, putting partisan politics ahead of the welfare of the nation.

I venture to say none of you would like to be judged by a pack of lies, nor would you stand for your children or your employees lying about everything as Mitt Romney does.

Why do you put up with it?

STIMULATE ME!

Analyzing the results of the 2009 stimulus.

Mr. Romney continues to call this "the failed stimulus".

Is he correct?  Let's check the evidence...



Here is a list of top-rated studies (including which method was used and a quote from each summary)

As you will see, 6 of the 9 said it worked, 

one said it worked but was too small, 

and two said it didn't work.
(one of the 'failed' had results that showed it was due to it's being too small).
 

Also notable, the CBO, which is the "official"result, says it worked.

So the claim that the stimulus "failed" in contradicted by the facts, as 7 of 9 top studies say otherwise.




worked (econometric): 
 Feyrer and Sacerdote.
" The stimulus had a positive, statistically significant effect on employment. "

Chodorow-Reich, Feiveson, Liscow,  and Woolston.
"The state fiscal aid portion of the stimulus, which specifically increased federal Medicaid matching funds, had significant positive effects on employment. The additional matching funds increased employment by 3.5 job-years per $100,000 spent, and the multiplier for the funds is around 2."

Wilson
"The stimulus created 2 million jobs in its first year, and 3.2 million by March 2011."
 
It worked (modeling):
Congressional Budget Office.
"Through the first quarter of 2011, the stimulus created between 1.6 million and 4.6 million jobs, increased real GDP by between 1.1 and 3.1 percent, and reduced unemployment by between 0.6 and 1.8 percentage points."

Council of Economic Advisors.
"The stimulus created or saved 2.7 million to 3.7 million jobs by the third quarter of 2010."

Zandi and Blinder.
"The stimulus raised real GDP in 2010 by 3.4 percent, reduced unemployment by 1.5 percentage points, and created almost 2.7 million jobs." It worked a little bit (modeling):

Oh and Reis.
"Both tax transfers and government purchases have very mild positive effects on growth."

It didn’t work (econometric):
Conley and Dupor.       
"The stimulus did not have a statistically significant effect on employment."
                   
Taylor. 
"The tax transfer provisions of the stimulus package, and previous stimulus packages in the 2000s, did not lead to a significant increase in consumption, and the spending provisions, notably including aid to state and local governments, did not lead to a noticeable increase in government purchases."                                          

Now here's a chart of three companies that also agree that the stimulus worked to stave off a deeper recession.


--


All of these indicate, once again, that the claim that the stimulus "failed" is just plain wrong.  Not mentioned in any of this is the reason the stimulus was needed, which was the bad economy handed over to Obama. 

Doe Mr. Romney know about these studies? He ought to, he's running for President! 

Why then does he choose to lie about them? You can argue several things from these results, but "failed" is not one of them.

To be kind to Mr. Romney, we can assume that he simply chooses to  ignore evidence that doesn't support his pre-conceived opinion.

To be blunt, however, we would have to say he "lied".

Romney's attempt to blame President Obama for the spending in the stimulus package is disingenuous at best. 

In English, Please

 

Yes, you read it right. 

Or maybe you didn't, I don't really care.  But for those of you who think you're clever enough to understand what it means, well, you're clearly too smart to read this blog. But just in case some idiot tries to understand what it means and will go crazy and come beat me up if they can't figure it out, here's what it means. I think.

The Introduction to  A Hole In My Head:

"Factual Evidence and Accurate Analysis Presented with Mind-Boggling Lucidity from Pinpoint Perspectives Fully-Focused Amongst Fecund Absolutions Delivered With Intellectual Panache and Irreverent Felicity Well-Bolstered by Fortuitous Certitude and Imaginative Introspections Detailing the Desultry Vagaries of Desperately Delusional Yet Delighfuly Partisan Political Platitudes . And some jokes."

Here it is using normal words:

 

"True facts and correct interpretations communicated with unbelievable clear thinking from specific points of view, completely concentrated in and around fertile or intellectually productive formal forgiveness of wrongdoings, delivered with brainy boldness and disrespectful humor, supported by timely confidence and creative insight pointing out the unplanned unfocused unpredictability of hopelessly crazy yet funny one-sided trite remarks about governing."

Broken Down Word by Word

For You Cunning Linguists:

Factual Evidence and                True facts and

 Accurate Analysis                      correct interpretations

 Presented with                           communicated with

Mind-Boggling                             unbelievable

Lucidity and                                 clear-thinking

Pinpoint Perspectives               specific points of view

Fully-Focused                             completely concentrated

Amongst                                       in and around

Fecund                                          fertile or intellectually productive

Absolutions                                 formal forgiveness of wrongdoings

Delivered With                           communicated with

Intellectual                                  brainy

Panache and                               boldness and

Irreverent                                    disrespectful

Felicity                                          humor

Well- Bolstered by                     supported by

Fortuitous                                    timely

Certitude and                               confidence and

Imaginative                                  creative

Introspections                             insight

Detailing the                                pointing out the

Desultry                                        unplanned

Vagaries of                                   unfocused unpredictability of

Desperately                                 hopelessly

Delusional Yet                            crazy yet

Delighfuly                                    funny

Partisan                                        one-sided

Political Platitudes .                  trite remarks about governing.

And some jokes.                         There are no jokes, I was kidding.

Hey Big Spender! (Oh, not you, Barack)

 


 Well well well, aren't those some surprising facts?!  Not to those of us who seek out evidence, but for those of you reading tea leaves instead.

Despite the fantasy that the GOP/Tea Partisans like to imagine, it turns out President Obama isn't the Big spender they wish he were. Mr. Reagan and Mr. Bush the smaller are battling for that honor.

One can only hope that now Republicans will drop that accusation, and come up with something, well, a little more true?

This from Forbes @

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2012/05/24/who-is-the-smallest-government-spender-since-eisenhower-would-you-believe-its-barack-obama/




Here's a bit of the article. For his trouble, the writer of this fine bit of research Rick Unger was attacked in the comment section by Republican Tea Partisans who, as usual, go into denial when presented with evidence that proves their oft-repeated yet wholly unjustified narrative to be wrong.


"How have the Republicans managed to persuade Americans to buy into the whole “Obama as big spender” narrative?
It might have something to do with the first year of the Obama presidency where the federal budget increased a whopping 17.9% —going from $2.98 trillion to $3.52 trillion. I’ll bet you think that this is the result of the Obama sponsored stimulus plan that is so frequently vilified by the conservatives…but you would be wrong.
The first year of any incoming president term is saddled—for better or for worse—with the budget set by the president whom immediately precedes the new occupant of the White House. Indeed, not only was the 2009 budget the property of George W. Bush—and passed by the 2008 Congress—it was in effect four months before Barack Obama took the oath of office.
Accordingly, the first budget that can be blamed on our current president began in 2010 with the budgets running through and including including fiscal year 2013 standing as charges on the Obama account, even if a President Willard M. Romney takes over the office on January 20^, 2013.
So, how do the actual Obama annual budgets look?
Courtesy of Marketwatch-

• In fiscal 2010 (the first Obama budget) spending fell 1.8% to $3.46 trillion.
•  In fiscal 2011, spending rose 4.3% to $3.60 trillion.
• In fiscal 2012, spending is set to rise 0.7% to $3.63 trillion, according to the Congressional Budget Office’s estimate of the budget that was agreed to last August.
• Finally in fiscal 2013 — the final budget of Obama’s term — spending is scheduled to fall 1.3% to $3.58 trillion. 

For those of you keeping score, we have proven that Obama's record on jobs is positive and far better than when he took office, his record on GDP again far better than when he took over, and now once more we find his record on spending in actually pretty good. His record is better than Mr. Bush's first three years, in fact.

All of these factors would most likely be much better if it weren't for the obstructionists in Congress and the U.S. Senate, where the minority party has decided that the will of the voters doesn't matter, and have prevented the majority from doing anything to help the country.

You know, the majority party? Those legislators the citizens of our great country chose to make the decisions this time around? The GOP minority feels that we can't be trusted to decide for ourselves, so they have taken it upon themselves to prevent anything from happening in case, horrors! Obama did well and earned a second term.

Yes, they did, but then, he has, and of course, he does. Deserve a second term, that is...for doing a good job...despite their obstruction, I mean.

Oh, How We Owe!

Conventional wisdom these days says that our debt is too large. 

And indeed it is. But the real question is, "compared to what?"

The following chart shows that as a portion of GDP, our debt is actually lower than it was after World War II.

Note that in the above chart, the drop that comes after WWII was due to a giant government spending program called the "New Deal".

Yes, we actually spent public sector funds in the face of a huge Debt-to-GDP ratio, and the result was to spur such economic growth that we grew a strong middle class, and our economy grew at such a rate that we lowered our Debt-to-GDP ratio and became the world's strongest economy.


In order to lower the deficit, we can either choose to cut spending or increase revenues.  Only one of these will work, however, because we are in a depression. Cutting spending will give the middle class and poorer people even less money to spend, further reducing Demand's ability to keep up with Supply.

So, we need to invest public funds to spur economic growth, so that the majority of people in the USA will have enough money to buy things, which in turn will be an incentive for investment on the supply side.

Our debt ratio is far less than many other countries, and less than the hole we dug in WWII. We have seen what happens when countries cut spending too rapidly, the austerity programs in Italy, Greece and Ireland have drastically hurt those countries, while our government spending programs pulled us out of the debt following WWII so that we grew a strong middle class and became the strongest economy in the world.

We should learn a lesson from history and invest public sector money in order to spur demand.

Economic growth and controlled spending will lower our debt.