This blog originally founded by Blogger who holds a theological degree and a doctorate in Counseling Psychology. Taught Psychology for 32 years and is now Professor Emeritus. Is a board-certified psychologist and was awarded the Lifetime Achievement Award in his profession. Ministered as a chaplain, and pastored Baptist and Episcopal churches. Publications cover the integration of psychology and theology. Served in the Army, the Merchant Marines and the Peace Corps.

Sunday, September 18, 2011

Obama Record WSJ 9/08/11

Michael J. Boskin

48 comments:

Sarkazein said...

AS a result of those impressive stats-- from Chicago no less:

inquiring mind said...

I saw a really cute bumper sticker.

O - One
B - Big
A - Ass
M - Mistake
A - America

Did somebody say that Big Brother was watching? No problem, Commissioner Deal and his regime labeled us as "ultra extremist" in an email that they circulated to all Democrats so we are probably already on the list.

Jack said...

Numbers 2-10 couldn't have anything to do with the country seeing the worst recession in 80 years, could it?

But if Obama takes all the blame for it, does he get all the credit for this?:

-Corporate profits, as a share of GDP, are the highest since 1947
- Corporate cash holdings (2011-Q3) are up 60% since 2008.
-Private-sector job growth in the past 18months, up 200%

Anonymous said...

Yes idiot, the recession has everything to do with it. This jerk that was going to cut the deficit in half during his first term has driven this country so far in the hole it will take years to get us out if we ever do get out.

Jack said...

"Yes idiot, the recession has everything to do with it." --Anon

First, love the sweet-talk. Second, thanks for agreeing with me and remaining on the side of sanity.

Third, let’s play a fun game. Mathematics.

Take 2009, the last year that solid data is available.

$3.517 Trillion spent
- Minus $154 Billion on TARP (passed under Bush, spent under Obama)
- Minus $30 Billion auto-bailout (passed under Bush, spent under Obama)
- Minus $202 Billion on American Recovery and Reinvestment Act
- Minus $224 Billion on additional “welfare” spending (as compared to pre-recession level)

Equals $2.907 Trillion in federal spending.

Those spending categories are recession-specific. No recession equals none of that spending. So taking away the recession-specific spending, Obama’s federal spending was actually less than the 2008 level. And if you continue to take away $794 in wartime defense spending, the 2009 spending level was at 2002 levels.

Sarkazein said...

How can anyone think that causing companies to sit on their money and not invest in their own future (Obama's fault) be something someone should get credit for?


"But if Obama takes all the blame for it, does he get all the credit for this?":-Jack

Sarkazein said...

"Unhappy members of the Congressional Black Caucus “probably would be marching on the White House” if Obama were not president, according to CBC Chairman Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (D-Mo.)."- The news

Jack said...

"causing companies to sit on their money and not invest in their own future" wouldn't increase corporate profits. Nor would it cause private-sector job growth.

Both of which have increased.

Sarkazein said...

Wow! If you are not spending your capital on capital investment, you will show a short term increase in profit. Why? you ask... look it up.


If you didn't hire anyone for an 18 month period, then you hired two in the next 18 month period, your hiring is up 200%. If the 18 months prior to not hiring anyone, you laid off 4, you are really down -200%... keep HOPE-ing for good news Jack... it just isn't there.

Jack said...

Profit (P) = Revenue (TR) - Cost (TC)

If TC remains static (ie: causing companies to sit on their money), the only way P can increase is if TR increases.

"not spending capital" is not revenue.

Furthermore, the private-sector has added close to 2.5 million jobs in the past 18 months, not 2. But kudos for trying to blur the statistic with nonsense.

Sarkazein said...

Jack- If you took in $1,000,000 and out of that $1,000,000 you didn't make any capital investments because you were unsure of the future, your profit picture would be higher than if you SPENT $150,000 out of that $1,000,000 revenue on new equipment for growth in production. Also, if you cut back employees your profit picture would look better for the short run because you have less employee expense.
All of your "help me save Obama from being a total 0" points are bogus.

Sarkazein said...

"not spending capital" is not revenue. -Jack

It is not expense if you didn't spend it... no one said (except for maybe you and Obama) that "not spending capital" is revenue. Think about it.
Big money in the bank does make some money... profit. It is also not at risk.

Jack said...

The point of investment is to increase revenue. If you don't invest, your revenue should remain static. It hasn't. Profits are up independent of investment.

That "short run" is 64 years. But okay.

"if you cut back employees your profit picture would look better"

Again, private sector job growth is up 200% in the past 18 months.

"Big money in the bank does make some money"

Yeah, 2%-3% typically. Profits are soaring, however. Sark, your arguments are becoming thinner and thinner.

Sarkazein said...

Jack- You and Obama know nothing about business. He would have done better staying in Chicago hob-knobing with racist preachers and known terrorists and organizing like-minded people. You should stick to putting band-aids on bobos.

Jack said...

Ad hom attacks.

Nice counter-argument. Like I said, thinner and thinner.

Sarkazein said...

Thinner and thinner, because it is pointless.

Are you saying the economy is healthy? No?

Jack said...

"Thinner and thinner, because it is pointless."

Yes, your arguments are pointless. Thank you for finally realizing that fact.

"Are you saying the economy is healthy?"

Completely healthy, no. I'm saying:

-Corporate profits, as a share of GDP, are the highest since 1947
- Corporate cash holdings (2011-Q3) are up 60% since 2008.
-Private-sector job growth in the past 18 months, up 200%

Sarkazein said...

Keep up the HOPE. Zero will need all the Hopers he can get.

Unemployment over 9%... way over for the real unemployment percentage.

Companies afraid to invest in the future and hoarding their cash for a rainier day.

Profits higher because of lower employment and investment costs.

All good news to the goof-balls that voted for Obama.

Jack said...

"Profits higher because of lower employment and investment costs."

Again, you have some difficulty with (not so) abstract concepts. If companies are not investing, then they are sitting on their cash. That means costs remain constant. And as you saw (P=TR-TC), that means revenues must rise in order to explain increased profits. Even if you counted lack of investment as a decrease in costs, it would be a one-time, short-term adjustment. We've seen, however, quarter after quarter of increased corporate profits. Not short-term.

And we're seeing increased profits in conjuction with private-sector job growth. So lower employment can't explain a longer-term increase in profits. Yes, some companies are still reducing their labor force, but overall the corporate world is seeing job growth. And higher profits.

Sarkazein said...

"And as you saw (P=TR-TC), that means revenues must rise in order to explain increased profits".-Jack

You are just going to have to trust me on this one Jack. If a company cuts its costs (employment and capital investment) which is paid out of the profit, they have more short term profit to show because they didn't spend their profit on employment and capital investment. It is not a good thing.
Your formula says the same thing, its just that Obama stopped short and your head went into the dark and you can't see it.

Sarkazein said...

"And as you saw (P=TR-TC), that means revenues must rise in order to explain increased profits".-Jack

You are wrong. And that is not what your formula says.

Jack said...

"If a company cuts its costs (employment and capital investment) which is paid out of the profit, they have more short term profit to show because they didn't spend their profit on employment and capital investment."

Right! Okay, now stay with me.....there's been job growth, so they're spending revenues on employment. And the increased profits haven't been short-term.

Hope I didn't lose you there.

Reader said...

Where has there been job growth?

Jack said...

In the private-sector.

Anonymous said...

Really Really Really bad form to go on another blog and spam your own blog. And when you use your own blog as a "SOURCE" for your information, well...that's particularly tacky.

You should be reported for spamming.

G.I.G said...

Sark I think your beating a dead horse here. Jack can never understand simple economics. His whole idea of profit is to take capital from those that earn it to give to the government to distribute to those that don't.

guy faulkes said...

Debating Jack is like arguing with the dolt, primarily because jack is probably one of the three tree people that post as Liberalproverbs18a;2. In both persona, he thinks repeating idiocy and the big lie will make people believe him.

Jack said...

Guy, last time that you accused me of lying, I repeatedly asked you how I was lying. Like Bachmann and her HPV debacle, you ducked and never responded.

I'll ask again, since you're accusing again. How am I lying?

Sarkazein said...

Jack- I have had years where my revenue increased and my profit stayed the same. I have had years where my revenue went down and my profit increased. I have had years where my revenue went up and my profit went down.

You have to look at the economy in general. If the employment rate is rising, you may be looking at hirings to replace people who are retiring or had been laid-off previously. To say employment (in general) is growing, is not accurate. Even most cities, states and counties are only replacing people, at least the ones without hiring freezes. This is not to say there is NO hiring going on in certain sectors. But overall, if you believe it is "growth" with the real unemployment as high as it is, you can believe it if you want, I don't.

guy faulkes said...

Jack, usually people lie by opening their mouths. You do it by using a keyboard. Sark has exposed your lies so I have no need to, just as many people exposed your lies the last time I made mention of it. You just refuse to admit the truth and keep on denying reality like a little lying Energizer Bunny. Your are so cute when you do that.

Sarkazein said...

Jack wrote-"If companies are not investing, then they are sitting on their cash. That means costs remain constant."

Also not true. Not even close. You would have no way of knowing how many things are "costs" in business.
Insurance, rent, utilities, gasoline, diesel, motor pool repairs, employee theft, employee mistakes, lawsuits, taxes, collection of delinquent accounts, wholesale cost increases, refunds, warranty work, etc. All known as costs. Most of those things are not controlled by how much money the business is holding on to.
GIG is right, you are a beaten dead horse.

Jack said...

Guy, you claim I lie "by using a keyboard", yet you make no attempt to say what I'm supposedly lying about. Nice. You're cute too.

Sark, I really don't understand your utter lack of economic knowledge, unless you're simply looking for an argument. Corporate revenues are up and have been steadily increasing. Consumer spending is up. Nothing you can argue there.

Sarkazein said...

Guy Faulkes- I think you are right, Jack is Liberal POV with spell check.

Jack said...

Guy, what am I lying about?

Sarkazein said...

Zero better up his anti-depresent intake... its only gonna get rougher from HERE

guy faulkes said...

Everything you have argued with Sark about, Jack. I did not find one factual statement that you made. There is no need for me to retype it.

You refuse to acknowledge the truth. You Lie. We know it. You know it, but as the Bunny Boy (as which I will from hereon refer to you) you go on and on and on with your lies.

Jack said...

Guy claimed I was lying on this thread. I asked what I lied about. He first refused to answer (that's what happens when there are no lies to expose). But now, he has this to say.

"Everything you have argued with Sark about, Jack. I did not find one factual statement that you made."

So let's go over my "statements".

Corporate profits, as a share of GDP, are the highest since 1947 -- Not a lie

Corporate profits up since 2008 -- Not a lie

Private-sector job growth up 200% in the past 18 months -- Not a lie

Consumer spending is up -- Not a lie

So there you go Guy. I guess I just "acknowledged the truth" for you. Oh.....and I didn't lie.

Anonymous said...

JAYSUS FOOL! WILL YOU GET A LIFE. WE ARE SO SICK OF YOUR STUPID POSTS!!

guy faulkes said...

Bunny Boy, you lied about the costs of doing business.

Jack said...

What did I say?

Sarkazein said...

We have a rotten economy. When you try to use misleading information to prove we don't... li-ya.

Sarkazein said...

Jack- Here's one you could of used, just leave out the last part of it.

"WASHINGTON (AP) — The number of Americans who bought previously occupied homes rose in August. But the sales were driven by an increase in foreclosures, a sign that home prices could fall further next year and slow a housing recovery."

Sarkazein said...

GREAT! Gold,silver, and equities down today.... should have invested in Obama Food Stamps.

G.I.G said...

Sark, I hear that government cheese is especially good this time of year grilled .

Anonymous said...

I don't worry about the stock market. I've invested my money in a fool proof company that even has the federal government helping them out.

Nothing can go wrong with Solyndra! You all need to get in on this.

Jack said...

So there's no proof of me lying then. Perfect.

Thanks!

Sarkazein said...

Speaking of that, Bill Clinton threw Obama's new "bill" under the bus. It will be interesting to see how Clinton tries to slither out from underneath as he moves to take over for Jimmy Carter as "The Former President not capable of keeping his mouth shut" OR is it the beginning of the primary run against Zero?

guy faulkes said...

Sark already proved you were lying, Bunny Boy.