In other news the WH has removed briefings on the economy from it's schedule. (via: Drudge)

Those pesky economic briefings must have been eating into 0bama's time on the links.

Expect little coverage of the economy in the MSM now that obama has signaled that he wants to do campaign sound bites only and is not interested in actually running the country.

It would not surprise to have some empty-headed academic come out and say that questions about the economy are racist.

There is no way the Obama Administration can credibly claim that any of their policies aimed at ending the current recession have been successful.

Sigh.

http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2011/05/25/cbo-says-stimulus-boosted-growth-will-add-more-to-deficit/

Just because the patient is still in bed on antibiotics, doesn't it mean it was a bad idea to cure his pneumonia with antibiotics.

jim m: "It would not surprise to have some empty-headed academic come out and say that questions about the economy are racist."

they've actually already been doing that!

...and then the OTHER "jim"
jim x: "Just because the patient is still in bed on antibiotics, doesn't it mean it was a bad idea to cure his pneumonia with antibiotics."

geez, jimmah, when the "patient" went to the "hospital" he (us) was only HALF as sick as he is today! Time to find a REAL doctor, instead of a hack who only ORGANIZED doctors!

Uhh...Koch brothers!!
err... Sarah Palin !!!
Uhh.. Haliburton !!!

jim x,

Exactly. obama sold the stimulus and his budget as being the cure for the recession and told us that we would see real growth. The fact is the vastly increased government spending has delayed significantly any recovery.

Even Reagan in 1981 by dramatically cutting taxes saw a faster recovery from double digit unemployment than obama has.

I'll also note that just 3 or 4 days ago you disputed my claim that this recovery has been worse than any since the great depression, a fact demonstrated by his graphic.

"Expect little coverage of the economy in the MSM.."

Well, after recent reports that high gas prices are actually beneficial in many ways, I wonder.

Do I recall correctly that a year or so ago, the MSM actually ran stories on how unemployed people were actually enjoying and extending it?

And if people start starving, Obama will get credit for solving the obesity epidemic.

More seriously, Michael is right that "There is no way the Obama Administration can credibly claim that any of their policies aimed at ending the current recession have been successful." The key being the word "credibly". Obama has already been campaigning about the 2 million jobs created in the last 15 months, about saving the auto industry, etc.

Thankfully, recent polls indicate the american public isn't buying the spin anymore.

Truth is, they're not buying much of anything anymore.

Thanks for posting this chart. Too bad you didn't read it first, or at least understand what you were posting.

Obama has been in office for 28 months.

The chart runs 47 months, presumably ending in May 2011 although it could be earlier.

47 months minus the 28 months Obama has been in office means that Obama was inaugurated in month 19 (janunuary 2009)of the chart for this recession.

At the bottom of the very deep curve charting the record-breaking recession created by the Bush administration.

The recession hit bottom in month 5 of Obama's term, and we're still digging out of the recession -- but this chart makes clear just how severe the Bush 2007 recession was.

You remember the Bush recession, right? The one that started in 2007 and the one that in Septemeber 2008 Republican John McCain and Republican Sarah Palin said wasn't happening - stating that the "economy is fundamentally sound?"

Thanks again for posting this.

Looks like Art found the Cool Aid again.

In terms of long-term unemployment (currently at 45% of the unemployed) we are now at levels unseen since the Great Depression.

Which is not suprising since virtually all non-partisian financial analysists have been saying from the begining (while Bush was in office) that we have not seen a crisis like this since the great depression.

Shorter version of Art W's post:

"It's Bush fault!
And Obama is teh bestest President evah. So there! Nyah, nyah nyah!"

Thanks for playing, Art W.

Hey, I didn't post the chart! Michael did.

Don't complain to me if the facts show what they do...

Somebody better tell Michael not to post charts which make Republican heads explode because they show how much of the record-breaking recession happened under Bush's watch.

"You remember the Bush recession, right? The one that started in 2007.."

That would be the recession that ended in 2009.
Since then Obama has owned the economy. It's his.

And you might want to catch up.
The blame Bush card has expired.

Obama is now blaming high gas prices, the earthquake in Japan, and unease about the European fiscal situation for the present state of our economy.

ArtW,

Too bad you can't read as well as you do math. The line for the current recession only goes to month 38 so obama came in when the curve was around -1.5%.

Remember when Barry was promising that if we passed his stimulus and budget that he would keep unemployment under 9%? Notice that the only way he has kept it from going over 10% has been by dropping people out of the labor pool? Real unemployment is much higher (I'm not sure where the 11-12% in the post comes from)

From Valueline:

the official rate counts only those not working who have seriously tried to find a job in the last four weeks. That rate... does not include those working temporary jobs, who are doing so only because they cannot find permanent employment. The official rate also precludes those working part-time jobs who would want full-time work, if it were available. Finally, this so-called official rate does not count those who are no longer looking for work as they sense that there are no opportunities out there for them. When those several categories are added to the official 9.4% rate, the cumulative total is probably closer to 18%--or just under one in five Americans who want full time, permanent employment, who are unable to secure such work, at present.

http://www.valueline.com/Markets/Commentary.aspx?id=10133

Granted the 18% is unemployed/underemployed, but it is more to the point than what the administration says and reflects the economic woes far more accurately.

Thanks Tina for pointing out the obvious. Now explain why you support obama when he is wanting to raise taxes like Smoot-Hawley?

Tina S: "all non-partisian financial analysists have been saying from the begining "

Unicorns, leprechauns, and Santa's elves have been saying from the beginning that the current recession was largely caused by the policies of Obama and the rest of the Marxist Democrats who took over the congress in 2007. I tend to believe them not only because that opinion is solidly backed up by fact, but also because they are a lot more real than "non-partisan financial analysists".

The only bright side to this is that if there is a recovery, it will be one stupendous recovery compared to all the other ones we've had.

/sarcaster off

Actually, Obama is performing a miracle with this economy - he's making Jimmah look good!
http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2011/05/shadow-stat-misery-index-highest-on.html
"John Williams, over at Shadow Stats, compiles economic data for inflation and unemployment the way it used to be calculated pre-1990. Based on that data, the CPI inflation rate is over 10%, and the unemployment rate is over 15% (see charts). The Misery Index is the sum of the current inflation rate and the unemployment rate. If it were to be calculated using the older methods, the Index would now be over 25, a record high. It surpasses the old index high of 21.98, which occurred in June 1980, when Jimmy Carter was president. Most believe the height of the Index along with the Iranian hostage crisis is what caused Carter to lose his re-election bid."

With Obama in office and now fully geared up for his reelection bid the chances of the mass media fairly and accurately reporting the unemployment picture are about the same as Jim Tressel's chances of being named chancellor of the Univ. of Michigan.

Two other points are worth mentioning:

1. Michael's post is very cogent and well informed but he actually left out one key item. The real, real unemployment rate is at least 15.4%. Not only do you need to factor in those who've given up looking for work due to poor job prospects you also have to factor in what labor economists term the involuntary part-time workforce. Those are people who are able and willing to work full time but who can only get part-time work. That 15.4% figure is the "U-6" unemployment rate and, not coincidentally, that was the headline unemployment figure used by the Labor Dept. for many decades, up until it was phased out in 1994 during the Clinton administration.

2. States, cities and counties are on the brink of massive, across-the-board job cuts.

We've been seeing anemic payroll job growth with only tepid public sector losses. Once the latter job cuts kick in with full force the overall picture will go from gloomy to downright ghastly.

The little things the liberals forget. The democratically controlled house initiated the oversight and regulatory policies from 2006-2008. Now, the math may throw you liberals, but that is a lot of years. Then Obama got in the mix and instead of focusing on the economy (like a laser beam) he spent one year fiddling with the very expensive and job killing Obamacare. Now businesses are so up tight about all the crap they don't want to let loose their money until jug ears is put back in the box.

And Arty, GW Bush went before the media in 2005 and stated SS and Medicare had to be addressed because it is going broke. The dem leadership then had a press conference to say the programs are sound. Same thing Frank said about Fannie Mae four months before the collapse. So you liberals live in your lala land and let the grown ups take care of things. ww

Exactly. obama sold the stimulus and his budget as being the cure for the recession and told us that we would see real growth. The fact is the vastly increased government spending has delayed significantly any recovery.

Nope, for two reasons:

1. Paul Krugman predicted that the stimulus needed to be larger to work really effectively - that otherwise it would be enough to halt the slide into the abyss, but then leave things flat.

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/07/28/how-did-we-know-the-stimulus-was-too-small/

In fact the stimulus was nearly 1/3 in tax breaks, which nonpartisan economists agree doesn't help a stalled economy nearly as much as a direct stimulus.

2. NO nonpartisan economists agree that the increase in government debt has in ANY WAY slowed the growth of the economy.

How could it?? The economy is based on things that are made and sold, and the ability of people to work and buy them.

Even Reagan in 1981 by dramatically cutting taxes saw a faster recovery from double digit unemployment than obama has.

a) Reagan's administration benefited significantly from Carter's policies, which continued after Carter left office:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaganomics

The federal oil reserves were created to ease any future short term shocks. President Jimmy Carter started phasing out price controls on petroleum, while he created the Department of Energy. Much of the credit for the resolution of the stagflation is given to two causes: a three year contraction of the money supply by the Federal Reserve Board under Paul Volcker, initiated in the last year of Carter's presidency,[5] and long term easing of supply and pricing in oil during the 1980s oil glut.

b) Reagan RAISED TAXES.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20030729-503544.html

So will people please stop claiming that he didn't?

Or that a return to the tax rates under *Clinton* - which were still less than Reagan's - are unimaginable while turning Medicare into a voucher system is somehow an actual solution?

I'll also note that just 3 or 4 days ago you disputed my claim that this recovery has been worse than any since the great depression, a fact demonstrated by his graphic.

I still dispute it. It can be worse in one way, sure. But in the Great Depression people were facing **starvation**. Sorry, we're not seeing that on anywhere near the same scale.

I know you want to blame this all on Obama, even though he inherited this mess just like FDR inherited Hoover's mess. And I know you want to blame Obama for not immediately fixing it, even though the only good things about the economy right now are due to the Federal interventions in the stock market and GM. But it doesn't fit the facts.

"Hey, I didn't post the chart! Michael did.

Don't complain to me if the facts show what they do..."

Tell us Art'... is it cherry or grape?

And what else happened in 2007... who was it that took control of the Congress, and the purse strings, in 2007?

The Democrats. And?

What specific policy changes did the Dems put in place in 2007 that you think caused the crash?

Does anyone really think Paul Krugman is an objective source of information on anything anymore? He says going into dept to the point that we are drowning in it isn't enough and you think that represents sound economic advice? Jim is that how it works at your house, when the credit cards are max'ed and the income is down is that the time to spend more, does that ever end with a good result?

Yeah, it's funny how the Dems and Obama took an economy that wasn't doing all that badly (OMG! 6% unemployment!) and, doing EVERYTHING they wanted (Dem Prez and Congress, none of those evil Repubs telling them they couldn't spend on this or that - they had a majority!) have managed to get us to this wonderful point. A Congress that won't even MAKE a fucking budget - obviously we're so rolling in the dough that none is needed!

But it's all been 'unexpected' - like some dumb-ass teenager getting his first credit card and 'Wow! FREE MONEY! Let's go PAR-TAY!', and then being 'unexpectedly' surprised when he opens the bill.

It was only a little bit here - and a little bit there, and then some more over here, and then that night out with the... oh, man - this shit sneaks up on you, doesn't it?

But all Obama's been looking at is the credit limit. HE doesn't give a damn about paying it down - or even slowing spending as long as he can have his perqs. We gave him the credit card and trusted him not to abuse it.

And now his chief monetary adviser has bailed on him. Who'd have thought THAT would happen?

Austan Goolsbee got the hell out before any collapse could be blamed on him. He knows there's loads of room under the bus still - and didn't want tread marks on his back.

Jim x,
What, specifically, did Bush do that caused the recession and made it so bad that Obama and both houses of Congress could not pull out of the tail spin?

JLawson, you know better than to say the economy was not doing badly when Obama took office.

Oh, Tina S, you disappoint me.

I'm not saying it wasn't doing BADLY- we were having problems at the time - I'm saying OBAMA and Congress's approval of his massive spending has made it a LOT worse. Kind of like the difference between a first degree burn (uncomfortable, not serious) on a limb, and 3rd degree (very serious) over most of the body.

(Hey, Epador, does that work as a simile?)

Obama came into office after the Dem Congress that took over in '06 had started running things off the rails. He took what they started, opened the throttle wide.

You like the results? Or are you going to argue that Obama couldn't have 'anticipated' the 'unexpected' results of spending shitloads of money we don't have on projects that didn't produce any growth?

Tina S-

"JLawson, you know better than to say the economy was not doing badly when Obama took office."

Bad is relative O' cool aid sipper. Compared to this depression that period in history was an economic boom.

jim x:

b) Reagan RAISED TAXES.

This statement couldn't be more wrong. Here's a quote from the very source you cite:

". . . the top marginal rate fell from 70 percent when [Reagan] came into office to 28 percent when he left."

Here's more:

http://www.ntu.org/tax-basics/history-of-federal-individual-1.html

There was a slight increase in the lowest rate toward the end of Reagan's administration, but he hardly "raised taxes."

NO nonpartisan economists agree that the increase in government debt has in ANY WAY slowed the growth of the economy. . . . How could it??

Well, among many, many other ways, there's the depreciation in the dollar. In the last year, the dollar has lost nearly 20% of its value. The dollar is in a nosedive. That's because deficit spending causes too many dollars to be created out of thin air. Thanks, Obama.

Over the last year, oil has increased 20% to 25%. That's directly caused by the weakening dollar. I assume you understand how higher oil prices hurt the economy.

Reagan's administration benefited significantly from Carter's policies

The problem with the above statement is that unemployment continued to climb until into Reagan's third year in office. It only turned around because of Reagan's tax policies. The turnaround had nothing to do with Carter.

Hey Art and fellow drinkers of the Obama koolaid, didn't Obama say we were out of the woods and well on our way to recovery?

And I do remember being told that the recession ended in 2009. I find it really interesting that Obama and fellow progressive hacks claimed they turned things around but now they are still blaming Pres Bush even though the D's have had the keys to the financial car since 2006.

Pres Bush tried to reform Fannie and Freddy but Frank and Dodd said no.

Pres Bush tried to reform Medicare but was shot down.

Frank and Dodd FORCED banks to loan to people that could not afford the loans, causing the collapse.

State Farm is forcing retirees to go get their own healthcare next year with a drop in services and a substantial increase in costs. 30% of businesses are going to drop healthcare for their employees next year due to Obamacare. My doctor and many more will be forced to drop Medicare because they are losing money on it now and the Obamacare bill is cutting MORE funding to Dr's and hospitals.

Anyone with half a brain can tell that Obama counted on these reactions so he HAS to come in and save the people because the "evil" insurance companies are dropping people because they cannot make enough money off of them. Can anyone say "Single Payer"?

I could list many more but I do not have that much time.

My question to you Art is this, how are these major actions the fault of Pres Bush?

SCSIWuzzy, re: # 28 - you answer me first, and then I'll be happy to answer you.

Jim is that how it works at your house, when the credit cards are max'ed and the income is down is that the time to spend more, does that ever end with a good result?

Well, let's see.

If I was barely holding onto my job, and then the car I needed to drive to work broke down - would it be a better idea to:

a) take out a loan and fix the car? Or
b) save money by not fixing the car - and lose my job, AND have a harder time getting another one with no car?

I think the better choice is clearly (a). That ends better than "saving" money in a way that loses me more money by losing my job - or in this case, the economy.

Well, among many, many other ways, there's the depreciation in the dollar. In the last year, the dollar has lost nearly 20% of its value.

Where are you getting that from? Source?

Over the last year, oil has increased 20% to 25%. That's directly caused by the weakening dollar.

No, sigh, it's not caused by the weakening dollar. Nor is it Obama not opening up as many leases as the GOP wants - since the companies aren't even exploring all the land **they already have leases to**.

As I've posted on this site, previously several times, even **conservative** energy experts don't blame this on Obama. It is purely due to speculation on oil due to the Arab Spring, and fears of future interruptions.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/03/24/business/main20046700.shtml

I assume you understand how higher oil prices hurt the economy.

Yes. I assume you understand how speculation drives oil prices, and that the main driver has been unrest in the middle east.

This statement couldn't be more wrong. Here's a quote from the very source you cite:

". . . the top marginal rate fell from 70 percent when [Reagan] came into office to 28 percent when he left."

And here's some more information from the same source, that you skip over:

The eventual bipartisan 1986 act aimed to be revenue-neutral: while it reduced the top marginal rate, it also partially "cleaned up" the tax base by curbing tax loopholes, preferences, and exceptions, thus raising the effective tax on activities previously specially favored by the code.

Also read here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/08/opinion/the-great-taxer.html

The first Reagan tax increase came in 1982. By then it was clear that the budget projections used to justify the 1981 tax cut were wildly optimistic. In response, Mr. Reagan agreed to a sharp rollback of corporate tax cuts, and a smaller rollback of individual income tax cuts. Over all, the 1982 tax increase undid about a third of the 1981 cut; as a share of G.D.P., the increase was substantially larger than Mr. Clinton's 1993 tax increase.

The point:

Reagan didn't always and only lower taxes. He lowered them when he thought it was good, and he raised them when he realized he had to.

So even Reagan, the namesake of Reaganomics aka trickle-down aka voodoo economics, knew that tax cuts weren't the solution to everything. Imagine that.

And here's some further info on Saint Reagan for you, then:

http://money.cnn.com/2010/09/08/news/economy/reagan_years_taxes/index.htm

You might want to check out how Reagan slightly lowered taxes - and much more vastly increased the size of the government.

Where are you getting that from? Source?

http://quotes.ino.com/chart/?s=NYBOT_DX&v=d12

jim x,

Krugman said that the stimulus needed to be much larger?! Exactly what I have said for a long time: when leftist policies fail it isn't because they were wrong it is because they weren't far left enough.

The stimulus couldn't have been larger because nobody would have bought the debt. The Chinese have unloaded nearly all their short term debt and are swiftly dumping their long term debt. Just this week they came out and said that the US needs to forget about increasing the debt ceiling and cut spending instead.

I will also point out that Krugman was a significant advisor to Enron and we all know how that turned out for Enron.

Inflation is increasing. Clearly you are too young to remember the Carter years but it was not pretty. Rampant inflation and interest rates around 20%. (how else are you going to sell debt unless you can promise a return higher than the inflation rate?) We are headed back there. obama wants to print more money because the Chinese won't buy our bonds. Inflation is alraedy over 10$% by historic measures. His presidency has failed.

jim m-

"Inflation is alraedy over 10$% by historic measures. His presidency has failed."

Now you went and spoiled jinx's Kool-Aid induced euphoria

re: # 38. Thanks for posting your source.

Here's the US dollar index over the past 3 years:

http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2009/04/us-dollar-index-since-march-2008-bottom/

Notice that the dollar's current position, it was at it's all time low in March of 2008. Is Bush responsible for that? Yes, no?

Now notice where the dollar is, from when Obama actually took office and started having an affect on policy - January 2009. Up higher than then, isn't it?

The stimulus couldn't have been larger because nobody would have bought the debt.

No, not true.

First, there's no evidence that China wouldn't have floated the larger debt.

Second, that's not the only way to pay for it. Taxes could have been put back where they were under Clinton.

Third, the stimulus was 1/3 tax breaks. That could have been spent directly too.

For all this is worth.

there's no evidence that China wouldn't have floated the larger debt

So by that reasoning you are saying that QE1 and QE2 were entirely unnecessary?

You can't have it both ways. Either we had enough buyers or we didn't. If we had enough buyers then please explain why obama decided to devalue the dollar. Please explain why he is considering it for a third time.

jim x,

dumbass, the dollar index compares the dollar to other currencies and it's a weighted index so the index value is tied mostly to the Euro and with the Euro problems with the PIIGS (if you have to look that up then you don't belong in the conversation) the idea that the dollar is not doing that badly is not surprising.

When talking inflation it is not against a group of other currencies that you are concerned about but rather the purchasing power against commodities. Your dollar index is completely beside the point.

Reagan didn't always and only lower taxes.

It was obvious that I was talking about marginal tax rates. Those rates underwent a profound reduction during Reagan's administration.

Now, if you want to make the goofy claim that by "curbing tax loopholes, preferences, and exceptions" as well eliminating tax shelters and illogical deductions, Reagan was really "raising taxes," go right ahead.

The larger point is that lowering tax rates removed the disincentive to production caused by the tax code, and that's what saved the economy.

"You can't have it both ways."

You can in Koolaid-ville. You can support Barry the depression King and claim the economy is growing despite the contrary being so obvious. All it takes is the willingness to imbibe on Barry's joker cherry passion grape flavorade and enjoy the funemployment checks.

Now notice where the dollar is, from when Obama actually took office and started having an affect on policy - January 2009. Up higher than then, isn't it?

The other point is what jim m made--the dollar is measured against other currencies and has actually benefitted substantially from recent problems with the Euro and other currencies.

Against gold over the last year, the dollar has lost about 20% of its value. Against gold during the entire Obama presidency, the dollar has lost about half its value.

Thanks Obama!!!

Well, at least y'all aren't falling all over yourselves to congratulate a troll for his "intellectual honesty" tonight!

Heh.

This is just stupid, the counrty is broke, it's so far in dept it will have difficulty ever climbing out, anyone Krugman, JimX, Art, anyone that claims we need to spend more has to be completely out of their minds. It MAKES NO SENSE you can not spend your way to prosperity.

Jim X -

"If I was barely holding onto my job, and then the car I needed to drive to work broke down - would it be a better idea to:

a) take out a loan and fix the car? Or b) save money by not fixing the car - and lose my job, AND have a harder time getting another one with no car?

I think the better choice is clearly (a). That ends better than "saving" money in a way that loses me more money by losing my job - or in this case, the economy."

But he's enjoying HIS ride! Aren't you glad to be paying for it? Aren't you proud he's riding around in something you'll never even get a whiff of?

The problem with that chart, unlike every recession since WWII, is that we never will get back to zero before the next downturn hits. Jobs are down about 4 percent from 2007 levels and that line is about to plummet again.

So by that reasoning you are saying that QE1 and QE2 were entirely unnecessary?

No, by that reasoning I'm saying that to claim the Chinese wouldn't have loaned us more money with no actual evidence is to make unsupportable claims.

jim m,

poopyhead, with inflation you are worried about money becoming worthless and people losing faith in it.

So, whatever. I don't see how your criticism of the worthiness of "my index" proves my argument wrong, right, or even relates to the central point.

It was obvious that I was talking about marginal tax rates.

Oh? Well then you're still wrong, because Reagan increased the payroll tax to pay for social security.

Which, strangely enough, is the one thing that would permanently solve Social Security's alleged issues - and is the one thing the GOP refuses to even consider today. Yet another case where Saint Ronnie's mythical life differs greatly from reality.

Next?

Jim x,

Are you really that thick?

There would have been no need for QE1 or QE2 if we had buyers for that debt. The very fact that we did it is evidence that China (and everyone else for that matter) either could not or would not at that time buy our debt.

My point is that you are trying to use an index that is tied to the euro which is having severe difficulties itself. So you are claiming that everything is OK based on a valuation compared to a currency that some are saying may not even be here in 5 years. I am saying that compared to commodities the dollar is falling fast and that is a better and more useful measure of the strength of the dollar.

Sorry, I figured you were smart enough to make that connection the first time.

Not by a long shot. The chart you linked ends about 26 months ago. When Obama took office, the dollar was at about 88.

Now it's at 73. I used the last year. A year ago, the dollar was at about 87. Again, today, 73--about a 20% loss.

And?

So let's recap:

- in the Bush administration in March of 2008 the dollar reached it's all-time low of 71. But Bush is not responsible for this.

- after Obama came into office, it reached it's high point of 88. But Obama is not responsible for this.

- but now that its reached 73, Obama is finally responsible for it.

Bonus question:

Why is the dollar being at 73 a sign of horrible impending doom and apocalypse under Obama - but the dollar being at 71 under Bush a sign that everything was okay and there was no problem with Bush's policies at all?

Just connecting things here. These facts are all in the same universe. Either they all make sense together or something's off with the theory connecting them.

Jim m,

Are you really that portly?

Your point amounts to whatever.

You claimed as a fact that China wouldn't have floated our debt. Where is your evidence for this claim?

Sorry, I figured you were smart enough to make the connection that "evidence" means "stuff".

Jim x,

Last time dumbass: In QE1 and QE2 the fed printed dollars to purchase government debt. If there had been a buyer for that debt there would have been no need to print the money. I don't need to show that China couldn't have purchased the debt. The fact that we did it at all is a demonstration that there wasn't anyone to buy it!

You want evidence? THE EVIDENCE IS THE FACT THAT IT HAPPENED AT ALL!!!!!!!!!!

China has sold off 97% of its US debt holdings. That behavior is evidence that they have been running away from accumulating US debt for over a year.

You can continue to deny this, but I cannot offer you more evidence than the fact that obama printed $2.1T to float his government debt and the only reason for printing that much that fast was because there was no one around to buy it.

Last time indeed, poopydoopyhead.

In Q1 and Q3, the Fed printing money instead of borrowing China DOESN'T mean that China wouldn't have floated us if we asked. It just means that WE chose to lay off on asking China.

So, you still have presented NO PROOF of your original assertion, in post # 39, that the stimulus "couldn't have been larger" because China wouldn't float our debt.

Besides which, you're also ignoring my other points (b) and (c) from post # 42:

Second, that's not the only way to pay for it. Taxes could have been put back where they were under Clinton.

Third, the stimulus was 1/3 tax breaks. That could have been spent directly too.

FYI.

"So, you still have presented NO PROOF of your original assertion, in post # 39, that the stimulus "couldn't have been larger" because China wouldn't float our debt."

And that's common for jimm and conservatives like him. They make declarative statements confusing cause and effect.

They look at an action - no borrowing - and decide what it means and declare it so with no evidence whatsoever to support their claim. It's just a lie that popped into their head and sounded good to them.