A no BS, non partisan examination of the success of Obama's stimulus package

[TheGreatGatsby]

Still waiting to hear how the government printing money increases GDP . . .

Maybe, you don't know what GDP really is if you have to ask that question.

 

[Kosh]

voting twice for Obama does not establish one as "far left."

That's true. You could merely be an ignorant cog instead.

Or a voter who believes that McCain and Romney would have done more harm to the economy.

Once again the far left shows there are only two choices vote far left or not at all.

 

[Kosh]

Still waiting to hear how the government printing money increases GDP . . .

Still waiting for a far left example of how spending your way to prosperity (while running up a huge debt) has ever worked.

 

[Faun]

Still waiting to hear how the government printing money increases GDP . . .

Maybe, you don't know what GDP really is if you have to ask that question.

Those who can refute, do. Those who cannot, cast ad-hominem.

Thanks for answering my question.

 

[Kosh]

For the far left history revisionists:


New Agency Proposed to Oversee Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae

By STEPHEN LABATON
Published: September 11, 2003

New Agency Proposed to Oversee Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae - NYTimes.com

The republicans only had 54 seats in the senate at this time and not enough to pass such legislation.
The house was 222 seat for republicans and 210 for democrats.

The Democrats on the other hand were the party of NO!

Goes to show that the far left is about propaganda and certainly not facts.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Still waiting to hear how the government printing money increases GDP . . .

Maybe, you don't know what GDP really is if you have to ask that question.

Those who can refute, do. Those who cannot, cast ad-hominem.

Thanks for answering my question.

Either way, it's a valid assertion. You probably don't really understand GDP if you don't understand how printing money inherently boosts GDP. You're like a neanderthal who thinks 'Rise in GDP - Economy must be do good!'

 

[Faun]

For the far left history revisionists:


New Agency Proposed to Oversee Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae

By STEPHEN LABATON
Published: September 11, 2003

New Agency Proposed to Oversee Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae - NYTimes.com

The republicans only had 54 seats in the senate at this time and not enough to pass such legislation.
The house was 222 seat for republicans and 210 for democrats.

The Democrats on the other hand were the party of NO!

Goes to show that the far left is about propaganda and certainly not facts.

Flaming imbecile, it would have taken Republicans only 50 votes in the Senate to get it passed (assuming Cheney would have delivered the vote needed to pass it). So having 54 Republicans was more than enough given that Democrats didn't filibuster any one of the numerous bills making their way through the Congress.

Even funnier, do you realize what you're saying ... ? You're saying Republicans are too weak to lead unless they have a filibuster-proof Senate.



Yet more reason to keep Republicans out of the government.

 

[Faun]

Maybe, you don't know what GDP really is if you have to ask that question.

Those who can refute, do. Those who cannot, cast ad-hominem.

Thanks for answering my question.

Either way, it's a valid assertion. You probably don't really understand GDP if you don't understand how printing money inherently boosts GDP. You're like a neanderthal who thinks 'Rise in GDP - Economy must be do good!'

Then demonstrate the cause and effect .... shouldn't be hard to do if it's a "valid assertion." GDP represents the dollar amount of goods and services produced during a period of time. Demonstrate how the printing of money either increases peoples' incomes or provides people with more money to spend.....

 

[Avorysuds]

Why is the far left (progressives) so anti logic?

You guys got your way on everything, and near the whole world economy is crap. You guys are on the wrong side of history and it's funny to watch.

 

[Billy000]

Everything I said was true if not otherwise "factual." BTW, for someone trying to be hung up on facts, all's your OP was was phony supposition.

As it is, I'm not going to spend a perfectly good Sunday night 'fact' digging to attempt to battle your psychosis. If you don't get that Obama is a fraud (by now), it's because you see what you want to see; much like conservatives saw what they wanted to see in the case of GWB.

Lol "everything I have been saying is true, if not otherwise factual"

I oughta put that in my signature.

It wouldn't be funny if you were smart enough to understand the subtle differences between the words 'true' and 'fact.' Something can be true without being a fact, moron.

Why is the far left (progressives) so anti logic?

You guys got your way on everything, and near the whole world economy is crap. You guys are on the wrong side of history and it's funny to watch.

The rest of the world laughs at republicans.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Those who can refute, do. Those who cannot, cast ad-hominem.

Thanks for answering my question.

Either way, it's a valid assertion. You probably don't really understand GDP if you don't understand how printing money inherently boosts GDP. You're like a neanderthal who thinks 'Rise in GDP - Economy must be do good!'

Then demonstrate the cause and effect .... shouldn't be hard to do if it's a "valid assertion." GDP represents the dollar amount of goods and services produced during a period of time. Demonstrate how the printing of money either increases peoples' incomes or provides people with more money to spend.....

GDP is basically a measure of monetary asset growth. If you print money is your monetary assets increasing or decreasing? Increasing. Thus, to return to the original point, bragging that the so-called recovery act increased GDP is stupid.

All too many laymen (and hack pretend economists (like [MENTION=2926]Toro[/MENTION])) think that GDP is an absolute function of economic progression. If that were true, then we would have had more than two negative GDP years since 1935.

 

[Billy000]

Either way, it's a valid assertion. You probably don't really understand GDP if you don't understand how printing money inherently boosts GDP. You're like a neanderthal who thinks 'Rise in GDP - Economy must be do good!'

Then demonstrate the cause and effect .... shouldn't be hard to do if it's a "valid assertion." GDP represents the dollar amount of goods and services produced during a period of time. Demonstrate how the printing of money either increases peoples' incomes or provides people with more money to spend.....

GDP is basically a measure of monetary asset growth. If you print money is your monetary assets increasing or decreasing? Increasing. Thus, to return to the original point, bragging that the so-called recovery act increased GDP is stupid.

All too many laymen (and hack pretend economists (like [MENTION=2926]Toro[/MENTION])) think that GDP is an absolute function of economic progression. If that were true, then we would have had more than two negative GDP years since 1935.

Umm no....

GDP is not a measure of the amount of US dollars printed.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Many of you believe The Recovery Act was a failure simply because it fell short of expectations, but that does not mean it was a failure - not by a long shot. Here is a non partisan article that examines the pros and cons of the stimulus and why, for the most part, it was a success. A success that indisputably saved our economy.

Articles debating the successes or failures of President Obama’s stimulus package should be of interest to NPQ Newswire readers, given that nonprofits were among the most important intermediaries for and deliverers of stimulus programs. In the upcoming issue of Foreign Policy, TIME Magazine’s Michael Grunwald suggests that the stimulus was “certainly a political failure,” but “there is voluminous evidence that the stimulus did provide real stimulus, helping to stop a terrifying free-fall, avert a second Depression, and end a brutal recession.” Grunwald’s long article addresses the pros and cons of the stimulus, some of which is presented below.

PROS:

According to the Moody’s website Economy.com, JPMorgan Chase, and the Congressional Budget Office, the stimulus “increased GDP at least 2 percentage points, the difference between contraction and growth, and saved or created about 2.5 million jobs.”

“[Solyndra is]… supposedly a case study in ineptitude, cronyism, and the failure of green industrial policy. Republicans investigated for a year, held more than a dozen hearings, and subpoenaed hundreds of thousands of documents, but they uncovered no evidence of wrongdoing….Solyndra was a start-up that failed. It happens.”

CONS:

The jobless rate is still over eight percent, the longest run of unemployment over eight percent since the Depression.

Was the Obama Stimulus a Success or a Failure? - NPQ - Nonprofit Quarterly

So essentially what this article is saying that even though the stimulus fell short of expectations, it was still a success. Why? Because it turned our economy free fall (that began with Bush) into JOB GROWTH within months. It is the reason we are even in a recovery. What was the biggest flaw in it? IT WAS TOO SMALL which is actually just more proof that government can and does create jobs. It is also further proof Republicanism is ruining our country. They are reason it was too small!

Is the unemployment rate still high? Of course, how do we fix it? More DEMAND side economic policies like The Recovery Act. Supply side has proven to be a failure. Tax cuts do more harm than good.

What, other than the obvious confirmation of your personal bias, makes The Harvard Business Review non partisan?

 

[Billy000]

Many of you believe The Recovery Act was a failure simply because it fell short of expectations, but that does not mean it was a failure - not by a long shot. Here is a non partisan article that examines the pros and cons of the stimulus and why, for the most part, it was a success. A success that indisputably saved our economy.

Articles debating the successes or failures of President Obama’s stimulus package should be of interest to NPQ Newswire readers, given that nonprofits were among the most important intermediaries for and deliverers of stimulus programs. In the upcoming issue of Foreign Policy, TIME Magazine’s Michael Grunwald suggests that the stimulus was “certainly a political failure,” but “there is voluminous evidence that the stimulus did provide real stimulus, helping to stop a terrifying free-fall, avert a second Depression, and end a brutal recession.” Grunwald’s long article addresses the pros and cons of the stimulus, some of which is presented below.

PROS:






CONS:

The jobless rate is still over eight percent, the longest run of unemployment over eight percent since the Depression.

Was the Obama Stimulus a Success or a Failure? - NPQ - Nonprofit Quarterly

So essentially what this article is saying that even though the stimulus fell short of expectations, it was still a success. Why? Because it turned our economy free fall (that began with Bush) into JOB GROWTH within months. It is the reason we are even in a recovery. What was the biggest flaw in it? IT WAS TOO SMALL which is actually just more proof that government can and does create jobs. It is also further proof Republicanism is ruining our country. They are reason it was too small!

Is the unemployment rate still high? Of course, how do we fix it? More DEMAND side economic policies like The Recovery Act. Supply side has proven to be a failure. Tax cuts do more harm than good.

What, other than the obvious confirmation of your personal bias, makes The Harvard Business Review non partisan?

Are you suggesting it is liberal because it is an institution of higher learning?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Many of you believe The Recovery Act was a failure simply because it fell short of expectations, but that does not mean it was a failure - not by a long shot. Here is a non partisan article that examines the pros and cons of the stimulus and why, for the most part, it was a success. A success that indisputably saved our economy.

PROS:






CONS:

Was the Obama Stimulus a Success or a Failure? - NPQ - Nonprofit Quarterly

So essentially what this article is saying that even though the stimulus fell short of expectations, it was still a success. Why? Because it turned our economy free fall (that began with Bush) into JOB GROWTH within months. It is the reason we are even in a recovery. What was the biggest flaw in it? IT WAS TOO SMALL which is actually just more proof that government can and does create jobs. It is also further proof Republicanism is ruining our country. They are reason it was too small!

Is the unemployment rate still high? Of course, how do we fix it? More DEMAND side economic policies like The Recovery Act. Supply side has proven to be a failure. Tax cuts do more harm than good.

What, other than the obvious confirmation of your personal bias, makes The Harvard Business Review non partisan?

Are you suggesting it is liberal because it is an institution of higher learning?

I didn't say that, did I? I asked you to defend your claim that the non study is non partisan. If you could actually do that you wouldn't have to attack me on the basis of what you think I said.

Then again, you think it is currently winter in Antarctica, so I have to cut you a large amount of slack.

 

[Billy000]

What, other than the obvious confirmation of your personal bias, makes The Harvard Business Review non partisan?

Are you suggesting it is liberal because it is an institution of higher learning?

I didn't say that, did I? I asked you to defend your claim that the non study is non partisan. If you could actually do that you wouldn't have to attack me on the basis of what you think I said.

Then again, you think it is currently winter in Antarctica, so I have to cut you a large amount of slack.

Why should I? Why did you single it out? You challenged my assertion. Explain.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Then demonstrate the cause and effect .... shouldn't be hard to do if it's a "valid assertion." GDP represents the dollar amount of goods and services produced during a period of time. Demonstrate how the printing of money either increases peoples' incomes or provides people with more money to spend.....

GDP is basically a measure of monetary asset growth. If you print money is your monetary assets increasing or decreasing? Increasing. Thus, to return to the original point, bragging that the so-called recovery act increased GDP is stupid.

All too many laymen (and hack pretend economists (like [MENTION=2926]Toro[/MENTION])) think that GDP is an absolute function of economic progression. If that were true, then we would have had more than two negative GDP years since 1935.

Umm no....

GDP is not a measure of the amount of US dollars printed.

I didn't say it was a measure of dollars printed, chowder head.

 

[rdean]

Republicans have so much failure. They've taken lemons and turned it into "lemonAIDS". Failure is their "new" success.

 

[Kosh]

Republicans have so much failure. They've taken lemons and turned it into "lemonAIDS". Failure is their "new" success.

Far left propaganda!

 

[TemplarKormac]

Bush's tax cuts were more expensive than the Recovery Act. When will see that money back?

That money did not belong to us - it belonged to the tax payer

You do realize that taxes pay the government's expenses right? Tax cuts dont pay for themselves. Every dollar lost in revenue is one more dollar the government needs to borrow to pay the bills. This is basic economics.

You do realize that people have to pay their bills, too right? Tax hikes don't pay the bills of a common man, Billy. Every dollar taxed from the citizenry will help government revenue and result in less cash being injected into the economy and smaller paychecks. An unacceptable tradeoff.

Really, this is simple macroeconomics.