GOP jobs agenda

[percysunshine]

Feel free to jump in the game here, Siete!

Name the policies that Barack Obama enacted to grow the economy.

already made mention of one fact which you ignored.... so jump off a tall building

So basically you don't have any policies Barack Obama enacted that would grow the economy?

Funny how so many of you progressives all seem to have the same problem, Siete!

You said: So basically you don't have any policies Barack Obama enacted that would grow the economy?

Obama won a number of cases at the world trade court. Try to figure out how that helped the economy. I've posted them many times but Republicans are pretty stupid and work hard to keep it that way.
Obama works to educate Americans while Republicans want to keep them dumb as possible. Remember, the Gov of Texas goes to New York and California looking for skilled liberals to go to Texas because, clearly the people there are too stupid to learn. They recently cut education by 5 billion.

And the stimulus is what countries have been using for a hundred years or more to jump start their economy. Look up "German, Chinese, Russian, Brazilian, Japanese Stimulus". It's the same everywhere because it works. But Republicans don't believe it. Course they don't believe in science either. So damn dumb.

And the worst of all? The ruined economy Obama was handed by greedy, thieving and lying Republicans.

Stimulus only works if the stimulus itself is well thought out and implemented intelligently.

The Obama Stimulus was neither well thought out nor implemented intelligently.

It was SO badly thought out and implemented so badly that they created so few jobs that they didn't dare tell the American people how many they created for the nearly 2 trillion that they had spent...so Obama's minions came up with the whole "jobs created or saved" to hide how abysmal their job creation record really was!

Your opinion is noted but a majority of economic professors polled said it lowered the unemployment rate; and a plurality of them said the benefits outweighed the costs.

The CBO said ...

ARRA succeeded in its primary goal of protecting the economy during the worst of the recession. The CBO report finds that ARRA's impact on jobs peaked in the third quarter of 2010, when up to 3.6 million people owed their jobs to the Recovery Act. Since then, the Act's job impact has gradually declined as the economy recovers and certain provisions expire. More than 90 percent of ARRA funds were spent by December, according to CBO.​

... which of course, exceeded the key goal of ARRA, which was to save or create 3 to 3.5 million jobs.

.

What the heck is a 'saved' job? It sounds like a made up category of job, meant to hide how many real jobs there are.

If I set fire to my neighbors house, I can probably save a firefighters job, but it doesn't really do anyone any good.

.

 

[Dad2three]

I read the article. It no more demonstrates causation than you have.

Have you figured out yet you're posting no more evidence than I have? Have you learned yet that you have proven my point beautifully?

It's amazing the lengths that you Obama supporters will go to protect an "image" of who Barry is, Faun! You steadfastly pretend that what Reagan did to stimulate the economy didn't work because if you did admit that he was successful then it begs the question...why hasn't Obama been successful?

Your reading comprehension issues are noted. For exercise, show me in which of my posts did I declare Reagan's policies did not help the economy ......

Quite obviously the answer to that question is that Obama's first priority WASN'T the economy and jobs, as Ronald Reagan's was. Barry went after ObamaCare first and put the economy and jobs on a back burner while he did so. It wasn't even his second priority! He was talking about passing Cap & Trade legislation as his next big goal before the 2010 mid-terms made that an impossibility. By the end of Obama's second year in office his chief economic advisers Larry Summers and Christina Romer were both facing a stark reality...their almost two trillion dollar Keynesian stimulus had been turned into a a liberal "pork fest" by Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid and so few jobs had been created that they had to fudge the numbers with the whole "jobs created or saved" farce! Both of them saw the writing on the wall and resigned. They didn't do so because they had accomplished the job at hand...they did so because they'd failed epically at creating jobs and stimulating the economy.

Now explain how you generate an "obvious answer" from a question derived from a false premise? That premise being that I "pretended what Reagan did to stimulate the economy didn't work."

I voted twice for Reagan and think he was an excellent president. Just letting you know that in case you need that information when tailoring your next response.

And Obama's policies have failed??

5% GDP, 5.6% unemployment, and 1.3% inflation

And for comparison purposes ... Obama started with 7.8% unemployment and it's currently down to 5.6%. Reagan started with 7.5% unemployment and at this point in his presidency, it was down to only 6.6%.

Speaking of deriving something from a false premise! We keep going round and round about this, Faun and I can't get an answer out of you! What policy of Barack Obama's has created a drop in unemployment? My assertion is that the unemployment rate has dropped DESPITE what Barry has tried to do in office....due in large part to the public's rejection of the liberal agenda and their voting out of office Democrats. The current economic boom is being led by cheap oil and natural gas...two things that Obama specifically was against...which makes it hard to credit him for what's happening at this point of his Presidency.

Not only have I given you the answer ... that being it is not possible in most cases to prove causation since studies on policies' results are rarely done. And you proved that beautifully by pointing out some of Reagan's policies which helped the economy without showing evidence of causation.

You did what I did.

Only you seem to think you're right but I'm not.

I can only chalk that up to your sycophancy.

So you honestly believe that Reagan's policies had no "causation", Faun? Really? I've pointed out exactly what Reagan's steps were to attack the Stagflation he inherited. First he tightened up the money supply to deal with inflation. Then he cut taxes and government regulations to spur job creation. The result was twenty years of unprecedented economic growth.

So what has Barack Obama done, policy wise to deal with the economy?

"First he tightened up the money supply to deal with inflation"

In 1980, Volcker tightened the money supply, which stopped job growth in the economy. In response to hard times, businesses began cutting their prices, and workers their wage demands, to stay in business. Volcker argued that eventually this would wring inflationary expectations out of the system.

The recovery of 1981 was unintentional, and with inflation still high, Volcker tightened the money supply even more severely in 1982. This resulted in the worst recession since the Great Depression. Unemployment in the final quarter of 1982 soared to over 10 percent, and Volcker was accused of the "cold-blooded murder of millions of jobs." Even high-ranking members of Reagan's staff were vehemently opposed to his actions. Congress actually considered bringing the independent Fed under the government's direct control, to avoid such economic pain in the future. Today, economists calculate that the cost of Volcker's anti-inflation medicine was $1 trillion -- an astounding sum. But Wall Street demanded that Volcker stay the course, and that may have been the only thing that saved him.

Carter ruined the economy Reagan saved it


"Then he cut taxes"


YEAH HIS TO RATE WAS 50% THE FIRST 6 YEARS? Obama has 39%? lol



"and government regulations to spur job creation."


Carter actually began deregulating during his term; in 1978, he deregulated airlines; by 1980, he was deregulating trucking, railroads interest rates and oil.



WHEN ALL YOU HAVE ARE TALKING POINTS, IT'S ALL YOU HAVE BUBBA




The Myths of Reaganomics

I come to bury Reaganomics, not to praise it.

Tax Cuts. One of the few areas where Reaganomists claim success without embarrassment is taxation. Didn't the Reagan administration, after all, slash income taxes in 1981, and provide both tax cuts and "fairness" in its highly touted tax reform law of 1986? Hasn't Ronald Reagan, in the teeth of opposition, heroically held the line against all tax increases?

The answer, unfortunately, is no. In the first place, the famous "tax cut" of 1981 did not cut taxes at all. It's true that tax rates for higher-income brackets were cut; but for the average person, taxes rose, rather than declined


...Deregulation. Another crucial aspect of freeing the market and getting government off our backs is deregulation, and the administration and its Reaganomists have been very proud of its deregulation record. However, a look at the record reveals a very different picture. In the first place, the most conspicuous examples of deregulation; the ending of oil and gasoline price controls and rationing, the deregulation of trucks and airlines, were all launched by the Carter administration, and completed just in time for the Reagan administration to claim the credit. Meanwhile, there were other promised deregulations that never took place; for example, abolition of natural gas controls and of the Department of Energy.

Overall, in fact, there has probably been not deregulation, but an increase in regulation. Thus, Christopher De Muth, head of the American Enterprise Institute and a former top official of Reagan's Office of Management and the Budget, concludes that "the President has not mounted a broad offensive against regulation. There hasn't been much total change since 1981. There has been more balanced administration of regulatory agencies than we had become used to in the 1970s, but many regulatory rules have been strengthened."

RIGHT WIMNG MISES, LOL



Mises Daily Mises Institute

 

[Dad2three]

I would suggest that you read the article that Dad provided on Reagan's handling of the economy. It illustrates rather well both what Reagan faced when he took office...the steps he took...and the results. Hard to accuse me of providing a biased source when it was provided by the biggest progressive fluffer now posting here!

I read the article. It no more demonstrates causation than you have.

Have you figured out yet you're posting no more evidence than I have? Have you learned yet that you have proven my point beautifully?

It's amazing the lengths that you Obama supporters will go to protect an "image" of who Barry is, Faun! You steadfastly pretend that what Reagan did to stimulate the economy didn't work because if you did admit that he was successful then it begs the question...why hasn't Obama been successful?

Your reading comprehension issues are noted. For exercise, show me in which of my posts did I declare Reagan's policies did not help the economy ......

Quite obviously the answer to that question is that Obama's first priority WASN'T the economy and jobs, as Ronald Reagan's was. Barry went after ObamaCare first and put the economy and jobs on a back burner while he did so. It wasn't even his second priority! He was talking about passing Cap & Trade legislation as his next big goal before the 2010 mid-terms made that an impossibility. By the end of Obama's second year in office his chief economic advisers Larry Summers and Christina Romer were both facing a stark reality...their almost two trillion dollar Keynesian stimulus had been turned into a a liberal "pork fest" by Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid and so few jobs had been created that they had to fudge the numbers with the whole "jobs created or saved" farce! Both of them saw the writing on the wall and resigned. They didn't do so because they had accomplished the job at hand...they did so because they'd failed epically at creating jobs and stimulating the economy.

Now explain how you generate an "obvious answer" from a question derived from a false premise? That premise being that I "pretended what Reagan did to stimulate the economy didn't work."

I voted twice for Reagan and think he was an excellent president. Just letting you know that in case you need that information when tailoring your next response.

And Obama's policies have failed??

5% GDP, 5.6% unemployment, and 1.3% inflation

And for comparison purposes ... Obama started with 7.8% unemployment and it's currently down to 5.6%. Reagan started with 7.5% unemployment and at this point in his presidency, it was down to only 6.6%.

Actually, if you look at unemployment on the last day of Bush's last budget, unemployment was 10.8%

WTF? Unemployment peaked at 10%, so I have no idea where you get 10.8%. And Bush never signed a budget for FY2009, he signed a continuing resolution in 2008 that carried us through the first half of FY2009.

He meant 9.8% Sept 2009, Bush's last F/Y budget ended the end of the month like ALL previous Prez's. Obama's first started Oct 1

Unemployment in September 2009 The Economics Daily U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

 

[Dad2three]

It's amazing the lengths that you Obama supporters will go to protect an "image" of who Barry is, Faun! You steadfastly pretend that what Reagan did to stimulate the economy didn't work because if you did admit that he was successful then it begs the question...why hasn't Obama been successful?

Your reading comprehension issues are noted. For exercise, show me in which of my posts did I declare Reagan's policies did not help the economy ......

Quite obviously the answer to that question is that Obama's first priority WASN'T the economy and jobs, as Ronald Reagan's was. Barry went after ObamaCare first and put the economy and jobs on a back burner while he did so. It wasn't even his second priority! He was talking about passing Cap & Trade legislation as his next big goal before the 2010 mid-terms made that an impossibility. By the end of Obama's second year in office his chief economic advisers Larry Summers and Christina Romer were both facing a stark reality...their almost two trillion dollar Keynesian stimulus had been turned into a a liberal "pork fest" by Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid and so few jobs had been created that they had to fudge the numbers with the whole "jobs created or saved" farce! Both of them saw the writing on the wall and resigned. They didn't do so because they had accomplished the job at hand...they did so because they'd failed epically at creating jobs and stimulating the economy.

Now explain how you generate an "obvious answer" from a question derived from a false premise? That premise being that I "pretended what Reagan did to stimulate the economy didn't work."

I voted twice for Reagan and think he was an excellent president. Just letting you know that in case you need that information when tailoring your next response.

And Obama's policies have failed??

5% GDP, 5.6% unemployment, and 1.3% inflation

And for comparison purposes ... Obama started with 7.8% unemployment and it's currently down to 5.6%. Reagan started with 7.5% unemployment and at this point in his presidency, it was down to only 6.6%.

Actually, if you look at unemployment on the last day of Bush's last budget, unemployment was 10.8%

WTF? Unemployment peaked at 10%, so I have no idea where you get 10.8%. And Bush never signed a budget for FY2009, he signed a continuing resolution in 2008 that carried us through the first half of FY2009.

Let's start with a few facts. This from right wing Cato Institute:

Obama s Budget Spending Too High But Bush Was Worse Cato Liberty

Here is another comparison:

• Spending growth in Bush’s first seven years: 8%, 7%, 6%, 8%, 7%, 3%, 9%.
• Spending growth in Obama’s six years: 13%, 6%, 2%, -3%, 5%, 2%.

Sorry about the 10.8%. I typed this fast and missed the zero and put an 8. But at lease we can agree on the 10%. You do admit it peaked at 10.2%? Good. I know that USMB right wingers are going to scream liar, but so what? When you get to 10.2%, how much worse is 10.8%? If I were going to exaggerate, I would have said 20 or 30. Not a mere 0.6.

Check out "Factcheck.org".

Obama 8217 s Spending 8216 Inferno 8217 or Not

The truth is that the nearly 18 percent spike in spending in fiscal 2009 — for which the president is sometimes blamed entirely — was mostly due to appropriations and policies that were already in place when Obama took office.

That includes spending for the bank bailout legislation approved by President Bush. Annual increases in amounts actually spent since fiscal 2009 have been relatively modest. In fact, spending for the first seven months of the current fiscal year is running slightly below the same period last year, and below projections.

-------------------------------------------------------------
When a new president is sworn in, he carries the budget of the last president until October. The previous budget of the last president doesn't end the very day he leaves office. Everyone knows that. Tell me you know that.

In fact, if you look at the data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, unemployment peaked at 10.2% in Oct of 2009.

National Employment Monthly Update

National Unemployment Rates, 2008 - 2014
Jan. Feb. Mar. April May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec.
2014 6.6 6.7 6.7 6.3 6.3 6.1 6.2 6.1 5.9 5.8 5.8 5.6
2013 7.9 7.7 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.3 7.2 7.2 7.2 7.0 6.7
2012 8.3 8.3 8.2 8.1 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.1 7.8 7.9 7.8 7.8
2011 9.0 8.9 8.8 9.0 9.1 9.2 9.1 9.1 9.1 9.0 8.6 8.5
2010 9.7 9.7 9.7 9.9 9.7 9.5 9.5 9.6 9.6 9.6 9.8 9.4
2009 7.6 8.1 8.5 8.9 9.4 9.5 9.4 9.7 9.8 10.2 10.0 10.0
2008 4.9 4.8 5.1 5.0 5.5 5.6 5.8 6.2 6.2 6.6 6.8 7.2

Budget Process

And we all know, the Federal budgets run from Oct 1 to Oct 1. The Federal budget was in place 4 months BEFORE Obama was sworn into office. That's a fact. That's simply how federal budgets are spread out.

I have no idea where those unemployment numbers come from. They're not from the BLS, though that's where the site says they're from. The unemployment rate peaked at 10%.

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

Maybe they're from the BLS before the BLS revised their numbers ... but they're certainly not all current numbers.

As far as the budget ... again, Bush did not sign one for FY2009. In September, 2008, he signed a continuing resolution for the first half of FY2009. Obama signed one for the second half, plus Obama signed an Omnibus appropriations bill. You can't hold Bush responsible for all of FY2009.

"You can't hold Bush responsible for all of FY2009."

WHY THE FUK NOT, LIKE EVERY OTHER PREZ? Oh right BECAUSE his economy tanked and he wanted to sneak out and NOT take responsibility for it?


January 08, 2009 (12 days PRE Obama)

CBO Projects $1.2 Trillion Deficit for 2009

CBO Projects 1.2 Trillion Deficit for 2009 - Memphis Daily News

Dubya have some magic to stop being responsible like every other Prez?

 

[Dad2three]

see?here you go, talking about something you know nothing about. Lucky for you, you spelled Obama correctly.

Feel free to jump in the game here, Siete!

Name the policies that Barack Obama enacted to grow the economy.

already made mention of one fact which you ignored.... so jump off a tall building

So basically you don't have any policies Barack Obama enacted that would grow the economy?

Funny how so many of you progressives all seem to have the same problem, Siete!

You said: So basically you don't have any policies Barack Obama enacted that would grow the economy?

Obama won a number of cases at the world trade court. Try to figure out how that helped the economy. I've posted them many times but Republicans are pretty stupid and work hard to keep it that way.
Obama works to educate Americans while Republicans want to keep them dumb as possible. Remember, the Gov of Texas goes to New York and California looking for skilled liberals to go to Texas because, clearly the people there are too stupid to learn. They recently cut education by 5 billion.

And the stimulus is what countries have been using for a hundred years or more to jump start their economy. Look up "German, Chinese, Russian, Brazilian, Japanese Stimulus". It's the same everywhere because it works. But Republicans don't believe it. Course they don't believe in science either. So damn dumb.

And the worst of all? The ruined economy Obama was handed by greedy, thieving and lying Republicans.

Stimulus only works if the stimulus itself is well thought out and implemented intelligently.

The Obama Stimulus was neither well thought out nor implemented intelligently.

It was SO badly thought out and implemented so badly that they created so few jobs that they didn't dare tell the American people how many they created for the nearly 2 trillion that they had spent...so Obama's minions came up with the whole "jobs created or saved" to hide how abysmal their job creation record really was!

Kinda true, like Dubya's 'stimulus's', tax cuts don't work, 40% of Obama's was tax cuts


Republicans Loved Stimulus When Bush Was in the White House
Back Then, Helping Boost Economic Growth Was Bipartisan

Stimulus is now a dirty word, especially among Republicans in Congress. But it wasn’t always so. In January 2008 when the economic picture was far less dire and the unemployment rate was only 4.8 percent, 165 Republicans in the House of Representatives and 33 Republican senators voted to pass a stimulus package with an estimated cost of $152 billion. That package provided tax cuts of up to $600 for individuals or $1,200 for married couples, plus an additional $300 per child. The bill also contained a number of temporary tax breaks for businesses. And just in case you thought President George W. Bush’s stimulus bill was simply a bunch of tax cuts, it also included $40 billion in direct spending. The legislation was even called the Economic Stimulus Act of 2008.

Republicans Loved Stimulus When Bush Was in the White House Center for American Progress Action Fund

 

[Dad2three]

It's amazing the lengths that you Obama supporters will go to protect an "image" of who Barry is, Faun! You steadfastly pretend that what Reagan did to stimulate the economy didn't work because if you did admit that he was successful then it begs the question...why hasn't Obama been successful?

Your reading comprehension issues are noted. For exercise, show me in which of my posts did I declare Reagan's policies did not help the economy ......

Quite obviously the answer to that question is that Obama's first priority WASN'T the economy and jobs, as Ronald Reagan's was. Barry went after ObamaCare first and put the economy and jobs on a back burner while he did so. It wasn't even his second priority! He was talking about passing Cap & Trade legislation as his next big goal before the 2010 mid-terms made that an impossibility. By the end of Obama's second year in office his chief economic advisers Larry Summers and Christina Romer were both facing a stark reality...their almost two trillion dollar Keynesian stimulus had been turned into a a liberal "pork fest" by Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid and so few jobs had been created that they had to fudge the numbers with the whole "jobs created or saved" farce! Both of them saw the writing on the wall and resigned. They didn't do so because they had accomplished the job at hand...they did so because they'd failed epically at creating jobs and stimulating the economy.

Now explain how you generate an "obvious answer" from a question derived from a false premise? That premise being that I "pretended what Reagan did to stimulate the economy didn't work."

I voted twice for Reagan and think he was an excellent president. Just letting you know that in case you need that information when tailoring your next response.

And Obama's policies have failed??

5% GDP, 5.6% unemployment, and 1.3% inflation

And for comparison purposes ... Obama started with 7.8% unemployment and it's currently down to 5.6%. Reagan started with 7.5% unemployment and at this point in his presidency, it was down to only 6.6%.

Actually, if you look at unemployment on the last day of Bush's last budget, unemployment was 10.8%

WTF? Unemployment peaked at 10%, so I have no idea where you get 10.8%. And Bush never signed a budget for FY2009, he signed a continuing resolution in 2008 that carried us through the first half of FY2009.

Let's start with a few facts. This from right wing Cato Institute:

Obama s Budget Spending Too High But Bush Was Worse Cato Liberty

Here is another comparison:

• Spending growth in Bush’s first seven years: 8%, 7%, 6%, 8%, 7%, 3%, 9%.
• Spending growth in Obama’s six years: 13%, 6%, 2%, -3%, 5%, 2%.

Sorry about the 10.8%. I typed this fast and missed the zero and put an 8. But at lease we can agree on the 10%. You do admit it peaked at 10.2%? Good. I know that USMB right wingers are going to scream liar, but so what? When you get to 10.2%, how much worse is 10.8%? If I were going to exaggerate, I would have said 20 or 30. Not a mere 0.6.

Check out "Factcheck.org".

Obama 8217 s Spending 8216 Inferno 8217 or Not

The truth is that the nearly 18 percent spike in spending in fiscal 2009 — for which the president is sometimes blamed entirely — was mostly due to appropriations and policies that were already in place when Obama took office.

That includes spending for the bank bailout legislation approved by President Bush. Annual increases in amounts actually spent since fiscal 2009 have been relatively modest. In fact, spending for the first seven months of the current fiscal year is running slightly below the same period last year, and below projections.

-------------------------------------------------------------
When a new president is sworn in, he carries the budget of the last president until October. The previous budget of the last president doesn't end the very day he leaves office. Everyone knows that. Tell me you know that.

In fact, if you look at the data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, unemployment peaked at 10.2% in Oct of 2009.

National Employment Monthly Update

National Unemployment Rates, 2008 - 2014
Jan. Feb. Mar. April May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec.
2014 6.6 6.7 6.7 6.3 6.3 6.1 6.2 6.1 5.9 5.8 5.8 5.6
2013 7.9 7.7 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.3 7.2 7.2 7.2 7.0 6.7
2012 8.3 8.3 8.2 8.1 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.1 7.8 7.9 7.8 7.8
2011 9.0 8.9 8.8 9.0 9.1 9.2 9.1 9.1 9.1 9.0 8.6 8.5
2010 9.7 9.7 9.7 9.9 9.7 9.5 9.5 9.6 9.6 9.6 9.8 9.4
2009 7.6 8.1 8.5 8.9 9.4 9.5 9.4 9.7 9.8 10.2 10.0 10.0
2008 4.9 4.8 5.1 5.0 5.5 5.6 5.8 6.2 6.2 6.6 6.8 7.2

Budget Process

And we all know, the Federal budgets run from Oct 1 to Oct 1. The Federal budget was in place 4 months BEFORE Obama was sworn into office. That's a fact. That's simply how federal budgets are spread out.

Why do you progressives even bother coming here with the RIDICULOUS assertion that Obama somehow isn't a big spender because he increased spending by a smaller percentage? It's the most absurd claim ever and yet you keep on trying to make it!

George W. Bush's last budget was ENORMOUS only because it included both emergency stimulus spending and TARP spending at the height of the recession.

Barack Obama took that last huge budget amount AND ADDED TO IT!!! Then the next budget after that he added even more to it. That was after the recession had been officially declared over! So what was Barry spending all that money on?

"George W. Bush's last budget was ENORMOUS only because it included both emergency stimulus spending and TARP spending at the height of the recession."


January 08, 2009
CBO Projects $1.2 Trillion Deficit for 2009

CBO Projects 1.2 Trillion Deficit for 2009 - Memphis Daily News


CBO estimated that Obama's stimulus package increased the deficit by $200 billion in FY 2009


"the Treasury recorded a cost of $151 billion for activities undertaken by the program (TARP) (and $90 million for administrative costs)" in FY2009 according to CBO.

The Budget and Economic Outlook Fiscal Years 2010 to 2020 Congressional Budget Office


LOL

Spending? Oh you mean revenues dropped BECAUSE of Dubya/GOP policies? lol

 

[Dad2three]

Your reading comprehension issues are noted. For exercise, show me in which of my posts did I declare Reagan's policies did not help the economy ......

Now explain how you generate an "obvious answer" from a question derived from a false premise? That premise being that I "pretended what Reagan did to stimulate the economy didn't work."

I voted twice for Reagan and think he was an excellent president. Just letting you know that in case you need that information when tailoring your next response.

And Obama's policies have failed??

5% GDP, 5.6% unemployment, and 1.3% inflation

And for comparison purposes ... Obama started with 7.8% unemployment and it's currently down to 5.6%. Reagan started with 7.5% unemployment and at this point in his presidency, it was down to only 6.6%.

Actually, if you look at unemployment on the last day of Bush's last budget, unemployment was 10.8%

WTF? Unemployment peaked at 10%, so I have no idea where you get 10.8%. And Bush never signed a budget for FY2009, he signed a continuing resolution in 2008 that carried us through the first half of FY2009.

Let's start with a few facts. This from right wing Cato Institute:

Obama s Budget Spending Too High But Bush Was Worse Cato Liberty

Here is another comparison:

• Spending growth in Bush’s first seven years: 8%, 7%, 6%, 8%, 7%, 3%, 9%.
• Spending growth in Obama’s six years: 13%, 6%, 2%, -3%, 5%, 2%.

Sorry about the 10.8%. I typed this fast and missed the zero and put an 8. But at lease we can agree on the 10%. You do admit it peaked at 10.2%? Good. I know that USMB right wingers are going to scream liar, but so what? When you get to 10.2%, how much worse is 10.8%? If I were going to exaggerate, I would have said 20 or 30. Not a mere 0.6.

Check out "Factcheck.org".

Obama 8217 s Spending 8216 Inferno 8217 or Not

The truth is that the nearly 18 percent spike in spending in fiscal 2009 — for which the president is sometimes blamed entirely — was mostly due to appropriations and policies that were already in place when Obama took office.

That includes spending for the bank bailout legislation approved by President Bush. Annual increases in amounts actually spent since fiscal 2009 have been relatively modest. In fact, spending for the first seven months of the current fiscal year is running slightly below the same period last year, and below projections.

-------------------------------------------------------------
When a new president is sworn in, he carries the budget of the last president until October. The previous budget of the last president doesn't end the very day he leaves office. Everyone knows that. Tell me you know that.

In fact, if you look at the data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, unemployment peaked at 10.2% in Oct of 2009.

National Employment Monthly Update

National Unemployment Rates, 2008 - 2014
Jan. Feb. Mar. April May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec.
2014 6.6 6.7 6.7 6.3 6.3 6.1 6.2 6.1 5.9 5.8 5.8 5.6
2013 7.9 7.7 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.3 7.2 7.2 7.2 7.0 6.7
2012 8.3 8.3 8.2 8.1 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.1 7.8 7.9 7.8 7.8
2011 9.0 8.9 8.8 9.0 9.1 9.2 9.1 9.1 9.1 9.0 8.6 8.5
2010 9.7 9.7 9.7 9.9 9.7 9.5 9.5 9.6 9.6 9.6 9.8 9.4
2009 7.6 8.1 8.5 8.9 9.4 9.5 9.4 9.7 9.8 10.2 10.0 10.0
2008 4.9 4.8 5.1 5.0 5.5 5.6 5.8 6.2 6.2 6.6 6.8 7.2

Budget Process

And we all know, the Federal budgets run from Oct 1 to Oct 1. The Federal budget was in place 4 months BEFORE Obama was sworn into office. That's a fact. That's simply how federal budgets are spread out.

I have no idea where those unemployment numbers come from. They're not from the BLS, though that's where the site says they're from. The unemployment rate peaked at 10%.

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

Maybe they're from the BLS before the BLS revised their numbers ... but they're certainly not all current numbers.

As far as the budget ... again, Bush did not sign one for FY2009. In September, 2008, he signed a continuing resolution for the first half of FY2009. Obama signed one for the second half, plus Obama signed an Omnibus appropriations bill. You can't hold Bush responsible for all of FY2009.

In case you hadn't noticed...R-Derp and Dad hold Bush responsible for the entirety of Barack Obama's Presidency!

Just for POLICIES started under him AND the hole he put US in Bubba

In conservative world, Reagan is responsible for 17 years of economic growth (forget that recession Poppy had BECAUSE Ronnie ignored regulator warnings on the S&L crisis), BUT ALL POLICY FROM DUBYA/GOP ENDED JAN 2007, THE DAY THE DEMS TOOK CONGRESS, lol

 

[Oldstyle]

Another "spam fest" from Dad's usual sources.

Hard to believe that someone is actually out R-Derping, R-Derp...but Dad's giving it his best shot!

 

[Oldstyle]

already made mention of one fact which you ignored.... so jump off a tall building

So basically you don't have any policies Barack Obama enacted that would grow the economy?

Funny how so many of you progressives all seem to have the same problem, Siete!

You said: So basically you don't have any policies Barack Obama enacted that would grow the economy?

Obama won a number of cases at the world trade court. Try to figure out how that helped the economy. I've posted them many times but Republicans are pretty stupid and work hard to keep it that way.
Obama works to educate Americans while Republicans want to keep them dumb as possible. Remember, the Gov of Texas goes to New York and California looking for skilled liberals to go to Texas because, clearly the people there are too stupid to learn. They recently cut education by 5 billion.

And the stimulus is what countries have been using for a hundred years or more to jump start their economy. Look up "German, Chinese, Russian, Brazilian, Japanese Stimulus". It's the same everywhere because it works. But Republicans don't believe it. Course they don't believe in science either. So damn dumb.

And the worst of all? The ruined economy Obama was handed by greedy, thieving and lying Republicans.

Stimulus only works if the stimulus itself is well thought out and implemented intelligently.

The Obama Stimulus was neither well thought out nor implemented intelligently.

It was SO badly thought out and implemented so badly that they created so few jobs that they didn't dare tell the American people how many they created for the nearly 2 trillion that they had spent...so Obama's minions came up with the whole "jobs created or saved" to hide how abysmal their job creation record really was!

Your opinion is noted but a majority of economic professors polled said it lowered the unemployment rate; and a plurality of them said the benefits outweighed the costs.

The CBO said ...

ARRA succeeded in its primary goal of protecting the economy during the worst of the recession. The CBO report finds that ARRA's impact on jobs peaked in the third quarter of 2010, when up to 3.6 million people owed their jobs to the Recovery Act. Since then, the Act's job impact has gradually declined as the economy recovers and certain provisions expire. More than 90 percent of ARRA funds were spent by December, according to CBO.​

... which of course, exceeded the key goal of ARRA, which was to save or create 3 to 3.5 million jobs.

.

What the heck is a 'saved' job? It sounds like a made up category of job, meant to hide how many real jobs there are.

If I set fire to my neighbors house, I can probably save a firefighters job, but it doesn't really do anyone any good.

.

It's what you come up with when you've spent nearly two TRILLION dollars in stimulus money and only created a fraction of the jobs you thought you were going to.

In other words it's an "Oh, shit! I'm SO screwed! statistic created to hide the truth.

 

[Dad2three]

already made mention of one fact which you ignored.... so jump off a tall building

So basically you don't have any policies Barack Obama enacted that would grow the economy?

Funny how so many of you progressives all seem to have the same problem, Siete!

You said: So basically you don't have any policies Barack Obama enacted that would grow the economy?

Obama won a number of cases at the world trade court. Try to figure out how that helped the economy. I've posted them many times but Republicans are pretty stupid and work hard to keep it that way.
Obama works to educate Americans while Republicans want to keep them dumb as possible. Remember, the Gov of Texas goes to New York and California looking for skilled liberals to go to Texas because, clearly the people there are too stupid to learn. They recently cut education by 5 billion.

And the stimulus is what countries have been using for a hundred years or more to jump start their economy. Look up "German, Chinese, Russian, Brazilian, Japanese Stimulus". It's the same everywhere because it works. But Republicans don't believe it. Course they don't believe in science either. So damn dumb.

And the worst of all? The ruined economy Obama was handed by greedy, thieving and lying Republicans.

Stimulus only works if the stimulus itself is well thought out and implemented intelligently.

The Obama Stimulus was neither well thought out nor implemented intelligently.

It was SO badly thought out and implemented so badly that they created so few jobs that they didn't dare tell the American people how many they created for the nearly 2 trillion that they had spent...so Obama's minions came up with the whole "jobs created or saved" to hide how abysmal their job creation record really was!

Your opinion is noted but a majority of economic professors polled said it lowered the unemployment rate; and a plurality of them said the benefits outweighed the costs.

The CBO said ...

ARRA succeeded in its primary goal of protecting the economy during the worst of the recession. The CBO report finds that ARRA's impact on jobs peaked in the third quarter of 2010, when up to 3.6 million people owed their jobs to the Recovery Act. Since then, the Act's job impact has gradually declined as the economy recovers and certain provisions expire. More than 90 percent of ARRA funds were spent by December, according to CBO.​

... which of course, exceeded the key goal of ARRA, which was to save or create 3 to 3.5 million jobs.

.

What the heck is a 'saved' job? It sounds like a made up category of job, meant to hide how many real jobs there are.

If I set fire to my neighbors house, I can probably save a firefighters job, but it doesn't really do anyone any good.

.

One year after the stimulus, several independent macroeconomic firms, including Moody's and IHS Global Insight, estimated that the stimulus saved or created 1.6 to 1.8 million jobs and forecast a total impact of 2.5 million jobs saved by the time the stimulus is completed. The Congressional Budget Office considered these estimates conservative. The CBO estimated according to its model 2.1 million jobs saved in the last quarter of 2009, boosting the economy by up to 3.5 percent and lowering the unemployment rate by up to 2.1 percent. The CBO projected that the package would have an even greater impact in 2010. The CBO also said, "It is impossible to determine how many of the reported jobs would have existed in the absence of the stimulus package." The CBO's report on the first quarter of 2010 showed a continued positive effect, with an employment gain in that quarter of up to 2.8 million and a GDP boost of up to 4.2 percent


In November 2011 the Congressional Budget Office updated its earlier reports concerning the Act. The CBO stated that "the employment effects began to wane at the end of 2010 and have continued to do so throughout 2011." Nevertheless, in the third quarter of 2011, the CBO estimated that the Act had increased the number of full-time equivalent jobs by 0.5 million to 3.3 million

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia



Part of the problem is that there's no accepted standard for counting jobs, said Mary Foelster of the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants.


"It's not so much calculating jobs; it's trying to have evidence that a job was retained," she said. "What is the client going to point to to say, 'I was going to lay someone off, but now I'm not?'"

Not Your Grandfather's Job Count

Counting jobs in the New Deal was a lot easier, said Harvard University labor economist Lawrence Katz. The Works Progress Administration was a brand new program, the government paid the workers directly and there was little doubt that the work wouldn't have been done without government money.

President Richard Nixon's jobs program in 1973 was more difficult to quantify, he said, because it distributed money to local governments and nonprofits to hire workers, and some critics say some of those workers would have been hired anyway.

"I just think it's a silly exercise" counting jobs, Katz said.

The numbers are inherently inaccurate, he said, because we'll never know how many jobs would have been created or lost without the stimulus. To do so, we'd need a control group, say giving stimulus money to North Carolina but withholding it from South Carolina.

"Obviously, that's not something we can do," Katz said. "We've only got one draw of history."

A more accurate way to account for the effect of the stimulus is to look at the unemployment numbers put out by the Bureau of Labor Statistics or by some sort of model like the White House Council of Economic Advisers uses, he said.


White House Changes Stimulus Jobs Count - ProPublica

 

[Oldstyle]

Feel free to jump in the game here, Siete!

Name the policies that Barack Obama enacted to grow the economy.

already made mention of one fact which you ignored.... so jump off a tall building

So basically you don't have any policies Barack Obama enacted that would grow the economy?

Funny how so many of you progressives all seem to have the same problem, Siete!

You said: So basically you don't have any policies Barack Obama enacted that would grow the economy?

Obama won a number of cases at the world trade court. Try to figure out how that helped the economy. I've posted them many times but Republicans are pretty stupid and work hard to keep it that way.
Obama works to educate Americans while Republicans want to keep them dumb as possible. Remember, the Gov of Texas goes to New York and California looking for skilled liberals to go to Texas because, clearly the people there are too stupid to learn. They recently cut education by 5 billion.

And the stimulus is what countries have been using for a hundred years or more to jump start their economy. Look up "German, Chinese, Russian, Brazilian, Japanese Stimulus". It's the same everywhere because it works. But Republicans don't believe it. Course they don't believe in science either. So damn dumb.

And the worst of all? The ruined economy Obama was handed by greedy, thieving and lying Republicans.

Stimulus only works if the stimulus itself is well thought out and implemented intelligently.

The Obama Stimulus was neither well thought out nor implemented intelligently.

It was SO badly thought out and implemented so badly that they created so few jobs that they didn't dare tell the American people how many they created for the nearly 2 trillion that they had spent...so Obama's minions came up with the whole "jobs created or saved" to hide how abysmal their job creation record really was!

Your opinion is noted but a majority of economic professors polled said it lowered the unemployment rate; and a plurality of them said the benefits outweighed the costs.

The CBO said ...

ARRA succeeded in its primary goal of protecting the economy during the worst of the recession. The CBO report finds that ARRA's impact on jobs peaked in the third quarter of 2010, when up to 3.6 million people owed their jobs to the Recovery Act. Since then, the Act's job impact has gradually declined as the economy recovers and certain provisions expire. More than 90 percent of ARRA funds were spent by December, according to CBO.​

... which of course, exceeded the key goal of ARRA, which was to save or create 3 to 3.5 million jobs.

Gee, Faun...a majority of economists agreed that spending nearly two trillion dollars of stimulus created more jobs than not spending it? Really? That's your defense of the Obama Stimulus?

When you sit down and actually figure out what each job created under the Obama Stimulus COST...it's such a staggering amount that it boggles the mind!

The thing that made the entire "jobs saved" statistic so attractive to the Obama Administration is that is was virtually impossible for anyone to verify how many jobs were really saved...which was EXACTLY what they needed to keep the voters from going ballistic when they found out how badly the stimulus worked. They were able to say..."well, yeah...we didn't create many jobs...but oh, boy...we SAVED millions!!!!"

 

[Dad2three]

So basically you don't have any policies Barack Obama enacted that would grow the economy?

Funny how so many of you progressives all seem to have the same problem, Siete!

You said: So basically you don't have any policies Barack Obama enacted that would grow the economy?

Obama won a number of cases at the world trade court. Try to figure out how that helped the economy. I've posted them many times but Republicans are pretty stupid and work hard to keep it that way.
Obama works to educate Americans while Republicans want to keep them dumb as possible. Remember, the Gov of Texas goes to New York and California looking for skilled liberals to go to Texas because, clearly the people there are too stupid to learn. They recently cut education by 5 billion.

And the stimulus is what countries have been using for a hundred years or more to jump start their economy. Look up "German, Chinese, Russian, Brazilian, Japanese Stimulus". It's the same everywhere because it works. But Republicans don't believe it. Course they don't believe in science either. So damn dumb.

And the worst of all? The ruined economy Obama was handed by greedy, thieving and lying Republicans.

Stimulus only works if the stimulus itself is well thought out and implemented intelligently.

The Obama Stimulus was neither well thought out nor implemented intelligently.

It was SO badly thought out and implemented so badly that they created so few jobs that they didn't dare tell the American people how many they created for the nearly 2 trillion that they had spent...so Obama's minions came up with the whole "jobs created or saved" to hide how abysmal their job creation record really was!

Your opinion is noted but a majority of economic professors polled said it lowered the unemployment rate; and a plurality of them said the benefits outweighed the costs.

The CBO said ...

ARRA succeeded in its primary goal of protecting the economy during the worst of the recession. The CBO report finds that ARRA's impact on jobs peaked in the third quarter of 2010, when up to 3.6 million people owed their jobs to the Recovery Act. Since then, the Act's job impact has gradually declined as the economy recovers and certain provisions expire. More than 90 percent of ARRA funds were spent by December, according to CBO.​

... which of course, exceeded the key goal of ARRA, which was to save or create 3 to 3.5 million jobs.

.

What the heck is a 'saved' job? It sounds like a made up category of job, meant to hide how many real jobs there are.

If I set fire to my neighbors house, I can probably save a firefighters job, but it doesn't really do anyone any good.

.

It's what you come up with when you've spent nearly two TRILLION dollars in stimulus money and only created a fraction of the jobs you thought you were going to.

In other words it's an "Oh, shit! I'm SO screwed! statistic created to hide the truth.

"It's what you come up with when you've spent nearly two TRILLION dollars in stimulus money"


Conservative 'math'


The approximate cost of the economic stimulus package was estimated to be $787 billion at the time of passage, later revised to $831 billion between 2009 and 2019.

http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/02-22-ARRA.pdf

The Act included direct spending in infrastructure, education, health, and energy, federal tax incentives, and expansion of unemployment benefits and other social welfare provisions.

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[Dad2three]

already made mention of one fact which you ignored.... so jump off a tall building

So basically you don't have any policies Barack Obama enacted that would grow the economy?

Funny how so many of you progressives all seem to have the same problem, Siete!

You said: So basically you don't have any policies Barack Obama enacted that would grow the economy?

Obama won a number of cases at the world trade court. Try to figure out how that helped the economy. I've posted them many times but Republicans are pretty stupid and work hard to keep it that way.
Obama works to educate Americans while Republicans want to keep them dumb as possible. Remember, the Gov of Texas goes to New York and California looking for skilled liberals to go to Texas because, clearly the people there are too stupid to learn. They recently cut education by 5 billion.

And the stimulus is what countries have been using for a hundred years or more to jump start their economy. Look up "German, Chinese, Russian, Brazilian, Japanese Stimulus". It's the same everywhere because it works. But Republicans don't believe it. Course they don't believe in science either. So damn dumb.

And the worst of all? The ruined economy Obama was handed by greedy, thieving and lying Republicans.

Stimulus only works if the stimulus itself is well thought out and implemented intelligently.

The Obama Stimulus was neither well thought out nor implemented intelligently.

It was SO badly thought out and implemented so badly that they created so few jobs that they didn't dare tell the American people how many they created for the nearly 2 trillion that they had spent...so Obama's minions came up with the whole "jobs created or saved" to hide how abysmal their job creation record really was!

Your opinion is noted but a majority of economic professors polled said it lowered the unemployment rate; and a plurality of them said the benefits outweighed the costs.

The CBO said ...

ARRA succeeded in its primary goal of protecting the economy during the worst of the recession. The CBO report finds that ARRA's impact on jobs peaked in the third quarter of 2010, when up to 3.6 million people owed their jobs to the Recovery Act. Since then, the Act's job impact has gradually declined as the economy recovers and certain provisions expire. More than 90 percent of ARRA funds were spent by December, according to CBO.​

... which of course, exceeded the key goal of ARRA, which was to save or create 3 to 3.5 million jobs.

Gee, Faun...a majority of economists agreed that spending nearly two trillion dollars of stimulus created more jobs than not spending it? Really? That's your defense of the Obama Stimulus?

When you sit down and actually figure out what each job created under the Obama Stimulus COST...it's such a staggering amount that it boggles the mind!

The thing that made the entire "jobs saved" statistic so attractive to the Obama Administration is that is was virtually impossible for anyone to verify how many jobs were really saved...which was EXACTLY what they needed to keep the voters from going ballistic when they found out how badly the stimulus worked. They were able to say..."well, yeah...we didn't create many jobs...but oh, boy...we SAVED millions!!!!"

How many jobs did Dubya's tax cuts create again? The cost in his 8 years was $1.7 trillion?

Reagan COULDN'T have had tax cuts create PRIVATE sector jobs because Carter had 9+ million jobs in 4 years to Ronnie's poultry 14 million in 8????

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

 

[Faun]

already made mention of one fact which you ignored.... so jump off a tall building

So basically you don't have any policies Barack Obama enacted that would grow the economy?

Funny how so many of you progressives all seem to have the same problem, Siete!

You said: So basically you don't have any policies Barack Obama enacted that would grow the economy?

Obama won a number of cases at the world trade court. Try to figure out how that helped the economy. I've posted them many times but Republicans are pretty stupid and work hard to keep it that way.
Obama works to educate Americans while Republicans want to keep them dumb as possible. Remember, the Gov of Texas goes to New York and California looking for skilled liberals to go to Texas because, clearly the people there are too stupid to learn. They recently cut education by 5 billion.

And the stimulus is what countries have been using for a hundred years or more to jump start their economy. Look up "German, Chinese, Russian, Brazilian, Japanese Stimulus". It's the same everywhere because it works. But Republicans don't believe it. Course they don't believe in science either. So damn dumb.

And the worst of all? The ruined economy Obama was handed by greedy, thieving and lying Republicans.

Stimulus only works if the stimulus itself is well thought out and implemented intelligently.

The Obama Stimulus was neither well thought out nor implemented intelligently.

It was SO badly thought out and implemented so badly that they created so few jobs that they didn't dare tell the American people how many they created for the nearly 2 trillion that they had spent...so Obama's minions came up with the whole "jobs created or saved" to hide how abysmal their job creation record really was!

Your opinion is noted but a majority of economic professors polled said it lowered the unemployment rate; and a plurality of them said the benefits outweighed the costs.

The CBO said ...

ARRA succeeded in its primary goal of protecting the economy during the worst of the recession. The CBO report finds that ARRA's impact on jobs peaked in the third quarter of 2010, when up to 3.6 million people owed their jobs to the Recovery Act. Since then, the Act's job impact has gradually declined as the economy recovers and certain provisions expire. More than 90 percent of ARRA funds were spent by December, according to CBO.​

... which of course, exceeded the key goal of ARRA, which was to save or create 3 to 3.5 million jobs.

Gee, Faun...a majority of economists agreed that spending nearly two trillion dollars of stimulus created more jobs than not spending it? Really? That's your defense of the Obama Stimulus?

When you sit down and actually figure out what each job created under the Obama Stimulus COST...it's such a staggering amount that it boggles the mind!

The thing that made the entire "jobs saved" statistic so attractive to the Obama Administration is that is was virtually impossible for anyone to verify how many jobs were really saved...which was EXACTLY what they needed to keep the voters from going ballistic when they found out how badly the stimulus worked. They were able to say..."well, yeah...we didn't create many jobs...but oh, boy...we SAVED millions!!!!"

Translation .... worked as designed.

 

[rdean]

It's amazing the lengths that you Obama supporters will go to protect an "image" of who Barry is, Faun! You steadfastly pretend that what Reagan did to stimulate the economy didn't work because if you did admit that he was successful then it begs the question...why hasn't Obama been successful?

Your reading comprehension issues are noted. For exercise, show me in which of my posts did I declare Reagan's policies did not help the economy ......

Quite obviously the answer to that question is that Obama's first priority WASN'T the economy and jobs, as Ronald Reagan's was. Barry went after ObamaCare first and put the economy and jobs on a back burner while he did so. It wasn't even his second priority! He was talking about passing Cap & Trade legislation as his next big goal before the 2010 mid-terms made that an impossibility. By the end of Obama's second year in office his chief economic advisers Larry Summers and Christina Romer were both facing a stark reality...their almost two trillion dollar Keynesian stimulus had been turned into a a liberal "pork fest" by Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid and so few jobs had been created that they had to fudge the numbers with the whole "jobs created or saved" farce! Both of them saw the writing on the wall and resigned. They didn't do so because they had accomplished the job at hand...they did so because they'd failed epically at creating jobs and stimulating the economy.

Now explain how you generate an "obvious answer" from a question derived from a false premise? That premise being that I "pretended what Reagan did to stimulate the economy didn't work."

I voted twice for Reagan and think he was an excellent president. Just letting you know that in case you need that information when tailoring your next response.

And Obama's policies have failed??

5% GDP, 5.6% unemployment, and 1.3% inflation

And for comparison purposes ... Obama started with 7.8% unemployment and it's currently down to 5.6%. Reagan started with 7.5% unemployment and at this point in his presidency, it was down to only 6.6%.

Actually, if you look at unemployment on the last day of Bush's last budget, unemployment was 10.8%

WTF? Unemployment peaked at 10%, so I have no idea where you get 10.8%. And Bush never signed a budget for FY2009, he signed a continuing resolution in 2008 that carried us through the first half of FY2009.

Let's start with a few facts. This from right wing Cato Institute:

Obama s Budget Spending Too High But Bush Was Worse Cato Liberty

Here is another comparison:

• Spending growth in Bush’s first seven years: 8%, 7%, 6%, 8%, 7%, 3%, 9%.
• Spending growth in Obama’s six years: 13%, 6%, 2%, -3%, 5%, 2%.

Sorry about the 10.8%. I typed this fast and missed the zero and put an 8. But at lease we can agree on the 10%. You do admit it peaked at 10.2%? Good. I know that USMB right wingers are going to scream liar, but so what? When you get to 10.2%, how much worse is 10.8%? If I were going to exaggerate, I would have said 20 or 30. Not a mere 0.6.

Check out "Factcheck.org".

Obama 8217 s Spending 8216 Inferno 8217 or Not

The truth is that the nearly 18 percent spike in spending in fiscal 2009 — for which the president is sometimes blamed entirely — was mostly due to appropriations and policies that were already in place when Obama took office.

That includes spending for the bank bailout legislation approved by President Bush. Annual increases in amounts actually spent since fiscal 2009 have been relatively modest. In fact, spending for the first seven months of the current fiscal year is running slightly below the same period last year, and below projections.

-------------------------------------------------------------
When a new president is sworn in, he carries the budget of the last president until October. The previous budget of the last president doesn't end the very day he leaves office. Everyone knows that. Tell me you know that.

In fact, if you look at the data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, unemployment peaked at 10.2% in Oct of 2009.

National Employment Monthly Update

National Unemployment Rates, 2008 - 2014
Jan. Feb. Mar. April May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec.
2014 6.6 6.7 6.7 6.3 6.3 6.1 6.2 6.1 5.9 5.8 5.8 5.6
2013 7.9 7.7 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.3 7.2 7.2 7.2 7.0 6.7
2012 8.3 8.3 8.2 8.1 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.1 7.8 7.9 7.8 7.8
2011 9.0 8.9 8.8 9.0 9.1 9.2 9.1 9.1 9.1 9.0 8.6 8.5
2010 9.7 9.7 9.7 9.9 9.7 9.5 9.5 9.6 9.6 9.6 9.8 9.4
2009 7.6 8.1 8.5 8.9 9.4 9.5 9.4 9.7 9.8 10.2 10.0 10.0
2008 4.9 4.8 5.1 5.0 5.5 5.6 5.8 6.2 6.2 6.6 6.8 7.2

Budget Process

And we all know, the Federal budgets run from Oct 1 to Oct 1. The Federal budget was in place 4 months BEFORE Obama was sworn into office. That's a fact. That's simply how federal budgets are spread out.

Why do you progressives even bother coming here with the RIDICULOUS assertion that Obama somehow isn't a big spender because he increased spending by a smaller percentage? It's the most absurd claim ever and yet you keep on trying to make it!

George W. Bush's last budget was ENORMOUS only because it included both emergency stimulus spending and TARP spending at the height of the recession.

Barack Obama took that last huge budget amount AND ADDED TO IT!!! Then the next budget after that he added even more to it. That was after the recession had been officially declared over! So what was Barry spending all that money on?

Bush's budget was enormous on many levels. The revenue lost from millions of jobs being moved to China from 2001 to 2008 and over 40,000 factories closed. The cost of the two wars not accounted for (the cost of the injured still hasn't been taken into account). The three times Republicans used reconciliation accounts for an enormous part of the debt. And so on.

 

[Oldstyle]

So basically you don't have any policies Barack Obama enacted that would grow the economy?

Funny how so many of you progressives all seem to have the same problem, Siete!

You said: So basically you don't have any policies Barack Obama enacted that would grow the economy?

Obama won a number of cases at the world trade court. Try to figure out how that helped the economy. I've posted them many times but Republicans are pretty stupid and work hard to keep it that way.
Obama works to educate Americans while Republicans want to keep them dumb as possible. Remember, the Gov of Texas goes to New York and California looking for skilled liberals to go to Texas because, clearly the people there are too stupid to learn. They recently cut education by 5 billion.

And the stimulus is what countries have been using for a hundred years or more to jump start their economy. Look up "German, Chinese, Russian, Brazilian, Japanese Stimulus". It's the same everywhere because it works. But Republicans don't believe it. Course they don't believe in science either. So damn dumb.

And the worst of all? The ruined economy Obama was handed by greedy, thieving and lying Republicans.

Stimulus only works if the stimulus itself is well thought out and implemented intelligently.

The Obama Stimulus was neither well thought out nor implemented intelligently.

It was SO badly thought out and implemented so badly that they created so few jobs that they didn't dare tell the American people how many they created for the nearly 2 trillion that they had spent...so Obama's minions came up with the whole "jobs created or saved" to hide how abysmal their job creation record really was!

Your opinion is noted but a majority of economic professors polled said it lowered the unemployment rate; and a plurality of them said the benefits outweighed the costs.

The CBO said ...

ARRA succeeded in its primary goal of protecting the economy during the worst of the recession. The CBO report finds that ARRA's impact on jobs peaked in the third quarter of 2010, when up to 3.6 million people owed their jobs to the Recovery Act. Since then, the Act's job impact has gradually declined as the economy recovers and certain provisions expire. More than 90 percent of ARRA funds were spent by December, according to CBO.​

... which of course, exceeded the key goal of ARRA, which was to save or create 3 to 3.5 million jobs.

Gee, Faun...a majority of economists agreed that spending nearly two trillion dollars of stimulus created more jobs than not spending it? Really? That's your defense of the Obama Stimulus?

When you sit down and actually figure out what each job created under the Obama Stimulus COST...it's such a staggering amount that it boggles the mind!

The thing that made the entire "jobs saved" statistic so attractive to the Obama Administration is that is was virtually impossible for anyone to verify how many jobs were really saved...which was EXACTLY what they needed to keep the voters from going ballistic when they found out how badly the stimulus worked. They were able to say..."well, yeah...we didn't create many jobs...but oh, boy...we SAVED millions!!!!"

Translation .... worked as designed.

Anyone who chooses to believe that the Obama Stimulus "worked" would first have to ignore the fact that it's stated purpose was to create jobs.

If your definition of "worked" is that it provided a smorgasbord of liberal pork that Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi were able to lavish on Democratic supporters...then by all means...it "worked"!

 

[Oldstyle]

Saying the Obama Stimulus was "successful" is akin to having your barn catch on fire...calling the Fire Department...which then ignores the barn fire...raids your ice box for beers...calls out for pizzas on your credit card they found on the kitchen table...and then declares that particular response to a 911 call a success because they managed to "save" the house!

 

[Faun]

You said: So basically you don't have any policies Barack Obama enacted that would grow the economy?

Obama won a number of cases at the world trade court. Try to figure out how that helped the economy. I've posted them many times but Republicans are pretty stupid and work hard to keep it that way.
Obama works to educate Americans while Republicans want to keep them dumb as possible. Remember, the Gov of Texas goes to New York and California looking for skilled liberals to go to Texas because, clearly the people there are too stupid to learn. They recently cut education by 5 billion.

And the stimulus is what countries have been using for a hundred years or more to jump start their economy. Look up "German, Chinese, Russian, Brazilian, Japanese Stimulus". It's the same everywhere because it works. But Republicans don't believe it. Course they don't believe in science either. So damn dumb.

And the worst of all? The ruined economy Obama was handed by greedy, thieving and lying Republicans.

Stimulus only works if the stimulus itself is well thought out and implemented intelligently.

The Obama Stimulus was neither well thought out nor implemented intelligently.

It was SO badly thought out and implemented so badly that they created so few jobs that they didn't dare tell the American people how many they created for the nearly 2 trillion that they had spent...so Obama's minions came up with the whole "jobs created or saved" to hide how abysmal their job creation record really was!

Your opinion is noted but a majority of economic professors polled said it lowered the unemployment rate; and a plurality of them said the benefits outweighed the costs.

The CBO said ...

ARRA succeeded in its primary goal of protecting the economy during the worst of the recession. The CBO report finds that ARRA's impact on jobs peaked in the third quarter of 2010, when up to 3.6 million people owed their jobs to the Recovery Act. Since then, the Act's job impact has gradually declined as the economy recovers and certain provisions expire. More than 90 percent of ARRA funds were spent by December, according to CBO.​

... which of course, exceeded the key goal of ARRA, which was to save or create 3 to 3.5 million jobs.

Gee, Faun...a majority of economists agreed that spending nearly two trillion dollars of stimulus created more jobs than not spending it? Really? That's your defense of the Obama Stimulus?

When you sit down and actually figure out what each job created under the Obama Stimulus COST...it's such a staggering amount that it boggles the mind!

The thing that made the entire "jobs saved" statistic so attractive to the Obama Administration is that is was virtually impossible for anyone to verify how many jobs were really saved...which was EXACTLY what they needed to keep the voters from going ballistic when they found out how badly the stimulus worked. They were able to say..."well, yeah...we didn't create many jobs...but oh, boy...we SAVED millions!!!!"

Translation .... worked as designed.

Anyone who chooses to believe that the Obama Stimulus "worked" would first have to ignore the fact that it's stated purpose was to create jobs.

If your definition of "worked" is that it provided a smorgasbord of liberal pork that Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi were able to lavish on Democratic supporters...then by all means...it "worked"!

What am I ignoring? According to the CBO report I linked, it saved or created up to 3.6 million jobs -- the goal was 3 million. That's a success.

The stated reason was to inject money into an economy which was choking after credit markets froze. To help get the economy moving again until the private sector could get back on it's feet. It kept unemployment lower than it would have been without the stimulus and the benefits outweighed the costs. Another success.

 

[Faun]

Saying the Obama Stimulus was "successful" is akin to having your barn catch on fire...calling the Fire Department...which then ignores the barn fire...raids your ice box for beers...calls out for pizzas on your credit card they found on the kitchen table...and then declares that particular response to a 911 call a success because they managed to "save" the house!

Nah, it's not that bad. You're forgetting that by the end of Bush's reign of error; you had already lost your job, your barn was in foreclosure anyway, your wife died in the WTC, and your sons and daughters were still on their third deployment to Iraq in search of WMD that weren't there to begin with. Hell, it's thanks to Obama that you had an ObamaPhone to call the fire department.

 

[rdean]

Saying the Obama Stimulus was "successful" is akin to having your barn catch on fire...calling the Fire Department...which then ignores the barn fire...raids your ice box for beers...calls out for pizzas on your credit card they found on the kitchen table...and then declares that particular response to a 911 call a success because they managed to "save" the house!

Nah, it's not that bad. You're forgetting that by the end of Bush's reign of error; you had already lost your job, your barn was in foreclosure anyway, your wife died in the WTC, and your sons and daughters were still on their third deployment to Iraq in search of WMD that weren't there to begin with. Hell, it's thanks to Obama that you had an ObamaPhone to call the fire department.

That's hilarious. Thanks!