IF higher taxes will create jobs, why did the stimulus fail?

This message is hidden because 8537 is on your ignore list.

This message appears because Rabbi ran away like a crybaby. Again.

But don't worry, he pulls this shit all the time. He'll be back after he cleans his diaper.

Its kills me how they think not listening is some badge of courage.

Its proof they cant handle the truth and upon having it thrust in their face they put their fingers in their ears and scream LLALALALALALALALALALALALALA.

Its why their historically failed ideas still seem smart to them.

Bad and incomplete information in, Bad decisions out.

You are a classic example of the pot calling the kettle black.
 
As a supporter of Obama and is policies, it becomes the place Webster sends you for an example of the word desperate
Do not debate, do not re butte, spin it.
I am sure that a 9th grade level of common sense knows what the point being said meant
Try and stay up please. And before you vote for Obama again, ask you self why

What did the stimulus bill cost?

Did it cost 787 billion or not?
Plus interest

Are tax cuts a cost to government?
 
I cannot put it any better

It’s official: Obama’s job stimulus program failed
TAGS: Examiner editorial failure job stimulus President Barack Obama unemployment rate
COMMENTS (0) SHARE PRINT
By: Examiner Editorial 01/22/11 10:00 PM
Democrats have lambasted Republicans for years for believing in “Voodoo economics.” Well, the evidence is mounting that economic superstition is alive and well in the nation’s political circles, though it has nothing to do with a fondness for tax cuts.

It’s instead the crazy belief that the government can spend its way to prosperity for the rest of us. Analyzing this conclusion, the House Ways and Means Committee recently released a report titled “It’s Official: On Unemployment and Jobs, Democrats’ 2009 Stimulus Was a Huge Failure.”

The Ways and Means report provides a number of striking reminders about the predictions the White House made in January 2009 while urging the passage of their $814 billion Keynesian spending bill. By January 2011, the stimulus bill was supposed to have lowered the unemployment rate to 7 percent. It now stands at 9.4 percent, and the report notes that “the unemployment rate would be 11.3 percent if it included all the ‘invisible unemployed’ — American workers who have simply given up looking for work.” The report also said that the stimulus was supposed to create 3.7 million jobs by now, for a total of 137.6 million jobs in the American economy. Currently, there are 130.7 million jobs. Since the stimulus’ passage, 47 of the 50 states have lost jobs; overall, the private sector has seen 1.8 million jobs disappear.

Note as well that unemployment currently is slightly above what the White House predicted it would be if the Obama stimulus program was not passed as emergency legislation. Any honest assessment of the stimulus has to consider the possibility that flawed economics, kickbacks to unions and other Democratic special interests, corruption and an inefficient bureaucracy simply swallowed all the jobs for which those billions were supposed to pay. In fact, job creation exceeded the White House’s expectations in only one area: The District of Columbia created almost twice as many jobs as the White House anticipated. In other words, thanks to the stimulus, the only area growing new jobs is the federal government.



Read more at the San Francisco Examiner: It

Because a very small percent of the package was actually allocated to programs that grew the economy. Much kept certain jobs afloat in hopes the economy would improve itself enough to maintain them. It didn't and once the money ran out those jobs were lost. Funding to states was cut forcing states to increase taxes and raise prices on things like mass transit. Any miniscule tax breaks that were given to the average American were more than eaten up by increased costs.

Yes.

And the basic economic logic that was ignored is this...

the theory that if we help a public servant keep their job, they will be able to spend money on goods and services thus giving manufacturers and such reason to continue, and grow is a very sound theory in a world where "without a job" means "without a means to spend".

However, in our country, if you are unemployed, you have other assistance such as unemployment, welfare and foodstamps to help you maintain your demand for goods and services.

So all the stimulus did was divert from the unemployment numbers....but did not change demand for private goods and services.

But more importantly, it gave our politicians money to say thank you to their financial supporters.

The stimulus did nothing...it was a farce and was all for show....nothing else.
 
I cannot put it any better

It’s official: Obama’s job stimulus program failed
TAGS: Examiner editorial failure job stimulus President Barack Obama unemployment rate
COMMENTS (0) SHARE PRINT
By: Examiner Editorial 01/22/11 10:00 PM
Democrats have lambasted Republicans for years for believing in “Voodoo economics.” Well, the evidence is mounting that economic superstition is alive and well in the nation’s political circles, though it has nothing to do with a fondness for tax cuts.

It’s instead the crazy belief that the government can spend its way to prosperity for the rest of us. Analyzing this conclusion, the House Ways and Means Committee recently released a report titled “It’s Official: On Unemployment and Jobs, Democrats’ 2009 Stimulus Was a Huge Failure.”

The Ways and Means report provides a number of striking reminders about the predictions the White House made in January 2009 while urging the passage of their $814 billion Keynesian spending bill. By January 2011, the stimulus bill was supposed to have lowered the unemployment rate to 7 percent. It now stands at 9.4 percent, and the report notes that “the unemployment rate would be 11.3 percent if it included all the ‘invisible unemployed’ — American workers who have simply given up looking for work.” The report also said that the stimulus was supposed to create 3.7 million jobs by now, for a total of 137.6 million jobs in the American economy. Currently, there are 130.7 million jobs. Since the stimulus’ passage, 47 of the 50 states have lost jobs; overall, the private sector has seen 1.8 million jobs disappear.

Note as well that unemployment currently is slightly above what the White House predicted it would be if the Obama stimulus program was not passed as emergency legislation. Any honest assessment of the stimulus has to consider the possibility that flawed economics, kickbacks to unions and other Democratic special interests, corruption and an inefficient bureaucracy simply swallowed all the jobs for which those billions were supposed to pay. In fact, job creation exceeded the White House’s expectations in only one area: The District of Columbia created almost twice as many jobs as the White House anticipated. In other words, thanks to the stimulus, the only area growing new jobs is the federal government.



Read more at the San Francisco Examiner: It

Because a very small percent of the package was actually allocated to programs that grew the economy. Much kept certain jobs afloat in hopes the economy would improve itself enough to maintain them. It didn't and once the money ran out those jobs were lost. Funding to states was cut forcing states to increase taxes and raise prices on things like mass transit. Any miniscule tax breaks that were given to the average American were more than eaten up by increased costs.

Yes.

And the basic economic logic that was ignored is this...

the theory that if we help a public servant keep their job, they will be able to spend money on goods and services thus giving manufacturers and such reason to continue, and grow is a very sound theory in a world where "without a job" means "without a means to spend".

However, in our country, if you are unemployed, you have other assistance such as unemployment, welfare and foodstamps to help you maintain your demand for goods and services.

So all the stimulus did was divert from the unemployment numbers....but did not change demand for private goods and services.

But more importantly, it gave our politicians money to say thank you to their financial supporters.

The stimulus did nothing...it was a farce and was all for show....nothing else.

The theory that consumer spending drives the economy is wrong. The civil servant's salary is money taken from somewhere else, either by taxation or borrowing. The civil servant produces nothing. Ergo money is siphoned from productive uses to unproductive ones.
 
So?
It failed. Period. End of conversation.
Obama, Pelosi and Reid did not say "it will not be successful becuase 40% of it is tax cuts"
To the contrary, they heralded the plan.
And it did nothing that it claimed it would do.

Sure.....some are tossing some numbers of growth around...

But lets be real....if the plan was marketed this way...

"unemployment will still top 10% before it shows signs of recovery"
"there will be a couple of hundred private secotr jobs created over the next 2.5 years"
"unemployment will teeter between 9 and 10% for a minimum of 2.5 years"

I dont think it would have passed.

Thus...it is an utrter failure.

No, you can't prove it failed because you can't prove what would have happened had there been no stimulus.

You believe success is based strictly on the inability to define failure....so then anything is a success to you becuase you will always be able to fall back on the old line "imagine how bad it would have been if we didnt try it"

To me, you have very low standards of success.....and therfore I am not surpirised that you support policies of entitlements....and I now understand why you do not see it as an issue when you give people reason NOT to strive for success.

To me, a failure is declared when your minimum expectations of an action are not met.

The stimulus dd not meet the expectations laid out by the administration and those that supported it.

So, to me, it was a failure.

Ironically, based on your premise....you would continually gamble and lose becuase you will always have the premise of "imagine if we didnt" to fall back on.

That is very dangerous....it prevents you from learning froim mistakes.

Who you are and the way you think was clearly defined by the above post of yours.

That the administration laid out specific expectations is a myth that has been debunked, by people like me, but of course, as is the habit of rightwingers who can't argue logically,

the myth gets resurrected as if it had never been debunked.

Secondly, missing expectations of any sort does not define failure; it only defines missing expectations.

If financial analysts predict Walmart is going to earn 25 cents a share this quarter, and Walmart earns 20 cents,

was Walmart a failed business for that quarter? Of course not.
 
Because a very small percent of the package was actually allocated to programs that grew the economy. Much kept certain jobs afloat in hopes the economy would improve itself enough to maintain them. It didn't and once the money ran out those jobs were lost. Funding to states was cut forcing states to increase taxes and raise prices on things like mass transit. Any miniscule tax breaks that were given to the average American were more than eaten up by increased costs.

Yes.

And the basic economic logic that was ignored is this...

the theory that if we help a public servant keep their job, they will be able to spend money on goods and services thus giving manufacturers and such reason to continue, and grow is a very sound theory in a world where "without a job" means "without a means to spend".

However, in our country, if you are unemployed, you have other assistance such as unemployment, welfare and foodstamps to help you maintain your demand for goods and services.

So all the stimulus did was divert from the unemployment numbers....but did not change demand for private goods and services.

But more importantly, it gave our politicians money to say thank you to their financial supporters.

The stimulus did nothing...it was a farce and was all for show....nothing else.

The theory that consumer spending drives the economy is wrong. The civil servant's salary is money taken from somewhere else, either by taxation or borrowing. The civil servant produces nothing. Ergo money is siphoned from productive uses to unproductive ones.

Exactly. Most of the jobs saved, temporarily, were civil service jobs. There was no growth of the economy. There were no net positive jobs created. It was a costly bandaid, nothing more
 
I cannot put it any better

It’s official: Obama’s job stimulus program failed
TAGS: Examiner editorial failure job stimulus President Barack Obama unemployment rate
COMMENTS (0) SHARE PRINT
By: Examiner Editorial 01/22/11 10:00 PM
Democrats have lambasted Republicans for years for believing in “Voodoo economics.” Well, the evidence is mounting that economic superstition is alive and well in the nation’s political circles, though it has nothing to do with a fondness for tax cuts.

It’s instead the crazy belief that the government can spend its way to prosperity for the rest of us. Analyzing this conclusion, the House Ways and Means Committee recently released a report titled “It’s Official: On Unemployment and Jobs, Democrats’ 2009 Stimulus Was a Huge Failure.”

The Ways and Means report provides a number of striking reminders about the predictions the White House made in January 2009 while urging the passage of their $814 billion Keynesian spending bill. By January 2011, the stimulus bill was supposed to have lowered the unemployment rate to 7 percent. It now stands at 9.4 percent, and the report notes that “the unemployment rate would be 11.3 percent if it included all the ‘invisible unemployed’ — American workers who have simply given up looking for work.” The report also said that the stimulus was supposed to create 3.7 million jobs by now, for a total of 137.6 million jobs in the American economy. Currently, there are 130.7 million jobs. Since the stimulus’ passage, 47 of the 50 states have lost jobs; overall, the private sector has seen 1.8 million jobs disappear.

Note as well that unemployment currently is slightly above what the White House predicted it would be if the Obama stimulus program was not passed as emergency legislation. Any honest assessment of the stimulus has to consider the possibility that flawed economics, kickbacks to unions and other Democratic special interests, corruption and an inefficient bureaucracy simply swallowed all the jobs for which those billions were supposed to pay. In fact, job creation exceeded the White House’s expectations in only one area: The District of Columbia created almost twice as many jobs as the White House anticipated. In other words, thanks to the stimulus, the only area growing new jobs is the federal government.



Read more at the San Francisco Examiner: It

Because a very small percent of the package was actually allocated to programs that grew the economy. Much kept certain jobs afloat in hopes the economy would improve itself enough to maintain them. It didn't and once the money ran out those jobs were lost. Funding to states was cut forcing states to increase taxes and raise prices on things like mass transit. Any miniscule tax breaks that were given to the average American were more than eaten up by increased costs.

Yes.

And the basic economic logic that was ignored is this...

the theory that if we help a public servant keep their job, they will be able to spend money on goods and services thus giving manufacturers and such reason to continue, and grow is a very sound theory in a world where "without a job" means "without a means to spend".

However, in our country, if you are unemployed, you have other assistance such as unemployment, welfare and foodstamps to help you maintain your demand for goods and services.

So all the stimulus did was divert from the unemployment numbers....but did not change demand for private goods and services.

But more importantly, it gave our politicians money to say thank you to their financial supporters.

The stimulus did nothing...it was a farce and was all for show....nothing else.

IMO the intent was only to divert those number through the 2010 midterm elections and secure democratic control once again. It was a costly bandaid approach with political undercurrents. As was the Healthcare package, which was not reform.
 
Yes.

And the basic economic logic that was ignored is this...

the theory that if we help a public servant keep their job, they will be able to spend money on goods and services thus giving manufacturers and such reason to continue, and grow is a very sound theory in a world where "without a job" means "without a means to spend".

However, in our country, if you are unemployed, you have other assistance such as unemployment, welfare and foodstamps to help you maintain your demand for goods and services.

So all the stimulus did was divert from the unemployment numbers....but did not change demand for private goods and services.

But more importantly, it gave our politicians money to say thank you to their financial supporters.

The stimulus did nothing...it was a farce and was all for show....nothing else.

The theory that consumer spending drives the economy is wrong. The civil servant's salary is money taken from somewhere else, either by taxation or borrowing. The civil servant produces nothing. Ergo money is siphoned from productive uses to unproductive ones.

Exactly. Most of the jobs saved, temporarily, were civil service jobs. There was no growth of the economy. There were no net positive jobs created. It was a costly bandaid, nothing more

Very costly because it prevented the necessary shake-out that would pave the way for future growth. So not only did it rob in terms of borrowing money but also robbed future prosperity.
A really bad stupid policy all around. The only thing that makes it worse is that some idiots here think it worked.
 
I cannot put it any better

It’s official: Obama’s job stimulus program failed
TAGS: Examiner editorial failure job stimulus President Barack Obama unemployment rate
COMMENTS (0) SHARE PRINT
By: Examiner Editorial 01/22/11 10:00 PM
Democrats have lambasted Republicans for years for believing in “Voodoo economics.” Well, the evidence is mounting that economic superstition is alive and well in the nation’s political circles, though it has nothing to do with a fondness for tax cuts.

It’s instead the crazy belief that the government can spend its way to prosperity for the rest of us. Analyzing this conclusion, the House Ways and Means Committee recently released a report titled “It’s Official: On Unemployment and Jobs, Democrats’ 2009 Stimulus Was a Huge Failure.”

The Ways and Means report provides a number of striking reminders about the predictions the White House made in January 2009 while urging the passage of their $814 billion Keynesian spending bill. By January 2011, the stimulus bill was supposed to have lowered the unemployment rate to 7 percent. It now stands at 9.4 percent, and the report notes that “the unemployment rate would be 11.3 percent if it included all the ‘invisible unemployed’ — American workers who have simply given up looking for work.” The report also said that the stimulus was supposed to create 3.7 million jobs by now, for a total of 137.6 million jobs in the American economy. Currently, there are 130.7 million jobs. Since the stimulus’ passage, 47 of the 50 states have lost jobs; overall, the private sector has seen 1.8 million jobs disappear.

Note as well that unemployment currently is slightly above what the White House predicted it would be if the Obama stimulus program was not passed as emergency legislation. Any honest assessment of the stimulus has to consider the possibility that flawed economics, kickbacks to unions and other Democratic special interests, corruption and an inefficient bureaucracy simply swallowed all the jobs for which those billions were supposed to pay. In fact, job creation exceeded the White House’s expectations in only one area: The District of Columbia created almost twice as many jobs as the White House anticipated. In other words, thanks to the stimulus, the only area growing new jobs is the federal government.



Read more at the San Francisco Examiner: It
The so called stimulus money was spent mostly on supporting public sector jobs. For example, the 30 or so police officer jobs in Columbus, OH that Obama claimed he "saved" are now either gone or being funded by over taxed residents of that city.
On the issue of waste. Some $500,000 of stimulus was spent on research of a Japanaese Quail species' lobido.....HUH?
At the end of the day it has been found that very little if any of the stimulus money was spent on the private sector. Where it should have gone in the first place.
 
I cannot put it any better

It’s official: Obama’s job stimulus program failed
TAGS: Examiner editorial failure job stimulus President Barack Obama unemployment rate
COMMENTS (0) SHARE PRINT
By: Examiner Editorial 01/22/11 10:00 PM
Democrats have lambasted Republicans for years for believing in “Voodoo economics.” Well, the evidence is mounting that economic superstition is alive and well in the nation’s political circles, though it has nothing to do with a fondness for tax cuts.

It’s instead the crazy belief that the government can spend its way to prosperity for the rest of us. Analyzing this conclusion, the House Ways and Means Committee recently released a report titled “It’s Official: On Unemployment and Jobs, Democrats’ 2009 Stimulus Was a Huge Failure.”

The Ways and Means report provides a number of striking reminders about the predictions the White House made in January 2009 while urging the passage of their $814 billion Keynesian spending bill. By January 2011, the stimulus bill was supposed to have lowered the unemployment rate to 7 percent. It now stands at 9.4 percent, and the report notes that “the unemployment rate would be 11.3 percent if it included all the ‘invisible unemployed’ — American workers who have simply given up looking for work.” The report also said that the stimulus was supposed to create 3.7 million jobs by now, for a total of 137.6 million jobs in the American economy. Currently, there are 130.7 million jobs. Since the stimulus’ passage, 47 of the 50 states have lost jobs; overall, the private sector has seen 1.8 million jobs disappear.

Note as well that unemployment currently is slightly above what the White House predicted it would be if the Obama stimulus program was not passed as emergency legislation. Any honest assessment of the stimulus has to consider the possibility that flawed economics, kickbacks to unions and other Democratic special interests, corruption and an inefficient bureaucracy simply swallowed all the jobs for which those billions were supposed to pay. In fact, job creation exceeded the White House’s expectations in only one area: The District of Columbia created almost twice as many jobs as the White House anticipated. In other words, thanks to the stimulus, the only area growing new jobs is the federal government.



Read more at the San Francisco Examiner: It
The so called stimulus money was spent mostly on supporting public sector jobs. For example, the 30 or so police officer jobs in Columbus, OH that Obama claimed he "saved" are now either gone or being funded by over taxed residents of that city.
On the issue of waste. Some $500,000 of stimulus was spent on research of a Japanaese Quail species' lobido.....HUH?
At the end of the day it has been found that very little if any of the stimulus money was spent on the private sector. Where it should have gone in the first place.

Exactly, a point I made in another post. The way Obama did not have to raise federal taxes was to push costs off to the states. You and I still felt the pinch but he claimed to be a hero. Smoke and mirrors.
 
As a supporter of Obama and is policies, it becomes the place Webster sends you for an example of the word desperate
Do not debate, do not re butte, spin it.
I am sure that a 9th grade level of common sense knows what the point being said meant
Try and stay up please. And before you vote for Obama again, ask you self why

What did the stimulus bill cost?

Did it cost 787 billion or not?
Plus interest

288 billion of that was tax cuts/credits. The 'cost' of the stimulus bill cited above is including the cost, in lost revenue, of that 288 billion tax cut.

The point? Anyone using the 700+ billion figure as the cost of the stimulus bill is acknowledging that tax cuts are a cost,

and impact the deficit/debt in the same manner an increase in spending does.
 
Because a very small percent of the package was actually allocated to programs that grew the economy. Much kept certain jobs afloat in hopes the economy would improve itself enough to maintain them. It didn't and once the money ran out those jobs were lost. Funding to states was cut forcing states to increase taxes and raise prices on things like mass transit. Any miniscule tax breaks that were given to the average American were more than eaten up by increased costs.

Yes.

And the basic economic logic that was ignored is this...

the theory that if we help a public servant keep their job, they will be able to spend money on goods and services thus giving manufacturers and such reason to continue, and grow is a very sound theory in a world where "without a job" means "without a means to spend".

However, in our country, if you are unemployed, you have other assistance such as unemployment, welfare and foodstamps to help you maintain your demand for goods and services.

So all the stimulus did was divert from the unemployment numbers....but did not change demand for private goods and services.

But more importantly, it gave our politicians money to say thank you to their financial supporters.

The stimulus did nothing...it was a farce and was all for show....nothing else.

IMO the intent was only to divert those number through the 2010 midterm elections and secure democratic control once again. It was a costly bandaid approach with political undercurrents. As was the Healthcare package, which was not reform.

I agree 100%.

Both were for political posturing.

Thus why the healthcare law does not go into full affect until after the 2012 elections.

They are doing their best to ride that "when it kicks in we will all be thrilled" premise...out of fear of reality of "when it kicks in we will all see how it did nothing but increase the cost"
 
Yes.

And the basic economic logic that was ignored is this...

the theory that if we help a public servant keep their job, they will be able to spend money on goods and services thus giving manufacturers and such reason to continue, and grow is a very sound theory in a world where "without a job" means "without a means to spend".

However, in our country, if you are unemployed, you have other assistance such as unemployment, welfare and foodstamps to help you maintain your demand for goods and services.

So all the stimulus did was divert from the unemployment numbers....but did not change demand for private goods and services.

But more importantly, it gave our politicians money to say thank you to their financial supporters.

The stimulus did nothing...it was a farce and was all for show....nothing else.

The theory that consumer spending drives the economy is wrong. The civil servant's salary is money taken from somewhere else, either by taxation or borrowing. The civil servant produces nothing. Ergo money is siphoned from productive uses to unproductive ones.

Exactly. Most of the jobs saved, temporarily, were civil service jobs. There was no growth of the economy. There were no net positive jobs created. It was a costly bandaid, nothing more

That is false. The recession ended in July of 2009, which means that positive economic GROWTH in the economy resumed at that point.
 
They just repete the lie until they all believe it.

Facts dont really matter to them.
 
The theory that consumer spending drives the economy is wrong. The civil servant's salary is money taken from somewhere else, either by taxation or borrowing. The civil servant produces nothing. Ergo money is siphoned from productive uses to unproductive ones.

Exactly. Most of the jobs saved, temporarily, were civil service jobs. There was no growth of the economy. There were no net positive jobs created. It was a costly bandaid, nothing more

That is false. The recession ended in July of 2009, which means that positive economic GROWTH in the economy resumed at that point.

Sure, and the unemployment numbers, continuing foreclosures, continuing extended unemployment benefits all speak to that. :cuckoo: One thing happened, the rich got richer. That's right. The only ones spending are the rich. Scooping up deals, buying undervalued stocks. How many of the millions on unemployed and living hand to mouth do you think have taken advantage of the market in the last two years? How many of the struggling got in on the 90% profit from the Linkedin IPO yesterday? Like Rightwinger says, the rich have gotten richer. And they are the ones spending.
 
Words have definitions.

You dont get to change those definitions to suit your failed political ideas
 

Forum List

Back
Top