Obama must fail

[SFC Ollie]

After Obama was elected, that was the stated strategy of the GOP. Basically, do everything you could to prevent Obama from acquiring a resume that would lead to his reelection. This included smear campaigns, delays, filibusters and whatever Fox News could spit out.

How has it worked? Well, in the first two years, the Democrats controlled Congress. they were able to pass:

Obamacare
Repeal DADT
Reduce nuclear weapons by one third
Economic Stimulus
Financial Reform
Credit card reform

In addition, Obama did as he promised and redirected the war on terror from Iraq to Afghanistan and Pakistan. Drone attacks are up and the number of terrorist targets eliminated are up substantially

In 2010, the Republicans took control of the House and gloated that they would now be able to block Obama from accomplishing anything in his last two years. How did it work out?

Obama hit a home run in killing Bin laden and now has captured intelligence to mop up Al Qaida operatives. He also begins withdrawals from Afghanistan and Iraq. He correctly positioned the US in a backup role in Libya and has allowed NATO forces to bear the load.

Now the GOP is stuck with no viable candidates for President and must show the voters what the GOP has accomplished in the last four years

The goal was to make him fail so that the country wouldn't suffer, not so that we would win an election against him.

BULLSHIT!!!

The GOP goal was to spitefully make the American people suffer, which they will blame on Obama, so they could regain their lost power. To the GOP, the more the country suffers the better their chances to get their power back.

From the day Obama was elected the CON$ spitefully started hoping for bad things to happen to the average American.

November 5, 2008
RUSH: I hope all your Joe the Plumbers are unemployed in six months! There.

October 31, 2008
RUSH: Joe the Plumber. Now, Joe the Plumber is an average citizen

Well you are right about one thing. Bullshit!

 

[8537]

Correct. But as it turns out McCain didn't get his policies enacted and he didn't promise specific results. President Obama made the promises while asking for stimulus money. His policy wonks and supporters told people like me that this was something we couldn't understand so there was no validity in our concerns.

Are my concerns valid now?

No, your concerns are not valid.

Not enough to justify the money spent and certainly not enough to entrust this Administration with any more money to use for job creation. Their ideas didn't work and they should not get another chance in 2012 either.

What leads you to believe their ideas didn't work? The CBO and most economists agree that the package created 100's of thousands or more jobs.

Ah. So you're saying that Obama should not get the credit for these jobs you say are being created?

Obama should get credit for aiding in the creation of an environment that incentivized the private sector to hire.

That does not make any of this a "recovery."

What makes it a recovery is the fact that it meets the definition of recovery.

I'm not making anything up, I'm simply reading between the lines. If you say I'm incorrect (which you have) then I am incorrect.

You're attempt to make shit up was incorrect and based on your own bias.

We disagree there, I don't think it's a recovery at all. Things are much worse now than they were when this plan was presented.

You're debating the definition of a word. Words have meaning - and our current situation meets the definition of recovery.

You can argue against that, but it's like debating the whether a red car is red.

I welcome good news in any form, as long as it's actually good news. There is no good news in this economy, it's just not as much bad news as last year this time. Getting worse at a slower rate is not a recovery.

265,000 private sector jobs last month and five consecutive quarters of GDP growth as well as an increase in consumer spending.

if you can't find any good news in that you're not looking or you're a partisan hack.

Ok. So before Obama's stimulus plan was implemented correct?

No, incorrect. The stimulus package was implemented starting in March of 2009. The recession ended that summer.

 

[JFK_USA]

Hitler accomplished a lot in 2 years too. He annexed Czechoslovakia and Austria. He invaded Poland, France and Greece and he bombed Coventry into rubble, and that was all by the end of 1940!

Obama's "accomplishments" are all in a similar vein. The less he "accomplishes" the better.

That's seriously ridiculous.

Not at all. Obama is wrecking this country. Everyone one of his so-called "accomplishments" is just another swing of the wrecking ball.

Why would any rational person approve?

we do. you're the irrational one.

 

[asterism]

Correct. But as it turns out McCain didn't get his policies enacted and he didn't promise specific results. President Obama made the promises while asking for stimulus money. His policy wonks and supporters told people like me that this was something we couldn't understand so there was no validity in our concerns.

Are my concerns valid now?

No, your concerns are not valid.

I didn't think it was going to work as planned and I said so. It didn't work as planned. Why aren't my concerns valid? They were wrong and I was right.

Not enough to justify the money spent and certainly not enough to entrust this Administration with any more money to use for job creation. Their ideas didn't work and they should not get another chance in 2012 either.

What leads you to believe their ideas didn't work?

Do I need to post the chart again? Specific predictions were made by Romer, Obama, and all sorts of people pushing for the stimulus package.

The CBO and most economists agree that the package created 100's of thousands or more jobs.

We can dither about this if you prefer, but I say 100s of thousands of jobs for $1 Trillion is not worth the cost nor was it anywhere close to the results promised.

Obama should get credit for aiding in the creation of an environment that incentivized the private sector to hire.

Ok, so you are holding the President partially responsible then (he gets some of the credit for the successes and some of the credit for the blame)? If so, look at the chart again. Look at what he promised and look at what he delivered.

What makes it a recovery is the fact that it meets the definition of recovery.

Only from lows we were promised wouldn't be reached if we just enacted that stimulus. That's sorta like saying Obama cut the deficit. He hasn't, he has just (I presume) budgeted a cut off an unpredicted high.

You're attempt to make shit up was incorrect and based on your own bias.

Bias against or for what? I clearly admitted my errors. To be fair, you certainly had the talking point about how an increase in unemployment was a potentially positive sign since more jobs meant more people re-entering the workforce.

You're debating the definition of a word. Words have meaning - and our current situation meets the definition of recovery.

Please supply your definition. We haven't recovered from the dire situation when this stimulus was being sold. We have recovered from a low that I think the stimulus created.

You can argue against that, but it's like debating the whether a red car is red.

Is this red?

If you go to home depot and ask for a can of red spray paint are they going to bring you this can?

KRYLON 12 oz. Interior/Exterior Gloss Spray Paint - K05353200 at The Home Depot

I welcome good news in any form, as long as it's actually good news. There is no good news in this economy, it's just not as much bad news as last year this time. Getting worse at a slower rate is not a recovery.

265,000 private sector jobs last month and five consecutive quarters of GDP growth as well as an increase in consumer spending.

Not enough. At that pace things are still getting worse at a slower rate. The chart says all I need to know.

if you can't find any good news in that you're not looking or you're a partisan hack.

9% 2 years after we were promised unemployment under 7%. You're trying to say that the good news exists in the "recovery" from the 10% we were told wasn't going to happen if we passed the stimulus to the 9% now.

Ok. So before Obama's stimulus plan was implemented correct?

No, incorrect. The stimulus package was implemented starting in March of 2009. The recession ended that summer.

What happened in March 2009 and what are the results?

 

[Mr.Nick]

More like Obama was bound to fail because hes an anti capitalist asshole who believes he can dictate the capitalist model.

And anyone who has the fucking audacity to challenge me on this one better have a degree in economics to do so..

Obama failed because hes an ignorant clown that doesn't know his head from his ass and had all his communist appointees run the show while he fucking golfed and talked shit to the American public..

Obama is a fucking idiot that was NEVER qualified to be the President of The United States of America..

Was he ever a Governor? Business owner? CEO?

NOPE None of that..

No Obama just tells idiots what the fuck they want to hear - and thats seriously the truth...

Hell, back when I was 22 back in 2002 the guy inspired me to come up with a theory that an individual could actually run as a democrat (if it was popular) while being a neo-con and then employing neo-con policies (I'm not a neo-con).

Barack Obama is a narcissist.

There is a difference between being the president and wanting to be the president. Obama wants to be the president - hes not being the president..

He needs a teleprompter because he cant relate to the desperation of both sides - he can deal with those who unconditionally support him - but he cant relate to those who dont and that really pisses him off like any classical narcissist would be.

I bet this guy is going to raise a billion for his campaign and is going to plaster his face all over the place.

Its only a matter of time before he really freaks out and throws his golf clubs around like Billy Madison.

 

[asterism]

More like Obama was bound to fail because hes an anti capitalist asshole who believes he can dictate the capitalist model.

And anyone who has the fucking audacity to challenge me on this one better have a degree in economics to do so..

Obama failed because hes an ignorant clown that doesn't know his head from his ass and had all his communist appointees run the show while he fucking golfed and talked shit to the American public..

Obama is a fucking idiot that was NEVER qualified to be the President of The United States of America..

Was he ever a Governor? Business owner? CEO?

NOPE None of that..

No Obama just tells idiots what the fuck they want to hear - and thats seriously the truth...

Hell, back when I was 22 back in 2002 the guy inspired me to come up with a theory that an individual could actually run as a democrat (if it was popular) while being a neo-con and then employing neo-con policies (I'm not a neo-con).

Barack Obama is a narcissist.

There is a difference between being the president and wanting to be the president. Obama wants to be the president - hes not being the president..

He needs a teleprompter because he cant relate to the desperation of both sides - he can deal with those who unconditionally support him - but he cant relate to those who dont and that really pisses him off like any classical narcissist would be.

I bet this guy is going to raise a billion for his campaign and is going to plaster his face all over the place.

Its only a matter of time before he really freaks out and throws his golf clubs around like Billy Madison.

Why does it take someone trained in Economics to refute your diatribe here? You are commenting on his Psychology.

 

[Mr.Nick]

More like Obama was bound to fail because hes an anti capitalist asshole who believes he can dictate the capitalist model.

And anyone who has the fucking audacity to challenge me on this one better have a degree in economics to do so..

Obama failed because hes an ignorant clown that doesn't know his head from his ass and had all his communist appointees run the show while he fucking golfed and talked shit to the American public..

Obama is a fucking idiot that was NEVER qualified to be the President of The United States of America..

Was he ever a Governor? Business owner? CEO?

NOPE None of that..

No Obama just tells idiots what the fuck they want to hear - and thats seriously the truth...

Hell, back when I was 22 back in 2002 the guy inspired me to come up with a theory that an individual could actually run as a democrat (if it was popular) while being a neo-con and then employing neo-con policies (I'm not a neo-con).

Barack Obama is a narcissist.

There is a difference between being the president and wanting to be the president. Obama wants to be the president - hes not being the president..

He needs a teleprompter because he cant relate to the desperation of both sides - he can deal with those who unconditionally support him - but he cant relate to those who dont and that really pisses him off like any classical narcissist would be.

I bet this guy is going to raise a billion for his campaign and is going to plaster his face all over the place.

Its only a matter of time before he really freaks out and throws his golf clubs around like Billy Madison.

Why does it take someone trained in Economics to refute your diatribe here? You are commenting on his Psychology.

Thats the whole point..... Obama doesn't know anything about economics, yet his supporters back the fucktard anyways while in reality they only support him - NOT because what he does makes sense - but because they believe in his "character."

 

[shintao]

And look where we are: Inflation, high unemployment, high gas prices, massive debt.

I can't imagine why anyone would have wanted Obama to fail [/sarcasm]

LMAO! Exactly what did you say that referred to Obama? LMAO! Looks like republicans cut off their nose to spite their face. Obama is just a little more than crafty than the RNC.

 

[rightwinger]

More like Obama was bound to fail because hes an anti capitalist asshole who believes he can dictate the capitalist model.

And anyone who has the fucking audacity to challenge me on this one better have a degree in economics to do so..

Obama failed because hes an ignorant clown that doesn't know his head from his ass and had all his communist appointees run the show while he fucking golfed and talked shit to the American public..

Obama is a fucking idiot that was NEVER qualified to be the President of The United States of America..

Was he ever a Governor? Business owner? CEO?

NOPE None of that..

No Obama just tells idiots what the fuck they want to hear - and thats seriously the truth...

Hell, back when I was 22 back in 2002 the guy inspired me to come up with a theory that an individual could actually run as a democrat (if it was popular) while being a neo-con and then employing neo-con policies (I'm not a neo-con).

Barack Obama is a narcissist.

There is a difference between being the president and wanting to be the president. Obama wants to be the president - hes not being the president..

He needs a teleprompter because he cant relate to the desperation of both sides - he can deal with those who unconditionally support him - but he cant relate to those who dont and that really pisses him off like any classical narcissist would be.

I bet this guy is going to raise a billion for his campaign and is going to plaster his face all over the place.

Its only a matter of time before he really freaks out and throws his golf clubs around like Billy Madison.

Economist?

You need someone trained in psychiatric disorders to respond to your rant

 

[8537]

Correct. But as it turns out McCain didn't get his policies enacted and he didn't promise specific results. President Obama made the promises while asking for stimulus money. His policy wonks and supporters told people like me that this was something we couldn't understand so there was no validity in our concerns.

Are my concerns valid now?

No, your concerns are not valid.

I didn't think it was going to work as planned and I said so. It didn't work as planned. Why aren't my concerns valid? They were wrong and I was right.

No, you weren't right. The economy started growing and the trend of job losses turned around. We went from losing 750K jobs per month in the month prior to ever-shrinking job loses which has now turned to job creation for many months.

We can dither about this if you prefer, but I say 100s of thousands of jobs for $1 Trillion is not worth the cost nor was it anywhere close to the results promised.

No need to dither. Those 100's of thousands of jobs (or millions by most estimates) and the projects and capital accumulated because of the spending are part of what will help us sustain the recovery - and they are partly responsible for the higher overall level of income since. We now have a higher base income from which to grow, so a 3% growth now will be more significant than it would have been without the stimulus.

And by the way, 40% of that stimulus was tax cuts. Surely you support tax cuts...right?

Ok, so you are holding the President partially responsible then (he gets some of the credit for the successes and some of the credit for the blame)? If so, look at the chart again. Look at what he promised and look at what he delivered.

The entire economy does not revolve around one chart. I give him partial credit for our current situation and I hold him and past presidents partially responsible for our current fiscal mess.

What I Don't do is recommend fixing a long-term fiscal mess by making our short-term economic situation worse. Making our short-term situation worse only makes our long-term problems worse

Only from lows we were promised wouldn't be reached if we just enacted that stimulus. That's sorta like saying Obama cut the deficit. He hasn't, he has just (I presume) budgeted a cut off an unpredicted high.

The entire economy can not be based on one chart. That a previous prediction by Romer was wrong doesn't mean that the economy as a whole will respond differently in the future.

Bias against or for what? I clearly admitted my errors. To be fair, you certainly had the talking point about how an increase in unemployment was a potentially positive sign since more jobs meant more people re-entering the workforce.

Well, bias against my posts and perhaps Obama. I never cheerlead 9% unemployment - in fact, I said it was bad. I said the recovery wasn't good. That doesn't change the fact that the economy is getting better and a recovery is in place.

Denying that just makes one look abjectly partisan.

And yes - an increase in the percentage of people calculated as unemployed can be seen as a positive sign if it's occurring because jobs are being created but not as quickly as people are re-entering the workforce.

Your caught up in the UE rate without understanding how the rate is calculated. The most important figure is how many jobs are being created. The UE rate may or may not move in tandem with that figure.

Please supply your definition. We haven't recovered from the dire situation when this stimulus was being sold. We have recovered from a low that I think the stimulus created.

How could the stimulus have create a low when the economy started growing within two months of it being enacted? The economy was losing 7% of its output when Obama was elected. By June or July of 2009, it was growing again.

Is this red?

If you go to home depot and ask for a can of red spray paint are they going to bring you this can?

Yes, that is red.

And just like the word "red" has a very specific meaning, so does the word recovery - it's the period of economic growth that follows a recession.

Ok. So before Obama's stimulus plan was implemented correct?

No, incorrect. The stimulus package was implemented starting in March of 2009. The recession ended that summer.

What happened in March 2009 and what are the results?

The stimulus was passed. The economy started growing and job losses shrank dramatically - from a net of -700K per month to positive figures a year later.

 

[8537]

More like Obama was bound to fail because hes an anti capitalist asshole who believes he can dictate the capitalist model.

And anyone who has the fucking audacity to challenge me on this one better have a degree in economics to do so..

K, thx. I'll challenge you on that.

You're wrong.

 

[Vanquish]

More like Obama was bound to fail because hes an anti capitalist asshole who believes he can dictate the capitalist model.

And anyone who has the fucking audacity to challenge me on this one better have a degree in economics to do so..

K, thx. I'll challenge you on that.

You're wrong.

I'll join that group. FSU, Class of '94, Triple major - International Relations, Russian Language, and Economics. MGU, 1995 - Economics Graduate Degree.

Barack isn't anti-capitalist in the least. Take the Healthcare plan you rabid fools call "Obamacare"...it actually drives more people INTO the private markets than were there already. And it fosters competition through differentiation of services.

You're just so silly.

 

[asterism]

No, your concerns are not valid.

I didn't think it was going to work as planned and I said so. It didn't work as planned. Why aren't my concerns valid? They were wrong and I was right.

No, you weren't right. The economy started growing and the trend of job losses turned around. We went from losing 750K jobs per month in the month prior to ever-shrinking job loses which has now turned to job creation for many months.

Back to the chart:

That's what they said would happen if we allowed them to enact their trillion dollar plan. The results do not even come close to the promises. Getting worse at a slower rate is not a recovery.

No need to dither. Those 100's of thousands of jobs (or millions by most estimates) and the projects and capital accumulated because of the spending are part of what will help us sustain the recovery - and they are partly responsible for the higher overall level of income since. We now have a higher base income from which to grow, so a 3% growth now will be more significant than it would have been without the stimulus.

Millions? Ok, so in the end what was the cost of these millions of jobs? How much per job?

And by the way, 40% of that stimulus was tax cuts. Surely you support tax cuts...right?

That depends on the tax cut. Also, 40% of the stimulus was not tax cuts. 40% of the stimulus plan as presented was tax cuts which didn't actually materialize.

The entire economy does not revolve around one chart. I give him partial credit for our current situation and I hold him and past presidents partially responsible for our current fiscal mess.

But you don't hold him responsible for promising a result that he could not deliver correct? We were promised an unemployment rate of less than 7%. I remember then Candidate Obama bemoaning the state of the economy when unemployment was 6%. Now 9% is considered not so bad?

What I Don't do is recommend fixing a long-term fiscal mess by making our short-term economic situation worse. Making our short-term situation worse only makes our long-term problems worse

You seem to think that the added debt hasn't made our long-term problems worse. Obviously I disagree.

The entire economy can not be based on one chart. That a previous prediction by Romer was wrong doesn't mean that the economy as a whole will respond differently in the future.

True. It does mean that either Romer was incompetent or she was lying or she didn't care either way as long as Obama got the money.

Well, bias against my posts and perhaps Obama. I never cheerlead 9% unemployment - in fact, I said it was bad. I said the recovery wasn't good. That doesn't change the fact that the economy is getting better and a recovery is in place.

Denying that just makes one look abjectly partisan.

Getting worse at a slower rate is not a recovery.

And yes - an increase in the percentage of people calculated as unemployed can be seen as a positive sign if it's occurring because jobs are being created but not as quickly as people are re-entering the workforce.

Your caught up in the UE rate without understanding how the rate is calculated. The most important figure is how many jobs are being created. The UE rate may or may not move in tandem with that figure.

I understand that you cannot possibly believe an educated person would disagree with you or the Obama administration on the results so far.

How could the stimulus have create a low when the economy started growing within two months of it being enacted? The economy was losing 7% of its output when Obama was elected. By June or July of 2009, it was growing again.

Two months?

Yes, that is red.

Actually, it's "tomato." If you ask for "a can of red spray paint" at home depot they are not going to give you that shade. So yes, words mean things. However, definitions are not always as concrete as it appears.

And just like the word "red" has a very specific meaning, so does the word recovery - it's the period of economic growth that follows a recession.

Now we're getting somewhere. So the best benchmark for economic activity is the growth and contraction cycles as reported by the NBER?

No, incorrect. The stimulus package was implemented starting in March of 2009. The recession ended that summer.

What happened in March 2009 and what are the results?

The stimulus was passed. The economy started growing and job losses shrank dramatically - from a net of -700K per month to positive figures a year later.

Did it magically grow just because a law was passed or did the law foster an activity that caused the economy to rebound?

Was it the law or the money appropriated and spent that ended the recession in your opinion?




This is a fun chat. I'll be out of town for a few days, but I look forward to reading your responses and continuing the discussion when I return.

 

[asterism]

More like Obama was bound to fail because hes an anti capitalist asshole who believes he can dictate the capitalist model.

And anyone who has the fucking audacity to challenge me on this one better have a degree in economics to do so..

K, thx. I'll challenge you on that.

You're wrong.

I'll join that group. FSU, Class of '94, Triple major - International Relations, Russian Language, and Economics. MGU, 1995 - Economics Graduate Degree.

Barack isn't anti-capitalist in the least. Take the Healthcare plan you rabid fools call "Obamacare"...it actually drives more people INTO the private markets than were there already. And it fosters competition through differentiation of services.

You're just so silly.

Pfft.... FSU.

 

[8537]

I didn't think it was going to work as planned and I said so. It didn't work as planned. Why aren't my concerns valid? They were wrong and I was right.

No, you weren't right. The economy started growing and the trend of job losses turned around. We went from losing 750K jobs per month in the month prior to ever-shrinking job loses which has now turned to job creation for many months.

Back to the chart:

That's what they said would happen if we allowed them to enact their trillion dollar plan. The results do not even come close to the promises. Getting worse at a slower rate is not a recovery.

1. The estimates were produced long before the stimulus was passed and, like all concurrent estimates vastly underappreciated the depth of deleveraging required.

2. It's not getting worse at a slower rate - the economy is growing (getting better) and jobs are being added (getting better).

Millions? Ok, so in the end what was the cost of these millions of jobs? How much per job?

About 3 Million by several estimates. You can't put a "cost" on the jobs themselves because that fails to account for the multipliers involved. People who have jobs use less government resources, consume more goods and services etc...

That depends on the tax cut. Also, 40% of the stimulus was not tax cuts. 40% of the stimulus plan as presented was tax cuts which didn't actually materialize.

Pure bullshit. The tax cuts were implemented immediately upon the passage of the stimulus bill. In fact, in the short term the stimulus bill was far more tax cuts than government spending b/c the spending component needed to be rolled out over time.

But you don't hold him responsible for promising a result that he could not deliver correct? We were promised an unemployment rate of less than 7%. I remember then Candidate Obama bemoaning the state of the economy when unemployment was 6%. Now 9% is considered not so bad?

I hold Romer responsible for poor modeling and a bad prediction. But like McCain's economic advisor, I also understand that the unemployment rate would be 1 or 2 points higher and GDP growth a point or more lower if not for the bill.

You seem to think that the added debt hasn't made our long-term problems worse. Obviously I disagree.

You seem to think that slower growth in the economy won't lead to higher deficits. It will.

Getting worse at a slower rate is not a recovery.

It's not getting worse at a slower rate. Income is increasing, the number of jobs is increasing.

Two months?

Yes.

Now we're getting somewhere. So the best benchmark for economic activity is the growth and contraction cycles as reported by the NBER?

No, the benchmark for economic activity is changes in totalt income.

What happened in March 2009 and what are the results?

The stimulus was passed. The economy started growing and job losses shrank dramatically - from a net of -700K per month to positive figures a year later.

Did it magically grow just because a law was passed or did the law foster an activity that caused the economy to rebound?

The law fostered economic activity.

at any rate, I see you'll be gone for a few days - enjoy the break!

 

[asterism]

Well, it's been an interesting few days. It looks like I'm poor again because I'm starting a new business. Between that and some very long overdue home improvements my short and medium term savings accounts are withering away. Exciting times though.

1. The estimates were produced long before the stimulus was passed and, like all concurrent estimates vastly underappreciated the depth of deleveraging required.

A valid point. An inaccurate estimate and undelivered results.

2. It's not getting worse at a slower rate - the economy is growing (getting better) and jobs are being added (getting better).

I disagree. The rates at which these indicators are currently improving is insufficient to improve the overall economic environment. Jobs are up from a low that we were told wasn't going to happen if the stimulus passed. Rationalizing it by saying that "things were worse than we thought" just shows the lack of accuracy in the analysis. The stimulus didn't work as planned and I don't think it helped.

About 3 Million by several estimates. You can't put a "cost" on the jobs themselves because that fails to account for the multipliers involved. People who have jobs use less government resources, consume more goods and services etc...

I'm sorry, but usually when someone says we "can't put a cost" on a certain thing it's because they cannot justify it. It cost real money to enact these programs.

Pure bullshit. The tax cuts were implemented immediately upon the passage of the stimulus bill. In fact, in the short term the stimulus bill was far more tax cuts than government spending b/c the spending component needed to be rolled out over time.

Show me some data on the realization of those tax cuts.

I hold Romer responsible for poor modeling and a bad prediction. But like McCain's economic advisor, I also understand that the unemployment rate would be 1 or 2 points higher and GDP growth a point or more lower if not for the bill.

That's spin.

You seem to think that slower growth in the economy won't lead to higher deficits. It will.

At over $300K spent per job added? No it won't.

It's not getting worse at a slower rate. Income is increasing, the number of jobs is increasing.

Income is not increasing enough to keep up with inflation and the number of jobs being added is not keeping up with the increase in population.

Yes.

You're saying the stimulus got the economy growing two months after it got passed. What exactly happened there?

No, the benchmark for economic activity is changes in totalt income.

So show me some data on the increase.

The stimulus was passed. The economy started growing and job losses shrank dramatically - from a net of -700K per month to positive figures a year later.

Did it magically grow just because a law was passed or did the law foster an activity that caused the economy to rebound?

The law fostered economic activity.[/quote]

Specifically how? Why the need to add $1 Trillion to the debt?

 

[HUGGY]

Obama has failed. Hundreds of billions of stimulus and unemployment is 9%. Last summer was the "summer of recovery". What is the theme for this summer?

How is it exactly that the president is responsible for unemployment? Or gasoline prices? They make great knee jerk talking points but No president is in any position short of Nationalizing oil production and refining and suggesting a big public works program which would never be approved by the House or Senate.

Many here blame Obama for things that are out of his hands. You demand more jobs but shop at Walmart. You cry about the price of gasoline yet support the practice of commodity speculation which at the present time adds $1.50 to the price of every gallon we purchase. You demand a balanced budget but won't raise taxes on the wealthy. You whine about Social Security but refuse to raise the cutoff on the wealthy. You do not deserve a better country as long as you actively promote it's demise. You are insane. AND stupid.

 

[SFC Ollie]

Why does everyone blame Walmart for jobs loss?

I just bought a 16 piece drinking glass set at Walmart for $10. Made in the USA.

 

[8537]

Well, it's been an interesting few days. It looks like I'm poor again because I'm starting a new business. Between that and some very long overdue home improvements my short and medium term savings accounts are withering away. Exciting times though.

Sounds very interesting - best of luck on the new (ad)venture.

I disagree. The rates at which these indicators are currently improving is insufficient to improve the overall economic environment. Jobs are up from a low that we were told wasn't going to happen if the stimulus passed. Rationalizing it by saying that "things were worse than we thought" just shows the lack of accuracy in the analysis. The stimulus didn't work as planned and I don't think it helped.

Just about every economist on the planet agrees that the short-term impact of the stimulus is positive - it created jobs, it pumped capital into projects, it sustained school budgets etc...and as it turns out, every broad measure of the economy has improved since its passage: GDP is up, monthly jobs have gone from -750k to positive 240K, consumer spending is up, durable goods orders are up, manufacturing has increased, exports and imports have both increased, the financial sector is more stable...

I'm sorry, but usually when someone says we "can't put a cost" on a certain thing it's because they cannot justify it. It cost real money to enact these programs.

I didn't mean that you couldn't cost out each job - I meant that the overall benefit can't be measured simply in the cost of each job. The money didn't just go to jobs and at any rate it has a multiplier effect as it is spread throughout the economy.

Show me some data on the realization of those tax cuts.

The tax cuts and incentives in the act are valued at $288 billion dollars.

That's spin.

No, it's not spin. It's what McCain's economist, Obama's economist and a wide majority of all other economists are saying.

Income is not increasing enough to keep up with inflation and the number of jobs being added is not keeping up with the increase in population.

National income is growing, even when adjusted for inflation.

You're saying the stimulus got the economy growing two months after it got passed. What exactly happened there?

I'm saying the stimulus played a part in fostering recovery. I never claimed the stimulus was the only agent at play here.

But it did pour billions of dollars into maintaining employment for teachers and municipal officials, it provided targeted tax cuts that put money in the hands of those likely to spend it and it created hiring opportunities for private firms in a wide array of industries.

So show me some data on the increase.

1.8% annualized last quarter.
2.9% in the year 2010.

The stimulus was passed. The economy started growing and job losses shrank dramatically - from a net of -700K per month to positive figures a year later.

Did it magically grow just because a law was passed or did the law foster an activity that caused the economy to rebound?

The law fostered economic activity.

Specifically how? Why the need to add $1 Trillion to the debt?

It fostered economic activity by putting capital behind projects, by keeping people employed and by putting money in the hands of those likely to spend it.

 

[HUGGY]

Why does everyone blame Walmart for jobs loss?

I just bought a 16 piece drinking glass set at Walmart for $10. Made in the USA.

Well then...you found an item made in the USA in a store that stocks 99% overseas manufactured goods.

Problem solved.