Miss Me Yet ?

[Smallc]

But by Obama's own words it has failed to deliver. He said that if the stimulus was passed it would keep unemployment rates to 8.7%, if I recall. That it got up to 10% is millions more unemployed.

I really don't understand this disconnect in the mind of some right wingers. The reality is that the situation was far worse than any predictions could show. Our own budget deficit revisions show that. Things were really bad with the stimulus. They would have been far worse without it.

The money should have been spent last year

So they should have just thrown the money around without any planning at all? You do realize that you can't responsibly spend tens of billions of dollars without a plan, right?

[Smallc]

It was rescue policy, not a a recovery policy (Obama's stimulus).

It could be argued that the stimulus program was also a rescue policy. It was rescuing America from a failing economy.

[sharkman]

I really don't understand this disconnect in the mind of some right wingers. The reality is that the situation was far worse than any predictions could show. Our own budget deficit revisions show that. Things were really bad with the stimulus. They would have been far worse without it.

So they should have just thrown the money around without any planning at all? You do realize that you can't responsibly spend tens of billions of dollars without a plan, right?

It couldn't have been any worse than Obama warned, saying it was imperative that the stimulus bill be passed as businesses and the economy could collapse. It was such a priority that congress didn't even read the thing. Remember that? So they pass the thing and get it on his desk, but Obama took off for the weekend so it sat for 2 days. Talk about hypocrisy.

The stimulus bill was about 780 billion. 20% of that is in excess of 150 billion. So Obama did through around 10's of billions of dollars around. I would hope there is planning but maybe you are right and there wasn't much. At any rate, he didn't deliver on his 8.7% unemployment number.

And again, he's going to throw money around with abandon this year instead of last because it's an election year. Old boy Chicago politics at its best.

Edited February 12, 2010 by sharkman

[Smallc]

It couldn't have been any worse than Obama warned,

What in the world are you talking about? The actual economic contraction was worse than anyone predicted.

[Shady]

They would have been far worse without it.

The majority of the stimulus hasn't even been spent yet. Something like only 15% - 20% of it has actually found its way into the economy. That 15% - 20% adds up to about $100 - 150$ billion dollars. There's no way in hell dropping $150 billion dollars into a $14 trillion dollar economy made anything from becoming far worse.

His stimulus bill was just a slush fund for government programs and state governments. It contained very little actual economic stimulus.

[sharkman]

What in the world are you talking about? The actual economic contraction was worse than anyone predicted.

Obama said the economy would collapse. You can't get any more contraction than that. That you choose to ignore the rest of my post because you can't refute it shows you need to reconsider your views.

[Smallc]

Obama said the economy would collapse. You can't get any more contraction than that. That you choose to ignore the rest of my post because you can't refute it shows you need to reconsider your views.

I don't need to refute the rest of what you said, because I don't enjoy spending time chasing dragons.

[Smallc]

There's no way in hell dropping $150 billion dollars into a $14 trillion dollar economy made anything from becoming far worse.

So you don't think that preventing just over 1% of economic activity from stopping makes a difference? I guess you don't know much abut economics. Also, as I've already said, it's not only about the American stimulus, but rather the multiple programs in multiple countries that made a difference. As bad as it was, i would have been far worse.

[Shady]

So you don't think that preventing just over 1% of economic activity from stopping makes a difference?

Not from preventing things from getting so-called far worse.

I guess you don't know much abut economics.

I know plenty. It's the man in the White House who doesn't know much of economics. He's never run a business, never met a payroll, never created a job. Actually, most, if not all of his administration falls under that category.

Also, as I've already said, it's not only about the American stimulus, but rather the multiple programs in multiple countries that made a difference. As bad as it was, i would have been far worse.

Not necessarily. Recessions do bottom out, regardless of government intervention. Actually, in many cases government intervention only makes things worse in the long run. It prevents the economy from truely resetting and correcting itself. Making for extremely slow economic growth, and a longer period of recovery. This recession has already gone much longer than any others in terms of its lag in a recovery. But most of that is the economic uncertainty he's created with his various policy proposals, and his general hostility towards business and profit.

[Smallc]

Not from preventing things from getting so-called far worse.

What it does is soften the blow by 1%. 1% of $1.5T is a big deal.

Not necessarily. Recessions do bottom out, regardless of government intervention.

Well of course they do, but government intervention is meant to bring the bottom up slightly. It seems to have been very successful in Canada, and somewhat successful in the US.

Actually, in many cases government intervention only makes things worse in the long run. It prevents the economy from truely resetting and correcting itself. Making for extremely slow economic growth, and a longer period of recovery. This recession has already gone much longer than any others in terms of its lag in a recovery. But most of that is the economic uncertainty he's created with his various policy proposals, and his general hostility towards business and profit.

Spin away Shady, it's what you're best at...or not.

[eyeball]

Actually, I've heard the opposite. That 2010 will show some moderate economic growth, but then could slide back down in 2011.

You sound positively hopeful.

[Oleg Bach]

TARP wasn't a stimulus program. It was a program designed to save the banks from failing. It was rescue policy, not a a recovery policy (Obama's stimulus).

No one is going to miss George W and they will not miss Obama either. YES The stimulas program was to shore up a cast or class system that has faltered - nothing more nothing less - Rich people get tramatized at the idea of failure - power loss or poverty - so us poor people felt sorry for them and made sure they stayed rich.

[Shady]

You sound positively hopeful.

Nope. I just wish Obama wasn't such an economic illiterate.

[Guest American Woman]

Naturally there have been some great spin-offs of the billboard:

link

link

[Smallc]

It seems his pronunciation wasn't really wrong at all:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nuclear

[sharkman]

Nope. I just wish Obama wasn't such an economic illiterate.

Socialists think the economy lives to serve them. I hope he learns something about the real world through this recession but I'm not holding my breath.

[punked]

I see, so now you've moved on from your failed approval rating meme, to an internal poll number to try and make your point. Spin, spin, spin.

In the future, if you don't wanna discuss Obama's approval ratings, don't bring it up. If you do wanna discuss Obama's approval rating, don't push it aside to discuss something else. It's pathetic, and very disingenuous.

Hey Shady Gallup has Obama's approval rating on its way up 53%

http://www.gallup.com/Home.aspx

[Shady]

Hey Shady Gallup has Obama's approval rating on its way up 53%

http://www.gallup.com/Home.aspx

Discussing anything with you is like playing a shell game. So now you're back on to the approval rating. And when that drops, you'll just cherry-pick some other number to try and back your point, like you did earlier. It's pretty pathetic.

[Sir Bandelot]

Socialists think the economy lives to serve them.

If it doesn't exist to serve the people, then what is it for? Do we live to serve it?

[Shady]

If it doesn't exist to serve the people, then what is it for? Do we live to serve it?

It exists to serve ourselves and itself, not the government.

[bloodyminded]

If it doesn't exist to serve the people, then what is it for? Do we live to serve it?

I've wondered about this myself. When people, from any ideological standpoint, become fundamentalists--yes, even including such hallowed figures as "capitalists" or "free marketers"--then we see all kinds of bizarre signs and wonders. The economy as religion, which we must bow down before and make offerings to.....

Edited February 14, 2010 by bloodyminded

[Sir Bandelot]

It exists to serve ourselves and itself, not the government.

Thanks for answering for someone else.

[Sir Bandelot]

Obama is not different than Bush, other than he has a different style. He comes across as a friendly, happy, pleasant guy with more youthful enthusiasm. but at the end of the day, he'll be the one who signs the executive order to aprove torture of high value terrorists, approve the bombing of suspected al qaeda hideouts, order the launching of cruise missiles knowing there will be co-lateral damage. All that stuff. I have no doubt he has done so already, as part of his regular job.

When a window of opportunity opened to strike the leader of al-Qaeda in East Africa last September, U.S. Special Operations forces prepared several options. They could obliterate his vehicle with an airstrike as he drove through southern Somalia. Or they could fire from helicopters that could land at the scene to confirm the kill. Or they could try to take him alive.

The White House authorized the second option.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35391753/ns/world_news-washington_post/

Anyone who thinks Obama is an improvement over Bush in regards to war, or targetted killings of "suspects" will soon wake up to reality. It's only a matter of time before these details come to the forefront in the media, despite any attempts by the Obama administration to hide it.

On the balance of things, I prefer Bush to obama. At least with him his intentions were more openly declared. He was more honest.

[punked]

Discussing anything with you is like playing a shell game. So now you're back on to the approval rating. And when that drops, you'll just cherry-pick some other number to try and back your point, like you did earlier. It's pretty pathetic.

And when it goes up you will ignore it and attack me just like you just did. It's pretty pathetic.

[Who's Doing What?]

The answer to that question is a definite YES!!! Its been tough to stomach the all-out assult and destruction of the American economy over the past year or so. I'd love to see America once again have a President who doesn't denounce profits, denounce business, and denounce success. The idiot that now resides in the White House is a complete economic illiterate. It gets frustrating to see him, day after day, talk about and implement economic policy which reduces the job expansion he so desperately seeks.

JUst who the HELL do you think allowed everything to get so bad in the USA?

Giving a free hand to the TYPE A, greedy, gimme gimme, Wall Street types has done wonders for your housing markets and economy as a whole hasn't it?

Wanna buy a house in Detroit? No? Didn't think so. How about Phoenix? You have entire portions of your biggest Cities that are becoming ghost towns, and you are missing the idiot who put you there!?!?

Forget "GOD BLESS", "GOD HELP THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA."

Edited February 15, 2010 by Who's Doing What?