• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Transcript: Obama's State Of The Union Address 2014

I live in TX, the number one Red state, best move I ever made in 1992. I always took personal responsibility for my own choices and my own mistakes. Too bad others never took that responsibility and now expect the govt. to bail them out for poor choices, whether it be dead end jobs, health insurance, wages making personal responsibility a lost trait for far too many.

I doubt if Rick Perry knows it but Texas is one of these United States. The government that you love to hate.
 
The BEA,BLS numbers do not lie. However, in holding those up against the prevailing wisdom of three dozen of our nation's foremost economists you are boldly declaring that what makes a stimulus work is defined by you.... You are entitled to your opinion, but the challenge to Kobie was as to his basis for saying it did work. In that regard, I gave you overwhelming support for the proposition that the stimulus worked.

Bear in mind that the stimulus had two essential functions: 1) to stop the downward spiral and 2) to lay the ground work for the economy to rebuild. A stimulus does not, in and of itself, return an economy to prosperity. You are hung up on the fact that the economy is not prosperous. Well, in many respects it is... but we achieved an uneven recovery (proving that a "rising tide does not life all boats; only the yachts"). That is another debate.

I challenged you to defend you claim that it did not. You did produce some evidence to support your opinion. Thank you, you are miles ahead of your conservative peers in being able to defend you position.... I do respect that you bring facts to the equation (I just quibble with how you chose to interpret the facts, but at least you bring them)......

I present 9 studies, a University of Chicago poll of more than three dozen of the nations top economists and a CBO report. All of this work by economists, You counter with a US News article by Reince Priebus (who offers point number 5 for why the stimulus failed was that we do not have 5 million electric cars on the road... really?) and an opinion piece in the New York Post. OK, so you have produced other lay people that are writing their politics, not economics. While I agree with many of the points of the Post article, it doesn't say the stimulus failed, it says money was distributed wrong...

Anyway, I like my experts over you politicians. I'll put a point in my column on this one. :)

You don't seem to get it, but the recession ended in June 2009 long before those shovels ever got to those shovel ready jobs. The economy began the turnaround after TARP. Economists give their opinions, BEA and BLS present the facts. You want badly to believe Obama did something he really didn't do and the question is why? Shovels still haven't gotten to those sites around the country and apparently that fact escapes you

Seems you have the same credibility as your so called experts. You do realize that I an post articles from other experts that disagree with you. You want data but have yet to show how the stimulus did what you claim it did in the time to bring us out of recession in June 2009. I await your response
 
I haven't read the specifics concerning the myRA program, but I can understand why such a long-term retirement program would be backed by gov't bonds.

Treasury bonds are still considered secure, long term investments backed by "the full faith and credit of the U.S. (Treasury)". The only way that faith is shaken is if Congress violates their oath to Art. 1, Section 8 to the Constitution. Yes, I realize this applies moreso to our ability to borrow money from foreign gov'ts, but anything Congress does to shake "investor confidance" can have an adverse affect on our free market ecomony.

There's also the potential to transfer our long-term debt obligations from "foreign" investers to "domestic" investors. More specifically, such a program could mean that more of this nation's citizens are able to participate in the prosperity of this nation in a way many can't today. Old course, the FedResv would have to raise interest rates to make bonds far more attractive than they are now, but such a domestic program could be attractive to a new breed of investors much as war bonds did for the Greatest Generation.

Red = edits.

I gotta start doing a better job of editing my posts before sending them from my cellphone. :slapme:
 
You don't seem to get it, but the recession ended in June 2009 long before those shovels ever got to those shovel ready jobs. The economy began the turnaround after TARP. Economists give their opinions, BEA and BLS present the facts. You want badly to believe Obama did something he really didn't do and the question is why? Shovels still haven't gotten to those sites around the country and apparently that fact escapes you

Seems you have the same credibility as your so called experts. You do realize that I an post articles from other experts that disagree with you. You want data but have yet to show how the stimulus did what you claim it did in the time to bring us out of recession in June 2009. I await your response

Actually, you don't seem to get it. Yes, economists give their opinions. In rendering their opinions they draw upon empirical data, including data collected by the BLS and BEA. They then interpret this data and render their expert opinions. Rather than research the issue find expert opinions, you chose to interpret the data yourself drawing upon your vast in training in economics (where did you earn you PhD again?) and offer a different opinion which you somehow try to sell as superior to those that teach economics at MIT, Cal, Stanford, Chicago, Harvard, Princeton. Pretty arrogant, don't your think?

You say you have posted articles in the past? Let's see them....

That all said, the original proposition was whether one had sufficient reason to argue the stimulus worked. That is pretty much prima facie based on what has been laid out already.
 
Apparently you and Forbes believe that 2009 was a fine year and we should have continued letting the country fall apart.

I know that many enemies of America agree with that.

But those of us in favor of an America, successful for everyone, don't.

Apparently you live in a liberal utopia world where Obama took office, the oceans started receding, and the earth started healing all because of his rhetoric because it certainly wasn't his actions. Forbes laid out the results, you as usual ignored them just like you ignored the even worse results for unemployment, debt, and dependence in 2010 all generated by Obama and a Democrat controlled Congress
 
Actually, you don't seem to get it. Yes, economists give their opinions. In rendering their opinions they draw upon empirical data, including data collected by the BLS and BEA. They then interpret this data and render their expert opinions. Rather than research the issue find expert opinions, you chose to interpret the data yourself drawing upon your vast in training in economics (where did you earn you PhD again?) and offer a different opinion which you somehow try to sell as superior to those that teach economics at MIT, Cal, Stanford, Chicago, Harvard, Princeton. Pretty arrogant, don't your think?

You say you have posted articles in the past? Let's see them....

That all said, the original proposition was whether one had sufficient reason to argue the stimulus worked. That is pretty much prima facie based on what has been laid out already.


Do you think spending 844 billion dollars is going to have any effect on the economy? You hitch your wagon to GDP numbers ignoring unemployment, under employment, discouraged workers, Debt. Forbes explained it to you but apparently you choose to believe what you are told by others.
 
I usually wait for the Bad Lip Reading Theater version because it usually makes more sense:



Bonus: Beyonce is awesome.
 
I'm gonna make a confession that may blow some people away. Ready for it? Here it goes.

I understand the points Conservative has been trying to make concerning the Obama Stimulus of 2009. Truth be told, it didn't generate as much revenue via wealth creation in the private sector as say Reagan's economic policies did between 1983-1986 or GWB's direct-consumer stimulus of 2008. But here's where Conservative misses the mark completely: The Obama Stimulus wasn't designed to bring about rapid economic growth nor could it have. NOT because it was a bad plan because most economist say it didn't allocate enough money to really have a large impact in a short period of time. Rather, the Obama Stimulus was intended to "stop the bleeding" and by all accounts it did just that.

Reagan's stimulus was through tax cuts and tax incentives mostly to the upper income brackets and through federal programs that forged public-private partnerships to build up the "military industrial complex". Overall, it did work to increase GDP, but it also did two other things which most Conservative Republicans refuse to acknowledge:

1) Increased the poverty rate.

2) Increased the debt and deficit.

GWB's stimulus was intended to "prevent the current economic downturn from ballooning into an economic crisis". And while it did help briefly, we all know how things wound up. FINANCIAL CHAOS at the end of his Presidency. Not his fault, mind you. No one - not even our largest commercial investment firms - knew collectively just how bad things were (mostly because each too big to fail bank were too territorial, defending their own turf which aggressive and greedy competition within industries tends to do).

So, along comes the Obama Stimulus which focuses more money on federal programs that Congress wanted. As I read (the bulk of) the Stimulus Bill years ago, I came to realize that a vast amount of the money went to:

1) Government programs designed to get the money into businesses that forged public-private partnerships.

2) States that foster government spending at their level.

3) Private enterprises that conducted research and development for future industrial development and economic growth.

Folks can visit Recovery. gov to see where stimulus money was allocated and spending took place in their state if they care to know. (BTW, Texas received ALOT! $15,602,390,000 worth and only created a reported 4,231 jobs. Just thought you should know.)

My point is each stimulus plan was different and each sought a different kind of recovery. Moreover, each had different results. But regardless of the outcome, it's wrong to say that the Obama Stimulus didn't work because the truth is, it did! It may not have had the same results many Conservatives have come to expect from federal stimulus programs, i.e., rapid economic growth as reflected by an uptic in GDP, but it did work. (And yes, TARP (as restructured under Pres. Obama) helped alot, too).

Now, back to the main focus of this thread, towit, the SOUA...Oh, wait. That topic morphed into "abuse of Executive Power"....my bad.

Carry on. ;)...:roll:
 
Last edited:
Apparently you and Forbes believe that 2009 was a fine year and we should have continued letting the country fall apart.

I know that many enemies of America agree with that.

But those of us in favor of an America, successful for everyone, don't.


And whom might you be speaking of here? I remember a time when sniveling progressives like you got their little panties in a twisted wad over the hint of being labeled unpatriotic for their political beliefs....Yet, it's ok for you isn't it? Remember this....?



Now it seems that Hillary could be talking about conservatives couldn't she? In any case...We conservative are not the ones trying to 'fundamentally transform' anything. We aren't the ones telling other that disagree with them that they have 'no place' in their states. We are not the ones acting like children as they express 'if congress won't act with me, then I'll go around them'....

I hope you puerile, petulant children are taking notes of the deplorable way that you are acting right now, because pay back is a bitch, and what goes around, comes around...And I don't think you're going to like it too much.
 
Now, back to the main focus of this thread, towit, the SOUA...Oh, wait. That topic morphed into "abuse of Executive Power"....my bad.

Carry on. ;)...:roll:

Actually, that was my comment originally. The overall topic is basically anything he said. The bigger problem even than the stimulus is the high level of overall spending that was locked in. From 2007-2009 spending when up by 30% and never went back down. So in a way, thats a trillion a year in stimulus, all borrowed. And its both partys fault. Stimulus may have stopped the bleeding (thats debateable, others say it was all the other measures taken prior to Obama by the Fed), but how much damage did it cost long term?
 
Objective Voice;1062876454]I'm gonna make a confession that may blow some people away. Ready for it? Here it goes.

I understand the points Conservative has been trying to make concerning the Obama Stimulus of 2009. Truth be told, it didn't generate as much revenue via wealth creation in the private sector as say Reagan's economic policies did between 1983-1986 or GWB's direct-consumer stimulus of 2008. But here's where Conservative misses the mark completely: The Obama Stimulus wasn't designed to bring about rapid economic growth nor could it have. NOT because it was a bad plan because most economist say it didn't allocate enough money to really have a large impact in a short period of time. Rather, the Obama Stimulus was intended to "stop the bleeding" and by all accounts it did just that.

And you started out so good but just couldn't resist falling back into brainwash mode. Let me remind you the Democrats controlled Congress from January 2007 to January 2011 thus the Obama stimulus was ready to go in February 2009. Obama proposed a 844 billion stimulus program getting everything he wanted and yet how much of that stimulus was spent in 2009? You want to give him credit for bringing us out of recession in June 2009 but fail to recognize that Obama himself said there wasn't such a thing as a shovel ready job

Like far too many you ignore the components of GDP. One of those components is Govt. spending so what do you think is going to happen to economic growth when the govt. pumps 844 billion into the economy? There is your economic growth for 2009-2010, not the private sector which is the largest component and something you want to ignore

The Obama stimulus was supposed to jump start the economy but rather it bailed out unions, gave targeted tax cuts that required certain consumer action, and was nothing more than a liberal spend fest that didn't do what it was supposed to or did it, liberals?

Reagan's stimulus was through tax cuts and tax incentives mostly to the upper income brackets and through federal programs that forged public-private partnerships to build up the "military industrial complex". Overall, it did work to increase GDP, but it also did two other things which most Conservative Republicans refuse to acknowledge:

1) Increased the poverty rate.

2) Increased the debt and deficit.

Did you even read the Forbes Article or any other article that presents a different opinion than yours? Obama has increased the numbers of people below the poverty level, he has set records for people dropping out of the labor market, he has supervised the reduction in payroll hours and massive increase in part time employment yet you want to blame Reagan for giving ALL FIT payers a tax cut and thus creating 17 million jobs? How many jobs has Obama created since the recession began? 146 million December 2007 to 144 million today almost 6 years later?

Here is the data that you and others liberals want to ignore
GDP Debt % to GDP Employment
Reagan 1980 2.8 900 99.6
1988 5.2 2.6 50% 116.1

Bush 2000 10.2 5.7 137.6
2008 14.7 10.6 72% 143.4

Obama 2009 14.7 10.6 143.4
2013 16.8 17.3 103% 144.5


GWB's stimulus was intended to "prevent the current economic downturn from ballooning into an economic crisis". And while it did help briefly, we all know how things wound up. FINANCIAL CHAOS at the end of his Presidency. Not his fault, mind you. No one - not even our largest commercial investment firms - knew collectively just how bad things were (mostly because each too big to fail bank were too territorial, defending their own turf which aggressive and greedy competition within industries tends to do).

TARP was a loan and was mostly paid back, where did that repayment show up in the deficit? Answer, it didn't so Bush got blamed for the TARP loans even though repaid but added to the deficit. What exactly did Obama do? Bailed out union contracts without giving the states the opportunity to do that, took over GM/Chrysler then selling Chrysler to Italy, paying for it out of tax dollars leaving bond holders and the taxpayers on the hook for billions. Yes, that is a liberal success.

So, along comes the Obama Stimulus which focuses more money on federal programs that Congress wanted. As I read (the bulk of) the Stimulus Bill years ago, I came to realize that a vast amount of the money went to:

1) Government programs designed to get the money into businesses that forged public-private partnerships.

2) States that foster government spending at their level.

3) Private enterprises that conducted research and development for future industrial development and economic growth.

Folks can visit Recovery. gov to see where stimulus money was allocated and spending took in their state. (BTW, Texas received ALOT! $15,602,390,000 worth and only created a reported 4,231 jobs. Just thought you should know.)

Yet we came out of recession in June 2009 long before anything Obama could have done got implemented and many are still waiting for those shovels to arrive

Your post just goes to show how poorly you understand the U.S. economy, its components, and exactly what Obama did. Please show me the official govt. site that captures saved jobs? Obama took over an economy that had 143 million Americans working and today after adding almost 7 trillion to the debt it is 144 million. 146 million were working in December 2007 when the recession began. Millions have dropped out of the labor force today, setting records

My point is each stimulus plan was different and each sought a different kind of recovery. Moreover, each had different results. But regardless of the outcome, it's wrong to say that the Obama Stimulus didn't work because the truth is, it did! It may not have had the same results many Conservatives have come to expect from federal stimulus programs, i.e., rapid economic growth as reflected by an uptic in GDP, but it did work.

I guess by liberals standards high unemployment, high numbers of people dropping out of the labor force, high debt, stagnant GDP is the new normal, the European normal and a liberal success story

Now, back to the main focus of this thread, towit, the SOUA...Oh, wait. That topic morphed into "abuse of Executive Power"....my bad.

Carry on. ;)...:roll:

Executive orders that change the laws created by Congress are a violation of the Constitution
 
Reagan vs Bush vs Obama

Here is the Chart I posted above and explanation

GDP Debt % to GDP Employment
Reagan 1980 2.8 900 99.6
1988 5.2 2.6 50% 116.1

Bush 2000 10.2 5.7 137.6
2008 14.7 10.6 72% 143.4

Obama 2009 14.7 10.6 143.4
2013 16.8 17.3 103% 144.5

Reagan took over an economy with a 2.8 trillion GDP and took it to 5.3 trillion
Reagan took over an economy with a 900 billion debt and left it at 2.6 trillion which is 50% of GDP
Reagan took over an economy with 99 million working Americans and left it at 117 million working Americans

Bush took over an economy with 10.2 trillion GDP and left it at 14.7 trillion
Bush took over an economy with 5.7 trillion Debt and left it at 10.6 trillion of which 1 trillion according to the General Accounting Office was due to 9/11
Bush took over an economy with 137 million working Americans and left it at 143 million

Obama took over an economy at 14.7 trillion that is now 16.9 trillion
Obama took over an economy with a 10.6 trillion debt that is now 17.3 trillion
Obama took over an economy with 143 million working Americans that is now 144 million

I can see which President has the liberal definition of success.
 
Reagan vs Bush vs Obama

Here is the Chart I posted above and explanation



Reagan took over an economy with a 2.8 trillion GDP and took it to 5.3 trillion
Reagan took over an economy with a 900 billion debt and left it at 2.6 trillion which is 50% of GDP
Reagan took over an economy with 99 million working Americans and left it at 117 million working Americans

Bush took over an economy with 10.2 trillion GDP and left it at 14.7 trillion
Bush took over an economy with 5.7 trillion Debt and left it at 10.6 trillion of which 1 trillion according to the General Accounting Office was due to 9/11
Bush took over an economy with 137 million working Americans and left it at 143 million

Obama took over an economy at 14.7 trillion that is now 16.9 trillion
Obama took over an economy with a 10.6 trillion debt that is now 17.3 trillion
Obama took over an economy with 143 million working Americans that is now 144 million

I can see which President has the liberal definition of success.

If debt was caused by dates this could be relevant. Alas, it's caused by policies like wars and tax cuts and great recessions.

When you consider that plus the fact that % of GDP is the only relevant measure of national debt, the only President worse at creating it than Bush was Reagan.

Conservatism is absolutely unaffordable in government, business and religion.
 
And you started out so good but just couldn't resist falling back into brainwash mode. Let me remind you the Democrats controlled Congress from January 2007 to January 2011 thus the Obama stimulus was ready to go in February 2009. Obama proposed a 844 billion stimulus program getting everything he wanted and yet how much of that stimulus was spent in 2009? You want to give him credit for bringing us out of recession in June 2009 but fail to recognize that Obama himself said there wasn't such a thing as a shovel ready job

Like far too many you ignore the components of GDP. One of those components is Govt. spending so what do you think is going to happen to economic growth when the govt. pumps 844 billion into the economy? There is your economic growth for 2009-2010, not the private sector which is the largest component and something you want to ignore

The Obama stimulus was supposed to jump start the economy but rather it bailed out unions, gave targeted tax cuts that required certain consumer action, and was nothing more than a liberal spend fest that didn't do what it was supposed to or did it, liberals?



Did you even read the Forbes Article or any other article that presents a different opinion than yours? Obama has increased the numbers of people below the poverty level, he has set records for people dropping out of the labor market, he has supervised the reduction in payroll hours and massive increase in part time employment yet you want to blame Reagan for giving ALL FIT payers a tax cut and thus creating 17 million jobs? How many jobs has Obama created since the recession began? 146 million December 2007 to 144 million today almost 6 years later?

Here is the data that you and others liberals want to ignore





TARP was a loan and was mostly paid back, where did that repayment show up in the deficit? Answer, it didn't so Bush got blamed for the TARP loans even though repaid but added to the deficit. What exactly did Obama do? Bailed out union contracts without giving the states the opportunity to do that, took over GM/Chrysler then selling Chrysler to Italy, paying for it out of tax dollars leaving bond holders and the taxpayers on the hook for billions. Yes, that is a liberal success.



Yet we came out of recession in June 2009 long before anything Obama could have done got implemented and many are still waiting for those shovels to arrive

Your post just goes to show how poorly you understand the U.S. economy, its components, and exactly what Obama did. Please show me the official govt. site that captures saved jobs? Obama took over an economy that had 143 million Americans working and today after adding almost 7 trillion to the debt it is 144 million. 146 million were working in December 2007 when the recession began. Millions have dropped out of the labor force today, setting records



I guess by liberals standards high unemployment, high numbers of people dropping out of the labor force, high debt, stagnant GDP is the new normal, the European normal and a liberal success story



Executive orders that change the laws created by Congress are a violation of the Constitution

"Executive orders that change the laws created by Congress are a violation of the Constitution"

Only if determined to be so by the Federal Court system.
 
If debt was caused by dates this could be relevant. Alas, it's caused by policies like wars and tax cuts and great recessions.

When you consider that plus the fact that % of GDP is the only relevant measure of national debt, the only President worse at creating it than Bush was Reagan.

Conservatism is absolutely unaffordable in government, business and religion.

Regardless of what caused the debt leadership is about taking the hand you were dealt and making things better. I doubt seriously that you are who you say are are unless you inherited your money. No one is so anti capitalist as you could ever be as wealthy as you claim

Reagan took over a worse economy than Obama and leadership brought us out of that recession and the economic growth, job creation, peace dividend were the results. Economic activity stems more from people keeping more of what they earn and not govt. spending.

Percent of GDP is a measurement but not as good of a measurement as job creation, economic activity and by all standards Obama has had the worst recovery on record but it is a recovery based upon his lack of leadership skills and management ability.

Only in the liberal world is high debt, high unemployment, massive dependence on govt, stagnant economic growth the new normal and acceptable. Doubt seriously your success was created by that govt. you now support
 
Regardless of what caused the debt leadership is about taking the hand you were dealt and making things better. I doubt seriously that you are who you say are are unless you inherited your money. No one is so anti capitalist as you could ever be as wealthy as you claim

Reagan took over a worse economy than Obama and leadership brought us out of that recession and the economic growth, job creation, peace dividend were the results. Economic activity stems more from people keeping more of what they earn and not govt. spending.

Percent of GDP is a measurement but not as good of a measurement as job creation, economic activity and by all standards Obama has had the worst recovery on record but it is a recovery based upon his lack of leadership skills and management ability.

Only in the liberal world is high debt, high unemployment, massive dependence on govt, stagnant economic growth the new normal and acceptable. Doubt seriously your success was created by that govt. you now support

I think that this post sets a new record for deception.

"Regardless of what caused the debt leadership is about taking the hand you were dealt and making things better."

Name a measure of government performance that's not improved on Obama's watch.

" Reagan took over a worse economy than Obama "

This one is not even in the same zip code as truth resides.

"Economic activity stems more from people keeping more of what they earn and not govt. spending."

No evidence, no proof.

" Percent of GDP is a measurement but not as good of a measurement as job creation

What I said is that percent of GDP is the standard measure of national debt. That's absolutely true.

Doesn't it bother you at all that the only way to sell your politics is to tell lie after lie?
 
I think that this post sets a new record for deception.

"Regardless of what caused the debt leadership is about taking the hand you were dealt and making things better."

Name a measure of government performance that's not improved on Obama's watch.

" Reagan took over a worse economy than Obama "

This one is not even in the same zip code as truth resides.

"Economic activity stems more from people keeping more of what they earn and not govt. spending."

No evidence, no proof.

" Percent of GDP is a measurement but not as good of a measurement as job creation

What I said is that percent of GDP is the standard measure of national debt. That's absolutely true.

Doesn't it bother you at all that the only way to sell your politics is to tell lie after lie?

"your" President is the most incompetent ever to hold the office and like you out of touch with reality. I have given you data that you ignored which makes what you are doing IMO an act and someone that could never be taken seriously.

Proof of the statement about private spending is in the components of GDP. There are four, figure out what they are and what they contribute to GDP. Number one is consumer spending that makes up 2/3rds of GDP and consumer spending in spurred by more spendable income.

You continue to show how little information you truly have and apparently a total inability to do any independent research.

Percent of national debt to GDP if truly is important says it all

Reagan 50%
Bush 70%
Obama 103%

Seems that the only lies are coming from liberals because I have provided actual data and supported it by links. You want to ignore the links
 
"your" President is the most incompetent ever to hold the office and like you out of touch with reality. I have given you data that you ignored which makes what you are doing IMO an act and someone that could never be taken seriously.

Proof of the statement about private spending is in the components of GDP. There are four, figure out what they are and what they contribute to GDP. Number one is consumer spending that makes up 2/3rds of GDP and consumer spending in spurred by more spendable income.

You continue to show how little information you truly have and apparently a total inability to do any independent research.

Percent of national debt to GDP if truly is important says it all

Reagan 50%
Bush 70%
Obama 103%

Seems that the only lies are coming from liberals because I have provided actual data and supported it by links. You want to ignore the links

Debt is not caused by dates. If you disagree post the Obama policies that caused any of it.
 
Debt is not caused by dates. If you disagree post the Obama policies that caused any of it.

Debt is a cumulative total of deficits and deficits are certainly date stamped coming from the yearly budget of the United States which includes Revenue and expenses. You continue to show how little you understand about the budget of the United States which makes your support for Obama embarrassing..

Obama is responsible for the budgets he signed, 2009=2013, an average over one trillion dollars a year creating 5 trillion of the debt. It really is a shame watching your double standard here holding Bush to an entirely different standard that Obama. You seem happy with his performance and the question is why?
 
Do you think spending 844 billion dollars is going to have any effect on the economy? You hitch your wagon to GDP numbers ignoring unemployment, under employment, discouraged workers, Debt. Forbes explained it to you but apparently you choose to believe what you are told by others.

First place, only 2/3 of the $844 was spending; the other 1/3 was tax cuts (which we all know are pretty worthless as stimulus, unless of course its workers tax cuts, which fortunately much, but not all of it was).

$844B/$1.6T is a somewhat meaningful ratio. I personally subscribed to argument, that many did at the time, that the stimulus should have been twice that. However, as we have already firmly established, the conventional wisdom was that it worked. You are free, however, to have unconventional wisdom.

Interesting article by Forbes. However, this is a political writer not an economist; and its an opinion (by a guy guided by the "political star") not a research paper. I never suggested there wasn't a compelling argument for the proposition that the stimulus failed; just that there are strong arguments FOR the notion that the stimulus succeeded.

Again, part of what made the stimulus work was that it stabilized the economy and position for growth. No one ever expected the stimulus to fix the economy.
 
Last edited:
First place, only 2/3 of the $844 was spending; the other 1/3 was tax cuts (which we all know are pretty worthless as stimulus, unless of course its workers tax cuts, which fortunately much, but not all of it was).

$844B/$1.6T is a somewhat meaningful ratio. I personally subscribed to argument, that many did at the time, that the stimulus should have been twice that. However, as we have already firmly established, the conventional wisdom was that it worked. You are free, however, to have unconventional wisdom.

Interesting article by Forbes. However, this is a political writer not an economist; and its an opinion (by a guy guided by the "political star") not a research paper. I never suggested there wasn't a compelling argument for the proposition that the stimulus failed; just that there are strong arguments FOR the notion that the stimulus succeeded.

Again, part of what made the stimulus work was that it stabilized the economy and position for growth. No one ever expected the stimulus to fix the economy.

That is your opinion, how did the stimulus stabilize the economy when a very small percentage of it actually got to the American people? You want badly to believe it was the stimulus when economists claim it was TARP that stabilized the economy

You claim that 2/3rds of the stimulus was tax cuts. How much of a tax cut did you and your family get? There were targeted tax cuts but all those were were reduction in budgeted expense items as they required a certain action and even with that reduction in expenses the deficits exceeded a trillion dollars eachof Obama's first four years.

There are those here that want to give Obama credit but the facts simply don't support that contention. There isn't a non partisan verifiable site that measures jobs saved and you ought to know that.

Here is the Forbes Article on the Stimulus

President Obama's Smashing Success Story: Greatly Increasing The Power Of Government - Forbes

Then there is this, full of facts and data

Economically, Could Obama Be America's Worst President? - Forbes
 
Debt is a cumulative total of deficits and deficits are certainly date stamped coming from the yearly budget of the United States which includes Revenue and expenses. You continue to show how little you understand about the budget of the United States which makes your support for Obama embarrassing..

Obama is responsible for the budgets he signed, 2009=2013, an average over one trillion dollars a year creating 5 trillion of the debt. It really is a shame watching your double standard here holding Bush to an entirely different standard that Obama. You seem happy with his performance and the question is why?

So, as an example, you believe that it would have been smarter if Obama stopped both of Bush's holy wars, on his first day in office, and said, excuse us, sorry for bombing your cities, it was an error on our part.

Remember how hard he fought to end Bush's wealth redistribution tax cuts only to be told by Boner that if you do that we'll throw the unemployed under the bus.

Don't act so naive.
 
So, as an example, you believe that it would have been smarter if Obama stopped both of Bush's holy wars, on his first day in office, and said, excuse us, sorry for bombing your cities, it was an error on our part.

Remember how hard he fought to end Bush's wealth redistribution tax cuts only to be told by Boner that if you do that we'll throw the unemployed under the bus.

Don't act so naive.

You mean the "Holy War" that the Democrat controlled Senate authorized in October 2002 with a 76-23 vote? Or how about implementing the status of forces agreement Bush signed in 2008 ending the Iraq War? Maybe it was the Afghanistan supplementals Obama signed in 2009 expanding the Afghanistan war and adding to the deficits?

What I find quite telling is how many people like you care how much someone else pays in Federal Income Taxes but ignores that 50% of income earning families pay zero. No problem here but if you thing we have a revenue problem why not go after income from all income earning families?
 
Back
Top Bottom