I don't quibble over a lot.. just when facts are wrong.
Well, I was asked for a list of what I thought has worked, not for facts. And before you say that it's obvious there's a big difference between the two, I don't think everything you put in that post is a "fact" either. For example:
>>TARP didn't save us. TARP propped up failed Banks who had their hands in the pockets of the politicians. Citi, BofA, GS and others should have failed and failed hard. But they got special treatment, Government was better off giving that money to Main Street instead of Wall Street.
I don't agree that those banks were "failed." If the ones you listed had indeed "failed," and I'm not at all clear on what that would have involved, I think we would have been in a lot of trouble. Finally, I don't think the money was "given" to the banks; as I understand it, it was "lent" to them. As of last month, the Treasury has shown a $32 billion profit on the TARP expenditures.
>>Stimulus created nothing. Stimulus was done in 2010 and it's now 2014 and we still don't have the number of jobs we did in 2007. That's a massive fail. It's also a massive fail because it cost based on who you follow, from $90k to $250k job created. That's 2x to 5xs median income.
Private-sector employment in Dec 2009 was 138 million. In April, it was 145.7 million. I think saying "we still don't have the number of jobs we did in 2007" is misleading. It could be argued instead that we've now gained back all the jobs we lost.
That $250K figure can be dismissed, I'd say. $90K is much more reasonable, but I'm not sure that takes into account all of the associated economic impacts, especially the tax revenues collected from people who got the jobs. That seems reasonable, since we're, in this context, talking about public expenditures to fund a jobs program. Accounting for those would yield a figure closer to $60K.
I'm sure you'd want to use a larger number. In the end, I'd say it's very difficult to calculate. One important feature of the ARRA may be that it gave people the idea that the government was doing something to alleviate the economic crisis at the time, much like some of the programs instituted by FDR. In a modern advanced industrial economy, it's important to keep up public confidence. Otherwise, things can really get out of hand.
I would agree that the legislation could have been crafted more wisely. But it's easy to say that Obama should not have allowed the Congress to have as much control over the design of the bill, given that it required congressional support to even get to his desk.
>>You saved 2 Automakers who were bankrupt prior to the recession. Of which Government lost money on. Ford didn't take a bail out.
The estimates I've seen are that the auto rescue saved around three million jobs, at a time when we sure couldn't afford to lose them. The agreement the administration negotiated included significant increases in fuel efficiency that strengthen the companies' competitiveness, have a positive impact on our balance of trade, and help the environment.
>>There hasn't been one reform on Wall Street. Frank-Dodd is still in the process of regulation writing which is probably will never be done.
Yeah, I can't really argue with that. I might wanna call it a work in progress. We did collect some big fines and more are in the works as I understand it — something like $100 billion collected so far. Better than taxes, right?
>>ACA doesn't keep costs down, it shifts costs to younger people. The typically poorer bunch.
I disagree. Not much point going over it, I suppose. Maybe we can agree that it will be a long time before the effects can be assessed effectively.
>>If you don't comprise and try to swing a big dick every time you speak, you aren't gonna make friends. Clinton made friends and he got alot of **** done. That's the difference.
You see it as Obama's fault; I think the Republicans are the ones that won't cut deals. And it's a shame cuz I figure the votes are there to get some important stuff done. I like Boehner, but I'm disappointed with his performance. I think he needs to lead the House, and could do that if he stopped allowing a relatively small group of Tea Partiers to control the process.
Obama
is sort of "reserved," not a back-slapper. But it would be tough to compete with Clinton on that. I can see that both Reagan and Clinton, and Bush43 as well, had that going for them — they were very likeable. But we're talking about the country's business here. I'm confident that Boehner could get things done. I'm really saddened that he hasn't.
>>ACA won't promote jobs. Rather there has always been a shortage of Doctors and Nurses in the industry. What you will find is less and less Doctors taking hits in Government insurance and go completely private. Thus creating bigger shortages similar to those in the VA which did practice Death Panels.
I'm thinking we should scrap the VHA and turn it over to the private sector. I grew up on a naval air station, and I can't believe what's been going on. Well, maybe I can believe it, but we can't tolerate it.
I think the "pre-existing condition" of 40 million or whatever it was uninsured was a big problem, both for the uninsured and for society. I figure it was a major driver of healthcare costs. To be honest, Id be willing to say goodbye to the insurance companies and their 15-20% administrative costs. The office workers could be employed in a single-payer system and the overpaid executives could just fend for themselves as far as I'm concerned.
I figure the biggest thing we need to do to control healthcare costs is come up with a way to stop people from destroying themselves with obesity, lack of exercise, and drugs like alcohol and tobacco. That would free up a lot of doctors to work on other problems. Other than public education, I don't have an idea of how to get that done. I'm hopeful that some of the elements of Obamacare will help, like preventative care benefits.
>>This is wrong. Minimum wage was raised in 2009. It was the last step of 2007 law. What has changed is inflation rates.
Yeah, I wasn't at all sure about that and was just too lazy to look it up. I guess I was thinking of more or less when the bill was passed, but of course it's always phased in.
>>Climate changes all the time … what doesn't change is stupidity of people who build homes on …
Another issue we won't agree on and probably not worth debating. I'm convinced that we need to do a lot more and soon. I think the damage will be substantial to say the least and affect everyone within a few decades. I've never been active at all on the environment except personally — recycling, limiting energy consumption. I think it's a disaster waiting to happen.