• 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!

Was A Big Deal Ever Possible?

Was it Ever?


  • Total voters
    28
The analyzing wasn't so much wrong as the projection. You're asking us to believe a program that has been proven a failure can still tell us what things would have been like without it.

You have completely failed to show the program was a failure.
 
When it comes down to it, the only way we will ever dig ourselves out of this trillions of dollars defecit is by doing MAJOR spending cuts, along with TAXES hikes on the wealthy making 250,000 or more.

Americans i think are still a little unwilling to accept the fact that we, as a country, are in a huge mess right now. Its going to take major sacrifice on both ends to make this possible, and that includes Social Security and Medicare reform. Government is going to have to find a way to provide government healthcare facilities to treat the poor and some middle class. The rich of course will have the option to have "better" costly medical care through private insurance sectors.

As for this no-tax-pledge the GOP stands on, it will not work. At some point taxes must be raised, which will increase the amount of the jobs available. It will pretty much do the exact opposite of what they say. When you tax the rich, they create jobs. When you give them tax cuts, they dont create jobs. The GOP uses this lie to protect their investors and employers. Stupid Americans fall for this, thinking tax increases directly affect them, but actually only affect the top 2% of America.
 
It's long ago been accepted it was a failure.

RealClearPolitics - The Failure of Obama's Stimulus

The political failure of Obama’s stimulus package : The New Yorker

Those that pushed it made absolute claims for what it would do. It did nothing of the sort. That's the definition of failure. That it failed (which wasn't hard to predict) is a part of the reason we are were we are at today.

You should read your sources:

This wouldn’t be surprising if we were talking about a failed program. But, by any reasonable measure, the $800-billion stimulus package that Congress passed in the winter of 2009 was a clear, if limited, success. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that it reduced unemployment by somewhere between 0.8 and 1.7 per cent in recent months. Economists at various Wall Street houses suggest that it boosted G.D.P. by more than two per cent. And a recent study by Mark Zandi and Alan Blinder, economists from, respectively, Moody’s and Princeton, argues that, in the absence of the stimulus, unemployment would have risen above eleven per cent and that G.D.P. would have been almost half a trillion dollars lower. The weight of the evidence suggests that fiscal policy softened the impact of the recession, boosting demand, creating jobs, and helping the economy start growing again. What’s more, it did so without any of the negative effects that deficit spending can entail: interest rates remain at remarkably low levels, and government borrowing didn’t crowd out private investment.

Oops...
 
You should read your sources:

No, no one would deny that there were "limited" successes. If you are claiming that for $800 billion "limited" successes make the program successful, have at it. It is pretty typical of government think and why we are in the mess we are in.
 
No, no one would deny that there were "limited" successes. If you are claiming that for $800 billion "limited" successes make the program successful, have at it. It is pretty typical of government think and why we are in the mess we are in.

So your position is that it was successful, except that it wasn't?
 
So your position is that it was successful, except that it wasn't?

We'll go with the idea that for $800 billion, if you want to look hard enough you can find some limited successes and if you want to claim that's a success, I disagree.
 
We'll go with the idea that for $800 billion, if you want to look hard enough you can find some limited successes and if you want to claim that's a success, I disagree.

Do you know what republican presidents did when faced with recessions? They did stimulus spending. Reagan was the king, still unmatched when it came to stimulus spending. Do you know why they did that? Because it works.
 
Do you know what republican presidents did when faced with recessions? They did stimulus spending. Reagan was the king, still unmatched when it came to stimulus spending. Do you know why they did that? Because it works.

I care less what they did. $800 billion and the best we got was limited success. That is not the definition of working.
 
I care less what they did. $800 billion and the best we got was limited success. That is not the definition of working.

Except it did exactly what it was intended to do. It kept unemployment from getting as bad as it would have been, helped grow the economy and kept the recession from being deeper and longer.
 
Except it did exactly what it was intended to do. It kept unemployment from getting as bad as it would have been, helped grow the economy and kept the recession from being deeper and longer.

History revisionism should be out right dismissed. Dismissed it is.
 
History revisionism should be out right dismissed. Dismissed it is.

That is from your source though! You brought into the thread the source that said those things. So far you have not even begun to make a case that the stimulus failed, except that you say it did, and two sources said it did, except one didn't say that, the other was an opinion piece.
 
That is from your source though! You brought into the thread the source that said those things. So far you have not even begun to make a case that the stimulus failed, except that you say it did, and two sources said it did, except one didn't say that, the other was an opinion piece.

I have no desire to do this all day. Keep your beliefs. It did not do what we were told it would do. A pretty typical government program.
 
I have no desire to do this all day. Keep your beliefs. It did not do what we were told it would do. A pretty typical government program.

Actually it did. We were told it would keep employment higher than without, which it did.
 
More history revisionism.

Even Obama had to admit that what he sold us on was wrong.

For the first time, the administration admitted the economic forecasts it used to sell the stimulus were overly optimistic.

Obama's Stimulus Promise: More Than 600,000 Jobs

Once again you should read your sources:

Obama admitted his own dissatisfaction with the progress but said his administration would ramp up stimulus spending in the coming months. The White House acknowledged it has spent only $44 billion, or 5 percent, of the $787 billion stimulus, but that total has always been expected to rise sharply this summer.

He was dissatisfied at the pace the money was getting out.
 
That has nothing to do with the quote I posted. Of course Obama is going to try and provide cover for getting it wrong.
 
Granted, she makes all sorts of excuses as to why it failed also.

Arianna Huffington: ‘The stimulus package failed’


Read more: Arianna Huffington: ‘The stimulus package failed’ | The Daily Caller

You are not even trying any more are you? Arianna Huffington is a commentator offering her opinion. Further, from once again your source:

I think the stimulus program worked in that people would have been in much worse shape if we hadn’t had it,” Rivlin said. “But if you do the infrastructure and you do the payroll tax holiday, you also got to control the long-run debt because the thing that is most inimical to long-run growth is an unsustainable rise in debt. So we go to do both.”
 
As you point out, projections are not fact.
 
As you point out, projections are not fact.

pro·jec·tion/prəˈjekSHən/Noun
1. An estimate or forecast of a future situation or trend based on a study of present ones.

Looking back at past events is not a projection.
 
pro·jec·tion/prəˈjekSHən/Noun
1. An estimate or forecast of a future situation or trend based on a study of present ones.

Looking back at past events is not a projection.

Saying what would have happened most certainly is.
 
Saying what would have happened most certainly is.

Not really, no. A projection is when we say that if we do not do something, unemployment will be x %(by the way, when the paper was done on what would happen with and without a stimulus, there where frequent caveats about the numbers being a projection and as such not guaranteed). An analysis looks at the available data on past events.
 
Not really, no. A projection is when we say that if we do not do something, unemployment will be x %(by the way, when the paper was done on what would happen with and without a stimulus, there where frequent caveats about the numbers being a projection and as such not guaranteed). An analysis looks at the available data on past events.

No, you don't get to pick and choose which projections are projections and which are not based upon your politics.
 
No, you don't get to pick and choose which projections are projections and which are not based upon your politics.

I am actually using definitions, not politics. By the way, you might not want to jump to conclusions about my politics either on the issue of the negotiations going on.
 
Back
Top Bottom