For those of you who think Obama has not helped create or save jobs...

[Oldstyle]

If y'all want to say, "Oh it was the Navy Seals who did it, not Obama"; go ahead. But you appear to be hypocrites (which you are) when you blame everything bad that happens on Obama (because he's President), but won't give him credit when he does something good. You're just revealing your own ingrained bias against him.

Obama did spend money to turn the economy around. He had to. So - by the way - did Bush. ($1.4 trillion deficit for the 08-09 fiscal year - the largest ever.) That's what happens when you've got nearly a million people losing their jobs every month and the worst financial crisis since 1929. I don't blame Bush for that. (Well, I might blame him for some of the policies that contributed to the crisis in the first place, but I don't blame him for the deficit.) I didn't like Bush. I didn't like what he did in Iraq. I didn't like his style. I didn't like anything about him. But I'm capable of admitting when he's done something right. TARP was right; and he did it.

You say, "Well, maybe everything would have been ok even if the government hadn't stepped in."

Well, maybe. But that's not what anybody was saying at the time. Do you remember when the stock market dropped 50%? When the Dow was losing 1000 points PER DAY?

Do you remember anybody coming on TV and saying, "Hey, maybe it'll all be ok if nobody does anything"?

I don't.

Where were all these free-market people then?

Claiming NOW, that things are getting better, that they would have gotten better ANYWAY, is easy to do, and impossible to disprove. But what we know is that things sucked. Obama did what he did. And things improved. The rest is just speculation.

If you really things would have gotten better without any intervention, Why? How? When? How do you know?

Waiting until things get better, and then claiming the medicine wasn't needed seems kind of pissant to me.

There were actually quite a few economists who argued against the Obama Stimulus, Sun. They simply didn't think it was going to be effective the way it was constructed. I agreed with them at the time because I didn't see small tax rebates to everyone, coupled with extensions of unemployment and propping up public sector jobs as a means to make the economy grow which is what the Stimulus SHOULD have been about. What we needed to do was reinforce the financial sector...which we did with TARP, cut government spending so we didn't get a credit downgrade, and above all else...not threaten to impose further burdens on the growth of businesses like the Obama Administration did with ObamaCare, DOJ lawsuits against Gibson and Boeing, new EPA regulations on greenhouse gasses, Card Check and Cap & Trade legislation, and higher taxes on anyone makeing over $200,000 a year. You don't grow the economy by beating up on the very people who have always made that happen...but yet that's exactly the thing that this Administration did time after time.

 

[daveman]

But how do you know that it was Obama that was responsible for the job loss? Do you really think the president is the only economic influence there is.

Think about it.

I'd ask you the same question about job growth, but you take it on faith that Obama is responsible.

Meanwhile, answer this question: What happens to a job when the stimulus money that funded it runs out?

Thats the problem. Progressives look at the positives of a policy without considering the negative long term ramifications of the policy.

"Ready, fire, aim!"

But, hey, as long as the feel good about themselves, that's all that matters.

 

[Lovebears65]

It's amazing that some people still buy the "saved or created" business. Even the WH isn't pushing that crap anymore.
The stimulus was the biggest failure in public policy since the WIN button. Even by the administration's own accounting it failed.

Everyone agrees the stimulus didn't go far enough, but to label it a "failure" is simply not true.

Everyone> Really.

 

[The Rabbi]

If y'all want to say, "Oh it was the Navy Seals who did it, not Obama"; go ahead. But you appear to be hypocrites (which you are) when you blame everything bad that happens on Obama (because he's President), but won't give him credit when he does something good. You're just revealing your own ingrained bias against him.

Obama did spend money to turn the economy around. He had to. So - by the way - did Bush. ($1.4 trillion deficit for the 08-09 fiscal year - the largest ever.) That's what happens when you've got nearly a million people losing their jobs every month and the worst financial crisis since 1929. I don't blame Bush for that. (Well, I might blame him for some of the policies that contributed to the crisis in the first place, but I don't blame him for the deficit.) I didn't like Bush. I didn't like what he did in Iraq. I didn't like his style. I didn't like anything about him. But I'm capable of admitting when he's done something right. TARP was right; and he did it.

You say, "Well, maybe everything would have been ok even if the government hadn't stepped in."

Well, maybe. But that's not what anybody was saying at the time. Do you remember when the stock market dropped 50%? When the Dow was losing 1000 points PER DAY?

Do you remember anybody coming on TV and saying, "Hey, maybe it'll all be ok if nobody does anything"?

I don't.

Where were all these free-market people then?

Claiming NOW, that things are getting better, that they would have gotten better ANYWAY, is easy to do, and impossible to disprove. But what we know is that things sucked. Obama did what he did. And things improved. The rest is just speculation.

If you really things would have gotten better without any intervention, Why? How? When? How do you know?

Waiting until things get better, and then claiming the medicine wasn't needed seems kind of pissant to me.

Actually Bush did not spend money to turn the economy around. He spent money to backstop the banks, which had ceased functioning, and to help GM, which I opposed, along with Congress.
Bush's administration set up the protocols for the search and capture of bin laden. What did Clinton do about that, btw? Obama simply inherited a running program that he allowed to continue.
We know that things would have been much better without all the engineering out of Washington.

 

[The Rabbi]

It's amazing that some people still buy the "saved or created" business. Even the WH isn't pushing that crap anymore.
The stimulus was the biggest failure in public policy since the WIN button. Even by the administration's own accounting it failed.

Everyone agrees the stimulus didn't go far enough, but to label it a "failure" is simply not true.

Everyone> Really.

Well, everyone who counts, to the Left.

 

[Billy000]

If you're giving Obama credit for creating jobs, you also have to give him responsibility for jobs lost.

And going by the UE figures, he's lost more jobs than he's created.

But how do you know that it was Obama that was responsible for the job loss? Do you really think the president is the only economic influence there is.

Think about it.

I'd ask you the same question about job growth, but you take it on faith that Obama is responsible.

Meanwhile, answer this question: What happens to a job when the stimulus money that funded it runs out?

I credit Obama for job growth because there is a direct link between the stimulus and.... wait for it.... job growth!

 

[daveman]

But how do you know that it was Obama that was responsible for the job loss? Do you really think the president is the only economic influence there is.

Think about it.

I'd ask you the same question about job growth, but you take it on faith that Obama is responsible.

Meanwhile, answer this question: What happens to a job when the stimulus money that funded it runs out?

I credit Obama for job growth because there is a direct link between the stimulus and.... wait for it.... job growth!

Right. According to people who take it on faith.

I can't hep but notice you once again refuse to answer my question: What happens to a job when the stimulus money that funded it runs out?

Are you going to answer, or are you going to pretend it's not there yet again?

 

[Billy000]

I'd ask you the same question about job growth, but you take it on faith that Obama is responsible.

Meanwhile, answer this question: What happens to a job when the stimulus money that funded it runs out?

I credit Obama for job growth because there is a direct link between the stimulus and.... wait for it.... job growth!

Right. According to people who take it on faith.

I can't hep but notice you once again refuse to answer my question: What happens to a job when the stimulus money that funded it runs out?

Are you going to answer, or are you going to pretend it's not there yet again?

You do realize this is a big thread and I dont have the time to answer all of them. Obviously some replies are going to fall through the cracks.

6/9 studies believe that the stimulus has long term beneficial affects, which includes sustainable jobs. You accuse me of ignoring your posts, yet you ignore the independent research I posted. What does that say about you?

 

[Amelia]

I'd ask you the same question about job growth, but you take it on faith that Obama is responsible.

Meanwhile, answer this question: What happens to a job when the stimulus money that funded it runs out?

I credit Obama for job growth because there is a direct link between the stimulus and.... wait for it.... job growth!

Right. According to people who take it on faith.

I can't hep but notice you once again refuse to answer my question: What happens to a job when the stimulus money that funded it runs out?

Are you going to answer, or are you going to pretend it's not there yet again?

When the stimulus money runs out, you hope your state has a governor like Scott Walker who will do what it takes to save as many of the now-unfunded jobs as possible.

 

[daveman]

I credit Obama for job growth because there is a direct link between the stimulus and.... wait for it.... job growth!

Right. According to people who take it on faith.

I can't hep but notice you once again refuse to answer my question: What happens to a job when the stimulus money that funded it runs out?

Are you going to answer, or are you going to pretend it's not there yet again?

You do realize this is a big thread and I dont have the time to answer all of them. Obviously some replies are going to fall through the cracks.

Yet you had time to weasel out of answering it once again.

If you don't want to answer it because you don't want to, or can't, or it might make you question the effectiveness of the stimulus, that's fine. Just say so.

6/9 studies believe that the stimulus has long term beneficial affects, which includes sustainable jobs. You accuse me of ignoring your posts, yet you ignore the independent research I posted. What does that say about you?

I addressed your "research". It's crap.

 

[Chris]

 

[Oldstyle]

I credit Obama for job growth because there is a direct link between the stimulus and.... wait for it.... job growth!

Right. According to people who take it on faith.

I can't hep but notice you once again refuse to answer my question: What happens to a job when the stimulus money that funded it runs out?

Are you going to answer, or are you going to pretend it's not there yet again?

You do realize this is a big thread and I dont have the time to answer all of them. Obviously some replies are going to fall through the cracks.

6/9 studies believe that the stimulus has long term beneficial affects, which includes sustainable jobs. You accuse me of ignoring your posts, yet you ignore the independent research I posted. What does that say about you?

I noticed you didn't have a response to my request that you show me something exceptional that Barak Obama ever produced while he was the President of the Harvard Law Review, teaching at the University of Chicago or a legislator both in the Illinois State House or the US Senate. Show me how wrong I am, Billy...show me a scholarly piece of writing by Barack...show me a great piece of legislation he crafted...prove that I'm wrong when I say Obama is just an empty suit.

 

[Listening]

But how do you know that it was Obama that was responsible for the job loss? Do you really think the president is the only economic influence there is.

Think about it.

I'd ask you the same question about job growth, but you take it on faith that Obama is responsible.

Meanwhile, answer this question: What happens to a job when the stimulus money that funded it runs out?

I credit Obama for job growth because there is a direct link between the stimulus and.... wait for it.... job growth!

hahahahahahaha

No, that would be the Easter Bunny.

 

[Listening]

Ink alert !

 

[Sundial]

I'd ask you the same question about job growth, but you take it on faith that Obama is responsible.

Meanwhile, answer this question: What happens to a job when the stimulus money that funded it runs out?

I credit Obama for job growth because there is a direct link between the stimulus and.... wait for it.... job growth!

Right. According to people who take it on faith.

I can't hep but notice you once again refuse to answer my question: What happens to a job when the stimulus money that funded it runs out?

Are you going to answer, or are you going to pretend it's not there yet again?

When someone gets a job - even a temporary one - that means he has money for things like food and rent and gas and Christmas gifts. That, in turn, means grocers and landlords and Exxon and retailers have more money, and buy more inventory, and hire more people.

It's a virtuous cycle, and the end of the job - if it does end - doesn't mean the end of the cycle.

 

[Listening]

When someone gets a job - even a temporary one - that means he has money for things like food and rent and gas and Christmas gifts. That, in turn, means grocers and landlords and Exxon and retailers have more money, and buy more inventory, and hire more people.

It's a virtuous cycle, and the end of the job - if it does end - doesn't mean the end of the cycle.

When someone gets a job, it means someone needs labor. So, you might have a bit of a chicken and egg syndrom.

On a larger scale, when people are getting jobs everyone is more confident and they tend to spend a little more easily. When people are fearful, they hold onto their cash and that slows things down.

In other words, the simple Keynesian model needs more than just some cash flowing through the system because of government intervention.

When companies, like the one I work for, hold huge sums of cash because they don't know what to expect from this idiot White House, that really slows things down.

And when the idiot White House talks about taxing that extra cash away....it does not motivate them to spend it. It motivates them to take it places where said idiot White House can't get at it and where it does us no good (in the USA).

You'd think the first grade approach to economics would have disappeared in the world of the enlightened left.

 

[Billy000]

Right. According to people who take it on faith.

I can't hep but notice you once again refuse to answer my question: What happens to a job when the stimulus money that funded it runs out?

Are you going to answer, or are you going to pretend it's not there yet again?

You do realize this is a big thread and I dont have the time to answer all of them. Obviously some replies are going to fall through the cracks.

Yet you had time to weasel out of answering it once again.

If you don't want to answer it because you don't want to, or can't, or it might make you question the effectiveness of the stimulus, that's fine. Just say so.

6/9 studies believe that the stimulus has long term beneficial affects, which includes sustainable jobs. You accuse me of ignoring your posts, yet you ignore the independent research I posted. What does that say about you?

I addressed your "research". It's crap.

Then you obviously do not understand research.

 

[daveman]

I credit Obama for job growth because there is a direct link between the stimulus and.... wait for it.... job growth!

Right. According to people who take it on faith.

I can't hep but notice you once again refuse to answer my question: What happens to a job when the stimulus money that funded it runs out?

Are you going to answer, or are you going to pretend it's not there yet again?

When someone gets a job - even a temporary one - that means he has money for things like food and rent and gas and Christmas gifts. That, in turn, means grocers and landlords and Exxon and retailers have more money, and buy more inventory, and hire more people.

It's a virtuous cycle, and the end of the job - if it does end - doesn't mean the end of the cycle.

You still didn't answer it. You think you have, but you're wrong.

What happens to a job when the stimulus money that funded it runs out?

 

[daveman]

You do realize this is a big thread and I dont have the time to answer all of them. Obviously some replies are going to fall through the cracks.

Yet you had time to weasel out of answering it once again.

If you don't want to answer it because you don't want to, or can't, or it might make you question the effectiveness of the stimulus, that's fine. Just say so.

6/9 studies believe that the stimulus has long term beneficial affects, which includes sustainable jobs. You accuse me of ignoring your posts, yet you ignore the independent research I posted. What does that say about you?

I addressed your "research". It's crap.

Then you obviously do not understand research.

I understand leftist research. It goes like this:

1. Determine the desired conclusion.

2. Cherry-pick and alter data to bring about the conclusion.


And you still run away from my question. Damned coward.

 

[Oldstyle]

You do realize this is a big thread and I dont have the time to answer all of them. Obviously some replies are going to fall through the cracks.

Yet you had time to weasel out of answering it once again.

If you don't want to answer it because you don't want to, or can't, or it might make you question the effectiveness of the stimulus, that's fine. Just say so.

6/9 studies believe that the stimulus has long term beneficial affects, which includes sustainable jobs. You accuse me of ignoring your posts, yet you ignore the independent research I posted. What does that say about you?

I addressed your "research". It's crap.

Then you obviously do not understand research.

Still dodging my request to provide me with something scholarly that Barack Obama ever produced while he was President of the Harvard Law Review (he's the only one in their entire history not to publish in the Review under his name), taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago (most professors publish scholarly works on a regular basis...so where's anything Barack wrote?) or an important piece of legislation that HE wrote while he was a State Senator or a US Senator. Surely you must be able to come up with SOMETHING exceptional this man has produced in the last thirty years? Right?