If massive government spending stimulates the economy

One day?
Member of this board?
Your MessiahRushie pulls the strings of all the wingnuts on this board.

So, we agree, you can't list a member of this board when I specifically asked for that proof.
Nice attempt at claiming "MessiahRushie" is part of my question, but you failed to produce actual value to the conversation.

Proof of what?
Who made the assertion in the first place?
You're arguing with yourself, I'm betting you'll lose.
 
Your MessiahRushie pulls the strings of all the wingnuts on this board.

So, we agree, you can't list a member of this board when I specifically asked for that proof.
Nice attempt at claiming "MessiahRushie" is part of my question, but you failed to produce actual value to the conversation.

Proof of what?
Who made the assertion in the first place?
You're arguing with yourself, I'm betting you'll lose.
Your point is well made.....
It wasn't an assertion, I asked a couple questions.
 
So, we agree, you can't list a member of this board when I specifically asked for that proof.
Nice attempt at claiming "MessiahRushie" is part of my question, but you failed to produce actual value to the conversation.

Proof of what?
Who made the assertion in the first place?
You're arguing with yourself, I'm betting you'll lose.
Your point is well made.....
It wasn't an assertion, I asked a couple questions.

You have asked for proof of something that was never claimed.
Oh well, carry on your self-argument...I'm rooting for ya!!
 
How do you explain the last 6 years?

Your question doesn't go to the heart of the problem, which is that deregulation of the banking and speculating industries caused a totally unnecessary near-Great Depression.

It was greed that brought our economy to its knees, not government spending.

When big business and the big lenders all froze, the gov't had to step in and right the ship.

America actually did the right thing. Prevented her from going into a major double-dip recession like we see in Europe. They thought they could just cut their way out of their problems, so that's what they did: austerity measures all around, and then they all fell down again because nobody was investing, nobody was lending.

TARP ended up being a success.

The Obama Stimulus was going to passed no matter who got elected because it needed to. We now know that the breadth of it was not large enough for the cratering of the economy that had been predicted. When the Obama team in the fall of '08 had been given the estimates, it wasn't foreseen that 750,000 job losses per month would persist so brutally the way it did.

What we also know is that tax cuts do not create jobs. Investment in jobs does. Remember, nearly 40% of the Obama Stimulus was the single-largest middle class tax cut in American history. The rest went to jobs, veterans (single-largest one-time spending amount for vet health care and other associated veteran stuff that Republicans had cut which the head of the Legion predicted would be this President's lasting legacy), education and job re-training programs, the Peace Corps, paying for Medicare Part D I believe, investing in science, technology and innovation, reforming the student loan process, and direct job-related funds that nearly every Republican took advantage of, from John Boehner to Eric Cantor to Paul Ryan to Michele Bachmann.

And they went to the ribbon-cutting ceremonies, too at the same time that they pretended to hate Obama's spending.

All that spending helped to not only stop the bleeding, but it took us out of the ditch and got us back onto the road, as witnessed by the 30-something straight months of private sector growth.

Go to any major mall anywhere in America on Saturday morning this fall. Totally fucking packed.

The auto bailout worked. The gov't has gotten back almost everything from GM thus far and they're doing well.

Housing starts are back up.

Oil produced from within America has gone up 13% the last 4 years and in 2010, we produced the most barrels of oil in one year we've ever produced. That took a dip last year since the BP disastrophe held us back. And to that point, deregulation of big oil caused wasteful and unnecessary spending to occur all around. A lot of pain could have been prevented there had regulations been followed by BP, who should have a keen business interest in making money to produce oil, not spending money on major ecological catastrophes.

For the last 2 years, the U.S. exports more oil than she imports. That's wonderful news. Alternative energy is on the rise, so is natural gas and clean coal technologies.

We've gone from losing about 10 million jobs in 1 year to gaining just over 5 million private sector jobs the last 2 years.

Wall St. Reform has a law in it now that says too-big-to-fail companies will no longer be bailed out by the public. That's good.

Last month, the country actually turned a surplus for a change. The yearly deficit was the worst for the 2009 year, and then crested in 2010 and 2011, with this upcoming year set to finally clock in at below $1 trillion for the first time after 4 years.

The Bush Tax Cuts on the top are set to expire at the end of December. That's another $80 billion we save per year now. Iraq is over, we save there. Afghanistan is beginning to cost less as we draw down; we save there. With more people joining the workforce, albeit not at the robust rate we'd like to see (there is a global recession still happening, lest we forget, and somehow we're growing, even if it's fragile) that means more tax revenue coming in, which helps to explain why the country went into surplus for September.

If Romney wins and they repeal Obamacare, it's back to emergency room care for tens of millions. That would put us deeper in the hole. With nearly everyone insured and with the health care exchanges and as well as long-term cost-control and cost-cutting measures like more preventive care, Obamacare actually helps save us money over time. Having 30 million new people insured saves us all money because now we won't have as many people draining the system the way things were set up before.

It is worth noting that spending as a share of GDP has crested the last couple years and slowed faster than any time since Eisenhower, it's just that revenues have been slow to catch up because we were hit with extremely hard times and quickly. But now we're looking upon a yearly deficit next year that is going to be about $400 billion less a year, and then throw in more revenue increases like the tax cuts expiring, some modest cuts here and there, a few common sense revenue increases like cutting corporate welfare, and with 100,000+ jobs being created every month, the idea that we're just a couple or so years away from a yearly budget deficit that is well over half a trillion less than what we've been used to for awhile there is welcome news.

America's on the right track. Obama quickly moved to plug in the holes that needed plugging, did what he said he'd do in regards of the two wars, finally got comprehensive health care measures through that actually set us up better for the future than the scheme we had running before, which was a very costly status quo. And it was done in a deficit neutral way, and proof of it is that we went into surplus last month and the deficits are beginning to move on a downward track.

I don't know about everyone else, but I certainly do not want to return to the America I knew in the fall of '08. Look at where we've come. The person who got kicked off their insurance and who was costing us millions per year at worst only costs us a few thousand buck a year now, but only if they're in that bracket of people who need subsidizing.

We don't have two wars anymore. One's done and the other almost is.

Bin Laden and Gaddafi and Mubarak are gone!

We somehow came back from 800,000 job losses a month and turned it into consistent 100-150,000 new jobs a month and a country that feels like it wants to stretch its legs again.

Bet against America if you dare, but she's coming back...
 
How do you explain the last 6 years?

Obama Cut the Deficit and Slowed Spending to Lowest Level in 50 Years

us_deficit_pct.png


Not only has the president cut the deficit by $312 billion during his first term (so far), but he's cut the deficit by $200 billion in the past year alone. And the CBO projected that the 2013 Obama budget, if enacted as is, would shrink the deficit to $977 billion -- a four year total of nearly $500 billion in deficit reduction.

2012-10-10-chart_spending_growth.jpg
 
Last edited:
turn around does not mean fixed.

God you are just sad.

It doesn't mean fixed?

Turning an economy around either means it is going really good and you want to make it bad, or it is really bad and you want to make it good. If his goal was simply to make the economy bad I have to admit, he succeeded. Problem is, I am pretty sure that wasn't his goal.

no, turning it around just means turning it around. This whole " it must fit your definition in order to be legit" angle you like to play is quite old.

Even Obama admits he failed at whatever it was he was trying to do, yet I am stupid because I think we should take him at his word.
 

Because he is a blowhard who likes people to think he is important?

really? Really?

Fuck off....This is why you are a waste of time.

Do you have anyone else that says they were there? Are you saying you don't think Newt is a blowhard? What, exactly, is your problem with my assessment of his character?
 
cause and affect of the 08 crash which started in 06. The problem is you fast food type people want it fixed now when it takes time.

If romney wins, i am giving him one day to fix the mess and then declaring him a failure.

thats how the game is played now.

This recession started in 2007, not 2006, and ended in June of 2009, without any effort from Obama. He hasn't been fixing any mess, he has been screwing up the recovery. The only recessions that have taken years to correct are the great depression and this one.

Sadly, the same remedies were attempted, and the same results obtained. Who could have guessed?
 
It doesn't mean fixed?

Turning an economy around either means it is going really good and you want to make it bad, or it is really bad and you want to make it good. If his goal was simply to make the economy bad I have to admit, he succeeded. Problem is, I am pretty sure that wasn't his goal.

no, turning it around just means turning it around. This whole " it must fit your definition in order to be legit" angle you like to play is quite old.

Even Obama admits he failed at whatever it was he was trying to do, yet I am stupid because I think we should take him at his word.
well no, but who thinks you are going to be honest?
 
cause and affect of the 08 crash which started in 06. The problem is you fast food type people want it fixed now when it takes time.

If romney wins, i am giving him one day to fix the mess and then declaring him a failure.

thats how the game is played now.

This recession started in 2007, not 2006, and ended in June of 2009, without any effort from Obama. He hasn't been fixing any mess, he has been screwing up the recovery. The only recessions that have taken years to correct are the great depression and this one.

Sadly, the same remedies were attempted, and the same results obtained. Who could have guessed?

nope, i saw claims things started in 06(be it slowly).

so you admit Obama only had the recession for only a few months.

amusing.
 

Forum List

Back
Top