Obama stimulus is failed

[boedicca]

Can we, who man the ship of state, deny it is somewhat out of control? Our national debt is approaching $1 trillion. A few weeks ago I called such a figure, a trillion dollars, incomprehensible, and I've been trying ever since to think of a way to illustrate how big a trillion really is. And the best I could come up with is that if you had a stack of thousand-dollar bills in your hand only 4 inches high, you'd be a millionaire. A trillion dollars would be a stack of thousand-dollar bills 67 miles high.

That's Ronald Reagan complaining about the national debt...

...in February of 1981. The debt then nearly tripled over the course of his presidency.

During the Reagan Presidentcy, Dems ran the HoR.

But you still get a point for consistant mindless parisanship.

So that is relevant? Who runs the house now?

What's relevant is how Reagan treated the opposition vs. how Obama does.

Reagan had a good relationship with Tip O'Neill and did not attack the Dems in the vile manner that Obama does the GOP. Nor did he engage in this Faux Bi-Partisanship charade.

 

[Trajan]

ahhh so we are back to strictly a political take, never mind that we have suffered so far an extra 23 months, even if things started straight up from here as long as its all good by sept 2012, no harm no foul......wonderful. hope you enjoyed your time in the pit.

Look, it is true that Reagan's recovery was phenomenal once it took off. I am not arguing that.

My point is that there were years before Reagan's recovery even got started. In fact, the economy sunk into a second recession a year and a half into his presidency.

My entire point here is that as soon as a bad month of unemployment figures comes out, the right seems to froth at the mouth, screaming about how the economy is obviously failing. Meanwhile, the hero of the right, Ronald Reagan, was having a tougher time himself at this point in his presidency.

I don't think that's political, I think that's just common sense. I think the right should occasionally cut the man a LITTLE BIT of slack, as, strictly by the numbers, he's doing better at this point economically than Reagan was.

And again, I LIKE Reagan, I'm not bashing the man, I'm pointing out the facts.

But more importantly, as Samson pointed out: External forces are more important than presidential policies in most cases, so this whole conversation is pretty much futile.

Look; lets get a few things cleared up; there never was a recovery, there was a ‘slouch’ towards a possible recovery.

Adding 75k net jobs at 9.0% unemployment and an average 3.0% is not a recovery, no offense but you apparently have swallowed the media spin, Toro and I had a debate back in early Jan. I told him I would keep my council and wait; I wanted to see 3 months of recovery, and- we got a 1.8% Q1 gdp and 300K net jobs ( if that)….

We have a difference in approach or in marking time; Reagan had to deal with a hostile house, he had to let Volcker do what he did to unbury themselves and get their fiscal house in order. He knew we’d suffer but he also knew or suspected that once past that, or the ‘Reagan’ recession, it would yield growth, he was right. And less than 18 months past the recession? We did.
He spent a trillion dollars? Okay so?

Obama had a supra majority, he passed his stimulus and told us he saw us (at the present time, right now) at 7% unemployment, he has spent how much? 4 Trillion all in? Its 23 months past the ‘event’ that is the recession.

Look its 35 years later, who really cares, I just want results,and as far as slack goes, sorry charlie, the media and the Democratic Party set the bar; IF at 6% unemployment and a gdp of 3.5% with a net job creation per month of 75K to 100k was cause for apocalyptic vitriol in say 2004 then what are we supposed to say now?

 

[NYcarbineer]

During the Reagan Presidentcy, Dems ran the HoR.

But you still get a point for consistant mindless parisanship.

So that is relevant? Who runs the house now?

What's relevant is how Reagan treated the opposition vs. how Obama does.

Reagan had a good relationship with Tip O'Neill and did not attack the Dems in the vile manner that Obama does the GOP. Nor did he engage in this Faux Bi-Partisanship charade.

So you're admitting that the unprecedented budget busting fiscal debacle of the 1980's, that is in fact the genesis of all our fiscal woes today,

was at least as much Reagan's fault as it was the Democrats.

It was a cordial bi-partisan relationship between Reagan and the Democrats that brought this all on. Don't tell me, tell the Reagan worshipers.

 

[Trajan]

Can we, who man the ship of state, deny it is somewhat out of control? Our national debt is approaching $1 trillion. A few weeks ago I called such a figure, a trillion dollars, incomprehensible, and I've been trying ever since to think of a way to illustrate how big a trillion really is. And the best I could come up with is that if you had a stack of thousand-dollar bills in your hand only 4 inches high, you'd be a millionaire. A trillion dollars would be a stack of thousand-dollar bills 67 miles high.

That's Ronald Reagan complaining about the national debt...

...in February of 1981. The debt then nearly tripled over the course of his presidency.

During the Reagan Presidentcy, Dems ran the HoR.

But you still get a point for consistant mindless parisanship.

So that is relevant? Who runs the house now?

wow, reverse engines scotty full throttle...

ahh so the reps by virtue of house majority are co owners now, hummm; so, when the house was democratic and the exec. and senate were rep. and they added the 1 trillion in debt.........no 'co-ownership' there eh?

when the exec. the house and senate are all democratic and we add 5 trillion in debt, hey anit but a thing....

so now, the exec. is dem. the senate is dem and the house is rep. you scream the reps are co-owners......

just uber partisan blathering, thats all that is, there isn't enough ways to slice that bologna.....

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Can we, who man the ship of state, deny it is somewhat out of control? Our national debt is approaching $1 trillion. A few weeks ago I called such a figure, a trillion dollars, incomprehensible, and I've been trying ever since to think of a way to illustrate how big a trillion really is. And the best I could come up with is that if you had a stack of thousand-dollar bills in your hand only 4 inches high, you'd be a millionaire. A trillion dollars would be a stack of thousand-dollar bills 67 miles high.

That's Ronald Reagan complaining about the national debt...

...in February of 1981. The debt then nearly tripled over the course of his presidency.

Wow!

Wow!


Wow!

Obama's single year DEFICIT is bigger than ANy REAGAN BUDGET!!!

Obama Deficit > Reagan Budget

 

[The T]

So that is relevant? Who runs the house now?

What's relevant is how Reagan treated the opposition vs. how Obama does.

Reagan had a good relationship with Tip O'Neill and did not attack the Dems in the vile manner that Obama does the GOP. Nor did he engage in this Faux Bi-Partisanship charade.

So you're admitting that the unprecedented budget busting fiscal debacle of the 1980's, that is in fact the genesis of all our fiscal woes today,

was at least as much Reagan's fault as it was the Democrats.

It was a cordial bi-partisan relationship between Reagan and the Democrats that brought this all on. Don't tell me, tell the Reagan worshipers.

Our WOES today stem back farther than that Carbonated...try 1913...and get back to us.

 

[The T]

During the Reagan Presidentcy, Dems ran the HoR.

But you still get a point for consistant mindless parisanship.

So that is relevant? Who runs the house now?

wow, reverse engines scotty full throttle...

ahh so the reps by virtue of house majority are co owners now, hummm; so, when the house was democratic and the exec. and senate were rep. and they added the 1 trillion in debt.........no 'co-ownership' there eh?

when the exec. the house and senate are all democratic and we add 5 trillion in debt, hey anit but a thing....

so now, the exec. is dem. the senate is dem and the house is rep. you scream the reps are co-owners......

just uber partisan blathering, thats all that is, there isn't enough ways to slice that bologna.....

True...not enough ways to slice it...easier to dismiss it.

 

[The Rabbi]

YTou keep wanting to compare very different periods. Obama did not have to contend with high inflation. Obama did not have the Fed Reserve chairman raise rates to historic highs to combat inflation, which was a long term structural issue in the economy. Obama did not have 3 years of stagflation.
Obama basically inherited a sound economy (McCain was right!) that was in the down part ofthe business cycle. But he took that crisis and rather than waste it used it to remake the economy into a euro-style socialism state. With appropriate results.

Reagan's recovery, hell any recovery, was much stronger than this one and did not require pumping trillions of dollars into the economy.

I'm not even going to say anything to this, I'm just going to repeat what you just said.

"Obama basically inherited a sound economy that was in the down part ofthe business cycle."

Wow... just wow.

On that note, with my point made, I will take my leave to enjoy a beautiful Sunday afternoon.

IOW you cannot refute that.
The recession was caused by lax Fed policies that fed a speculation frenzy in real estate. The recession should have simply washed out the bad bets made by builders,banks, mortgage holders etc. But business was basically sound. Inflation was still low. Companies had good manufacturing capability. Wages were in check, American companies competed successfully with foreign companies in other markets.
THis is unlike the Reagan years when the hangover of protectionism and unions had left us with vast uncompetitive enterprises in autos, steel, mining, railroads etc etc.

 

[NYcarbineer]

During the Reagan Presidentcy, Dems ran the HoR.

But you still get a point for consistant mindless parisanship.

So that is relevant? Who runs the house now?

wow, reverse engines scotty full throttle...

ahh so the reps by virtue of house majority are co owners now, hummm; so, when the house was democratic and the exec. and senate were rep. and they added the 1 trillion in debt.........no 'co-ownership' there eh?

when the exec. the house and senate are all democratic and we add 5 trillion in debt, hey anit but a thing....

so now, the exec. is dem. the senate is dem and the house is rep. you scream the reps are co-owners......

just uber partisan blathering, thats all that is, there isn't enough ways to slice that bologna.....

I'm not sure who you are blaming for the addition to the debt from 2001 to 2007. Could you clarify that?

 

[NYcarbineer]

That's wonderful: I hope you continue to compare Obama to Reagan, especially as November 2012 draws nearer:

As you see, Reagan had the unemployment issue whipped BEFORE he was re-elected in 1984: No Doubt Obama will do much better, having spent $$Trillions in Stimulous.

You're right. He did have it licked, after years of double digit unemployment.

But at THIS point in his presidency, that was NOT the case.

And, unless my calendar is off, it doesn't seem to be September 2012 at the moment.

At this point in Reagan's first term, we were still in the 1981-1982 recession. At this point in Obama's, we are 23 months into what is supposed to be a recovery.

Obama's recovery is no better than being in a recession...in fact it's worse, considering the massive amounts of taxpayer money that have been wasted on his destructive, futile policies.

So we can't blame Reagan for the deep 1981 - 1982 recession because it occurred DURING his presidency.

lol, good one.

 

[Trajan]

So that is relevant? Who runs the house now?

wow, reverse engines scotty full throttle...

ahh so the reps by virtue of house majority are co owners now, hummm; so, when the house was democratic and the exec. and senate were rep. and they added the 1 trillion in debt.........no 'co-ownership' there eh?

when the exec. the house and senate are all democratic and we add 5 trillion in debt, hey anit but a thing....

so now, the exec. is dem. the senate is dem and the house is rep. you scream the reps are co-owners......

just uber partisan blathering, thats all that is, there isn't enough ways to slice that bologna.....

I'm not sure who you are blaming for the addition to the debt from 2001 to 2007. Could you clarify that?

I am not blaming anyone, I am merely pointing out your overheated pathological hypocrisy.

but, I could be wrong, let me check in with your virtual twin;

 

[NYcarbineer]

Obama's policies, including the Stimulus, have resulted in the worst economic recovery in past century.

If we'd had a proper mix of low taxes, reasonable regulation, restrained government spending and leadership which instilled trust that the policies would remain in place, the private sector would be creating jobs.

Instead, Obama has fulfilled Ayn Rand's predictions. And it's going to get much worse before it gets better.

We've lost almost 500,000 local GOVERNMENT jobs since 2008, not to mention lost state jobs.

The 'restraint' in government spending you're referring to not happening has in fact been happening on a massive scale at the state and local levels,

and contrary to the cockeyed logic of the right, it is not creating jobs, it is killing them.

 

[Trajan]

hey everyone, who volunteers to be a 'bump' in the road...any 'bumpers' out there?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BefoeBwCu7M]YouTube - ‪Obama cops to 'bumps' on road to recovery [NBC: 6-03-2011]‬‏[/ame]

and notice UpChuck Todds flat out lie (see; water carrying) , for obama, who said that; " Chrysler has paid back every dime back"...... what a sham this media is........

 

[The T]

hey everyone, who volunteers to be a 'bump' in the road...any 'bumpers' out there?

YouTube - ‪Obama cops to 'bumps' on road to recovery [NBC: 6-03-2011]‬‏

and notice UpChuck Todds flat out lie (see; water carrying) , for obama, who said that; " Chrysler has paid back every dime back"...... what a sham this media is........

F. Chuck Tood is an idiot...and did Obama include the speedbumps that he was responsible for like throwing the economy under his Marxist Bus?

 

[The T]

wow, reverse engines scotty full throttle...

ahh so the reps by virtue of house majority are co owners now, hummm; so, when the house was democratic and the exec. and senate were rep. and they added the 1 trillion in debt.........no 'co-ownership' there eh?

when the exec. the house and senate are all democratic and we add 5 trillion in debt, hey anit but a thing....

so now, the exec. is dem. the senate is dem and the house is rep. you scream the reps are co-owners......

just uber partisan blathering, thats all that is, there isn't enough ways to slice that bologna.....

I'm not sure who you are blaming for the addition to the debt from 2001 to 2007. Could you clarify that?

I am not blaming anyone, I am merely pointing out your overheated pathological hypocrisy.

but, I could be wrong, let me check in with your virtual twin;

Made as much sense.

 

[Trajan]

snip-

In other bad news, the average duration of those out of work jumped by 1.4 weeks to 39.7 in May, and the percentage of those jobless for at least six months climbed by 1.7% to 45.1%. The overall labor participation rate stayed the same at 64.2%, but as the nearby chart shows that rate has now fallen to its lowest rate since the mid-1980s.

This is an important economic measure because it reflects the opportunities that Americans perceive in the marketplace. In the long boom from the Reagan years through 2000 or so, the labor participation rate took a historic leap upward as women, immigrants and others entered the job market. The rate dipped after the 2001-2002 downturn, and we recall the media giving much attention to a Federal Reserve study raising alarms even as the rate began to climb again in mid-decade. It has now fallen off a cliff, and we doubt this is what Mr. Goolsbee means when he hails the "trajectory of the economy."



snip-

The same economists and pundits who promoted the economic policies of the last four years are now lamenting the jobs bust and demanding that Washington double down: More stimulus spending, more Federal Reserve easing, more temporary tax rebates. They can't explain why these policies have failed to date, but we are supposed to rinse and repeat.

The real "bumps on the road" to recovery are these policies and the larger climate of hostility toward job creators that still prevails in Washington. A National Labor Relations Board that wants to stop businesses from moving plants; a $20 billion political raid on banks over foreclosures; hundreds of major new regulations from ObamaCare, Dodd-Frank and the EPA's war on carbon energy; federal deficits that Mr. Obama says require higher taxes; near-zero interest rates for 30 months that have sent commodity prices soaring, and so much more.

The economy doesn't need more of this. It needs a return to the growth agenda that created the long post-1982 boom.

Review & Outlook: 'Bumps on the Road' - WSJ.com

 

[NYcarbineer]

wow, reverse engines scotty full throttle...

ahh so the reps by virtue of house majority are co owners now, hummm; so, when the house was democratic and the exec. and senate were rep. and they added the 1 trillion in debt.........no 'co-ownership' there eh?

when the exec. the house and senate are all democratic and we add 5 trillion in debt, hey anit but a thing....

so now, the exec. is dem. the senate is dem and the house is rep. you scream the reps are co-owners......

just uber partisan blathering, thats all that is, there isn't enough ways to slice that bologna.....

I'm not sure who you are blaming for the addition to the debt from 2001 to 2007. Could you clarify that?

I am not blaming anyone, I am merely pointing out your overheated pathological hypocrisy.

but, I could be wrong, let me check in with your virtual twin;

You're not blaming anyone?

Then you hold Obama and the Democratic Congress blameless for the 2009/2010 deficits.

Okay.

 

[Dot Com]

How long did it take to get out of the last economic downturn of this magnitude? The Repubs are just screaming wolf for partisan political gain when the fact is, it's going to take a while to get out of the Bu$h II recession.

 

[Trajan]

I'm not sure who you are blaming for the addition to the debt from 2001 to 2007. Could you clarify that?

I am not blaming anyone, I am merely pointing out your overheated pathological hypocrisy.

but, I could be wrong, let me check in with your virtual twin;

You're not blaming anyone?

Then you hold Obama and the Democratic Congress blameless for the 2009/2010 deficits.

Okay.

you're inability to hold a consistent thought or conversation should be the model for a research paper at one of our national laboratories.

Blame? hold up, let me check in with Moonbat-

 

[WillowTree]

How long did it take to get out of the last economic downturn of this magnitude? The Repubs are just screaming wolf for partisan political gain when the fact is, it's going to take a while to get out of the Bu$h II recession.

kinda like those fucking demonrats portraying Rayan shoving grandma over the cliff huh.. hypocrite. and just for your infoll this is the obama economy. Bush left office three years ago.. what a moron.