Paul Ryan Defended Stimulus -- When George W. Bush Wanted It In 2002

Synthaholic

Diamond Member
Jul 21, 2010
71,475
51,099
3,605
*
Paul Ryan Defended Stimulus -- When George W. Bush Wanted It In 2002





WASHINGTON - When Congressman Paul Ryan has been asked the past few years about the value of stimulus to the sagging economy and the nation's jobless, the Wisconsin Republican has dismissed it as meaningless, and dubbed it "sugar-high economics."

But that's when President Obama is pushing for the spending. When it was President George W. Bush arguing for more stimulus to boost a slow economy in the early 2000s, Ryan's economic analysis was entirely different.

"What we're trying to accomplish today with the passage of this third stimulus package is to create jobs and help the unemployed," Ryan said, in comments unearthed by MSNBC's "Up with Chris Hayes" and provided to HuffPost. "What we're trying to accomplish is to pass the kinds of legislation that when they've passed in the past have grown the economy and gotten people back to work."


Video of the comments will be aired at 8:00 a.m. Sunday on MSNBC.
"In recessions unemployment lags on well after a recovery has taken place," Ryan accurately noted in 2002.


Conservatives have routinely mocked Vice President Joe Biden for arguing that in order to reduce the deficit in the long run, the government needs to spend more now; that sentiment is lampooned in a recent pro-Republican campaign ad. But Biden's analysis -- that the government needs to juice the economy to promote growth, or else revenue will fall long term -- is one that Ryan himself articulated cogently back when the GOP was urging stimulus. Ryan called such stimulus a "constructive answer" worked out on "a bipartisan basis." Opponents of stimulus, Ryan said, ought to "drop the demagoguery."


"We've got to get the engine of economic growth growing again because we now know, because of recession, we don't have the revenues that we wanted to, we don't have the revenues we need, to fix Medicare, to fix Social Security, to fix these issues. We've got to get Americans back to work. Then the surpluses come back, then the jobs come back. That is the constructive answer we're trying to accomplish here on, yes, a bipartisan basis. I urge members to drop the demagoguery and to pass this bill to help us work together to get the American people back to work and help those people who've lost their jobs," Ryan said.


Bush's stimulus, which included an extension of jobless benefits and resulted in checks being mailed to millions of Americans, was[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7xQvURWKNjM"] signed in March 2002.[/ame]


"We have a lot of laid off workers, and more layoffs are occurring," the congressman continued. "And we know, as a historical fact, that even if our economy begins to slowly recover, unemployment is going to linger on and on well after that recovery takes place. What we have been trying to do starting in October and into December and now is to try and get people back to work. The things we're trying to pass in this bill are the time-tested, proven, bipartisan solutions to get businesses to stop laying off people, to hire people back, and to help those people who have lost their jobs."


.



*snip*



.
 
Last edited:
only the people who didnt really know him yet.

there will be more people KNOWING now
 
August 19, 2012

Bi-Polar Paulie

"As it turns out, Ryan’s stimulus hypocrisy extends back at least an entire decade. In 2002, Republican President George W. Bush proposed a similar — if less ambitious — stimulus plan to the one President Obama signed in 2009. Like Obama, Bush sought to goose the economy through an influx of public sector cash. His stimulus plan included an extension of unemployment benefits and a plan to mail checks directly to millions of Americans. Ryan took to the House floor to defend this plan, accurately noting that additional government spending would help move the economy out of a recession

Of course, Ryan abandoned this understanding of basic Keynesian economics the minute a Democrat moved into the White House, and this is hardly the only example of Ryan suddenly changing his views once Barack Obama became president."

handjob.gif
 
This story just came out at 8am on "Up With Chris", so what's going to be the Republican spin?

Anyone? ... Anyone?
 
Paul Ryan Defended Stimulus -- When George W. Bush Wanted It In 2002





WASHINGTON - When Congressman Paul Ryan has been asked the past few years about the value of stimulus to the sagging economy and the nation's jobless, the Wisconsin Republican has dismissed it as meaningless, and dubbed it "sugar-high economics."

But that's when President Obama is pushing for the spending. When it was President George W. Bush arguing for more stimulus to boost a slow economy in the early 2000s, Ryan's economic analysis was entirely different.

"What we're trying to accomplish today with the passage of this third stimulus package is to create jobs and help the unemployed," Ryan said, in comments unearthed by MSNBC's "Up with Chris Hayes" and provided to HuffPost. "What we're trying to accomplish is to pass the kinds of legislation that when they've passed in the past have grown the economy and gotten people back to work."


Video of the comments will be aired at 8:00 a.m. Sunday on MSNBC.
"In recessions unemployment lags on well after a recovery has taken place," Ryan accurately noted in 2002.


Conservatives have routinely mocked Vice President Joe Biden for arguing that in order to reduce the deficit in the long run, the government needs to spend more now; that sentiment is lampooned in a recent pro-Republican campaign ad. But Biden's analysis -- that the government needs to juice the economy to promote growth, or else revenue will fall long term -- is one that Ryan himself articulated cogently back when the GOP was urging stimulus. Ryan called such stimulus a "constructive answer" worked out on "a bipartisan basis." Opponents of stimulus, Ryan said, ought to "drop the demagoguery."


"We've got to get the engine of economic growth growing again because we now know, because of recession, we don't have the revenues that we wanted to, we don't have the revenues we need, to fix Medicare, to fix Social Security, to fix these issues. We've got to get Americans back to work. Then the surpluses come back, then the jobs come back. That is the constructive answer we're trying to accomplish here on, yes, a bipartisan basis. I urge members to drop the demagoguery and to pass this bill to help us work together to get the American people back to work and help those people who've lost their jobs," Ryan said.


Bush's stimulus, which included an extension of jobless benefits and resulted in checks being mailed to millions of Americans, was signed in March 2002.


"We have a lot of laid off workers, and more layoffs are occurring," the congressman continued. "And we know, as a historical fact, that even if our economy begins to slowly recover, unemployment is going to linger on and on well after that recovery takes place. What we have been trying to do starting in October and into December and now is to try and get people back to work. The things we're trying to pass in this bill are the time-tested, proven, bipartisan solutions to get businesses to stop laying off people, to hire people back, and to help those people who have lost their jobs."


.



*snip*



.

what form of stimulus did the "package" stipulate, exactly?

b) we already know they sent out checks for $200 etc. as a form of stimulus.....


I was against that then and ma now.....so?
 
Paul Ryan Defended Stimulus -- When George W. Bush Wanted It In 2002





WASHINGTON - When Congressman Paul Ryan has been asked the past few years about the value of stimulus to the sagging economy and the nation's jobless, the Wisconsin Republican has dismissed it as meaningless, and dubbed it "sugar-high economics."

But that's when President Obama is pushing for the spending. When it was President George W. Bush arguing for more stimulus to boost a slow economy in the early 2000s, Ryan's economic analysis was entirely different.

"What we're trying to accomplish today with the passage of this third stimulus package is to create jobs and help the unemployed," Ryan said, in comments unearthed by MSNBC's "Up with Chris Hayes" and provided to HuffPost. "What we're trying to accomplish is to pass the kinds of legislation that when they've passed in the past have grown the economy and gotten people back to work."


Video of the comments will be aired at 8:00 a.m. Sunday on MSNBC.
"In recessions unemployment lags on well after a recovery has taken place," Ryan accurately noted in 2002.


Conservatives have routinely mocked Vice President Joe Biden for arguing that in order to reduce the deficit in the long run, the government needs to spend more now; that sentiment is lampooned in a recent pro-Republican campaign ad. But Biden's analysis -- that the government needs to juice the economy to promote growth, or else revenue will fall long term -- is one that Ryan himself articulated cogently back when the GOP was urging stimulus. Ryan called such stimulus a "constructive answer" worked out on "a bipartisan basis." Opponents of stimulus, Ryan said, ought to "drop the demagoguery."


"We've got to get the engine of economic growth growing again because we now know, because of recession, we don't have the revenues that we wanted to, we don't have the revenues we need, to fix Medicare, to fix Social Security, to fix these issues. We've got to get Americans back to work. Then the surpluses come back, then the jobs come back. That is the constructive answer we're trying to accomplish here on, yes, a bipartisan basis. I urge members to drop the demagoguery and to pass this bill to help us work together to get the American people back to work and help those people who've lost their jobs," Ryan said.


Bush's stimulus, which included an extension of jobless benefits and resulted in checks being mailed to millions of Americans, was signed in March 2002.


"We have a lot of laid off workers, and more layoffs are occurring," the congressman continued. "And we know, as a historical fact, that even if our economy begins to slowly recover, unemployment is going to linger on and on well after that recovery takes place. What we have been trying to do starting in October and into December and now is to try and get people back to work. The things we're trying to pass in this bill are the time-tested, proven, bipartisan solutions to get businesses to stop laying off people, to hire people back, and to help those people who have lost their jobs."


.



*snip*



.

what form of stimulus did the "package" stipulate, exactly?

b) we already know they sent out checks for $200 etc. as a form of stimulus.....


I was against that then and ma now.....so?

Nobody cares about whether you are for/against it.

It's Ryan who is running for Vice-President.
 
Paul Ryan is a lying hypocrite.

Who is shocked?

Bush's stimulus was a CASH rebate stimulus to those who paid taxes and his stimulus was only $500-$1,000 per taxpayer....

Of course Obama's stimulus put every US citizen - man, woman or child $50,000 in debt a pop...

Bush actually gave people money while Obama gave states money to spend on union contracts, pension bailouts and the expansion of government employees...

I support Bush's stimulus 100%..... I don't know what an extra 500 or 1,000 bucks will do - it was surely spent and it was a nice effort....

Obama could have given every taxpayer $25,000 dollars and the cost of his stimulus would have been 1/3rd of what it is.....
 
Last edited:
Paul Ryan Defended Stimulus -- When George W. Bush Wanted It In 2002





WASHINGTON - When Congressman Paul Ryan has been asked the past few years about the value of stimulus to the sagging economy and the nation's jobless, the Wisconsin Republican has dismissed it as meaningless, and dubbed it "sugar-high economics."

But that's when President Obama is pushing for the spending. When it was President George W. Bush arguing for more stimulus to boost a slow economy in the early 2000s, Ryan's economic analysis was entirely different.

"What we're trying to accomplish today with the passage of this third stimulus package is to create jobs and help the unemployed," Ryan said, in comments unearthed by MSNBC's "Up with Chris Hayes" and provided to HuffPost. "What we're trying to accomplish is to pass the kinds of legislation that when they've passed in the past have grown the economy and gotten people back to work."


Video of the comments will be aired at 8:00 a.m. Sunday on MSNBC.
"In recessions unemployment lags on well after a recovery has taken place," Ryan accurately noted in 2002.


Conservatives have routinely mocked Vice President Joe Biden for arguing that in order to reduce the deficit in the long run, the government needs to spend more now; that sentiment is lampooned in a recent pro-Republican campaign ad. But Biden's analysis -- that the government needs to juice the economy to promote growth, or else revenue will fall long term -- is one that Ryan himself articulated cogently back when the GOP was urging stimulus. Ryan called such stimulus a "constructive answer" worked out on "a bipartisan basis." Opponents of stimulus, Ryan said, ought to "drop the demagoguery."


"We've got to get the engine of economic growth growing again because we now know, because of recession, we don't have the revenues that we wanted to, we don't have the revenues we need, to fix Medicare, to fix Social Security, to fix these issues. We've got to get Americans back to work. Then the surpluses come back, then the jobs come back. That is the constructive answer we're trying to accomplish here on, yes, a bipartisan basis. I urge members to drop the demagoguery and to pass this bill to help us work together to get the American people back to work and help those people who've lost their jobs," Ryan said.


Bush's stimulus, which included an extension of jobless benefits and resulted in checks being mailed to millions of Americans, was signed in March 2002.


"We have a lot of laid off workers, and more layoffs are occurring," the congressman continued. "And we know, as a historical fact, that even if our economy begins to slowly recover, unemployment is going to linger on and on well after that recovery takes place. What we have been trying to do starting in October and into December and now is to try and get people back to work. The things we're trying to pass in this bill are the time-tested, proven, bipartisan solutions to get businesses to stop laying off people, to hire people back, and to help those people who have lost their jobs."


.



*snip*



.

what form of stimulus did the "package" stipulate, exactly?

b) we already know they sent out checks for $200 etc. as a form of stimulus.....


I was against that then and ma now.....so?

I got $500 I think.....

Still it was small and it went to taxpayers and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that...

I supported it then and I do now.

As a matter of fact I have always said if Obama just gave US taxpayers 50k a pop (which is what every US citizen owes at this point due to Obamas stimulus spending) the economy would be back on track by now....
 
Paul Ryan is a lying hypocrite.

Who is shocked?

Bush's stimulus was a CASH rebate stimulus to those who paid taxes and his stimulus was only $500-$1,000 per taxpayer....

Of course Obama's stimulus put every US citizen - man, woman or child $50,000 in debt a pop...

Bush actually gave people money while Obama gave states money to spend on union contracts, pension bailouts and the expansion of government employees...

I support Bush's stimulus 100%..... I don't know what an extra 500 or 1,000 bucks will do - it was surely spent and it was a nice effort....

Obama could have given every taxpayer $25,000 dollars and the cost of his stimulus would have been 1/3rd of what it is.....

Did your tax accountant forget to file your schedule M for the first two years Obama was in office?
 
Paul Ryan is a lying hypocrite.

Who is shocked?

Name a politician who isn't. But that thing you brought was just lazy. their are so many more votes that are not old news that he will never have to answer for because people are just to lazy to read thees guys voting records. Instead, most just parrot what there preferred news outlets tell them to. Its sad.
 
Paul Ryan is a lying hypocrite.

Who is shocked?

Bush's stimulus was a CASH rebate stimulus to those who paid taxes and his stimulus was only $500-$1,000 per taxpayer....

Of course Obama's stimulus put every US citizen - man, woman or child $50,000 in debt a pop...

Bush actually gave people money while Obama gave states money to spend on union contracts, pension bailouts and the expansion of government employees...

I support Bush's stimulus 100%..... I don't know what an extra 500 or 1,000 bucks will do - it was surely spent and it was a nice effort....

Obama could have given every taxpayer $25,000 dollars and the cost of his stimulus would have been 1/3rd of what it is.....

Did your tax accountant forget to file your schedule M for the first two years Obama was in office?

:lol:
 
Bush's stimulus was a CASH rebate stimulus to those who paid taxes and his stimulus was only $500-$1,000 per taxpayer....

Of course Obama's stimulus put every US citizen - man, woman or child $50,000 in debt a pop...

Bush actually gave people money while Obama gave states money to spend on union contracts, pension bailouts and the expansion of government employees...

I support Bush's stimulus 100%..... I don't know what an extra 500 or 1,000 bucks will do - it was surely spent and it was a nice effort....

Obama could have given every taxpayer $25,000 dollars and the cost of his stimulus would have been 1/3rd of what it is.....

Did your tax accountant forget to file your schedule M for the first two years Obama was in office?

:lol:

LOL

You have no idea what the schedule M is, do you brainiac?
 
Bush's stimulus and Obama's aren't in the same league - nor are they in the same field or state...

Bush gave taxpaying individuals a small amount of money to spend at the individuals discretion - Obama gave states billions to spend on private and public sector unions..

Bush didn't spend nearly a trillion dollars while Obama did and neither have nothing to show for it....

Bush's idea was WAY better tho considering it was really nothing more than a no interest loan that would eventually be paid back via taxes......

Obamafuck on the other hand just put every US citizen 50k into debt then blew it all on unions.....

What do I get for 50 grand??? oh a bunch of union construction workers sitting on their asses blocking the fucking road and causing a traffic jam, cocky ass, slow ass government employees at the DMV, public school teachers who failed to teach a 15-year-old how to spell "cat" who now want their pensions bailed out and a 33% raise - cops who do nothing but beat and harass people among other things....

^^ Obama gave me that so I think I will go with Bush for 500...
 

Forum List

Back
Top