The truth about the Stimulous

[JimH52]

Northwest Voices | The truth needle: Stimulus created jobs | Seattle Times Newspaper

 

[Revere]

Uh, did you read more than the headline?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I'll tell you this, Obama and the Dems forever killed the myth of the success of Keynesian economics and for that we are grateful.

 

[Wry Catcher]

What I find most interesting is many on the right hope for gridlock. It is self evident the stimulus provided jobs, jobs which paid for food, clothing and shelter as well as projects (noted in the third letter) and that those who worked paid taxes, paid their mortgage and stayed off of public assistance.

The problem with the tea party mentality is it is based on magical thinking, much like a small child, they believe only good will come out of a Republican take over of the Congress. Cutting taxes will explode the deficit, so less can be spent on domestic matters which maybe their goal.
If the government cannot afford services it will naturally shrink - creating higher unemployment, more foreclosures and the Grover Norquist Republicans will have accomplished what they set out to do - a transfer of wealth from the middle class to the wealthy and create a true plutocracy.
It has already begun as is evident in housing. People lose their homes, the homes reamin on the market for months, and as prices drop the rich move in (NOT LITERALLY) and buy up homes which they rent, deprecite and from their tax free income buy more.
Soon whole neighborhoods will be occupied by renters, living in houses with little maintainance and even less police protection - for local governments will need to layoff deputies/officers. More guns will be sold, more crime is likely and soon Americans will be sneaking across the border into Canada (WHICH WILL NEED TO BUILD A FENCE TO KEEP US OUT).

Of course this is an unlikely scenario, it might be much worse.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The check is in the mail.

I won't cum in your mouth.

Stimulus created jobs.

 

[Wry Catcher]

The check is in the mail.

I won't cum in your mouth.

Stimulus created jobs.

See, this post is another crude idiotgram from a RWer of less than average intelligence. He posts this shit to move my post immediate to his further down the page, hoping others won't have an opportunity to read it.
Had he an ounce of intergirty (it would out weigh his brain) he would have included my post in his idiotgram.
CF has never posted anything of substance, it is the same old RW rhetoric day after day; rhetoric he simply parrots.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

If you find those lies offensive and crude, how's this:

We need to pass the Stimulus to keep unemployment under 8%!!!

Gallup Finds U.S. Unemployment at 10.0% in Mid-October (almost 2 years later)

Gallup Finds U.S. Unemployment at 10.0% in Mid-October

 

[iamwhatiseem]

The Stimulus created jobs...I don't know if anyone seriously denies that.

However questions abound:

1) How many jobs? Proven over and over jobs claimed to have been created have been exaggerated, outright fabricated and jobs were claimed that already existed.
2) What kind of jobs? Temporary? Permanent? Well Paying?
3) Were the jobs needed, or have projects been invented to "create jobs"? As with number one there are several several several "jobs" creates that were absolute waste of taxpayer money - especially in research.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The only thing the Stimulus created was the phony "Saved or created" metric

 

[PoliticalChic]

What I find most interesting is many on the right hope for gridlock. It is self evident the stimulus provided jobs, jobs which paid for food, clothing and shelter as well as projects (noted in the third letter) and that those who worked paid taxes, paid their mortgage and stayed off of public assistance.

The problem with the tea party mentality is it is based on magical thinking, much like a small child, they believe only good will come out of a Republican take over of the Congress. Cutting taxes will explode the deficit, so less can be spent on domestic matters which maybe their goal.
If the government cannot afford services it will naturally shrink - creating higher unemployment, more foreclosures and the Grover Norquist Republicans will have accomplished what they set out to do - a transfer of wealth from the middle class to the wealthy and create a true plutocracy.
It has already begun as is evident in housing. People lose their homes, the homes reamin on the market for months, and as prices drop the rich move in (NOT LITERALLY) and buy up homes which they rent, deprecite and from their tax free income buy more.
Soon whole neighborhoods will be occupied by renters, living in houses with little maintainance and even less police protection - for local governments will need to layoff deputies/officers. More guns will be sold, more crime is likely and soon Americans will be sneaking across the border into Canada (WHICH WILL NEED TO BUILD A FENCE TO KEEP US OUT).

Of course this is an unlikely scenario, it might be much worse.

"...it might be much worse. "

If 'ifs' and 'buts' were candy nuts, we'd all have a Merry Christmas.

How seemingly intelligent folks settle into the pap that liberals dole out...

and above is a prime example.

Now, wouldn't it be more efficacious to follow examples that actually worked in the past? Or would that be too 'conservative' for you lefties?

Let's say there had been a severe recession, and it occurred right here in the USA, and by zero governmental interference, the recession...wallah!...vanished in a year!!!

Wow- if only there was such experience to base our actions on,.....and here it is:

1. "America's greatest depression fighter was Warren Gamaliel Harding. An Ohio senator when he was elected president in 1920, he followed the much praised Woodrow Wilson— who had brought America into World War I, built up huge federal bureaucracies, imprisoned dissenters, and incurred $25 billion of debt.

Harding inherited Wilson's mess— in particular, a post–World War I depression that was almost as severe, from peak to trough, as the Great Contraction from 1929 to 1933 that FDR would later inherit. The estimated gross national product plunged 24 percent from $91.5 billion in 1920 to $69.6 billion in 1921. The number of unemployed people jumped from 2.1 million to 4.9 million.

One of Harding's campaign slogans was "less government in business," and it served him well. Harding embraced the advice of Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon and called for tax cuts in his first message to Congress on April 12, 1921. The highest taxes, on corporate revenues and "excess" profits, were to be cut. Personal income taxes were to be left as is, with a top rate of 8 percent of incomes above $4,000. Harding recognized the crucial importance of encouraging the investment that is essential for growth and jobs, something that FDR never did.

Powerful senators, however, favored giving bonuses to veterans, as 38 states had done. But such spending increases would have put upward pressure on taxes. On July 12, 1921, Harding went to the Senate and urged tax and spending cuts." http://www.n-philes.com/forums/showpost.php?p=50819272&postcount=1


2. "Instead of bailing out failing businesses, expanding government, and redistributing taxpayer money with a "stimulus" plan, Harding responded by cutting spending and removing burdensome regulations and taxes. During his campaign, he argued, "We need vastly more freedom than we do regulation." In stark contrast with the Bush-Obama response of ever-more government spending and debt, Harding had federal spending cut in half between 1920 and 1922 and ultimately ran a surplus.

As a result, the recession that started in 1920 ended before 1923. Lower taxes and reduced regulation helped America's economy quickly adjust after the war as entrepreneurs and capital were freed to create jobs and push the economy to recover. Harding's free market policies lead to the Roaring Twenties, known for technological advances, women's rights, the explosion of the middle class, and some of the most rapid economic growth in American history. Still, he is ranked as one of the worst presidents by many in academia's ivory tower."
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/02/obama_should_channel_harding_n.htm


Liberals and Conservatives differ in the way to proceed. For Conservatives, data informs policy. (“More Guns, Less Crime” and “Mass murderers apparently can’t read, since they are constantly shooting up ‘gun-free zones.’”- Coulter)

We use Conservative principles to the best of our ability, but when confronting new and original venues, we believe in testing, and analysis of the results of the tests. For liberals, feeling passes for knowing; it is based on emotion often to the exclusion of thinking.

Harding or Obama? Which strategy works?

 

[Wry Catcher]

What I find most interesting is many on the right hope for gridlock. It is self evident the stimulus provided jobs, jobs which paid for food, clothing and shelter as well as projects (noted in the third letter) and that those who worked paid taxes, paid their mortgage and stayed off of public assistance.

The problem with the tea party mentality is it is based on magical thinking, much like a small child, they believe only good will come out of a Republican take over of the Congress. Cutting taxes will explode the deficit, so less can be spent on domestic matters which maybe their goal.
If the government cannot afford services it will naturally shrink - creating higher unemployment, more foreclosures and the Grover Norquist Republicans will have accomplished what they set out to do - a transfer of wealth from the middle class to the wealthy and create a true plutocracy.
It has already begun as is evident in housing. People lose their homes, the homes reamin on the market for months, and as prices drop the rich move in (NOT LITERALLY) and buy up homes which they rent, deprecite and from their tax free income buy more.
Soon whole neighborhoods will be occupied by renters, living in houses with little maintainance and even less police protection - for local governments will need to layoff deputies/officers. More guns will be sold, more crime is likely and soon Americans will be sneaking across the border into Canada (WHICH WILL NEED TO BUILD A FENCE TO KEEP US OUT).

Of course this is an unlikely scenario, it might be much worse.

"...it might be much worse. "

If 'ifs' and 'buts' were candy nuts, we'd all have a Merry Christmas.

How seemingly intelligent folks settle into the pap that liberals dole out...

and above is a prime example.

Now, wouldn't it be more efficacious to follow examples that actually worked in the past? Or would that be too 'conservative' for you lefties?

Let's say there had been a severe recession, and it occurred right here in the USA, and by zero governmental interference, the recession...wallah!...vanished in a year!!!

Wow- if only there was such experience to base our actions on,.....and here it is:

1. "America's greatest depression fighter was Warren Gamaliel Harding. An Ohio senator when he was elected president in 1920, he followed the much praised Woodrow Wilson— who had brought America into World War I, built up huge federal bureaucracies, imprisoned dissenters, and incurred $25 billion of debt.

Harding inherited Wilson's mess— in particular, a post–World War I depression that was almost as severe, from peak to trough, as the Great Contraction from 1929 to 1933 that FDR would later inherit. The estimated gross national product plunged 24 percent from $91.5 billion in 1920 to $69.6 billion in 1921. The number of unemployed people jumped from 2.1 million to 4.9 million.

One of Harding's campaign slogans was "less government in business," and it served him well. Harding embraced the advice of Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon and called for tax cuts in his first message to Congress on April 12, 1921. The highest taxes, on corporate revenues and "excess" profits, were to be cut. Personal income taxes were to be left as is, with a top rate of 8 percent of incomes above $4,000. Harding recognized the crucial importance of encouraging the investment that is essential for growth and jobs, something that FDR never did.

Powerful senators, however, favored giving bonuses to veterans, as 38 states had done. But such spending increases would have put upward pressure on taxes. On July 12, 1921, Harding went to the Senate and urged tax and spending cuts." http://www.n-philes.com/forums/showpost.php?p=50819272&postcount=1


2. "Instead of bailing out failing businesses, expanding government, and redistributing taxpayer money with a "stimulus" plan, Harding responded by cutting spending and removing burdensome regulations and taxes. During his campaign, he argued, "We need vastly more freedom than we do regulation." In stark contrast with the Bush-Obama response of ever-more government spending and debt, Harding had federal spending cut in half between 1920 and 1922 and ultimately ran a surplus.

As a result, the recession that started in 1920 ended before 1923. Lower taxes and reduced regulation helped America's economy quickly adjust after the war as entrepreneurs and capital were freed to create jobs and push the economy to recover. Harding's free market policies lead to the Roaring Twenties, known for technological advances, women's rights, the explosion of the middle class, and some of the most rapid economic growth in American history. Still, he is ranked as one of the worst presidents by many in academia's ivory tower."
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/02/obama_should_channel_harding_n.htm


Liberals and Conservatives differ in the way to proceed. For Conservatives, data informs policy. (“More Guns, Less Crime” and “Mass murderers apparently can’t read, since they are constantly shooting up ‘gun-free zones.’”- Coulter)

We use Conservative principles to the best of our ability, but when confronting new and original venues, we believe in testing, and analysis of the results of the tests. For liberals, feeling passes for knowing; it is based on emotion often to the exclusion of thinking.

Harding or Obama? Which strategy works?

I'm beginning to believe the only book you've ever read is one which hoped to place the great depression on Wilson. Maybe you might site the book which seems to have framed your entire political beliefs?

 

[Norman]

The truth about the stimulus?

- It wasn't big enough.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

What I find most interesting is many on the right hope for gridlock. It is self evident the stimulus provided jobs, jobs which paid for food, clothing and shelter as well as projects (noted in the third letter) and that those who worked paid taxes, paid their mortgage and stayed off of public assistance.

The problem with the tea party mentality is it is based on magical thinking, much like a small child, they believe only good will come out of a Republican take over of the Congress. Cutting taxes will explode the deficit, so less can be spent on domestic matters which maybe their goal.
If the government cannot afford services it will naturally shrink - creating higher unemployment, more foreclosures and the Grover Norquist Republicans will have accomplished what they set out to do - a transfer of wealth from the middle class to the wealthy and create a true plutocracy.
It has already begun as is evident in housing. People lose their homes, the homes reamin on the market for months, and as prices drop the rich move in (NOT LITERALLY) and buy up homes which they rent, deprecite and from their tax free income buy more.
Soon whole neighborhoods will be occupied by renters, living in houses with little maintainance and even less police protection - for local governments will need to layoff deputies/officers. More guns will be sold, more crime is likely and soon Americans will be sneaking across the border into Canada (WHICH WILL NEED TO BUILD A FENCE TO KEEP US OUT).

Of course this is an unlikely scenario, it might be much worse.

"...it might be much worse. "

If 'ifs' and 'buts' were candy nuts, we'd all have a Merry Christmas.

How seemingly intelligent folks settle into the pap that liberals dole out...

and above is a prime example.

Now, wouldn't it be more efficacious to follow examples that actually worked in the past? Or would that be too 'conservative' for you lefties?

Let's say there had been a severe recession, and it occurred right here in the USA, and by zero governmental interference, the recession...wallah!...vanished in a year!!!

Wow- if only there was such experience to base our actions on,.....and here it is:

1. "America's greatest depression fighter was Warren Gamaliel Harding. An Ohio senator when he was elected president in 1920, he followed the much praised Woodrow Wilson— who had brought America into World War I, built up huge federal bureaucracies, imprisoned dissenters, and incurred $25 billion of debt.

Harding inherited Wilson's mess— in particular, a post–World War I depression that was almost as severe, from peak to trough, as the Great Contraction from 1929 to 1933 that FDR would later inherit. The estimated gross national product plunged 24 percent from $91.5 billion in 1920 to $69.6 billion in 1921. The number of unemployed people jumped from 2.1 million to 4.9 million.

One of Harding's campaign slogans was "less government in business," and it served him well. Harding embraced the advice of Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon and called for tax cuts in his first message to Congress on April 12, 1921. The highest taxes, on corporate revenues and "excess" profits, were to be cut. Personal income taxes were to be left as is, with a top rate of 8 percent of incomes above $4,000. Harding recognized the crucial importance of encouraging the investment that is essential for growth and jobs, something that FDR never did.

Powerful senators, however, favored giving bonuses to veterans, as 38 states had done. But such spending increases would have put upward pressure on taxes. On July 12, 1921, Harding went to the Senate and urged tax and spending cuts." http://www.n-philes.com/forums/showpost.php?p=50819272&postcount=1


2. "Instead of bailing out failing businesses, expanding government, and redistributing taxpayer money with a "stimulus" plan, Harding responded by cutting spending and removing burdensome regulations and taxes. During his campaign, he argued, "We need vastly more freedom than we do regulation." In stark contrast with the Bush-Obama response of ever-more government spending and debt, Harding had federal spending cut in half between 1920 and 1922 and ultimately ran a surplus.

As a result, the recession that started in 1920 ended before 1923. Lower taxes and reduced regulation helped America's economy quickly adjust after the war as entrepreneurs and capital were freed to create jobs and push the economy to recover. Harding's free market policies lead to the Roaring Twenties, known for technological advances, women's rights, the explosion of the middle class, and some of the most rapid economic growth in American history. Still, he is ranked as one of the worst presidents by many in academia's ivory tower."
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/02/obama_should_channel_harding_n.htm


Liberals and Conservatives differ in the way to proceed. For Conservatives, data informs policy. (“More Guns, Less Crime” and “Mass murderers apparently can’t read, since they are constantly shooting up ‘gun-free zones.’”- Coulter)

We use Conservative principles to the best of our ability, but when confronting new and original venues, we believe in testing, and analysis of the results of the tests. For liberals, feeling passes for knowing; it is based on emotion often to the exclusion of thinking.

Harding or Obama? Which strategy works?

^THIIS!!!

Instead of the oft repeated Progressive lie "FDR rescued capitalism from Hoover laissez-faire economics"

 

[PoliticalChic]

What I find most interesting is many on the right hope for gridlock. It is self evident the stimulus provided jobs, jobs which paid for food, clothing and shelter as well as projects (noted in the third letter) and that those who worked paid taxes, paid their mortgage and stayed off of public assistance.

The problem with the tea party mentality is it is based on magical thinking, much like a small child, they believe only good will come out of a Republican take over of the Congress. Cutting taxes will explode the deficit, so less can be spent on domestic matters which maybe their goal.
If the government cannot afford services it will naturally shrink - creating higher unemployment, more foreclosures and the Grover Norquist Republicans will have accomplished what they set out to do - a transfer of wealth from the middle class to the wealthy and create a true plutocracy.
It has already begun as is evident in housing. People lose their homes, the homes reamin on the market for months, and as prices drop the rich move in (NOT LITERALLY) and buy up homes which they rent, deprecite and from their tax free income buy more.
Soon whole neighborhoods will be occupied by renters, living in houses with little maintainance and even less police protection - for local governments will need to layoff deputies/officers. More guns will be sold, more crime is likely and soon Americans will be sneaking across the border into Canada (WHICH WILL NEED TO BUILD A FENCE TO KEEP US OUT).

Of course this is an unlikely scenario, it might be much worse.

"...it might be much worse. "

If 'ifs' and 'buts' were candy nuts, we'd all have a Merry Christmas.

How seemingly intelligent folks settle into the pap that liberals dole out...

and above is a prime example.

Now, wouldn't it be more efficacious to follow examples that actually worked in the past? Or would that be too 'conservative' for you lefties?

Let's say there had been a severe recession, and it occurred right here in the USA, and by zero governmental interference, the recession...wallah!...vanished in a year!!!

Wow- if only there was such experience to base our actions on,.....and here it is:

1. "America's greatest depression fighter was Warren Gamaliel Harding. An Ohio senator when he was elected president in 1920, he followed the much praised Woodrow Wilson— who had brought America into World War I, built up huge federal bureaucracies, imprisoned dissenters, and incurred $25 billion of debt.

Harding inherited Wilson's mess— in particular, a post–World War I depression that was almost as severe, from peak to trough, as the Great Contraction from 1929 to 1933 that FDR would later inherit. The estimated gross national product plunged 24 percent from $91.5 billion in 1920 to $69.6 billion in 1921. The number of unemployed people jumped from 2.1 million to 4.9 million.

One of Harding's campaign slogans was "less government in business," and it served him well. Harding embraced the advice of Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon and called for tax cuts in his first message to Congress on April 12, 1921. The highest taxes, on corporate revenues and "excess" profits, were to be cut. Personal income taxes were to be left as is, with a top rate of 8 percent of incomes above $4,000. Harding recognized the crucial importance of encouraging the investment that is essential for growth and jobs, something that FDR never did.

Powerful senators, however, favored giving bonuses to veterans, as 38 states had done. But such spending increases would have put upward pressure on taxes. On July 12, 1921, Harding went to the Senate and urged tax and spending cuts." http://www.n-philes.com/forums/showpost.php?p=50819272&postcount=1


2. "Instead of bailing out failing businesses, expanding government, and redistributing taxpayer money with a "stimulus" plan, Harding responded by cutting spending and removing burdensome regulations and taxes. During his campaign, he argued, "We need vastly more freedom than we do regulation." In stark contrast with the Bush-Obama response of ever-more government spending and debt, Harding had federal spending cut in half between 1920 and 1922 and ultimately ran a surplus.

As a result, the recession that started in 1920 ended before 1923. Lower taxes and reduced regulation helped America's economy quickly adjust after the war as entrepreneurs and capital were freed to create jobs and push the economy to recover. Harding's free market policies lead to the Roaring Twenties, known for technological advances, women's rights, the explosion of the middle class, and some of the most rapid economic growth in American history. Still, he is ranked as one of the worst presidents by many in academia's ivory tower."
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/02/obama_should_channel_harding_n.htm


Liberals and Conservatives differ in the way to proceed. For Conservatives, data informs policy. (“More Guns, Less Crime” and “Mass murderers apparently can’t read, since they are constantly shooting up ‘gun-free zones.’”- Coulter)

We use Conservative principles to the best of our ability, but when confronting new and original venues, we believe in testing, and analysis of the results of the tests. For liberals, feeling passes for knowing; it is based on emotion often to the exclusion of thinking.

Harding or Obama? Which strategy works?

I'm beginning to believe the only book you've ever read is one which hoped to place the great depression on Wilson. Maybe you might site the book which seems to have framed your entire political beliefs?

What a less than interesting obfuscation...
it's good to see you've been taking careful notes on my posts, it shows that you have a good eye for talent, and that there might be hope for you!


I've searched and searched your response for where you admitted the paucity of liberal responses to either recessions or depressions, and your promise to select a leader in the future who eschews the failed policy of 'stimulus.

Sadly, to give you the ever-growing list of my texts and other reading material would, no doubt, send you into a deep depression...and then I'd feel guilty...for a moment.


Now, back to the point: Harding's policy worked.
Obama's policy failed miserably.

Would you like to comment on the above summary, or even about my comparison of the modus operandi of liberal and conservatives?

Or, simply continue to babble, if that is the limit of your ability. Whatever works for you.

 

[Wry Catcher]

If the conservative axioms of cut taxes, cut regulations actually worked, we would be in an economic boom. President Bush inherited an economy in correction, but one which had experienced at least two corrections during President Clinton's administration.
President Clinton offered targeted tax cuts which primarily benefited the middle-class family raising folks, and the money saved by this population stimulated the economy.
Even before he and VP Cheney were appionted to office, they called for a tax cut, suggesting that not to do so would put our economy into a deeper recession.
What happened next was the attack on the WTC. A tax cut (actually two) and two wars is a prescription for economic disaster and that's what happened.
As for unregulated capitalism, a study of the economy post WWI up to the election of FDR is worthy of reading. For those interested, a brief reading of what occured in France pre 1789 is worthwhile too.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

If the conservative axioms of cut taxes, cut regulations actually worked, we would be in an economic boom. President Bush inherited an economy in correction, but one which had experienced at least two corrections during President Clinton's administration.
President Clinton offered targeted tax cuts which primarily benefited the middle-class family raising folks, and the money saved by this population stimulated the economy.
Even before he and VP Cheney were appionted to office, they called for a tax cut, suggesting that not to do so would put our economy into a deeper recession.
What happened next was the attack on the WTC. A tax cut (actually two) and two wars is a prescription for economic disaster and that's what happened.
As for unregulated capitalism, a study of the economy post WWI up to the election of FDR is worthy of reading. For those interested, a brief reading of what occured in France pre 1789 is worthwhile too.

Let's pretend 9/11 never happened!

 

[Wry Catcher]

If the conservative axioms of cut taxes, cut regulations actually worked, we would be in an economic boom. President Bush inherited an economy in correction, but one which had experienced at least two corrections during President Clinton's administration.
President Clinton offered targeted tax cuts which primarily benefited the middle-class family raising folks, and the money saved by this population stimulated the economy.
Even before he and VP Cheney were appionted to office, they called for a tax cut, suggesting that not to do so would put our economy into a deeper recession.
What happened next was the attack on the WTC. A tax cut (actually two) and two wars is a prescription for economic disaster and that's what happened.
As for unregulated capitalism, a study of the economy post WWI up to the election of FDR is worthy of reading. For those interested, a brief reading of what occured in France pre 1789 is worthwhile too.

Let's pretend 9/11 never happened!

Better yet, let's pretend 9/11 evoked a reasoned response, not an emotional one and the POTUS responded with an appropriate response.
Find those who supported the murderers.
Gather internaitonal support to cut off those who plotted and conspired the attack from economic support.
Work with Russia, China, Western Europe, India, and the Malay Archipelago to hunt down extremists and work towards mitigating unemployment and poverty in areas where terrorism festers.
Pressure Israel to resolve the issues which have gone unresolved for three generation now, and are the actual cause of death and destruction world wide.