We should be at 7.5% unemployment

[boedicca]

This is a good time to remind everyone of the historical comparisons:

Obamanomics made things worse. Much much worse than if he had done nothing at all.

Neither you nor anyone else can actually prove that.

Actually, economics proves it.

The economy goes through cycles of expansion and contraction. Historically, the worse the downturn, the stronger the cycle of growth during recovery. Instead of letting the private sector work by encouraging a climate favorable to growth (low taxes, less regulation, sensible monetary policy), Obama heightened uncertainty and fear by increasing the size of government by over 25% as a share of GDP in less than two years.

Money spent by the government is at the expense of the private sector. This is why growth is less than half of what it should be, and why jobs creation is on hold.

 

[shintao]

All it demonstrates is that the previous regime left things in a bigger mess than most people thought.

It might demonstrate that. That will be a point of debate over the next two years.

Something that it definitely does demonstrate is that the current administration did not understand the size or complexity of the problem, did not have a solution for it, has not figured it out yet and is showing no sign that it either understands the problem or has a solution.

Another thing that is pretty clear is the the American people have noticed that the Emperor has no clothes.

When do you think he'll figure out that the jig is up?

I'm posting this again because I suggest particularly YOU read it. When someone from "your" side has all the answers, please send up flares.

Who can magically fix the economy? No one - Full version - Oct. 15, 2010

Hmm, it does have one tid bit I agree with,...........

"What about having the Treasury engage in a massive stimulus program to put money in people's pockets and have them spend it, ginning up economic activity and restoring confidence? But stimulus money has to come from somewhere -- and it doesn't seem possible for the Treasury to raise a few trillion more stimulus bucks without dire consequences to interest rates and the dollar's value. "

 

[shintao]

Neither you nor anyone else can actually prove that.

Actually, economics proves it.

The economy goes through cycles of expansion and contraction. Historically, the worse the downturn, the stronger the cycle of growth during recovery. Instead of letting the private sector work by encouraging a climate favorable to growth (low taxes, less regulation, sensible monetary policy), Obama heightened uncertainty and fear by increasing the size of government by over 25% as a share of GDP in less than two years.

Money spent by the government is at the expense of the private sector. This is why growth is less than half of what it should be, and why jobs creation is on hold.

Hmm, everybody got paid in the private sector cept the individual people.

 

[asterism]

What incentives?

The financial "reforms," the healthcare law, and the crony capitalism. This country really isn't a very good place to have employees these days. He knows it, that's why he gave GM approval to offshore jobs.

OK, I can agree with healthcare reform, I have always been against the mandates, I have always supported elective choices.
But the financial reforms? The main concept of the financial reforms is to protect the consumer. So what is your business and how do the finacial reforms hurt you? Are you part of the financial sector?
And finally, the GM bailout and outsourcing jobs offshore isn't moral at all, so naturally, I'm not happy with that move at all. I'm also not happy with the GOP blocking efforts to take away tax breaks for companies that practice offshore outsourcing.
I got involved with this thread for a simple reason, we can't just blame Obama, as I have stated a multitude of times, this whole recession and all the negatives that go with it belong to be on the shoulders of both parties. I get sick of the left blaming GWB for everything and sick of the right blaming Obama for everything. Sorry folks, there's plenty of blame that needs to be spread around.

All businesses that use capital are affected by the financial reforms because the micromanaging procedures and lack of common-sense policy regarding alternative investments has effectively cancelled my ability to draw operating lines of credit. A bunch of bureaucrats have decided some firms are too big to fail and other firms are too small to know what's best for them.

I agree it's not all Obama's fault, but the changes he enacted that give me an incentive to use a foreign subsidiary are his fault.

 

[daveman]

Why are right wingers so fucking stupid? They give Bush a complete free pass on Iraq and and the lies about WMDs and bringing "freedom" to Iraq.

Then they complain and whine that Obama wasn't "perfectly correct".

What the fuck? They prefer the lies? Bush wasn't handed trillions in debt. Democrats didn't help move millions of jobs to China. It was Republicans working with China who gave seminars teaching American business how to move to China on the subsidies and tax breaks Republicans put in place.

Come on people. Stop with the delusions. It's all about "We hate Obama". It has NOTHING to do with his policies.

Don't be stupid.

Oh, wait...you can't help it. Disregard.

 

[daveman]

As usual, nothing but childish junk as your response.

Hope! Change! Yes we can!

There. That better?

 

[snjmom]

All businesses that use capital are affected by the financial reforms because the micromanaging procedures and lack of common-sense policy regarding alternative investments has effectively cancelled my ability to draw operating lines of credit. A bunch of bureaucrats have decided some firms are too big to fail and other firms are too small to know what's best for them.

I agree it's not all Obama's fault, but the changes he enacted that give me an incentive to use a foreign subsidiary are his fault.

What would be a common sense policy regarding alternative investments that would free-up the lines of credit that should be offered with the piles of cash that the US financial system is sitting on?

 

[asterism]

All businesses that use capital are affected by the financial reforms because the micromanaging procedures and lack of common-sense policy regarding alternative investments has effectively cancelled my ability to draw operating lines of credit. A bunch of bureaucrats have decided some firms are too big to fail and other firms are too small to know what's best for them.

I agree it's not all Obama's fault, but the changes he enacted that give me an incentive to use a foreign subsidiary are his fault.

What would be a common sense policy regarding alternative investments that would free-up the lines of credit that should be offered with the piles of cash that the US financial system is sitting on?

A policy of not micromanaging and not setting one set of rules for the government and another set of rules for everyone else. Dodd-Frank expands the role of the government to dictate the terms by which virtually any company or subsidiary must operate or be liquidated at the sole discretion of these government entities:

(11) FINANCIAL COMPANY- The term `financial company' means any company that--
(A) is incorporated or organized under any provision of Federal law or the laws of any State;
(B) is--
(i) a bank holding company, as defined in section 2(a) of the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841(a));
(ii) a nonbank financial company supervised by the Board of Governors;
(iii) any company that is predominantly engaged in activities that the Board of Governors has determined are financial in nature or incidental thereto for purposes of section 4(k) of the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1843(k)) other than a company described in clause (i) or (ii); or
(iv) any subsidiary of any company described in any of clauses (i) through (iii) that is predominantly engaged in activities that the Board of Governors has determined are financial in nature or incidental thereto for purposes of section 4(k) of the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1843(k)) (other than a subsidiary that is an insured depository institution or an insurance company); and
(C) is not a Farm Credit System institution chartered under and subject to the provisions of the Farm Credit Act of 1971, as amended (12 U.S.C. 2001 et seq.), a governmental entity, or a regulated entity, as defined under section 1303(20) of the Federal Housing Enterprises Financial Safety and Soundness Act of 1992 (12 U.S.C. 4502(20)).

Bill Text - 111th Congress (2009-2010) - THOMAS (Library of Congress)

Taking this text with the reality that GM's investors were forced to accept terms that were not consistent with the agreements made to them in the event of insolvency creates a higher risk which leads to fewer investments. Also, most small businesses accessing lines of credit for operating capital are made by private investors and there are different mechanisms for oversight already in place but they are not regulated and subject to liquidation at the government's option. This act changes that and in typical government fashion it applies a "one size fits all" approach.

The reason these companies did not get their capital investments and/or hybrid equity-loan allotments is because they are not deemed acceptable risks according to traditional bank methodologies. However, this act requires any umbrella organization by which private investors provide this function to be regulated in the same way as banks are regulated. That means small businesses are again cut out of the financial investment market.

In short, a business plan based on future cash inflows is worth zero to a bank. It's worth the net present value of a risk-based percentage of those inflows to a private investor. In the end it's still just a risk, but bank methodology requires a hard asset (like property or equipment) that is then deemed to have a predetermined and completely arbitrary depreciation schedule while private investors typically view the property and equipment to be parts of the system that will generate the future cash flow and value it based on their understanding how likely it is that the business will succeed. It's two ways of evaluating risk, only the second option is no longer available due to this new government law that's supposed to "protect" us and make us more prosperous.

 

[code1211]

Remember this?

We should be at 7.5% unemployment right now. Remember before all this "in the ditch" nonsense was created, the above chart says what the Obama Economic team said would happen. They assured us they were the best experts on the planet, and they assured us that the Stimulus plan would work.

Remember this, it didn't. Unemployment is at 9.6% and despite all the predictions, rhetoric, and excuses, it's still flat at a rate higher than what they said it would be if we agreed to their plan.

Another key thing they got wrong is the time they expected things to get better with or without the Stimulus. Early in the 4th quarter of 2010 the unemployment rate was predicted to go down with or without the Stimulus and yet it's still flat. Obviously we'll never know if it would have gone down without the Stimulus, but it's clear that they were wrong on the results and wrong on the timeline. Remember this whenever Obama and his economic team decide to change things because "we can't stay on the current course." Keep the current course and get out of the way, it's obvious he can't make things better and I propose we consider that they actually made things worse.

It is a very misleading graph without a link, and obvioulsy been doctored in pornoshop (Actual graph below).

The stimulus should have been given to the people, but the republicans don't feel you are smart enough to spend money. The whole mess is on Bush's plate, and of course we would know the actual results if we chose to be observant. ie. businesses have accumulated over a trillion dollars that wasn't put into the economy, and several trillion more dollars in the stock market that are not circulating in the economy. The Obama stimulus was a success! The Retard Corps are a FAIL.

Not to interject reality too strongly into your delusions, but the Failed Stimulus was passed a majority of Democrats in the House, a filabuster-proof majority of Democrats in the Senate and was signed by a Democrat president.

Since it was passed everything about the economy got worse and every factor that might have served to improve the economy has been diminished by the policies of Nancy, Harry and the Big 0. In thier positions, they should have led us with wise and creative methods.

They did not. No matter how beautiful the theory, at some point, the results must be examined. That point was November 2.

 

[code1211]

Well I see the Fed is now saying the the high unemployment numbers are here to stay for quite awhile.
Gloomy Fed employment forecast overshadows upbeat GDP data
Gloomy Fed jobs forecast overshadows upward revision on U.S. economic growth - latimes.com
The artice states that the American worker is facing competition from robots, computers and foreign workers.
And as this goes on, the US trade deficit grows.
So instead of putting 100% of the blame on Obama, Free Trade is certainly to blame and of course the outsourcing of American jobs overseas.

All of the experts agree that the manufacturing jobs lost during this recession will not be coming back. That means retraining of much of the workforce that has been in limbo these past two years in areas of production that will keep jobs HERE, not THERE. So what industry(ies) will that be? Since the U.S. dragged its feet in pursuing green energy, China now far surpasses us in those endeavors, so what else are we prepared to do that other countries can't do just as well but cheaper? Any answers?

How about a quick question. The USA just spent about a trillion dollars to "Stimulate" the economy and yet none of this re-trainig and no Green industry sprang up.

The economy sucks. The retraining did not happen and the Green industry is based in China.

Care to explain exactly what the Failed Stimulus did do?

 

[code1211]

Well I see the Fed is now saying the the high unemployment numbers are here to stay for quite awhile.
Gloomy Fed employment forecast overshadows upbeat GDP data
Gloomy Fed jobs forecast overshadows upward revision on U.S. economic growth - latimes.com
The artice states that the American worker is facing competition from robots, computers and foreign workers.
And as this goes on, the US trade deficit grows.
So instead of putting 100% of the blame on Obama, Free Trade is certainly to blame and of course the outsourcing of American jobs overseas.

All of the experts agree that the manufacturing jobs lost during this recession will not be coming back. That means retraining of much of the workforce that has been in limbo these past two years in areas of production that will keep jobs HERE, not THERE. So what industry(ies) will that be? Since the U.S. dragged its feet in pursuing green energy, China now far surpasses us in those endeavors, so what else are we prepared to do that other countries can't do just as well but cheaper? Any answers?

Develop a potent energy source & grid, develop a glass highway for transportation, double our food supplies, quadruple our fresh water supply, explore the moon for usable mineral sources. Learn how to be diplomats.

I'll have what he's having.

 

[code1211]

Why are right wingers so fucking stupid? They give Bush a complete free pass on Iraq and and the lies about WMDs and bringing "freedom" to Iraq.

Then they complain and whine that Obama wasn't "perfectly correct".

What the fuck? They prefer the lies? Bush wasn't handed trillions in debt. Democrats didn't help move millions of jobs to China. It was Republicans working with China who gave seminars teaching American business how to move to China on the subsidies and tax breaks Republicans put in place.

Come on people. Stop with the delusions. It's all about "We hate Obama". It has NOTHING to do with his policies.

You're right in an Rdean kind of a way. It has nothing to do with his policies. It's his results that stink up the place.

Whoever runs against him in 2012 needs to ask over and over again if the people are better or worse off than they were 4 years ago. The question was asked and answered in 2010 with regard to the Congress.

Policies mean nothing. Results mean everything. If he's wrong, he's wrong. No amount of saying he's right will drop the unemployment rate to 5%. Facts are stubborn things.

 

[code1211]

This is a good time to remind everyone of the historical comparisons:

Obamanomics made things worse. Much much worse than if he had done nothing at all.

Your graph only shows up to 2007, which was the Bush watch.

It feels like that might have been about two years ago. Let's see... When was it that there was some jack ass speaking from the podium of the President Elect.

How's that economic stimulus working out for us so far? Will anything ever be the work of the do nothing, know nothing, claim nothing, think nothing, stand for nothing guy in the White House?

I'll give you one thing. When speaking on foreign soil, he has a way with words in describing the intentions and goals of the past actions of the USA. It's the wrong way, but a way nonetheless. I can hardly wait to see what happens when the China/Korea situation heats up a little more.

Maybe he'll cancel the Olympics. That'll show 'em!

 

[code1211]

Well I see the Fed is now saying the the high unemployment numbers are here to stay for quite awhile.
Gloomy Fed employment forecast overshadows upbeat GDP data
Gloomy Fed jobs forecast overshadows upward revision on U.S. economic growth - latimes.com
The artice states that the American worker is facing competition from robots, computers and foreign workers.
And as this goes on, the US trade deficit grows.
So instead of putting 100% of the blame on Obama, Free Trade is certainly to blame and of course the outsourcing of American jobs overseas.

So you are saying that the USA cannot compete successfully in the world market? I seem to remember that being said while Carter was in office, too.

The key here is not shutting out those who you percieve to be more ingenious and creative than their American Counterparts but rather for their American Couterparts to be more ingenious and creative than they are.

How might we do this as a country and how might the government help this along?

Should the government confiscate 5% of the GDP, impose punitive taxes on the small business owners and tax the estates of the rich to assure that no wealth is passed generationally from one entrepeneur to the next or should the government do everything possible to entice the creative and the ingenious to create and build here in the USA?

You're probably right. Let's just give up and pass the torch to the Chinese. Our turn is over.

How about one of you telling me and others just how the Bush tax cuts "assured" that businesses could expand, when every indicator says they did not serve that purpose? How about one of you trying to explain exactly how those tax windfalls WERE spent? How was it possible, if private industry was so successful during the Bush years, so many were unable to withstand the recession and had to close their doors or do massive layoffs? If they were swimming in black ink as a result of tax cuts, they could have survived.

Last but not least, how about we stop pretending our quality of education can even sustain the next generation of entrepreneurs?

So is it your thesis that we just give up? It sounds as if you are saying that since W was president, the world ended and there is no fixing things. I thought your guys were in charge in Congress since 2007 and in the White House since 2009.

Is Bush still "holding them down"?

 

[code1211]

All it demonstrates is that the previous regime left things in a bigger mess than most people thought.

It might demonstrate that. That will be a point of debate over the next two years.

Something that it definitely does demonstrate is that the current administration did not understand the size or complexity of the problem, did not have a solution for it, has not figured it out yet and is showing no sign that it either understands the problem or has a solution.

Another thing that is pretty clear is the the American people have noticed that the Emperor has no clothes.

When do you think he'll figure out that the jig is up?

I'm posting this again because I suggest particularly YOU read it. When someone from "your" side has all the answers, please send up flares.

Who can magically fix the economy? No one - Full version - Oct. 15, 2010

I am a bit confused. You claim unceasingly that the cause of the economic downturn was George Bush. Now you claim that the government has nothing to do with the economy.

It will be impossible for me grasp reality if you don't stick to one theory or the other.

Which is it? Does the government absolutely control the economy as it did when Bush destroyed it or have no impact on the economy as it hasn't as the Big 0 has failed to correct it?

Please let me know.

 

[MaggieMae]

This is a good time to remind everyone of the historical comparisons:

Obamanomics made things worse. Much much worse than if he had done nothing at all.

Neither you nor anyone else can actually prove that.

Actually, economics proves it.

The economy goes through cycles of expansion and contraction. Historically, the worse the downturn, the stronger the cycle of growth during recovery. Instead of letting the private sector work by encouraging a climate favorable to growth (low taxes, less regulation, sensible monetary policy), Obama heightened uncertainty and fear by increasing the size of government by over 25% as a share of GDP in less than two years.

Money spent by the government is at the expense of the private sector. This is why growth is less than half of what it should be, and why jobs creation is on hold.

Except this is a cycle like no other since the Great Depression. It cannot be measured in the usual manner, and here's part of the reason why (Samuelson is a conservative journalist, by the way, whose reporting appears in several dailies. ):

Robert J. Samuelson - Our economy's crisis of confidence

It's psychology, stupid. Not since World War II has an economic recovery been so hobbled by poor confidence. Every recession leaves a legacy of anxiety and uncertainty. But the present residue is exceptional because the recession was savage and -- more important -- its origins (housing bubble, financial crisis) were unfamiliar.
...
The Obama administration is grappling uneasily with this reality. It can rightly claim that its economic policies quelled the near-hysteria of late 2008 and early 2009. But the success was partial, and the administration isn't getting much credit even for that. Only 23 percent of the public say President Obama's policies have improved the economy, reports a new Pew survey. By contrast, 29 percent think his policies made matters worse and 38 percent believe they made no difference. For or against, those policies haven't restored faith in the economy's underlying strength.
...
The danger is that pessimism feeds on itself and leads to a dreaded "double-dip" recession. Companies won't hire because they fear customers won't spend; and customers don't spend because they fear companies won't hire -- or may fire. For the moment, a double-dip seems a long shot. Private hiring has restarted; inventories have been depleted; strong growth in China, Brazil and India has boosted U.S. exports; psychology could turn for the better. Still, the fact that some knowledgeable observers fear a renewed recession attests to the low state of confidence.

 

[MaggieMae]

The financial "reforms," the healthcare law, and the crony capitalism. This country really isn't a very good place to have employees these days. He knows it, that's why he gave GM approval to offshore jobs.

OK, I can agree with healthcare reform, I have always been against the mandates, I have always supported elective choices.
But the financial reforms? The main concept of the financial reforms is to protect the consumer. So what is your business and how do the finacial reforms hurt you? Are you part of the financial sector?
And finally, the GM bailout and outsourcing jobs offshore isn't moral at all, so naturally, I'm not happy with that move at all. I'm also not happy with the GOP blocking efforts to take away tax breaks for companies that practice offshore outsourcing.
I got involved with this thread for a simple reason, we can't just blame Obama, as I have stated a multitude of times, this whole recession and all the negatives that go with it belong to be on the shoulders of both parties. I get sick of the left blaming GWB for everything and sick of the right blaming Obama for everything. Sorry folks, there's plenty of blame that needs to be spread around.

All businesses that use capital are affected by the financial reforms because the micromanaging procedures and lack of common-sense policy regarding alternative investments has effectively cancelled my ability to draw operating lines of credit. A bunch of bureaucrats have decided some firms are too big to fail and other firms are too small to know what's best for them.

I agree it's not all Obama's fault, but the changes he enacted that give me an incentive to use a foreign subsidiary are his fault.

If you're relying on the services (a misnomer) of one of the big banks, they're not there to help YOU, only themselves. Not only are the big commericial banks not loaning money to small businesses and consumers, they are raising the interest rates and fees on credit cards and lowering credit limits. This is the reason the Glass-Steagall Act should not have been repealed in 1999 as investment banks could not do commercial banking business while it was in effect. Small businesses should move their money to local community banks or credit unions. If not immediately, in time they will be much more obliging when it comes to business loans and/or lines of credit. AND, you won't need to spend hours on the phone trying to reach your banking representative.

 

[MaggieMae]

As usual, nothing but childish junk as your response.

Hope! Change! Yes we can!

There. That better?

Hmmm, sounds like Sarah's new mantra.

Hope and change are what ANY new president campaigns on, stupid.

 

[MaggieMae]

All businesses that use capital are affected by the financial reforms because the micromanaging procedures and lack of common-sense policy regarding alternative investments has effectively cancelled my ability to draw operating lines of credit. A bunch of bureaucrats have decided some firms are too big to fail and other firms are too small to know what's best for them.

I agree it's not all Obama's fault, but the changes he enacted that give me an incentive to use a foreign subsidiary are his fault.

What would be a common sense policy regarding alternative investments that would free-up the lines of credit that should be offered with the piles of cash that the US financial system is sitting on?

A policy of not micromanaging and not setting one set of rules for the government and another set of rules for everyone else. Dodd-Frank expands the role of the government to dictate the terms by which virtually any company or subsidiary must operate or be liquidated at the sole discretion of these government entities:

(11) FINANCIAL COMPANY- The term `financial company' means any company that--
(A) is incorporated or organized under any provision of Federal law or the laws of any State;
(B) is--
(i) a bank holding company, as defined in section 2(a) of the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841(a));
(ii) a nonbank financial company supervised by the Board of Governors;
(iii) any company that is predominantly engaged in activities that the Board of Governors has determined are financial in nature or incidental thereto for purposes of section 4(k) of the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1843(k)) other than a company described in clause (i) or (ii); or
(iv) any subsidiary of any company described in any of clauses (i) through (iii) that is predominantly engaged in activities that the Board of Governors has determined are financial in nature or incidental thereto for purposes of section 4(k) of the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1843(k)) (other than a subsidiary that is an insured depository institution or an insurance company); and
(C) is not a Farm Credit System institution chartered under and subject to the provisions of the Farm Credit Act of 1971, as amended (12 U.S.C. 2001 et seq.), a governmental entity, or a regulated entity, as defined under section 1303(20) of the Federal Housing Enterprises Financial Safety and Soundness Act of 1992 (12 U.S.C. 4502(20)).

Bill Text - 111th Congress (2009-2010) - THOMAS (Library of Congress)

Taking this text with the reality that GM's investors were forced to accept terms that were not consistent with the agreements made to them in the event of insolvency creates a higher risk which leads to fewer investments. Also, most small businesses accessing lines of credit for operating capital are made by private investors and there are different mechanisms for oversight already in place but they are not regulated and subject to liquidation at the government's option. This act changes that and in typical government fashion it applies a "one size fits all" approach.

The reason these companies did not get their capital investments and/or hybrid equity-loan allotments is because they are not deemed acceptable risks according to traditional bank methodologies. However, this act requires any umbrella organization by which private investors provide this function to be regulated in the same way as banks are regulated. That means small businesses are again cut out of the financial investment market.

In short, a business plan based on future cash inflows is worth zero to a bank. It's worth the net present value of a risk-based percentage of those inflows to a private investor. In the end it's still just a risk, but bank methodology requires a hard asset (like property or equipment) that is then deemed to have a predetermined and completely arbitrary depreciation schedule while private investors typically view the property and equipment to be parts of the system that will generate the future cash flow and value it based on their understanding how likely it is that the business will succeed. It's two ways of evaluating risk, only the second option is no longer available due to this new government law that's supposed to "protect" us and make us more prosperous.

That's a lot of supposition trying to justify your conclusion that there are one-size-fits all regulations, which is not true. There are any number of exemptions for (and distinguishes clearly made) between big investment banks and small community banks. The bulleted points in this link summarizes those in easy to understand language, itemizing those requirements that do not apply to community banks, as well as added benefits such as the permanent increase in FDIC coverage to $250,000 with only banks with assets of over $10 billion required to pay the added fee for the increase.

Dodd says community banks 'win' with Wall Street reform | This Week in Washington | RESPAnews.com

Why do conservatives continue to throw all support to the big investment houses that truly screwed us over, including you?! It's truly a mystery. Is financial reform a hugely complicated bill? Yes, it is, because it was necessary to unwind a hugely complicated con game perpetrated against the American people and American business. It made a mockery of capitalism.

 

[MaggieMae]

Remember this?

We should be at 7.5% unemployment right now. Remember before all this "in the ditch" nonsense was created, the above chart says what the Obama Economic team said would happen. They assured us they were the best experts on the planet, and they assured us that the Stimulus plan would work.

Remember this, it didn't. Unemployment is at 9.6% and despite all the predictions, rhetoric, and excuses, it's still flat at a rate higher than what they said it would be if we agreed to their plan.

Another key thing they got wrong is the time they expected things to get better with or without the Stimulus. Early in the 4th quarter of 2010 the unemployment rate was predicted to go down with or without the Stimulus and yet it's still flat. Obviously we'll never know if it would have gone down without the Stimulus, but it's clear that they were wrong on the results and wrong on the timeline. Remember this whenever Obama and his economic team decide to change things because "we can't stay on the current course." Keep the current course and get out of the way, it's obvious he can't make things better and I propose we consider that they actually made things worse.

It is a very misleading graph without a link, and obvioulsy been doctored in pornoshop (Actual graph below).

The stimulus should have been given to the people, but the republicans don't feel you are smart enough to spend money. The whole mess is on Bush's plate, and of course we would know the actual results if we chose to be observant. ie. businesses have accumulated over a trillion dollars that wasn't put into the economy, and several trillion more dollars in the stock market that are not circulating in the economy. The Obama stimulus was a success! The Retard Corps are a FAIL.

Not to interject reality too strongly into your delusions, but the Failed Stimulus was passed a majority of Democrats in the House, a filabuster-proof majority of Democrats in the Senate and was signed by a Democrat president.

Since it was passed everything about the economy got worse and every factor that might have served to improve the economy has been diminished by the policies of Nancy, Harry and the Big 0. In thier positions, they should have led us with wise and creative methods.

They did not. No matter how beautiful the theory, at some point, the results must be examined. That point was November 2.

Blah blah blah...you people are like listening to a fucking broken record.