With all due respect Mr.President,that is not true.

[Charles_Main]

http://www.cato.org/special/stimulus09/cato_stimulus.pdf

Notwithstanding reports that all economists are now Keynesians and that we all support a big increase in the burden of
government, we the undersigned do not believe that more government spending is a way to improve economic performance.
More government spending by Hoover and Roosevelt did not pull the United States economy out of the Great Depression in
the 1930s. More government spending did not solve Japan’s “lost decade” in the 1990s. As such, it is a triumph of hope over
experience to believe that more government spending will help the U.S. today. To improve the economy, policymakers should
focus on reforms that remove impediments to work, saving, investment and production. Lower tax rates and a reduction in the
burden of government are the best ways of using fiscal policy to boost growth.

signed by all the below, who I am sure you libs will dismiss as a bunch of Conservative morons.

BURTON ABRAMS, Univ. of Delaware
DOUGLAS ADIE, Ohio University
LEE ADKINS, Oklahoma State University
WILLIAM ALBRECHT, Univ. of Iowa
RYAN AMACHER, Univ. of Texas at Arlington
J.J.ARIAS, Georgia College & State University
HOWARD BAETJER, JR., Towson University
CHARLES BAIRD, California State University, East Bay
STACIE BECK, Univ. of Delaware
DON BELLANTE, Univ. of South Florida
JAMES BENNETT, George Mason University
BRUCE BENSON, Florida State University
SANJAI BHAGAT, Univ. of Colorado at Boulder
MARK BILS, Univ. of Rochester
ALBERTO BISIN, New York University
WALTER BLOCK, Loyola University New Orleans
CECIL BOHANON, Ball State University
MICHELE BOLDRIN,Washington University in St. Louis
DONALD BOOTH, Chapman University
MICHAEL BORDO, Rutgers University
SAMUEL BOSTAPH, Univ. of Dallas
DONALD BOUDREAUX, George Mason University
SCOTT BRADFORD, Brigham Young University
GENEVIEVE BRIAND, Eastern Washington University
IVAN BRICK, Rutgers University
GEORGE BROWER, Moravian College
PHILLIP BRYSON, Brigham Young University
JAMES BUCHANAN, Nobel laureate
RICHARD BURDEKIN, Claremont McKenna College
RICHARD BURKHAUSER, Cornell University
EDWIN T. BURTON, Univ. of Virginia
JIM BUTKIEWICZ, Univ. of Delaware
HENRY BUTLER, Northwestern University
WILLIAM BUTOS, Trinity College
PETER CALCAGNO, College of Charleston
BRYAN CAPLAN, George Mason University
ART CARDEN, Rhodes College
JAMES CARDON, Brigham Young University
DUSTIN CHAMBERS, Salisbury University
EMILY CHAMLEE-WRIGHT, Beloit College
V.V. CHARI, Univ. of Minnesota
BARRY CHISWICK, Univ. of Illinois at Chicago
LAWRENCE CIMA, John Carroll University
J.R. CLARK, Univ. of Tennessee at Chattanooga
GIAN LUCA CLEMENTI, New York University
R.MORRIS COATS, Nicholls State University
JOHN COCHRAN, Metropolitan State College at Denver
JOHN COCHRANE, Univ. of Chicago
JOHN COGAN, Hoover Institution, Stanford University
LLOYD COHEN, George Mason University
JOHN COLEMAN, Duke University
BOYD COLLIER, Tarleton State University
ROBERT COLLINGE, Univ. of Texas at San Antonio
PETER COLWELL, Univ. of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
MICHAEL CONNOLLY, Univ. of Miami
LEE COPPOCK, Univ. of Virginia
MARIO CRUCINI, Vanderbilt University
CHRISTOPHER CULP, Univ. of Chicago
KIRBY CUNDIFF, Northeastern State University
ANTONY DAVIES, Duquesne University
JOHN DAWSON, Appalachian State University
A. EDWARD DAY, Univ. of Texas at Dallas
CLARENCE DEITSCH, Ball State University
ALLAN DESERPA, Arizona State University
WILLIAM DEWALD, Ohio State University
ARTHUR DIAMOND, JR., Univ. of Nebraska at Omaha
JOHN DOBRA, Univ. of Nevada, Reno
JAMES DORN, Towson University
CHRISTOPHER DOUGLAS, Univ. of Michigan, Flint
FLOYD DUNCAN, Virginia Military Institute
FRANCIS EGAN, Trinity College
JOHN EGGER, Towson University
KENNETH ELZINGA, Univ. of Virginia
PAUL EVANS, Ohio State University
FRANK FALERO, California State University, Bakersfield
EUGENE FAMA, Univ. of Chicago
W. KEN FARR, Georgia College & State University
DANIEL FEENBERG, National Bureau
of Economic Research
HARTMUT FISCHER, Univ. of San Francisco
ERIC FISHER, California State Polytechnic University
FRED FOLDVARY, Santa Clara University
MURRAY FRANK, Univ. of Minnesota
PETER FRANK,Wingate University
TIMOTHY FUERST, Bowling Green State University
B. DELWORTH GARDNER, Brigham Young University
JOHN GAREN, Univ. of Kentucky
RICK GEDDES, Cornell University
AARON GELLMAN, Northwestern University
WILLIAM GERDES, Clarke College
JOSEPH GIACALONE, St. John’s University
MICHAEL GIBBS, Univ. of Chicago
OTIS GILLEY, Louisiana Tech University
STEPHAN GOHMANN, Univ. of Louisville
RODOLFO GONZALEZ, San Jose State University
RICHARD GORDON, Penn State University
PETER GORDON, Univ. of Southern California
ERNIE GOSS, Creighton University
PAUL GREGORY, Univ. of Houston
EARL GRINOLS, Baylor University
DANIEL GROPPER, Auburn University
R.W. HAFER, Southern Illinois University, Edwardsville
ARTHUR HALL, Univ. of Kansas
STEVE HANKE, Johns Hopkins University
STEPHEN HAPPEL, Arizona State University
RICHARD HART, Miami University
THOMAS HAZLETT, George Mason University
FRANK HEFNER, College of Charleston
SCOTT HEIN, Texas Tech University
RONALD HEINER, George Mason University
DAVID HENDERSON, Hoover Institution,
Stanford University
ROBERT HERREN, North Dakota State University
GAILEN HITE, Columbia University
STEVEN HORWITZ, St. Lawrence University
DANIEL HOUSER, George Mason University
JOHN HOWE, Univ. of Missouri, Columbia
JEFFREY HUMMEL, San Jose State University
BRUCE HUTCHINSON, Univ. of Tennessee at Chattanooga
BRIAN JACOBSEN,Wisconsin Lutheran College
SHERRY JARRELL,Wake Forest University
JASON JOHNSTON, Univ. of Pennsylvania
BOYAN JOVANOVIC, New York University
JONATHAN KARPOFF, Univ. of Washington
BARRY KEATING, Univ. of Notre Dame
NAVEEN KHANNA, Michigan State University
NICHOLAS KIEFER, Cornell University
DANIEL KLEIN, George Mason University
PAUL KOCH, Univ. of Kansas
NARAYANA KOCHERLAKOTA, Univ. of Minnesota
MAREK KOLAR, Delta College
ROGER KOPPL, Fairleigh Dickinson University
KISHORE KULKARNI, Metropolitan
State College of Denver
DEEPAK LAL, UCLA
GEORGE LANGELETT, South Dakota State University
JAMES LARRIVIERE, Spring Hill College
ROBERT LAWSON, Auburn University
JOHN LEVENDIS, Loyola University New Orleans
DAVID LEVINE,Washington University in St. Louis
PETER LEWIN, Univ. of Texas at Dallas
W. CRIS LEWIS, Utah State University
DEAN LILLARD, Cornell University
ZHENG LIU, Emory University
ALAN LOCKARD, Binghampton University
EDWARD LOPEZ, San Jose State University
JOHN R. LOTT, Jr., Univ. of Maryland
JOHN LUNN, Hope College
GLENN MACDONALD,Washington
University in St. Louis
HENRY MANNE, George Mason University
MICHAEL MARLOW, California
Polytechnic State University
DERYL MARTIN, Tennessee Tech University
DALE MATCHECK, Northwood University
JOHN MATSUSAKA, Univ. of Southern California
THOMAS MAYOR, Univ. of Houston
DEIRDRE MCCLOSKEY, University of Illinois at Chicago
JOHN MCDERMOTT, Univ. of South Carolina
JOSEPH MCGARRITY, Univ. of Central Arkansas
ROGER MEINERS, Univ. of Texas at Arlington
ALLAN MELTZER, Carnegie Mellon University
JOHN MERRIFIELD, Univ. of Texas at San Antonio
JAMES MILLER III, George Mason University
JEFFREY MIRON, Harvard University
THOMAS MOELLER, Texas Christian University
JOHN MOORHOUSE,Wake Forest University
ANDREA MORO, Vanderbilt University
ANDREW MORRISS, Univ. of Illinois
at Urbana-Champaign
MICHAEL MUNGER, Duke University
KEVIN MURPHY, Univ. of Southern California
DAVID MUSTARD, Univ. of Georgia
RICHARD MUTH, Emory University
CHARLES NELSON, Univ. of Washington
WILLIAM NISKANEN, Cato Institute
SETH NORTON, Wheaton College
LEE OHANIAN, UCLA
LYDIA ORTEGA, San Jose State University
EVAN OSBORNE, Wright State University
RANDALL PARKER, East Carolina University
ALLEN PARKMAN, Univ. of New Mexico
DONALD PARSONS, George Washington University
SAM PELTZMAN, Univ. of Chicago
TIMOTHY PERRI, Appalachian State University
MARK PERRY, Univ. of Michigan, Flint
CHRISTOPHER PHELAN, Univ. of Minnesota
GORDON PHILLIPS, Univ. of Maryland
MICHAEL PIPPENGER, Univ. of Alaska, Fairbanks
TOMASZ PISKORSKI, Columbia University
BRENNAN PLATT, Brigham Young University
JOSEPH POMYKALA, Towson University
WILLIAM POOLE, Univ. of Delaware
BARRY POULSON, Univ. of Colorado at Boulder
BENJAMIN POWELL, Suffolk University
EDWARD PRESCOTT, Nobel laureate
GARY QUINLIVAN, Saint Vincent College
REZA RAMAZANI, Saint Michael’s College
ADRIANO RAMPINI, Duke University
ERIC RASMUSEN, Indiana University
MARIO RIZZO, New York University
NANCY ROBERTS, Arizona State University
RICHARD ROLL, UCLA
ROBERT ROSSANA,Wayne State University
JAMES ROUMASSET, Univ. of Hawaii at Manoa
JOHN ROWE, Univ. of South Florida
CHARLES ROWLEY, George Mason University
JUAN RUBIO-RAMIREZ, Duke University
ROY RUFFIN, Univ. of Houston
KEVIN SALYER, Univ. of California, Davis
THOMAS SAVING, Texas A&M University
PAVEL SAVOR, Univ. of Pennsylvania
RONALD SCHMIDT, Univ. of Rochester
CARLOS SEIGLIE, Rutgers University
ALAN SHAPIRO, Univ. of Southern California
WILLIAM SHUGHART II, Univ. of Mississippi
CHARLES SKIPTON, Univ. of Tampa
JAMES SMITH,Western Carolina University
VERNON SMITH, Nobel laureate
LAWRENCE SOUTHWICK, JR., Univ. at Buffalo
DEAN STANSEL, Florida Gulf Coast University
HOUSTON STOKES, Univ. of Illinois at Chicago
BRIAN STROW,Western Kentucky University
SHIRLEY SVORNY, California State
University, Northridge
JOHN TATOM, Indiana State University
WADE THOMAS, State University
of New York at Oneonta
HENRY THOMPSON, Auburn University
ALEX TOKAREV, The King’s College
EDWARD TOWER, Duke University
LEO TROY, Rutgers University
WILLIAM TRUMBULL,West Virginia University
DAVID TUERCK, Suffolk University
CHARLOTTE TWIGHT, Boise State University
KAMAL UPADHYAYA, Univ. of New Haven
CHARLES UPTON, Kent State University
T. NORMANVAN COTT, Ball State University
RICHARDVEDDER, Ohio University
RICHARDWAGNER, George Mason University
DOUGLAS M.WALKER, College of Charleston
DOUGLAS O.WALKER, Regent University
MARCWEIDENMIER, Claremont McKenna College
CHRISTOPHERWESTLEY, Jacksonville
State University
ROBERTWHAPLES,Wake Forest University
LAWRENCEWHITE, Univ. of Missouri at St. Louis
WALTERWILLIAMS, George Mason University
DOUGWILLS, Univ. of Washington Tacoma
DENNISWILSON,Western Kentucky University
GARYWOLFRAM, Hillsdale College
HUIZHONG ZHOU,Western Michigan University

Why does Obama keep lying to us? Why does he keep saying Economist all agree. Clearly they do not all agree.

History shows us that government spending is not the best stimulus.

In Fact the very Idea that Government can put money into the Economy is a Myth.

Government can only put money into the Economy, that it first takes out of the economy, in the form of Taxes, or Deficit spending.

3 weeks on the Job, and he is already using the Politics of Fear, and Lying to us.

Some change.

 

[driveby]

I guess you missed the memo, Obama's lies are ok .......

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Glad to see somebody from my college, Kent State University, on this list.

 

[Charles_Main]

This Article should get more attention from our resident Liberals and Obama bots. Obama is a liar, and a fear monger. He is using fear, and over stating peril in order to make political Gains, and pass a massive mistake of a stimulus package.

The only thing I can think of to make my self feel better about how Fucked we are with these buffoons in charge. Is to realize that it will not take long at all for the Majority of Americans to wake up to just how Wrong they are, and how not different from any other lying, politician Obama is, and then maybe we can at least get some balance back in the power struggle.

Not that I think Republicans are much Better, in fact I feel like I have no party any more. I am alone surrounded by idiots who can not see the simple writing on the wall.

Deficit Spending MUST END NOW, or WE will End.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

This Article should get more attention from our resident Liberals and Obama bots. Obama is a liar, and a fear monger. He is using fear, and over stating peril in order to make political Gains, and pass a massive mistake of a stimulus package.

The only thing I can think of to make my self feel better about how Fucked we are with these buffoons in charge. Is to realize that it will not take long at all for the Majority of Americans to wake up to just how Wrong they are, and how not different from any other lying, politician Obama is, and then maybe we can at least get some balance back in the power struggle.

Not that I think Republicans are much Better, in fact I feel like I have no party any more. I am alone surrounded by idiots who can not see the simple writing on the wall.

Deficit Spending MUST END NOW, or WE will End.

You're far from alone.

Ludwig von Mises Institute - Homepage

 

[xsited1]

This thread looks familiar!

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/68402-with-all-due-respect-mr-president-that-is-not-true.html

Thanks for keeping this going.

 

[mash107]

Yay for not being brushed aside as fringe libertarians.

What a novel idea... living within our means so we don't suffocate ourselves with debt!

Crazy idea, I know.

 

[Charles_Main]

Yay for not being brushed aside as fringe libertarians.

What a novel idea... living within our means so we don't suffocate ourselves with debt!

Crazy idea, I know.

Yeah didn't we listen to the Dems complain about Bushes Deficit spending for like 8 Years?

So what do they do as soon as they have full control? Grow the Deficit by a factor of 2 to 3.

Brilliant.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

[youtube]hRkj5rgRtAs[/youtube]

 

[frazzledgear]

http://www.cato.org/special/stimulus09/cato_stimulus.pdf

Why does Obama keep lying to us? Why does he keep saying Economist all agree. Clearly they do not all agree.

History shows us that government spending is not the best stimulus.

In Fact the very Idea that Government can put money into the Economy is a Myth.

Government can only put money into the Economy, that it first takes out of the economy, in the form of Taxes, or Deficit spending.

3 weeks on the Job, and he is already using the Politics of Fear, and Lying to us.

Some change.

History has shown that in spite of repeatedly trying, government has never ONCE brought the economy out of a recession by trying to "spend its way" out of one. Something PLENTY of economists have also repeatedly pointed out.

 

[Care4all]

Did Cato support the Bank/Financial industry Bail out?

Did they support any of the deficit spending, to the tune of adding nearly 6 trillion to our national debt in the last 8 years?

Did they support the deficit spending on the Iraq war?

Did they support the Bush tax cuts?

Did they support any of president Bush's policies during his 8 year reign as President?

I would need to know the answers to some of those questions before i would give any credence to what they are saying now...

NOT that I necessarily agree to this stimulus....personally i think they should just focus on correcting their mistakes in regulations or the lack there of, that helped caused this housing crisis/credit crisis, and focus on turning the housing market around....whether they buy up excess homes like they did in the 80's crisis or they help keep people in their homes that were going to lose them...

13 trillion has been lost in the economy/housing markets the last year...no one has any confidence of things getting better...and they won't until their own homes, their own nest eggs, STOP dropping in value....imo.

no bounce back in housing, i'm afraid THERE WILL BE NO recovery from this recession.

 

[editec]

The CATO institute WANTS America to be bankrupt.

That has been their fondest wish for decades, now.

Every policy they've supported for decade has had that long range goal in mind.

Well...they got their wish, now they are wishing that the USA does nothing to mitigate the effects of it.

 

[Munin]

We were talking about major economists, you know (they were the guys who opposed the republican plans during the elections: tax cuts to help the economy). The guys that win nobel prizes and stuff. The majority of economists (a lot more then 200) favor the idea of spending, they may not agree on specific details but they agree with the major idea: some other major economists even think that the US government needs to spend even more.

"Some economists favor an even bigger spending stimulus: up to $1.3 trillion."

"Yet despite the swelling costs, economists agree that forceful action with staying power is desperately needed."

Obama stimulus plan looks for the right mix - Economy in Turmoil- msnbc.com


It may not be the perfect plan, but it probably is the best plan compared to what the alternative would be with a "republican" plan : republicans don't even seem have a plan, all they say is tax cuts. And we know what major economists said they thought of that plan:

And since we re talking about history:

Politicians Lie, Numbers Don't The numbers don't lie: Democrats are better for the economy than Republicans. - By Michael Kinsley - Slate Magazine


The reason why the stimulus bill is worse now, is not the one republicans say it is (too few tax cuts) but what the republicans caused the bill to change into (Obama s concessions):

The irony, huh: the reason why the bill is worse is caused by the actions of the republicans, yet they are the ones who now claim that it was Obama s fault and indeed it was (because he caved in to republicans).

What do you call someone who eliminates hundreds of thousands of American jobs, deprives millions of adequate health care and nutrition, undermines schools, but offers a $15,000 bonus to affluent people who flip their houses?

A proud centrist. For that is what the senators who ended up calling the tune on the stimulus bill just accomplished.

Even if the original Obama plan — around $800 billion in stimulus, with a substantial fraction of that total given over to ineffective tax cuts — had been enacted, it wouldn’t have been enough to fill the looming hole in the U.S. economy, which the Congressional Budget Office estimates will amount to $2.9 trillion over the next three years.

Yet the centrists did their best to make the plan weaker and worse.
One of the best features of the original plan was aid to cash-strapped state governments, which would have provided a quick boost to the economy while preserving essential services. But the centrists insisted on a $40 billion cut in that spending.

The original plan also included badly needed spending on school construction; $16 billion of that spending was cut. It included aid to the unemployed, especially help in maintaining health care — cut. Food stamps — cut. All in all, more than $80 billion was cut from the plan, with the great bulk of those cuts falling on precisely the measures that would do the most to reduce the depth and pain of this slump.

On the other hand, the centrists were apparently just fine with one of the worst provisions in the Senate bill, a tax credit for home buyers. Dean Baker of the Center for Economic Policy Research calls this the “flip your house to your brother” provision: it will cost a lot of money while doing nothing to help the economy.

All in all, the centrists’ insistence on comforting the comfortable while afflicting the afflicted will, if reflected in the final bill, lead to substantially lower employment and substantially more suffering.

But how did this happen? I blame President Obama’s belief that he can transcend the partisan divide — a belief that warped his economic strategy.

After all, many people expected Mr. Obama to come out with a really strong stimulus plan, reflecting both the economy’s dire straits and his own electoral mandate.

Instead, however, he offered a plan that was clearly both too small and too heavily reliant on tax cuts. Why? Because he wanted the plan to have broad bipartisan support, and believed that it would. Not long ago administration strategists were talking about getting 80 or more votes in the Senate.

Mr. Obama’s postpartisan yearnings may also explain why he didn’t do something crucially important: speak forcefully about how government spending can help support the economy. Instead, he let conservatives define the debate, waiting until late last week before finally saying what needed to be said — that increasing spending is the whole point of the plan.

And Mr. Obama got nothing in return for his bipartisan outreach. Not one Republican voted for the House version of the stimulus plan, which was, by the way, better focused than the original administration proposal.

In the Senate, Republicans inveighed against “pork” — although the wasteful spending they claimed to have identified (much of it was fully justified) was a trivial share of the bill’s total. And they decried the bill’s cost — even as 36 out of 41 Republican senators voted to replace the Obama plan with $3 trillion, that’s right, $3 trillion in tax cuts over 10 years.

So Mr. Obama was reduced to bargaining for the votes of those centrists. And the centrists, predictably, extracted a pound of flesh — not, as far as anyone can tell, based on any coherent economic argument, but simply to demonstrate their centrist mojo. They probably would have demanded that $100 billion or so be cut from anything Mr. Obama proposed; by coming in with such a low initial bid, the president guaranteed that the final deal would be much too small.

Such are the perils of negotiating with yourself.

Now, House and Senate negotiators have to reconcile their versions of the stimulus, and it’s possible that the final bill will undo the centrists’ worst. And Mr. Obama may be able to come back for a second round. But this was his best chance to get decisive action, and it fell short.

So has Mr. Obama learned from this experience? Early indications aren’t good.

For rather than acknowledge the failure of his political strategy and the damage to his economic strategy, the president tried to put a postpartisan happy face on the whole thing. “Democrats and Republicans came together in the Senate and responded appropriately to the urgency this moment demands,” he declared on Saturday, and “the scale and scope of this plan is right.”

No, they didn’t, and no, it isn’t.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/09/opinion/09krugman.html

 

[Skull Pilot]

Did Cato support the Bank/Financial industry Bail out?

Did they support any of the deficit spending, to the tune of adding nearly 6 trillion to our national debt in the last 8 years?

Did they support the deficit spending on the Iraq war?

Did they support the Bush tax cuts?

Did they support any of president Bush's policies during his 8 year reign as President?

I would need to know the answers to some of those questions before i would give any credence to what they are saying now...

NOT that I necessarily agree to this stimulus....personally i think they should just focus on correcting their mistakes in regulations or the lack there of, that helped caused this housing crisis/credit crisis, and focus on turning the housing market around....whether they buy up excess homes like they did in the 80's crisis or they help keep people in their homes that were going to lose them...

13 trillion has been lost in the economy/housing markets the last year...no one has any confidence of things getting better...and they won't until their own homes, their own nest eggs, STOP dropping in value....imo.

no bounce back in housing, i'm afraid THERE WILL BE NO recovery from this recession.

tell me how a drop in one's home's value is a catastrophe.

If one is paying the mortgage, which is the product bought from the bank not the house itself, the bank is receiving money in the form of interest payments and the home owner is paying down the principle he borrowed.

Yes if you had to sell your house today, there is a problem but if not there really is no problem as the "loss" of value is merely a loss on paper. the write downs forced by mark to market accounting rules may seem troublesome for banks as the collateral for the loans are seen as insufficient, but once again, if the loans are being serviced as most are, the likelihood that the bank would have to dump a seized home on the market today are slim.

The crisis that is so touted in the news is really a small fraction of homes being foreclosed on and a portion of those homes in foreclosure are homes that were built on spec by developers and were never bought so no one is being kicked out of them.

In short if mortgages are being serviced as most are, there should be no panic.

 

[xsited1]

Did Cato support the Bank/Financial industry Bail out?

No.

Did they support any of the deficit spending, to the tune of adding nearly 6 trillion to our national debt in the last 8 years?

No

Did they support the deficit spending on the Iraq war?

No

Did they support the Bush tax cuts?

Yes

Did they support any of president Bush's policies during his 8 year reign as President?

Only one major policy, mentioned above. Bush is a Republican/Conservative and Cato is a Libertarian Think Tank, so that's not surprising.

I would need to know the answers to some of those questions before i would give any credence to what they are saying now...

NOT that I necessarily agree to this stimulus....personally i think they should just focus on correcting their mistakes in regulations or the lack there of, that helped caused this housing crisis/credit crisis, and focus on turning the housing market around....whether they buy up excess homes like they did in the 80's crisis or they help keep people in their homes that were going to lose them...

13 trillion has been lost in the economy/housing markets the last year...no one has any confidence of things getting better...and they won't until their own homes, their own nest eggs, STOP dropping in value....imo.

no bounce back in housing, i'm afraid THERE WILL BE NO recovery from this recession.

There will be no recovery from this recession if Obama continues with deficit spending.

 

[xsited1]

The CATO institute WANTS America to be bankrupt.

That has been their fondest wish for decades, now.

Every policy they've supported for decade has had that long range goal in mind.

Well...they got their wish, now they are wishing that the USA does nothing to mitigate the effects of it.

What have you been smoking?

 

[Munin]

Why does Obama keep lying to us? Why does he keep saying Economist all agree. Clearly they do not all agree.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog_post/first_presser/

I hear him say that most economist agree that the government needs to intervene, I think you might have misinterpreted what he said.

History shows us that government spending is not the best stimulus.

You need to learn your history: German recovery (1936-1939), German post WWII recovery (Marshall plan: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_Plan ), New Deal from Roosevelt which was not perfect but it proved that some government intervention did work and other government intervention did not work: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/23/business/23view.html?_r=2&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink .

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

"There is no disagreement that we need action by our government, a recovery plan that will help to jump-start the economy." - Barack Obama

Obviously there is some disagreement.

The New Deal prolonged the Depression by roughly 10 years, so I would say that it did not work.

 

[Munin]

"There is no disagreement that we need action by our government, a recovery plan that will help to jump-start the economy." - Barack Obama

Obviously there is some disagreement.

The New Deal prolonged the Depression by roughly 10 years, so I would say that it did not work.

There is no disagreement that action needs to be taken by the government, the disagreement is not on wether the government should act or not.

The disagreement is on which action the government should take.

There were parts of the New Deal that have worked, but I can agree with you that there were many parts of it that also didn't work. And if you compare the evolution of the economic situation in the US with the nations that didn't have a "New Deal" in Europe that also experienced the same Great Depression then you can not ignore that the New deal did not work.

And when you look at the Marshall plan in Europe (after WWII), it just proves you that the government can help the economy. There is no ignoring there, in 1945 Large parts of Germany were completely destroyed and Berlin was completely wiped of the map (that is the reason why they did the partitioning of "the spoils of war" in Yalta: a small city that was not far from the geographical location of Berlin) and today Germany Exports more then the USA: Does that not prove something?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

"There is no disagreement that we need action by our government, a recovery plan that will help to jump-start the economy." - Barack Obama

Obviously there is some disagreement.

The New Deal prolonged the Depression by roughly 10 years, so I would say that it did not work.

There is no disagreement that action needs to be taken by the government, the disagreement is not on wether the government should act or not.

The disagreement is on which action the government should take.

There were parts of the New Deal that have worked, but I can agree with you that there were many parts of it that also didn't work. And if you compare the evolution of the economic situation in the US with the nations that didn't have a "New Deal" in Europe that also experienced the same Great Depression then you can not ignore that the New deal did not work.

And when you look at the Marshall plan in Europe (after WWII), it just proves you that the government can help the economy. There is no ignoring there, in 1945 Large parts of Germany were completely destroyed and Berlin was completely wiped of the map (that is the reason why they did the partitioning of "the spoils of war" in Yalta: a small city that was not far from the geographical location of Berlin) and today Germany Exports more then the USA: Does that not prove something?

There is disagreement. I would say the government would do better to do absolutely nothing than what they're actually doing.