A no BS, non partisan examination of the success of Obama's stimulus package

Billy000

Democratic Socialist
Nov 10, 2011
31,876
12,710
1,560
Colorado
Many of you believe The Recovery Act was a failure simply because it fell short of expectations, but that does not mean it was a failure - not by a long shot. Here is a non partisan article that examines the pros and cons of the stimulus and why, for the most part, it was a success. A success that indisputably saved our economy.

Articles debating the successes or failures of President Obama’s stimulus package should be of interest to NPQ Newswire readers, given that nonprofits were among the most important intermediaries for and deliverers of stimulus programs. In the upcoming issue of Foreign Policy, TIME Magazine’s Michael Grunwald suggests that the stimulus was “certainly a political failure,” but “there is voluminous evidence that the stimulus did provide real stimulus, helping to stop a terrifying free-fall, avert a second Depression, and end a brutal recession.” Grunwald’s long article addresses the pros and cons of the stimulus, some of which is presented below.

PROS:

According to the Moody’s website Economy.com, JPMorgan Chase, and the Congressional Budget Office, the stimulus “increased GDP at least 2 percentage points, the difference between contraction and growth, and saved or created about 2.5 million jobs.”

“A Washington Post review of Recovery Act studies found six that showed a positive economic effect versus one useful study (by prominent Republican economist John B. Taylor) that concluded the stimulus failed—and critics noted that Taylor’s data just as easily support the conclusion that the stimulus was too small.”

The Recovery Act’s provision of extra food stamps, unemployment benefits, and other social safety net protections “made an extraordinarily painful time less painful, lifting at least 7 million Americans above the poverty line while making 32 million poor Americans less poor.

It included America’s biggest foray into industrial policy since FDR, the biggest expansion of anti-poverty initiatives since LBJ, the biggest middle-class tax cut since Ronald Reagan, and the biggest infusion of research money ever. It sent $8 billion into a new high-speed passenger rail network, the biggest new transportation initiative since the interstate highways, and another $7 billion to expand the country’s existing high-speed Internet network to underserved communities, a modern twist on the New Deal’s rural electrification.”

“Experts had warned that 5 percent of the stimulus could be lost to fraud, but investigators have documented less than $10 million in losses—about 0.001 percent.”

“[Solyndra is]… supposedly a case study in ineptitude, cronyism, and the failure of green industrial policy. Republicans investigated for a year, held more than a dozen hearings, and subpoenaed hundreds of thousands of documents, but they uncovered no evidence of wrongdoing….Solyndra was a start-up that failed. It happens.”

CONS:

The jobless rate is still over eight percent, the longest run of unemployment over eight percent since the Depression.

Was the Obama Stimulus a Success or a Failure? - NPQ - Nonprofit Quarterly

So essentially what this article is saying that even though the stimulus fell short of expectations, it was still a success. Why? Because it turned our economy free fall (that began with Bush) into JOB GROWTH within months. It is the reason we are even in a recovery. What was the biggest flaw in it? IT WAS TOO SMALL which is actually just more proof that government can and does create jobs. It is also further proof Republicanism is ruining our country. They are reason it was too small! :cool:

Is the unemployment rate still high? Of course, how do we fix it? More DEMAND side economic policies like The Recovery Act. Supply side has proven to be a failure. Tax cuts do more harm than good.
 
Last edited:
When the money is paid back with interest, you will have the total equation. It is only then that you can debate it's merits.
 
When the money is paid back with interest, you will have the total equation. It is only then that you can debate it's merits.

Bush's tax cuts were more expensive than the Recovery Act. When will see that money back?
 
When the money is paid back with interest, you will have the total equation. It is only then that you can debate it's merits.

Bush's tax cuts were more expensive than the Recovery Act. When will see that money back?
That money did not belong to us - it belonged to the tax payer :cool:

You do realize that taxes pay the government's expenses right? Tax cuts dont pay for themselves. Every dollar lost in revenue is one more dollar the government needs to borrow to pay the bills. This is basic economics.
 
No, the government needs to operate within its means - that is basic economics. The government takes, and spends wantonly!
 
No, the government needs to operate within its means - that is basic economics. The government takes, and spends wantonly!

Yeah true. Both Bush and Obama spent above their means. Over spending needs to stop, but so do egregious tax cuts. We need to raise revenue in part to balance the budget. There is a reason why Bush was responsible for 10 trillion of our debt.
 
When the money is paid back with interest, you will have the total equation. It is only then that you can debate it's merits.

Bush's tax cuts were more expensive than the Recovery Act. When will see that money back?

Never. They were cuts. You don't have to print money to cut taxes.

It astounds me how many of you don't understand our economic system. Taxes pay the government's expenses. Without them, we borrow more. That puts us more in debt. Tax cuts and over spending amount to the same thing.
 
Bush's tax cuts were more expensive than the Recovery Act. When will see that money back?

Never. They were cuts. You don't have to print money to cut taxes.

It astounds me how many of you don't understand our economic system. Taxes pay the government's expenses. Without them, we borrow more. That puts us more in debt. Tax cuts and over spending amount to the same thing.

Less taxes = spend less.

Not borrow more.
 
When the money is paid back with interest, you will have the total equation. It is only then that you can debate it's merits.

Bush's tax cuts were more expensive than the Recovery Act. When will see that money back?

Since when does the federal government own my wages?
 
No, the government needs to operate within its means - that is basic economics. The government takes, and spends wantonly!

Yeah true. Both Bush and Obama spent above their means. Over spending needs to stop, but so do egregious tax cuts. We need to raise revenue in part to balance the budget. There is a reason why Bush was responsible for 10 trillion of our debt.
I'm no fan of Bush - he did egregiously pile up the debt. The way we get the economy moving is allowing people to keep more of what they earn.

All I'm saying is when you borrow, and spend huge sums of money, you will get some return, but untill you pay that money back with interest, and take into account what the additional debt has cost, you cannot determine the value of the investment.
 
When the money is paid back with interest, you will have the total equation. It is only then that you can debate it's merits.

Bush's tax cuts were more expensive than the Recovery Act. When will see that money back?

How could the Bush tax cuts be more expensive when they didn't cost anything?
 
Never. They were cuts. You don't have to print money to cut taxes.

It astounds me how many of you don't understand our economic system. Taxes pay the government's expenses. Without them, we borrow more. That puts us more in debt. Tax cuts and over spending amount to the same thing.

Less taxes = spend less.

Not borrow more.

Spending in itself is a necessary practice. What the hell do you think pays for our public school system and fabulous armed forces? TAXES. Less revenue means more borrowing. Over spending is the problem, Not the concept of spending.
 
When the money is paid back with interest, you will have the total equation. It is only then that you can debate it's merits.

Bush's tax cuts were more expensive than the Recovery Act. When will see that money back?

How could the Bush tax cuts be more expensive when they didn't cost anything?

Just because republicans told you tax cuts dont cost anything doesnt mean they were telling you the truth :cuckoo:
 

Forum List

Back
Top