Krugman opinion: "Yes, he could"
- Thread starter Statistikhengst
- Start date
Political Junky
Gold Member
- May 27, 2009
- 25,793
- 3,993
- 280
Right Wingers, like bri, think they can just make any statement and it will be accepted as fact. Sadly, for them, only others on the Right do.
HelenaHandbag
Shoots back
Irony warning!
bripat9643
Diamond Member
- Apr 1, 2011
- 170,170
- 47,372
- 2,180
Irony warning!
You took the words right out of my mouth.
bripat9643
Diamond Member
- Apr 1, 2011
- 170,170
- 47,372
- 2,180
What utter horseshit. The New York Times? Now there's a credible source. I'll bet you had to look high and low to find an article that had bad things to say about Chile's economic performance. The author obviously had to sift through a mountain of positive statistics to find something to complain about:
Chile?s Privatized Social Security Program is 30 Years Old, and Prospering
Yeah, that pension system sure sucks. Chileans must find getting $70,000/yr instead of the measly $25,000/yr we can expect to get a real cross to bear. And then they have an estate to pass on to their children. What do we pass on to our children? We pass on a mountain of debt so they can work like galley slaves their entire lives to pay it off.
Yeah, that Chilean pension system just blows.
Now consider the economic statistics below. Anyone who claims Chile isn't doing better than every other country in Latin America is either a moron or a liar. I believe you are both.
Yeah, NYT isn'r crediblee *shaking head* lol
No, the NYT isn't credible. It has proven over and over again that it's a propaganda organ for the Democrat party. It has hired reporters who make-up the news.
If you don't like that source, then how about Investors Business Daily?
Yeah, so? You mean it isn't perfect? Here's the bottom line. Chile's pension system gives a 9% return on the pensioner's investment. The supporters of SSI claim it returns 1% - 2%, at best. However, that's bullshit because the money is immediately used to pay out current benefits. Money spent on consumption does not give a return of any kind. SSI can't pay a "return" that doesn't come out of the hides of current or future taxpayers. It's "return" is therefore 0%.
If a pensioner pays in 10% of his income for 40 years of his working life, say $200/month, the value of his retirement savings will be $936,264.05 when he retires. A retirement fund of that amount can pay out $84,000/yr without consuming the principle. Furthermore, when the pensioner dies, his heirs will receive an inheritance of $1 million dollars. The heirs of SSI recipients recieve nothing.
All you petty attacks on the Chilean pension system don't amount to a hill of beans compared to the benefits of the system.
Whatever the "goal," the fact is they were receive far more than they ever could have hoped for from the previous Chilean system or from our system. That's the bottom line.
Low participation is not the fault of the system.The fact that some people are unemployed is not the fault of the system. In fact, many people owe their jobs to the pension system because the money invested to create their jobs come from the accounts of pensioners in the system. The fact that the Chilean government still have to cover the pensions of people who aren't in the new system is also not the fault of the system.
In short, your complaints are all totally groundless.
That's utter horseshit, and you have provided no support for your claim. The fact that not everyone has a huge next egg is to be expected. People who have only been working for 5 years aren't going to have anywhere near the amount that someone who has been working for 40 years would have. The math I did above would be for someone making $2,000/month, that is $24,000/yr. His retirement payout would be $86,000/yr, so your claim is obviously just pure hogwash. It's simply a lie that you were happy to quote without checking.
DUh . . . yeah! Did you think the government's obligation to all those who retired before they had been in the new system for 40 years would just disappear? When are the trillions we spend every year on SSI going to disappear? Duh . . . never!
Your claim is obvious horseshit. However, the bottom line is that the Chilean system gives pensioners a 9% return on their investment. SSI gives 0%
Dad2three
Gold Member
What utter horseshit. The New York Times? Now there's a credible source. I'll bet you had to look high and low to find an article that had bad things to say about Chile's economic performance. The author obviously had to sift through a mountain of positive statistics to find something to complain about:
Chile?s Privatized Social Security Program is 30 Years Old, and Prospering
Yeah, that pension system sure sucks. Chileans must find getting $70,000/yr instead of the measly $25,000/yr we can expect to get a real cross to bear. And then they have an estate to pass on to their children. What do we pass on to our children? We pass on a mountain of debt so they can work like galley slaves their entire lives to pay it off.
Yeah, that Chilean pension system just blows.
Now consider the economic statistics below. Anyone who claims Chile isn't doing better than every other country in Latin America is either a moron or a liar. I believe you are both.
Yeah, NYT isn'r crediblee *shaking head* lol
No, the NYT isn't credible. It has proven over and over again that it's a propaganda organ for the Democrat party. It has hired reporters who make-up the news.
If you don't like that source, then how about Investors Business Daily?
Yeah, so? You mean it isn't perfect? Here's the bottom line. Chile's pension system gives a 9% return on the pensioner's investment. The supporters of SSI claim it returns 1% - 2%, at best. However, that's bullshit because the money is immediately used to pay out current benefits. Money spent on consumption does not give a return of any kind. SSI can't pay a "return" that doesn't come out of the hides of current or future taxpayers. It's "return" is therefore 0%.
If a pensioner pays in 10% of his income for 40 years of his working life, say $200/month, the value of his retirement savings will be $936,264.05 when he retires. A retirement fund of that amount can pay out $84,000/yr without consuming the principle. Furthermore, when the pensioner dies, his heirs will receive an inheritance of $1 million dollars. The heirs of SSI recipients recieve nothing.
All you petty attacks on the Chilean pension system don't amount to a hill of beans compared to the benefits of the system.
Whatever the "goal," the fact is they were receive far more than they ever could have hoped for from the previous Chilean system or from our system. That's the bottom line.
Low participation is not the fault of the system.The fact that some people are unemployed is not the fault of the system. In fact, many people owe their jobs to the pension system because the money invested to create their jobs come from the accounts of pensioners in the system. The fact that the Chilean government still have to cover the pensions of people who aren't in the new system is also not the fault of the system.
In short, your complaints are all totally groundless.
That's utter horseshit, and you have provided no support for your claim. The fact that not everyone has a huge next egg is to be expected. People who have only been working for 5 years aren't going to have anywhere near the amount that someone who has been working for 40 years would have. The math I did above would be for someone making $2,000/month, that is $24,000/yr. His retirement payout would be $86,000/yr, so your claim is obviously just pure hogwash. It's simply a lie that you were happy to quote without checking.
DUh . . . yeah! Did you think the government's obligation to all those who retired before they had been in the new system for 40 years would just disappear? When are the trillions we spend every year on SSI going to disappear? Duh . . . never!
Your claim is obvious horseshit. However, the bottom line is that the Chilean system gives pensioners a 9% return on their investment. SSI gives 0%
LOL, Got it, you'll stick with right wing memes, distortions AND lies.
IBD? lol
First, like ALL things conservative, the privatization did NOTHING to stop the cost of Chile's costs, same percentage of GDP today as pre privatization AND Gov't has had to bail out with WELFARE AND it didn't work as conservatives promised, like EVERYTHING conservative policies does, it's NEVER working as promised, ever
NYT is bad huh? lol
KRUG:
Privatizers who laud the Chilean system never mention that it has yet to deliver on its promise to reduce government spending. More than 20 years after the system was created, the government is still pouring in money. Why? Because, as a Federal Reserve study puts it, the Chilean government must "provide subsidies for workers failing to accumulate enough capital to provide a minimum pension." In other words, privatization would have condemned many retirees to dire poverty, and the government stepped back in to save them.
The same thing is happening in Britain.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/17/opinion/17krugman.html?_r=0
In a 2004 report on human development in Chile, the United Nations Development Program found that: Half of Chile's six million workers will not qualify for any Social Security benefits when they retire. Another 25 percent will save so little, due to low salaries and high investment account fees, that they will only get the guaranteed poverty-level benefit. Chile's private pension companies collected $4.5 billion in fees between 1982 and 1988, "more than a fifth of net contributions to the system."
But a second study, by the Chilean brokerage firm CB Capitales, exposed that as a lie, finding: When fees are figured in, the real annual rate of return was just 5.1 percent since 1982. Workers would have done better putting money in 90-day certificates of deposit (CDs) in banks. A young worker just starting out would have lost 6.6 percent through 1998. The same worker's account would have gone up 42 percent in bank CDs. The private pension companies reaped $808 million in profits, making gains of 20 percent even in years when private accounts lost money.
Privatized Social Security a Failure in Chile: Ignoring Senior Poverty Crisis, Bush Calls Broken Chilean System a | Communications Workers of America
THIS EXPLAINS WHY CHILE FAILED
http://72.32.39.237:8080/Plone/commentary/pdfs/nc962/chilefactsheet.pdf
Dad2three
Gold Member
What utter horseshit. The New York Times? Now there's a credible source. I'll bet you had to look high and low to find an article that had bad things to say about Chile's economic performance. The author obviously had to sift through a mountain of positive statistics to find something to complain about:
Chile?s Privatized Social Security Program is 30 Years Old, and Prospering
Yeah, that pension system sure sucks. Chileans must find getting $70,000/yr instead of the measly $25,000/yr we can expect to get a real cross to bear. And then they have an estate to pass on to their children. What do we pass on to our children? We pass on a mountain of debt so they can work like galley slaves their entire lives to pay it off.
Yeah, that Chilean pension system just blows.
Now consider the economic statistics below. Anyone who claims Chile isn't doing better than every other country in Latin America is either a moron or a liar. I believe you are both.
Yeah, NYT isn'r crediblee *shaking head* lol
No, the NYT isn't credible. It has proven over and over again that it's a propaganda organ for the Democrat party. It has hired reporters who make-up the news.
If you don't like that source, then how about Investors Business Daily?
Yeah, so? You mean it isn't perfect? Here's the bottom line. Chile's pension system gives a 9% return on the pensioner's investment. The supporters of SSI claim it returns 1% - 2%, at best. However, that's bullshit because the money is immediately used to pay out current benefits. Money spent on consumption does not give a return of any kind. SSI can't pay a "return" that doesn't come out of the hides of current or future taxpayers. It's "return" is therefore 0%.
If a pensioner pays in 10% of his income for 40 years of his working life, say $200/month, the value of his retirement savings will be $936,264.05 when he retires. A retirement fund of that amount can pay out $84,000/yr without consuming the principle. Furthermore, when the pensioner dies, his heirs will receive an inheritance of $1 million dollars. The heirs of SSI recipients recieve nothing.
All you petty attacks on the Chilean pension system don't amount to a hill of beans compared to the benefits of the system.
Whatever the "goal," the fact is they were receive far more than they ever could have hoped for from the previous Chilean system or from our system. That's the bottom line.
Low participation is not the fault of the system.The fact that some people are unemployed is not the fault of the system. In fact, many people owe their jobs to the pension system because the money invested to create their jobs come from the accounts of pensioners in the system. The fact that the Chilean government still have to cover the pensions of people who aren't in the new system is also not the fault of the system.
In short, your complaints are all totally groundless.
That's utter horseshit, and you have provided no support for your claim. The fact that not everyone has a huge next egg is to be expected. People who have only been working for 5 years aren't going to have anywhere near the amount that someone who has been working for 40 years would have. The math I did above would be for someone making $2,000/month, that is $24,000/yr. His retirement payout would be $86,000/yr, so your claim is obviously just pure hogwash. It's simply a lie that you were happy to quote without checking.
DUh . . . yeah! Did you think the government's obligation to all those who retired before they had been in the new system for 40 years would just disappear? When are the trillions we spend every year on SSI going to disappear? Duh . . . never!
Your claim is obvious horseshit. However, the bottom line is that the Chilean system gives pensioners a 9% return on their investment. SSI gives 0%
9%? LOL, CONSERVATIVES 'MATH'
When Chile made that transition in 1981, it was being ruled by the brutally repressive Pinochet military dictatorship, which took the need for political compromise right out of the picture. The country also enjoyed a budget surplus at the time of more than 5 percent of its GDP, which is not exactly the financial situation we enjoy today.
Chile’s plan requires that workers deposit 13.3 percent of their monthly pay into private accounts, including 3.3 percent to cover mandatory purchase of private disability and life insurance. That’s right: I doubt he realizes it, because I doubt he’s actually looked at it seriously, but the Chilean plan cited by Cain as his model includes — gulp — a government mandate for the purchase of insurance.
To offset that additional cost to workers, private employers in Chile were ordered by the military junta to increase wages across the board by 18 percent. The Chilean government also went deeply into debt to finance the transition to the new system while trying to honor commitments under the previous system.
Math doesn?t work on privatizing Social Security | Jay Bookman
A report this year from the World Bank, once an enthusiastic privatization proponent, expressed disappointment that in Chile and most other Latin American countries that followed in its footsteps, “more than half of all workers [are excluded] from even a semblance of a safety net during their old age.”
Other cautionary factoids from recent reports by Stephen J. Kay of the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta about ChileÂ’s experience:
• Investment accounts of retirees are much smaller than originally predicted—so low that 41 percent of those eligible to collect pensions continue to work.
Sharron Angle Calls for Social Security Privatization | FDL News Desk
LOL LIKE ALL THINGS CONSERVATIVE, THEIR POLICY NEVER WORKS AS PROMISED!
Listening
Gold Member
- Aug 27, 2011
- 14,989
- 1,650
- 260
But Obama's does....
You can keep your plan if you like it....
You can keep your doctor......
I'll save you 2,500/year.........
UE will not go over 8%.
Last edited:
Listening
Gold Member
- Aug 27, 2011
- 14,989
- 1,650
- 260
No, the NYT isn't credible. It has proven over and over again that it's a propaganda organ for the Democrat party. It has hired reporters who make-up the news.
If you don't like that source, then how about Investors Business Daily?
Yeah, so? You mean it isn't perfect? Here's the bottom line. Chile's pension system gives a 9% return on the pensioner's investment. The supporters of SSI claim it returns 1% - 2%, at best. However, that's bullshit because the money is immediately used to pay out current benefits. Money spent on consumption does not give a return of any kind. SSI can't pay a "return" that doesn't come out of the hides of current or future taxpayers. It's "return" is therefore 0%.
If a pensioner pays in 10% of his income for 40 years of his working life, say $200/month, the value of his retirement savings will be $936,264.05 when he retires. A retirement fund of that amount can pay out $84,000/yr without consuming the principle. Furthermore, when the pensioner dies, his heirs will receive an inheritance of $1 million dollars. The heirs of SSI recipients recieve nothing.
All you petty attacks on the Chilean pension system don't amount to a hill of beans compared to the benefits of the system.
Whatever the "goal," the fact is they were receive far more than they ever could have hoped for from the previous Chilean system or from our system. That's the bottom line.
Low participation is not the fault of the system.The fact that some people are unemployed is not the fault of the system. In fact, many people owe their jobs to the pension system because the money invested to create their jobs come from the accounts of pensioners in the system. The fact that the Chilean government still have to cover the pensions of people who aren't in the new system is also not the fault of the system.
In short, your complaints are all totally groundless.
That's utter horseshit, and you have provided no support for your claim. The fact that not everyone has a huge next egg is to be expected. People who have only been working for 5 years aren't going to have anywhere near the amount that someone who has been working for 40 years would have. The math I did above would be for someone making $2,000/month, that is $24,000/yr. His retirement payout would be $86,000/yr, so your claim is obviously just pure hogwash. It's simply a lie that you were happy to quote without checking.
DUh . . . yeah! Did you think the government's obligation to all those who retired before they had been in the new system for 40 years would just disappear? When are the trillions we spend every year on SSI going to disappear? Duh . . . never!
Your claim is obvious horseshit. However, the bottom line is that the Chilean system gives pensioners a 9% return on their investment. SSI gives 0%
9%? LOL, CONSERVATIVES 'MATH'
When Chile made that transition in 1981, it was being ruled by the brutally repressive Pinochet military dictatorship, which took the need for political compromise right out of the picture. The country also enjoyed a budget surplus at the time of more than 5 percent of its GDP, which is not exactly the financial situation we enjoy today.
Chile’s plan requires that workers deposit 13.3 percent of their monthly pay into private accounts, including 3.3 percent to cover mandatory purchase of private disability and life insurance. That’s right: I doubt he realizes it, because I doubt he’s actually looked at it seriously, but the Chilean plan cited by Cain as his model includes — gulp — a government mandate for the purchase of insurance.
To offset that additional cost to workers, private employers in Chile were ordered by the military junta to increase wages across the board by 18 percent. The Chilean government also went deeply into debt to finance the transition to the new system while trying to honor commitments under the previous system.
Math doesn?t work on privatizing Social Security | Jay Bookman
A report this year from the World Bank, once an enthusiastic privatization proponent, expressed disappointment that in Chile and most other Latin American countries that followed in its footsteps, “more than half of all workers [are excluded] from even a semblance of a safety net during their old age.”
Other cautionary factoids from recent reports by Stephen J. Kay of the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta about ChileÂ’s experience:
• Investment accounts of retirees are much smaller than originally predicted—so low that 41 percent of those eligible to collect pensions continue to work.
Sharron Angle Calls for Social Security Privatization | FDL News Desk
LOL LIKE ALL THINGS CONSERVATIVE, THEIR POLICY NEVER WORKS AS PROMISED!
Hey dumbass....
Looks to me like it worked for half of them.
How is it that you bunnyfarts can always justify such broad generalizations when you have no basis for them ?
bripat9643
Diamond Member
- Apr 1, 2011
- 170,170
- 47,372
- 2,180
How ironic.
Dad2three
Gold Member
But Obama's does....
You can keep your plan if you like it....
You can keep your doctor......
I'll save you 2,500/year.........
UE will not go over 8%.
That GOP plan from the 1990's that Obama adopted instead of going single payer?
:lol"UE will not go over 8%."
CARE TO GIVE ME A LINK ON THAT 8% CRAP?
Dad2three
Gold Member
NYT is unrealiable???? lol
Conservative: One who admires radicals a century after they're dead.
Leo Rosten
Dad2three
Gold Member
No, the NYT isn't credible. It has proven over and over again that it's a propaganda organ for the Democrat party. It has hired reporters who make-up the news.
If you don't like that source, then how about Investors Business Daily?
Yeah, so? You mean it isn't perfect? Here's the bottom line. Chile's pension system gives a 9% return on the pensioner's investment. The supporters of SSI claim it returns 1% - 2%, at best. However, that's bullshit because the money is immediately used to pay out current benefits. Money spent on consumption does not give a return of any kind. SSI can't pay a "return" that doesn't come out of the hides of current or future taxpayers. It's "return" is therefore 0%.
If a pensioner pays in 10% of his income for 40 years of his working life, say $200/month, the value of his retirement savings will be $936,264.05 when he retires. A retirement fund of that amount can pay out $84,000/yr without consuming the principle. Furthermore, when the pensioner dies, his heirs will receive an inheritance of $1 million dollars. The heirs of SSI recipients recieve nothing.
All you petty attacks on the Chilean pension system don't amount to a hill of beans compared to the benefits of the system.
Whatever the "goal," the fact is they were receive far more than they ever could have hoped for from the previous Chilean system or from our system. That's the bottom line.
Low participation is not the fault of the system.The fact that some people are unemployed is not the fault of the system. In fact, many people owe their jobs to the pension system because the money invested to create their jobs come from the accounts of pensioners in the system. The fact that the Chilean government still have to cover the pensions of people who aren't in the new system is also not the fault of the system.
In short, your complaints are all totally groundless.
That's utter horseshit, and you have provided no support for your claim. The fact that not everyone has a huge next egg is to be expected. People who have only been working for 5 years aren't going to have anywhere near the amount that someone who has been working for 40 years would have. The math I did above would be for someone making $2,000/month, that is $24,000/yr. His retirement payout would be $86,000/yr, so your claim is obviously just pure hogwash. It's simply a lie that you were happy to quote without checking.
DUh . . . yeah! Did you think the government's obligation to all those who retired before they had been in the new system for 40 years would just disappear? When are the trillions we spend every year on SSI going to disappear? Duh . . . never!
Your claim is obvious horseshit. However, the bottom line is that the Chilean system gives pensioners a 9% return on their investment. SSI gives 0%
9%? LOL, CONSERVATIVES 'MATH'
When Chile made that transition in 1981, it was being ruled by the brutally repressive Pinochet military dictatorship, which took the need for political compromise right out of the picture. The country also enjoyed a budget surplus at the time of more than 5 percent of its GDP, which is not exactly the financial situation we enjoy today.
Chile’s plan requires that workers deposit 13.3 percent of their monthly pay into private accounts, including 3.3 percent to cover mandatory purchase of private disability and life insurance. That’s right: I doubt he realizes it, because I doubt he’s actually looked at it seriously, but the Chilean plan cited by Cain as his model includes — gulp — a government mandate for the purchase of insurance.
To offset that additional cost to workers, private employers in Chile were ordered by the military junta to increase wages across the board by 18 percent. The Chilean government also went deeply into debt to finance the transition to the new system while trying to honor commitments under the previous system.
Math doesn?t work on privatizing Social Security | Jay Bookman
A report this year from the World Bank, once an enthusiastic privatization proponent, expressed disappointment that in Chile and most other Latin American countries that followed in its footsteps, “more than half of all workers [are excluded] from even a semblance of a safety net during their old age.”
Other cautionary factoids from recent reports by Stephen J. Kay of the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta about ChileÂ’s experience:
• Investment accounts of retirees are much smaller than originally predicted—so low that 41 percent of those eligible to collect pensions continue to work.
Sharron Angle Calls for Social Security Privatization | FDL News Desk
LOL LIKE ALL THINGS CONSERVATIVE, THEIR POLICY NEVER WORKS AS PROMISED!
Hey dumbass....
Looks to me like it worked for half of them.
How is it that you bunnyfarts can always justify such broad generalizations when you have no basis for them ?
HALF? So about the other half AND Gov't spending as much as they did BEFORE they 'privatized' it?
Dad2three
Gold Member
Apparently you don't know what that means. You must be that last part I mentioned (sociopath)....
Listening
Gold Member
- Aug 27, 2011
- 14,989
- 1,650
- 260
But Obama's does....
You can keep your plan if you like it....
You can keep your doctor......
I'll save you 2,500/year.........
UE will not go over 8%.
That GOP plan from the 1990's that Obama adopted instead of going single payer?
"UE will not go over 8%."
CARE TO GIVE ME A LINK ON THAT 8% CRAP?
ROTFLMAO.
The GOP plan......too much.
You mean the Heritage Foundation plan that nobody agreed with then.
But that was utilized as a smokescreen against Hillarycare ?
That plan ?
The one the GOP implemented right after the GOP took the house and senate in 1994 ? Oh wait.....
Or the one they implemented while they held the house, the senate and the WH ? That never happened.
That plan ???
Does Polly want a cracker ?
On UE at 8%...everyone knows that Christine Romer carried Obama's water. I loved this from Politifact............
Obama didnÂ’t say that. Rather, his Council of Economic Advisers predicted that the stimulus would hold it to that level. Their report included heavy disclaimers that the projections had "significant margins of error" and a high degree of uncertainty due to a recession that is "unusual both in its fundamental causes and its severity."
The sub-8 percent prediction did not hold true, but itÂ’s still incorrect to characterize it as a promise or guarantee.
**************
Those who pushed the failed stimulus were all to quick to quote the number.
Failed Obama policies.
Dad2three
Gold Member
But Obama's does....
You can keep your plan if you like it....
You can keep your doctor......
I'll save you 2,500/year.........
UE will not go over 8%.
That GOP plan from the 1990's that Obama adopted instead of going single payer?
"UE will not go over 8%."
CARE TO GIVE ME A LINK ON THAT 8% CRAP?
ROTFLMAO.
The GOP plan......too much.
You mean the Heritage Foundation plan that nobody agreed with then.
But that was utilized as a smokescreen against Hillarycare ?
That plan ?
The one the GOP implemented right after the GOP took the house and senate in 1994 ? Oh wait.....
Or the one they implemented while they held the house, the senate and the WH ? That never happened.
That plan ???
Does Polly want a cracker ?
On UE at 8%...everyone knows that Christine Romer carried Obama's water. I loved this from Politifact............
Obama didnÂ’t say that. Rather, his Council of Economic Advisers predicted that the stimulus would hold it to that level. Their report included heavy disclaimers that the projections had "significant margins of error" and a high degree of uncertainty due to a recession that is "unusual both in its fundamental causes and its severity."
The sub-8 percent prediction did not hold true, but itÂ’s still incorrect to characterize it as a promise or guarantee.
**************
Those who pushed the failed stimulus were all to quick to quote the number.
Failed Obama policies.
THAT GOP plan that stopped H/C reform under Clinton? YES.
ROMER PREDICTED? Got it
Now WHY did there NEED to be a stimulus after 8 years of Bush/GOP 'job creator' policies? lol
There didnt need to be a stimulus. Over 100 economists placed an ad in the WSJ saying exactly that. And they were right. The stimulus was the biggest domestic policy flop until Obamacare came along.
Every policy of Obama is a failure. Why dont you get that?
Every policy of Obama is a failure. Why dont you get that?
Dad2three
Gold Member
Those economists from Heritage, AEI, CATO, etc who said Bush's tax cuts would lead to growth and jobs, and pay off the debt? lol
In a survey conducted by the University of Chicago Booth School of Business, 80 percent of economic experts agreed that, because of the stimulus, the U.S. unemployment rate was lower at the end of 2010 than it would have been otherwise.
“Only 4 percent disagreed or strongly disagreed,” CBO Director Douglas Elmendorf told the House Budget Committee. “That,” he added, “is a distinct minority.”
Congressional Budget Office defends stimulus - The Washington Post
Similar threads
