Obama stimulus is failed

[freedombecki]

So far, the only people who've benefitted from the stimulus are the executives at the hand-picked businesses they bailed out who expropriated from the proceeds, themselves unbelievable bonuses at taxpayer expense.

And the defense seems to be something like, "Eh, what's a couple trillion dollars?"

 

[Polk]

So far, the only people who've benefitted from the stimulus are the executives at the hand-picked businesses they bailed out who expropriated from the proceeds, themselves unbelievable bonuses at taxpayer expense.

And the defense seems to be something like, "Eh, what's a couple trillion dollars?"

.9 = 2?

Also, you realize a huge chunk of the money was spent on tax cuts, don't you?

 

[Vanquish]

Republicans aught to go into magic. Seriously.

Obama helps the rich...saves Big Business...incorporates tax cuts...and somehow...presto-chango!
LIBERALS ARE AT FAULT!!!

It's ******* Machiavellian!

 

[Uncensored2008]

Republicans aught to go into magic. Seriously.

You leftists ought to go in for a course in basic logic, followed by the fundamentals of economics.

Seriously!

 

[jeffrockit]

Just to clarify, it's not OBAMA's stimulus that failed. ALL stimulus fails...unless of course you're one of connected few to be handed my tax dollars. Keynes was wrong. Friedman/Hayek got it right.

Friedman stated that we needed a bigger stimulus. If you agree, as your quote states, that the stimulus failed, how can you thin Friedman got it right?

Who is "Friedman"? You mean this guy?
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ESNCWrks6vQ&feature=related]YouTube - ‪Kinky Friedman, They Ain't Making Jews Like Jesus Anymore‬‏[/ame]

Economist and NY Times contributor Tom Friedman. The left seems to hang on his every word. He has stated many times over that the stimulus should have been bigger and we need another....since the 1st has worked so well.

 

[The Rabbi]

Friedman stated that we needed a bigger stimulus. If you agree, as your quote states, that the stimulus failed, how can you thin Friedman got it right?

Who is "Friedman"? You mean this guy?

Economist and NY Times contributor Tom Friedman. The left seems to hang on his every word. He has stated many times over that the stimulus should have been bigger and we need another....since the 1st has worked so well.

Neve3r heard of him. But this wasn't the first stimulus. This is about the third. There was one under Bush, hashed out with Pelosi, that involved sending checks to people. It fared as well as this one, with the only virtue it was relatively small.

 

[The T]

Republicans aught to go into magic. Seriously.

You leftists ought to go in for a course in basic logic, followed by the fundamentals of economics.

Seriously!

And these fuckers can PAY for it themselves...NO student loans...and besides? They should already KNOW these things of their own volition. HERD mentality keeps them back...

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Actually the stimulus worked great.

It saved us from another Great Depression.

OMG.

 

[The T]

Actually the stimulus worked great.

It saved us from another Great Depression.

OMG.

Nevermind that 48% belive that it has YET to happen within the next 12 months?

Chrissy needs to put down the crack bong...

 

[8537]

No, that simply IS true. How does one expand the money supply by 3% per anum without a central bank increasing the money supply?

Article I; Section 8: To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

It isn't that tough.

Well, actually - yes, it is that tough. You want congressmen to determine the MB and M1, and you trust them to fairly expand those at exactly 3%?

Milt was smart enough to realize that could never work.

Hayek was no socialist - though he did argue at times in favor of universal health care and he spoke against commodity currencies at times as well.

Bullshit.

Eh, no. Not bullshit. Hayek argued at times in favor of universal health care.

he also argued at times against commodity standards.

Unlike his blind worshipers, Hayek was not a market fundamentalist ideologue. He was a fairly pragmatic sociologist with a predisposition towards free markets.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Well, actually - yes, it is that tough. You want congressmen to determine the MB and M1, and you trust them to fairly expand those at exactly 3%?

Milt was smart enough to realize that could never work.

Milt didn't say what you claim he did. Acknowledging the need for fiat currency in a dynamic and expanding economy does not equate to handing the wealth of the nation to a well connected cabal of private bankers to manipulate to their own advantage, nor did Dr. Friedman espouse any such nonsense.

Eh, no. Not bullshit. Hayek argued at times in favor of universal health care.

Bullshit, bordering on an outright lie. Hayek acknowledged the need for disaster relief ala FEMA and other emergency aid mechanisms. Some of the scum at Huffingglue and KOS have taken out of context quotes to convince the mindless drones that frequent those hate sites that "Hayek favored Obama's fascist care." It's a lie - I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that it isn't YOUR lie, that you are mindlessly bleating the words of the hate sites, but the claim is a cynical and calculated lie, as only the left is wont to do

Unlike his blind worshipers, Hayek was not a market fundamentalist ideologue. He was a fairly pragmatic sociologist with a predisposition towards free markets.

You have no clue who Hayek was nor what he advocated.

It's amusing that the left thinks the way to gain legitimacy is to openly lie about the positions of the opposition.

I wrote my masters thesis on the works of Murray Rothbard, who was a follower of Hayek. To me, your claims are amusing in the utter ignorance they display. But I also understand the malice behind them, the desire to deceive. Again, I'm sure that you are merely a drone, reciting meme that you have no hope of grasping. But those who programmed you to spew this bullshit do so from a malicious attempt to deceive.

Here is a brief essay on Hayek, educate yourself.

Hayek and the Nobel Prize - Murray N. Rothbard - Mises Daily

 

[8537]

Well, actually - yes, it is that tough. You want congressmen to determine the MB and M1, and you trust them to fairly expand those at exactly 3%?

Milt was smart enough to realize that could never work.

Milt didn't say what you claim he did. Acknowledging the need for fiat currency in a dynamic and expanding economy does not equate to handing the wealth of the nation to a well connected cabal of private bankers to manipulate to their own advantage, nor did Dr. Friedman espouse any such nonsense.

Wait a second - when did I say that Mil supported handing the wealth of the nation to a well-connected cabal of private bankers? You seem to be making shit up as you go.

I said that Milt supported central banks with for the purpose of pegging the rate of money creation at 3% - vs. the then-dominant idea of pegging the rate of inflation.

Bullshit, bordering on an outright lie. Hayek acknowledged the need for disaster relief ala FEMA and other emergency aid mechanisms. Some of the scum at Huffingglue and KOS have taken out of context quotes to convince the mindless drones that frequent those hate sites that "Hayek favored Obama's fascist care." It's a lie - I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that it isn't YOUR lie, that you are mindlessly bleating the words of the hate sites, but the claim is a cynical and calculated lie, as only the left is wont to do

what in the world are you talking about? Huffpo and Kos? I never claimed that Milt supported Obama's health care reform, and I haven't a clue where you ever scared up such a thing.

Seriously, what ever would lead you to make such a claim on what I wrote?

You have no clue who Hayek was nor what he advocated.

Ha! That's hilarious.

Tell me about your deep experience with Hayek. Did you agree or disagree with his response to Keynes 1932 op-ed in the New York Times?

I wrote my masters thesis on the works of Murray Rothbard, who was a follower of Hayek.

I'm going to go ahead and question this claim based on the following: Rothbard was not a follower of Hayek. In fact, they disagreed significantly on the role of commodity currencies, private-issue currency regimes, the proper role of government in items such as defense, disaster response, education and triangular interventions. Hayek was not, in any sense, an anarcho-capitalist.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Wait a second - when did I say that Mil supported handing the wealth of the nation to a well-connected cabal of private bankers? You seem to be making shit up as you go.

Uh, yeah...

I said that Milt supported central banks with for the purpose of pegging the rate of money creation at 3% - vs. the then-dominant idea of pegging the rate of inflation.

You claimed that Friedman supported the Federal Reserve.

Your claim is utterly false.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JL3FT0O4kYg&feature=player_embedded]YouTube - ‪Milton Friedman - Abolish the FED!‬‏[/ame]

what in the world are you talking about? Huffpo and Kos? I never claimed that Milt supported Obama's health care reform,

No, you claimed HAYEK did - which is vastly more absurd. You don't even know what it is you spew, do you?

Seriously, what ever would lead you to make such a claim on what I wrote?

I get the feeling that you don't grasp what you write, you grab snippets from the hate sites and post them here, without a hint of a clue what they mean.

Tell me about your deep experience with Hayek. Did you agree or disagree with his response to Keynes 1932 op-ed in the New York Times?

What are you babbling about? What supposed "op-ed" was this?

I wrote my masters thesis on the works of Murray Rothbard, who was a follower of Hayek.

I'm going to go ahead and question this claim based on the following:

Yawn..

Rothbard and Hayek: A Personal Memory by Ronald Hamowy

What the left cannot grasp is intellectual freedom. Where you view a world of automatons marching in lockstep, there is a whole universe of competing and contrasting ideas.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Actually the stimulus worked great.

It saved us from another Great Depression.

If trillion dollar deficits, 9% unemployment, and GDP growth of under 2% is working Id hate to see your definition of failure.

Tell us where unemployment and GDP would been at the end of 2009, at the end of 2010, and today, if there had not been a stimulus bill.

Be specific, and tell us exactly how you know your numbers are correct.

 

[NYcarbineer]

So far, the only people who've benefitted from the stimulus are the executives at the hand-picked businesses they bailed out who expropriated from the proceeds, themselves unbelievable bonuses at taxpayer expense.

And the defense seems to be something like, "Eh, what's a couple trillion dollars?"

So the $400 to $800 make work pay tax credit in the stimulus bill didn't help anyone?

The expansion of the child tax credit didn't help anyone?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Actually the stimulus worked great.

It saved us from another Great Depression.

If trillion dollar deficits, 9% unemployment, and GDP growth of under 2% is working Id hate to see your definition of failure.

Tell us where unemployment and GDP would been at the end of 2009, at the end of 2010, and today, if there had not been a stimulus bill.

Be specific, and tell us exactly how you know your numbers are correct.

Well in 1920 Coolidge and SecTres Mellon had 12% unemployment, they cut taxes and government spending and in 18 months unemployment was 4%. A year later you could not find an unemployed person in the USA.

 

[Polk]

If trillion dollar deficits, 9% unemployment, and GDP growth of under 2% is working Id hate to see your definition of failure.

Tell us where unemployment and GDP would been at the end of 2009, at the end of 2010, and today, if there had not been a stimulus bill.

Be specific, and tell us exactly how you know your numbers are correct.

Well in 1920 Coolidge and SecTres Mellon had 12% unemployment, they cut taxes and government spending and in 18 months unemployment was 4%. A year later you could not find an unemployed person in the USA.

I wonder how deleveraging after a war differs from the aftermath of a financial crisis.

Also, if cutting taxes is such a magic bullet, why didn't the economy boom over the last decade?

 

[NYcarbineer]

If trillion dollar deficits, 9% unemployment, and GDP growth of under 2% is working Id hate to see your definition of failure.

Tell us where unemployment and GDP would been at the end of 2009, at the end of 2010, and today, if there had not been a stimulus bill.

Be specific, and tell us exactly how you know your numbers are correct.

Well in 1920 Coolidge and SecTres Mellon had 12% unemployment, they cut taxes and government spending and in 18 months unemployment was 4%. A year later you could not find an unemployed person in the USA.

Was your second choice the Reagan expansion and lower unemployment? That occurred amid significant spending increases and ballooning deficts along with the tax cuts?

Anyway, your answer wasn't really addressing my question.

 

[The Rabbi]

Actually the stimulus worked great.

It saved us from another Great Depression.

If trillion dollar deficits, 9% unemployment, and GDP growth of under 2% is working Id hate to see your definition of failure.

Tell us where unemployment and GDP would been at the end of 2009, at the end of 2010, and today, if there had not been a stimulus bill.

Be specific, and tell us exactly how you know your numbers are correct.

Unemployment would have been about 9% at the height of the recession. Today it would be about 7%. GDP growth would be about 4%.
This is based on past recoveries. The evidence is pretty strong. The '86 recession was about this severe and those are the numbers we got then.

 

[boedicca]

Here's how it's working out"

At the end of this month, President Obama’s economic recovery will be two years old. Let’s look at what we can expect in terms of results.

The consensus forecasts have been overly optimistic of late, but let’s assume that the economists get it right for 2Q 2011, and we get real GDP growth of 2.0%. And let’s further assume that the BLS employment report for June comes in at the average of April and May.

If such turns out to be the case, total employment (BLS household survey) will be 0.3 million lower than it was at the start of Obama’s “recovery”, two years earlier. The unemployment rate will have fallen from 9.5% to 9.1%, but only because 3.6 million people became discouraged and stopped looking for work.

If the rate of labor force participation in June 2011 were the same as it was in June 2009 (65.7%), the reported unemployment rate would be 11.2% rather than 9.1%. If June 2011 labor force participation were 66.2%, which is where it was when Obama promised that his “stimulus” program would prevent unemployment from exceeding 8.0%, the June 2011 unemployment rate would come in at 11.9%....


http://blogs.forbes.com/louiswoodhi...bama-authors-the-economic-recovery-that-isnt/



The only reason why unemployment is not officially 11.9% is because 3.6M PEOPLE HAVE GIVEN UP LOOKING FOR WORK.