That they saved any jobs during Bush's Great Recession is a miracle itself. We were bled 1 million jobs in January, 2009 alone. All total, as many as some 3 million jobs were saved or created during those first two years.We had a net loss of some 4 million jobs those two years. Without Obama's stimulus, we could have lost as many as 7 million jobs; which would have been even more devastating to the nation. Funny thing is -- had that happened, you lying con tools would then be marching at the White House with pitch forks and torches, demanding to know why Obama didn't do something about it.
You do know that without any government intervention at all, the economy would recover? In the 1920s, the government made no attempt whatsoever to fix the economy from a much steeper recession than 2008, and the economy recovered without any government program at all.
In 1930, under Hoover, the government intervened at every level of the economy, and the result was a great depression.
In 2001, Bush faced a recession and did very little. The economy recovered.
In 2008 and 2009, Bush and then Obama, intervened heavily into the economy, and we had the great recession with what is now known as the slowest recoveries since the Great Depression.
Government didn't save jobs. No evidence of that whatsoever. If anything, government hindered the recovery.
Another day, another conservative making another ******* stupid argument that expansionary policies caused deepening of recession.
Andy, you say lefties do not understand economics? Tell me, what economic understanding lead you to believe that stabilization of financial sector and spending 800 billion dollars not only DIDN'T grow economy, but made it worse?
The biggest stimulus of all time was World War 2, which caused gigantic government spending, huge debt increase and oh by the way, the end of the Great Depression period and fundamental transformation of American economy.
Actually that's not even true.
Yes, it was. Millions were hired. That is, me boy, the biggest stimulus of this century. The "stimulus" of World War 2, did not end the great depression at all. There are basically only two real data points used by pro-stimulus economists, to support this particular narrative.
Another stupid statement, but lets look at your stupidity for a moment. Then we will bury you.
First, they claim that unemployment went down. Did it go down? Sure. But did it go down due to the economy recovering, or did it go down because unemployed were drafted into the military and sent over seas?
Before the war, until 1941, the rate had dropped from 25% under the hoover regime, to 9.6% under FDR. Now, you may be interested to know that the drop in the ue rate, of 16%, from 1933 to 1941 ( 8 years) was the fastest decline in the ue rate ever. Then, the war. By 1942 the ue rate had dropped to 4,7% So, as you have been told, the ue rate dropped because of the efforts of FDR and ended with the giant stimulus of the war. When every single person in the US who wanted a job had a jot. Dipshit.
And, though you are probably too stupid to see it, you have been buried.
We could instantly drop unemployment within a month, no matter how bad any economic recession is, just be rounding up all the unemployed, and shipping them off to war, or even prison.
Wow, you are stupid. Did you know that prisoners are not considered part of the ue numbers. They are not considered. And you should know that it is illegal to ship people off to war, unless there is a war and they actually join the armed forces. Neither indicates a rebound of the economy.
One represents an illegal activity on the part of the US, so it will probably never happen, dipshit. The second is also illegal, but if they are in jail, they will not affect the ue rate. Does it hurt to be as stupid as you are?
Second, they use the increase in GDP. Did GDP increase? Yes. But not because the economy rebounded. Inherently in the formula for Gross Domestic Product, is government spending. Every time the US government increases spending, by the definition of the formula used, GDP goes up.
But does that mean anything has improved? No. The only time that the lives of the public, are actually improved by GDP, is when the product, in Gross Domestic Product, is what benefits the public. Do tanks, and metal helmets, and camos benefit the average citizen? No.
Sorry,, dipshit. People have to make helmets and camos and tanks, me boy. And they get paid for making those things, me boy. And yes, that makes them better off. And, they buy things. Which help other humans, dipshit. So, yes, they are helped. Greatly. Sorry you are so stupid. It must hurt.
In fact, by any rational measurement, the standard of living during World War 2, declined. Rationing of meat, milk, eggs, consumer goods, control on wages, reduction of housing.
Only a left-winger can look at the economic decline and fall in standard of living, ignore it all, and point to a fall in unemployed because people were drafted, and a growing GDP most of which was war product, and conclude that somehow this is a victory for government stimulus.
As for the claim that they stabilization of financial sector, that's true. Generally if you give money to people who screwed up, they tend to be "stabilized" by it. The question there is, was it needed, and did it help? I would say no to both.
Uh, you just made a sentence that was totally stupid. Congratulations. We can all spend time wondering why you are so stupid, though.
First there is no evidence and plenty to the contrary, that suggest that if the banks which engaged in bad loans were not bailed out, that it would done anything other than cause those specific banks to fail.
And another really stupid statement. I would suggest you get proof of your statement but there is no proof of anything that stupid. Thanks for proving you are a congenital idiot. Check on you wording, however. "would done" makes no sense at all. Maybe a remedial english class would help you, idiot.
Second, Banks to do not create economic growth directly. Banks grow with existing economic growth.
I would suggest a remedial economics class to help you with this sentence. But I do not believe there is any school that would let you in. You are way to stupid.
If I am running a failing business, what conditions the banks are in doesn't matter. Whether the banks fail, or grow, doesn't change the fact that my business is failing. There is no customer anywhere on the faces of this planet, that said "I'm going to Bob's Business, because the bank Bob uses is fantastic.".
Jesus. Please stop. You are too stupid to make sentences. Perhaps if you shoot yourself.
Equally, if my business is profitable and growing, it doesn't matter what my bank is doing. I can simply open my account with another bank that isn't failing. No customer ever said "I'm not going to Bob's Business anymore, because Bob uses XBank which is failing".
Damn, you are stupid.
You can prop up the banks until the end of time, and if the economic policies of the government are harming the economy, no amount of bank bailouts is going to fix that.
Japan is living proof of this. Japan in 1993 fell into a recession/stagnation situation. The Japanese government labeled many of these companies and banks "too big to fail". They were kept alive by bailouts on bailouts, over and over. And the result was that none of these companies and banks, could do anything but continue to exist, while never growing or becoming self sustaining.
Meanwhile the entire economy of Japan never recovered. They call this period the "lost decade", but in reality it stretched out for almost two decades, until the practice of 'too big to fail', and bailing out zombie firms, ended.
And this isn't the only example. Iceland famously let their three largest banks, which controlled nearly everything in Iceland, simply fail. Even before that, Estonia also allowed their biggest debt-ridden banks to fail as well. Instead of being a devastating event for the economies of each countries, all countries economies have recovered faster and stronger than the US has.
No, they have not. that is simply the statement of a really stupid con. In this case, YOU.
Really, you must be in terrible pain. I have never read anything as stupid as this post. And, I have read some reall stupid ones. If there is a contest for stupidest post, I am confident you will win.
