Second stimulus?
- Thread starter Canceled2
- Start date
SmarterthanYou
rebel
vote buying. how do we all feel about giving billions to the dems to support their power? suckers yet?
Topspin
Verified User
NOT GOING TO HAPPEN
for 2 reasons
1. Obama played with out economic stability by playing politics and holding half of the first stimulus for next year. Just in time to prop up the economy for his re-election.
2. Of the said re-election, the hunderds of thousand of tea-baggers would turn into something that would make the million man march look like a couple kids playing tiddly winks.
and I'm a turbo-lib
for 2 reasons
1. Obama played with out economic stability by playing politics and holding half of the first stimulus for next year. Just in time to prop up the economy for his re-election.
2. Of the said re-election, the hunderds of thousand of tea-baggers would turn into something that would make the million man march look like a couple kids playing tiddly winks.
and I'm a turbo-lib
He's a fiscal disaster. He has made himself look weak to our foregin friends and foes. His only trick left is to go Chicago Style with his influence.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
and some of us said it wasn't going to work no matter how large it was, and it didn't.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
unemployment rate, faulty jobs saved or created stats, stimulus funds still sitting behind red tape, any number of things are a great gauge.
Well, clearly you're no economist. Employment is generally a lagging indicator, and in fact, over half of American businesses are now planning hires in the next 2 quarters.
Frankly, we're in a much better place right now than I ever expected us to be earlier in the year. An excellent argument can be made that if not for TARP, the auto bailouts & the stimulus, the market might still be down around 7K, and we'd still be losing jobs at a clip of 500K a month.
I have little doubt that, unless we were experiencing growth rates like 1998, you'd be saying things "failed." It's all ideological.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
Tell us Desh... WHY did they delay about $400 billion of that first stimulus to 2010 if they were so concerned it was too small?
Why not get the entire amount working as fast as possible?
SmarterthanYou
rebel
i'm so tired of the turbo libs using the 'lagging indicator' craptastic excuse when it suits them.If unemployment were actually stable or even going UP by .01%, I could give you that, but it keeps getting higher. so, no. I'm clearly more an economist than you are.
but we'd be in zero danger of any more bubbles or inflation.
you're obviously choosing to be obtuse since damn near everyone here KNOWS i'm neither republican or a democrat. Truth be told, your two parties have been screwing this country over for decades.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
and he didn't. all his programs did was grow the government, grow the tax rates, grow the deficit, and shrink the rights, freedoms, and liberties of all americans. Oh, and he also imprisoned tens of thousands of japanese american citizens. he should have been tried and executed for war crimes against humanity. I'm sure hell's not hot enough for him.
Sammy Jankis
Was it me?
Unemployment is a lagging indicator when banks are willing to finance local business. In this scenario banks are hoarding cash for the New World Order, and credit for small business and individuals is being shut off.
Actually, about 200 billion is set to be spent in FY2010 (which we are currently in) because the output gap was expected to last well beyond 2010.
Getting the entire amount out as soon as possible is a recipe for a very bad double dip recession. It would have been a terribly stupid thing to do.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
Sammy Jankis
Was it me?
SmarterthanYou
rebel
lame assed excuse. wouldn't it have been much more economically sound to limit tarp to the minimum necessary before the output gap in order to keep the deficit small and let the market work its way out without a false sense of security?