stimulus worked so well, we need another one

C

Cancel 2018. 3

<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
Bipartisan jobs bill clears GOP filibuster

WASHINGTON - A bipartisan jobs bill cleared a GOP filibuster on Monday with critical momentum provided by the Senate's newest Republican, Scott Brown of Massachusetts.

The 62-30 tally to advance the measure to a final vote on Wednesday gives both President Barack Obama and Capitol Hill Democrats a much-needed victory — even though the measure in question is likely to have only a modest boost on hiring.

Brown and four other Republicans broke with GOP leaders to advance the measure. Most other Republicans opposed the bill because Democratic Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada stripped out provisions they had sought and wouldn't allow them to try to restore them.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35528082/ns/politics-capitol_hill/

let us remember this folks.....FIVE republicans makes it bipartisan......

FIVE.....

i guess brown voted for it because he believed the huge near trillion dollar stimulus from obama didn't get the job done, however......that begs the question.....obama said the stimulus has worked....why do we need this? there is approximately 600 billion left in obama's stimulus........yet

we need another
 
So Brown campaigned saying he was against the original stimulus. Why is he supporting this one?
 
Why not Bush didn't even count the money he was pissing down the middle east hole.
More stimulus = more jobs.
 
Topspin said:
How well did Bush spending billions in Iraq and Affuckistan work?

At least stimulus goes to americans and not towel heads.
Click to expand...

well all I can say is thank goodness you earn more than me, as you have so frequently told us all, because you're going to be paying for it sooner than I am......
 
PostmodernProphet said:
well all I can say is thank goodness you earn more than me, as you have so frequently told us all, because you're going to be paying for it sooner than I am......
Click to expand...

Dont' know about that, I'm 50 and putting my retirement skates on. Maybe I'll be one of those libtards that collects unemployment for a couple years.
Can millionaires get unemployment?
 
Wanted: An actual economist opining that the stimulus bill passed last year did not create jobs.

Still waiting for that one.
 
NigelTufnel said:
Wanted: An actual economist opining that the stimulus bill passed last year did not create jobs.

Still waiting for that one.
Click to expand...

LMAO.... again with this crap?

Yes, they are saying that the stimulus created jobs.... in SOME areas. But OVERALL.... the NET change in jobs was NEGATIVE.

To say it worked because it 'could have been worse' is nothing more than political bullshit. Because the same could be said in reverse 'had they spent it properly, things COULD HAVE BEEN BETTER'

Amazing how apologists such as yourself keep forgetting that.
 
Superfreak said:
LMAO.... again with this crap?

Yes, they are saying that the stimulus created jobs.... in SOME areas. But OVERALL.... the NET change in jobs was NEGATIVE.

To say it worked because it 'could have been worse' is nothing more than political bullshit. Because the same could be said in reverse 'had they spent it properly, things COULD HAVE BEEN BETTER'

Amazing how apologists such as yourself keep forgetting that.
Click to expand...


I'm not arguing with you SF. Relax, cowboy.

Just look at this thread. Yurt claims that the stimulus didn't work. PMP says it didn't work. Republicans of all flavors assert that the stimulus didn't create a single job.

And really, saying it "could have been worse" isn't what I am saying. What I am saying is that it would have been worse without the stimulus. And, frankly, you have zero evidence to show otherwise while I have economists from across the political spectrum in my corner.
 
Superfreak said:
LMAO.... again with this crap?

Yes, they are saying that the stimulus created jobs.... in SOME areas. But OVERALL.... the NET change in jobs was NEGATIVE.

To say it worked because it 'could have been worse' is nothing more than political bullshit. Because the same could be said in reverse 'had they spent it properly, things COULD HAVE BEEN BETTER'

Amazing how apologists such as yourself keep forgetting that.
Click to expand...

C'mon, Freak. That's a dishonest argument. No matter who was elected last year, and no matter what policies were implemented in early '09, the economy was set to lose jobs at a very steep clip throughout most of the year.

The stimulus created new jobs, and likely stemmed the tide of some of the layoffs (though clearly not all - that would have taken an act of God, given the state of the economy). It stemmed the bleeding, and started laying the foundation for recovery.
 
NigelTufnel said:
I'm not arguing with you SF. Relax, cowboy.

Just look at this thread. Yurt claims that the stimulus didn't work. PMP says it didn't work. Republicans of all flavors assert that the stimulus didn't create a single job.

And really, saying it "could have been worse" isn't what I am saying. What I am saying is that it would have been worse without the stimulus. And, frankly, you have zero evidence to show otherwise while I have economists from across the political spectrum in my corner.
Click to expand...

Again you twit... yes... it would have been worse... however, it also WOULD have been BETTER had the idiots actually put the money to work in areas other than saving public sector union jobs. When you look at what Obama SAID the stimulus would do vs. what it did... the stimulus FAILED.

I know he has truck loads of 'economists' coming out with their 'yes, da stimulus created 1.6 million jobs' blah blah blah.... but that is ONLY if you continue to pretend that 'saving' jobs = 'creating' jobs. Anyone who looks at this with an objective view can see that net jobs were LOST... despite the stimulus. They can also see the fact that 65% of the 'stimulus' money has yet to be spent, yet the idiots in DC want another 'stimulus' package (though they are calling this one a 'jobs' bill)
 
Damocles said:
Yeah, but they haven't pissed off enough people with back-door dealing, they want to really ensure that the nation is behind republicans in November.
Click to expand...

I see your sarcasm, but I am not so sure that would not be a good plan for the President if he wants to ensure a second term!


An incumbent needs an insider enemy to run as an outsider!
 
Onceler said:
C'mon, Freak. That's a dishonest argument. No matter who was elected last year, and no matter what policies were implemented in early '09, the economy was set to lose jobs at a very steep clip throughout most of the year.

The stimulus created new jobs, and likely stemmed the tide of some of the layoffs (though clearly not all - that would have taken an act of God, given the state of the economy). It stemmed the bleeding, and started laying the foundation for recovery.
Click to expand...

I do not argue that it stemmed the layoffs... especially in the public sector.

As for the argument I made, it is not in the least dishonest. While jobs were certainly going to be lost last year, the point of the stimulus as described by the idiots in DC was to keep unemployment under 8%. They FAILED to do so.

What is dishonest is pretending that this stimulus 'worked' and that we 'need another one'.

Do we or do we not still have 65% of the $797b left to spend?
 
Superfreak said:
Again you twit... yes... it would have been worse... however, it also WOULD have been BETTER had the idiots actually put the money to work in areas other than saving public sector union jobs. When you look at what Obama SAID the stimulus would do vs. what it did... the stimulus FAILED.
Click to expand...

It would have been better if the jackass "centrists" in the Senate kept their fucking hands off of it. And the claim that all the stimulus did was save union jobs is pure partisan hackery bullshit that I would expect from a typical Republican like yourself. You can't admit that the stimulus worked so you have to spin it's success in a negative light. I get it.

And when you look at what Obama said the stimulus would do versus what it did it succeeded. You focus on the unemployment rate while ignoring the actual employment figures is where you run into problems. Obama predicted about 3.7% GDP growth and about 3.6 million job created through the end of 2010. Those numbers will likely be met.

Superfreak said:
I know he has truck loads of 'economists' coming out with their 'yes, da stimulus created 1.6 million jobs' blah blah blah.... but that is ONLY if you continue to pretend that 'saving' jobs = 'creating' jobs. Anyone who looks at this with an objective view can see that net jobs were LOST... despite the stimulus. They can also see the fact that 65% of the 'stimulus' money has yet to be spent, yet the idiots in DC want another 'stimulus' package (though they are calling this one a 'jobs' bill)
Click to expand...


Every single economist that has opined on the matter admits that the stimulus bill increased employment. You can't point to anyone claiming otherwise. While net jobs were lost, the economy would have shed a whole lot more jobs without the stimulus and you cannot credibly claim otherwise.

Get over it.
 
Last edited:
Yurt said:
Bipartisan jobs bill clears GOP filibuster

WASHINGTON - A bipartisan jobs bill cleared a GOP filibuster on Monday with critical momentum provided by the Senate's newest Republican, Scott Brown of Massachusetts.

The 62-30 tally to advance the measure to a final vote on Wednesday gives both President Barack Obama and Capitol Hill Democrats a much-needed victory — even though the measure in question is likely to have only a modest boost on hiring.

Brown and four other Republicans broke with GOP leaders to advance the measure. Most other Republicans opposed the bill because Democratic Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada stripped out provisions they had sought and wouldn't allow them to try to restore them.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35528082/ns/politics-capitol_hill/

let us remember this folks.....FIVE republicans makes it bipartisan......

FIVE.....

i guess brown voted for it because he believed the huge near trillion dollar stimulus from obama didn't get the job done, however......that begs the question.....obama said the stimulus has worked....why do we need this? there is approximately 600 billion left in obama's stimulus........yet

we need another
Click to expand...

When did anyone say the first stimulus was big enough? This jobs bill wasn't even big enough.

And it's amazing that we were able to get the Republicans to break from their political strategy long enough to do what's right for the nation, I agree.
 
Last edited:
Superfreak said:
I do not argue that it stemmed the layoffs... especially in the public sector.

As for the argument I made, it is not in the least dishonest. While jobs were certainly going to be lost last year, the point of the stimulus as described by the idiots in DC was to keep unemployment under 8%. They FAILED to do so.

What is dishonest is pretending that this stimulus 'worked' and that we 'need another one'.

Do we or do we not still have 65% of the $797b left to spend?
Click to expand...

That 8% # was idiotic, imo. A very rosy prediction, that was stupid for them to make.

But keeping it under 8% was not the "point." I was for the stimulus before they started using that figure; keeping things from careening downhill was more the point, imo.

And I think it did that.

Have you looked at the details of the new stimulus? It should be right up a conservative's alley. A lot of it is breaks for small businesses, particularly tax incentives for hiring new employees. They had some of that stuff in the 1st stimulus, as well, but there were plenty who thought even more was needed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top