The Stimulus Worked

[Onceler]

"i think the job creation stats are bullshit"

I love this. Dude, your beloved CBO thinks they're conservative. Do you only give them credibility when it's convenient for you & your hate?

I had heard that up to a third of the stimulus had been spent so far; in case you weren't sure, it's a multi-year plan. They never said they were going to spend close to a trillion in a few months, and it would be stupid to do so. The goal of the plan is long-term.

Confidence is also a big factor in the economy's starting to turn around, and if you don't think the stimulus played a part in that, you're on something.

 

[Jarod]

I called it a year ago, they would hold a lot of the spending till 2010 to boost the economy near the 2012 re-election. I think Obama put reelection before jobs in 2009.

I agree, it was a shitty thing to do.

 

[Topspin]

I agree, it was a shitty thing to do.

If he legalized MJ in his second term he will be forgiven.

 

[Onceler]

I called it a year ago, they would hold a lot of the spending till 2010 to boost the economy near the 2012 re-election. I think Obama put reelection before jobs in 2009.

They're too smart for that, because it would be a stupid thing to do. More job creation in 2009 would mean even MORE job creation in 2010, and so on. We went so low, and lost so many jobs, that recovery could & should build on itself exponentially when it really takes root, which would be even more beneficial politically.

 

[Jarod]

Its not about forgiving or not forgiving to me, its about, he is better than McCain would have been and so shitty things like that are regrettable but it was the lesser of two evils.

 

[Jarod]

If he legalized MJ in his second term he will be forgiven.

Obviously he does not have the power to do anything but promote the legalization of Marijuana at the federal level.

 

[Topspin]

Obviously he does not have the power to do anything but promote the legalization of Marijuana at the federal level.

that's more than enough to get it done, after all he said "yes I inhailed that was the point"

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

"i think the job creation stats are bullshit"

I love this. Dude, your beloved CBO thinks they're conservative. Do you only give them credibility when it's convenient for you & your hate?

I had heard that up to a third of the stimulus had been spent so far; in case you weren't sure, it's a multi-year plan. They never said they were going to spend close to a trillion in a few months, and it would be stupid to do so. The goal of the plan is long-term.

Confidence is also a big factor in the economy's starting to turn around, and if you don't think the stimulus played a part in that, you're on something.

i rarely cite the cbo and i've never said i love them....more boring onceler lies

still can't answer questions...i wonder why

tell me onceler, how much has been spent so far and where has the money gone? from what i have read, the majority (billions) has gone to SS infrastructure upgrades and other government upgrades, not exactly stimulating the economy there bucko....

if this stimulus "worked"....why do we another one when barely any has been spent from this one?

come on, stop the lies for once and answer the questions, don't turn this into a nother stupid lying onceler thread

 

[Damocles]

I am sick of Democrats constantly loosing the propaganda war.

Why are the Cons so good at it?

Because, as Desh would say, reality has a conservative bias.

 

[Onceler]

i rarely cite the cbo and i've never said i love them....more boring onceler lies

still can't answer questions...i wonder why



come on, stop the lies for once and answer the questions, don't turn this into a nother stupid lying onceler thread

There is a breakdown of the money spent on Recovery.org. Like I said, confidence is one of the biggest factors (and confidence is one of the pillars of the American economy since we went away from having a more solid manufacturing base).

I answered your question about how much was spent.

Do you really discount the CBO then? You don't think they are a credible source?

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

There is a breakdown of the money spent on Recovery.org. Like I said, confidence is one of the biggest factors (and confidence is one of the pillars of the American economy since we went away from having a more solid manufacturing base).

I answered your question about how much was spent.

Do you really discount the CBO then? You don't think they are a credible source?

no you haven't....i want to hear from YOU how much has been spent because you apparently have no idea and recovery.org is extremely vague...you have avoided this next question about 4 times now

if this stimulus "worked"....why do we another one when barely any has been spent from this one?

i'm wondering when you will gather the courage to answer it

 

[Onceler]

no you haven't....i want to hear from YOU how much has been spent because you apparently have no idea...you have avoided this next question about 4 times now

if this stimulus "worked"....why do we another one when barely any has been spent from this one?

i'm wondering when you will gather the courage to answer it

A lot of people - including many of the economists who recommended the 1st stimulus - thought it was way too small, and didn't allot for spending in areas that sorely needed money. That's why they're trying to get a 2nd one going, but I don't think it has much chance, considering the state of the national discussion on this.

And I've gotta say, it's hilarious that you think I'm ignoring things & dodging questions; I'm not, but you are. You ignored the entirety of the article posted in the OP, save for one cherrypicked line, and you almost never answer my questions to you. You're a cherrypicker - you never look at the totality of facts when it doesn't suit your argument.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

A lot of people - including many of the economists who recommended the 1st stimulus - thought it was way too small, and didn't allot for spending in areas that sorely needed money. That's why they're trying to get a 2nd one going, but I don't think it has much chance, considering the state of the national discussion on this.

And I've gotta say, it's hilarious that you think I'm ignoring things & dodging questions; I'm not, but you are. You ignored the entirety of the article posted in the OP, save for one cherrypicked line, and you almost never answer my questions to you. You're a cherrypicker - you never look at the totality of facts when it doesn't suit your argument.

if this stimulus "worked"....why do we another one when barely any has been spent from this one?

you still have not answered this question. your so called answer above indicates that it did not work because it was too small.

now, man up and directly answer why, if this one worked (you have yet to tell me how much has been doled out, i think because you know it is around 30 billion dollars) why do we need another?

 

[Timshel]

This is a bunch of BS. The CBO admits there numbers are not very accurate. I can't find where these sources made these claims. But, last year Macroeconomic Advisers predicted that unemployment would rise to about 9.1% without the stimulus by this time. It was over that amount by May of last year.

http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2009/01/15/stimulus-could-pay-for-40-of-itself/tab/article/

You might as well consult your deck of Tarot cards on how many jobs the stimulus "saved."

In my opinion, Obama and the Dems are creating uncertainty in the markets. No one knows how health care reform will play out. There was also uncertainty on whether the cap and trade bill would pass and what it would look like. Further, there is the possibility of more stimulus or more government intervention in the private sector like what occurred in the auto industry.

In order for real job growth we need private sector investment. Political uncertainty creates hesitancy in investors.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

A lot of people - including many of the economists who recommended the 1st stimulus - thought it was way too small, and didn't allot for spending in areas that sorely needed money. That's why they're trying to get a 2nd one going, but I don't think it has much chance, considering the state of the national discussion on this.

And I've gotta say, it's hilarious that you think I'm ignoring things & dodging questions; I'm not, but you are. You ignored the entirety of the article posted in the OP, save for one cherrypicked line, and you almost never answer my questions to you. You're a cherrypicker - you never look at the totality of facts when it doesn't suit your argument.

Yet yurt is correct on the point of the second stimulus. It is rather ridiculous to proclaim we needed a bigger stimulus to begin with, when we have barely spent 20-25% of the current stimulus. How about they put the money from the first one to work before stating we need another?

Why is it that they are projecting about 70% of the first stimulus will have been spent by the end of this year?

WHAT is the reasoning for taking so long to put this money to work, while at the same time stating 'we need more'?

I just do not see it.

Again, I do think this stimulus was necessary and agree that it 'saved' some jobs (primarily public sector).... but when you evaluate this stimulus fairly, it is a bust thus far. This is not to say that things wouldn't have been worse without it... they would have been, but things also could have been much better if they pumped the rest of the money into infrastructure projects in 2009 rather than sitting around and waiting for 2010 and 2011 and 2012 to pump the rest of the stimulus money into the market.

 

[Timshel]

A lot of people - including many of the economists who recommended the 1st stimulus - thought it was way too small, and didn't allot for spending in areas that sorely needed money. That's why they're trying to get a 2nd one going, but I don't think it has much chance, considering the state of the national discussion on this.

IHS has argued against more stimulus. At least they did back in July. But maybe their crystal ball is telling them something different now.

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/forecasters-not-economy-on-a-roll?pagenumber=2

 

[Onceler]

you still have not answered this question. your so called answer above indicates that it did not work because it was too small.

now, man up and directly answer why, if this one worked (you have yet to tell me how much has been doled out, i think because you know it is around 30 billion dollars) why do we need another?

This is the problem - I answer your questions, but you either ignore or are dismissive of the answers:

"A lot of people - including many of the economists who recommended the 1st stimulus - thought it was way too small, and didn't allot for spending in areas that sorely needed money. That's why they're trying to get a 2nd one going, but I don't think it has much chance, considering the state of the national discussion on this."

Obviously, we are not out of the woods yet. Would it help you if we said "the stimulus is working?" instead of "worked?"

Personally, I don't think another is needed, but - as I SAID - some think that there are other areas that need money, to ensure a faster & more effective recovery.

Now, please - cherrypick something so you can formulate some sort of "gotcha," instead of looking at the totality of facts & discussing this rationally, and outside of the bubble of your Obama-hate.

 

[Onceler]

Yet yurt is correct on the point of the second stimulus. It is rather ridiculous to proclaim we needed a bigger stimulus to begin with, when we have barely spent 20-25% of the current stimulus. How about they put the money from the first one to work before stating we need another?

Why is it that they are projecting about 70% of the first stimulus will have been spent by the end of this year?

WHAT is the reasoning for taking so long to put this money to work, while at the same time stating 'we need more'?

I just do not see it.

Again, I do think this stimulus was necessary and agree that it 'saved' some jobs (primarily public sector).... but when you evaluate this stimulus fairly, it is a bust thus far. This is not to say that things wouldn't have been worse without it... they would have been, but things also could have been much better if they pumped the rest of the money into infrastructure projects in 2009 rather than sitting around and waiting for 2010 and 2011 and 2012 to pump the rest of the stimulus money into the market.

Freak, you're a market guy. Don't you think that there was a sense on Wall Street when the stimulus passed - even though investors might not have agreed w/ some or all of it - that "somebody is doing something," which provided reassurance & at least some basis for the rising DOW over the past year or so?

I think the bailout in fall of '08 certainly had the effect, and I think we could have save a 1,000+ points in drop had Pelosi not made that stupid speech and delayed passage by a week....

 

[Damocles]

you still have not answered this question. your so called answer above indicates that it did not work because it was too small.

now, man up and directly answer why, if this one worked (you have yet to tell me how much has been doled out, i think because you know it is around 30 billion dollars) why do we need another?

The rest was spent more directly in the stock market to attempt to prop it up at a higher base level in order to rebuild confidence. They are running out of their slush fund and need "just a bit more" in order to fully make people believe that all is well.... In other words, they are asking us to fund their bad habit. They need those funds so they don't have to sell what they bought in order to pay for the promised "stimulus" spending.

 

[Damocles]

Yet yurt is correct on the point of the second stimulus. It is rather ridiculous to proclaim we needed a bigger stimulus to begin with, when we have barely spent 20-25% of the current stimulus. How about they put the money from the first one to work before stating we need another?

Why is it that they are projecting about 70% of the first stimulus will have been spent by the end of this year?

WHAT is the reasoning for taking so long to put this money to work, while at the same time stating 'we need more'?

I just do not see it.

Again, I do think this stimulus was necessary and agree that it 'saved' some jobs (primarily public sector).... but when you evaluate this stimulus fairly, it is a bust thus far. This is not to say that things wouldn't have been worse without it... they would have been, but things also could have been much better if they pumped the rest of the money into infrastructure projects in 2009 rather than sitting around and waiting for 2010 and 2011 and 2012 to pump the rest of the stimulus money into the market.

Hence my assertion back when it was passing that it was designed to be the "re-elect the Democrats" slush fund.