General Politics Thread

[Sub-stance1]

see, even though I quote what you say, I am not wasting my time reading it. debating with you is like arguing to a brick wall, the answer is always the same and the answer is always nothing.

Suit yourself dude. As far as I'm concerned, there is nothing to debate about. Like I said before, you can't create a solution if there is no problem. Government is not all roses but its far from boogeyman people here make it out to be. I always tell people if you don't like it, feel free to move to another country.

[btbam]

Suit yourself dude. As far as I'm concerned, there is nothing to debate about. Like I said before, you can't create a solution if there is no problem. Government is not all roses but its far from boogeyman people here make it out to be. I always tell people if you don't like it, feel free to move to another country.

Ever hear the saying good is the enemy of great? Just because it isn't broken doesn't mean it can't be improved upon. The problem is a robust government that is too bloated to protect rights or is activly infringing rights...that's your good btw. The great is a streamlined and responsive government adhering to a constitution that innumerates and protect rights. Imagine that. Just because your satisfied with what you have, it doesn't mean you can't demand more from you government (and in my vision less )

[MATRIX 2]

[Bigdoggy]

Suit yourself dude. As far as I'm concerned, there is nothing to debate about. Like I said before, you can't create a solution if there is no problem. Government is not all roses but its far from boogeyman people here make it out to be. I always tell people if you don't like it, feel free to move to another country.

brick wall man, brick wall. o.O

[Sub-stance1]

brick wall man, brick wall. o.O

Government is no different than it was 8 years ago. Its just a different person in the oval office now. Its all politics bro. Left vs Right. Not my problem if that bothers you. Like I said before its a free country so if it bothers people then move to another country and see how that works for them.... I don't think they will though....lol

Ever hear the saying good is the enemy of great? Just because it isn't broken doesn't mean it can't be improved upon. The problem is a robust government that is too bloated to protect rights or is activly infringing rights...that's your good btw. The great is a streamlined and responsive government adhering to a constitution that innumerates and protect rights. Imagine that. Just because your satisfied with what you have, it doesn't mean you can't demand more from you government (and in my vision less )

And i never claimed that it couldn't. I'm saying that more government isn't as bad as some make it out to be. The examples you gave (like TSA ) aren't really good one's IMO. More important issues than being searched at a airport. It probably wouldn't be happening if we weren't attacked back in 2001. You can't just look at the effect and ignore the cause.

[DayWalker]

I haven't had a chance to look into this fully... and I skimmed the following...

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...amas-spending/

A claim that President Barack Obama hasn’t been as big a spender as other presidents has drawn lots of discussion over the past few days.

The claim -- originating in a column by Rex Nutting in MarketWatch, an affiliate of the Wall Street Journal -- was trumpeted by liberal bloggers and by the Obama campaign, which circulated Nutting’s article and posted it on its website, ABC News reported. Eventually, Obama himself mentioned it at a fundraiser in Denver:

"I’m running to pay down our debt in a way that’s balanced and responsible. After inheriting a $1 trillion deficit, I signed $2 trillion of spending cuts into law," Obama told a crowd of donors at the Hyatt Regency, according to ABC News. "My opponent won’t admit it, but it’s starting to appear in places, like real liberal outlets, like the Wall Street Journal: Since I’ve been president, federal spending has risen at the lowest pace in nearly 60 years. Think about that."

Nutting’s column was adapted into a widely circulated Facebook post that rebutted a Mitt Romney quote that Obama has accelerated spending "at a pace without precedent in recent history" with Nutting’s conclusion that spending under Obama has actually risen "slower than at any time in nearly 60 years." We gave the combination of the two claims a Mostly True rating.

It didn’t take long for our ruling to become caught up in the political wars. Our assessment was tweeted by White House press secretary Jay Carney, while some critics assailed Nutting’s article and, in some cases, our analysis of it.

The most common criticism focuses on how to divvy up the responsibility for outlays made in fiscal year 2009. Should those outlays be counted on George W. Bush’s balance sheet or Obama’s?

Nutting’s method was to assign spending for the first fiscal year following a president’s inauguration to the preceding president. In his column, Nutting argued that "what people forget (or never knew) is that the first year of every presidential term starts with a budget approved by the previous administration and Congress. The president only begins to shape the budget in his second year. It takes time to develop a budget and steer it through Congress — especially in these days of congressional gridlock. The 2009 fiscal year, which Republicans count as part of Obama’s legacy, began four months before Obama moved into the White House. The major spending decisions in the 2009 fiscal year were made by George W. Bush and the previous Congress."

The critics countered that the transition between Bush and Obama, which came amid a severe economic downturn, did not fit the historical pattern. While Nutting tried to account for this by re-assigning $140 billion of fiscal 2009 spending from Bush to Obama -- specifically the stimulus bill, the expansion of a children’s health-care program and other appropriations bills passed in the spring of 2009 -- the critics say that that’s not enough.

And because spending spiked dramatically in the crucial period between 2008 and 2009, figuring out where exactly to draw the line between the two presidents has an enormous impact on the results of any analysis of federal spending.

The process of determining who has the responsibility for specific spending initiatives quickly becomes complicated, particularly given the need to compare what quirks may have happened not just during the Bush-Obama transition but also during the transitions between the presidents going to Eisenhower. (This historical comparison was crucial to the Facebook post we analyzed, but we aren’t aware of any critics going back to give similar scrutiny to any of the transitions prior to Bush-Obama.) Nutting’s methodlology is pretty straightfoward, but any number of adjustments could be made to fine tune it. Deciding which of these tweaks to make and which to ignore isn’t a scientific process. It involves judgment calls about which reasonable people can disagree.

Two final clarifications. One, contrary to what many e-mailers and Twitter and Facebook users appear to believe, neither Nutting’s column nor our analysis assigned the entire $787 billion stimulus to Bush.

First, the stimulus was not all spending; it was roughly one-third tax cuts, which wouldn't be attributed to either president in a spending chart. Second, the measurement we used was outlays, which refers to money actually spent during that fiscal year. Only a portion of the stimulus was spent in fiscal 2009. Finally, as we noted, Nutting did reassign $140 billion in 2009 spending from Bush to Obama.

Also, our item was not actually a fact-check of Nutting's entire column. Instead, we rated two elements of the Facebook post together -- one statement drawn from Nutting’s column, and the quote from Romney.

We haven't seen anything that justifies changing our rating of the Facebook post. But people can have legitimate differences about how to assign the spending, so we wanted to pass along some of the comments.

***

Here are excerpts from a blog post by Brian Darling of the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank. The full post is here.

"The reason why Nutting included FY 2009 is because it was ‘the last of George W. Bush’s presidency — federal spending rose by 17.9% from $2.98 trillion to $3.52 trillion.’ This assumption is incorrect and dishonest. This flaw in Nutting’s analysis is the reason why the Obama numbers are wrong and Nutting’s whole piece is based on flawed data.

"Nutting operates under the flawed assumption that President Obama is not responsible for FY 2009 spending. Under normal circumstances Nutting would be correct. If Congress were a functioning body that passed appropriations bills on time, then this analysis would be correct. The fact of the matter is that in recent history Congress has not done appropriations bills on time and in FY 2009, President Obama signed these spending bills into law that President Bush would have under different circumstances. …

"President Bush did sign some appropriations bills and a continuing resolution to keep the government running into President Obama’s first term, yet a Democrat controlled Congress purposely held off on the big spending portions of the appropriations bills until Obama took office. They did so for the purposes of jacking up spending. President Obama signed the final FY2009 spending bills on March 11, 2009. ...

"President Bush signed only three of the twelve appropriations bills for FY 2009: Defense; Military Construction/Veterans Affairs; and, Homeland Security. President Bush also signed a continuing resolution that kept the government running until March 6, 2009 that level of funding the remaining nine appropriations bills at FY 2008 levels. President Bush and his spending should only be judged on these three appropriations bills and FY 2008 levels of funding for the remaining nine appropriations bills. Bush never consented to the dramatic increase in spending for FY 2009 and he should not be blamed for that spending spree. ...

"How can Nutting attribute spending to President Bush that he expressly vowed to veto? Also, some of the mandatory spending has been wrongly attributed to President Bush in Nutting’s analysis. Finally, TARP spending under Bush and the recovery of TARP money under Obama further distorts these numbers.

"This is unethical and fuzzy math. The Truth-O-Meter may want to consider these facts when further analyzing the complications and distortions in analysis used by Nutting to argue that Obama is more fiscally responsible than his predecessors."

***

Alan Suderman of Reason, a libertarian magazine, offered this critique in a blog post.

"Nutting has a half a point: Federal spending did rise considerably during the 2009 fiscal year: Between 2001 and 2008, federal outlays (spending) rose from $1.8 trillion to $2.9 trillion, according to the Congressional Budget Office’s historical spending data. That’s a steep enough rise. But it’s nothing compared to what happened during the next year: In 2009, outlays spiked, rising from the $2.9 trillion spent in 2008 to $3.5 trillion.

"But what Obama did in subsequent budgets was stick to that newly inflated level of spending. Outlays in 2010 were just a hair short of $3.5 trillion. In 2011, they rose further, approaching $3.6 trillion.

"So even if you absolve Obama of responsibility for the initial growth spike, he still presided over unprecedented spending that was out of line with the existing growth trend. Obama’s average spending is far higher than under Bush or Clinton on both adjusted dollar levels and as a percentage of the economy. ...

"Make no mistake: George W. Bush was a tremendous spender, and he deserves some of the non-credit for making Obama’s federal budget binge possible, especially during Obama’s first year. But Obama and his fellow Democrats share the responsibility for allowing a spending spike to continue on at newly high levels, for posting record outlays and running record deficits — and for taking few if any effective steps to get the nation’s economic and fiscal houses in order.

***

Daniel Mitchell, an economist with the libertarian Cato Institute, offered a measured assessment in Forbes.

Let’s "take interest payments out of the budget and focus on inflation-adjusted ‘primary spending.’ After all, Presidents shouldn’t be held responsible for the national debt that existed before they took office.

"Looking at these numbers, it turns out that Obama does win the prize for being the most fiscally conservative president in recent memory. Reagan jumps to second place. Clinton is in third place, which won’t surprise people who watched this video, while (George W. Bush) and LBJ again are in last place.

"But I don’t want my Republican friends to get too angry with me, so let’s expand our analysis. Just as we don’t want to blame presidents for net interest payments on debt that was accrued before their tenure, perhaps we should make sure they don’t get credit or blame for defense outlays that often are dictated by external events.

"There’s obviously room for disagreement, but most people will agree that the Cold War and 9/11 meant higher defense spending, regardless of which party controlled the White House. Similarly, the collapse of the Soviet Empire inevitably meant lower military expenditures, regardless of whether Republicans or Democrats were in charge.

"So let’s now look at primary spending after subtracting defense outlays (still adjusting for inflation, of course). All of a sudden, Reagan jumps to the top of the list by a comfortable margin. LBJ and W continue to score poorly, but Nixon takes over last place.

"But it’s also worth noting that Obama still scores relatively well, beating Clinton for second place. Inflation-adjusted domestic spending (which is mostly what we’re measuring) has grown by 2.0 percent annually during his three years in office.

"So let’s take the preceding set of numbers and subtract out the long-run numbers for deposit insurance, as well as the TARP outlays since 2009. And keep in mind that repayments of TARP monies (as well as deposit insurance premiums) show up in the budget as ‘negative spending.’

"As you can see, this produces a remarkable result. All of a sudden, Obama drops from second to second-to-last. This is because there was a lot of TARP spending in Bush’s last fiscal year (FY2009), which created an artificially high benchmark. And then repayments by banks during Obama’s fiscal years counted as negative spending.

"When you subtract out the big TARP spending surge, as well as the repayments, then Bush 43 doesn’t look quite as bad (though still worse than Carter and Clinton), while Obama takes a big fall.

"In other words, Obama’s track record does show that he favors an expanding social welfare state. Outlays on those programs have jumped by 7.0 percent annually. And that’s after adjusting for inflation! Not as bad as Nixon, but that’s not saying much since he was one of America’s most statist presidents.

"Allow me to conclude with some caveats. None of the tables perfectly captures what any president’s fiscal record. ... And there certainly are strong arguments that bailout spending and defense spending are affected by presidential policies rather than external events.

"And keep in mind that presidents don’t have full power over fiscal policy. The folks on Capitol Hill are the ones who actually enact the bills and appropriate the money."

***

Finally, here’s a comment a reader emailed to PolitiFact.

"You carefully point out that Congress should be partially credited for any decreases in spending. However, you claim the decrease in revenues is simply due to the bad economy, completely forgetting to mention that the decrease in revenues is also largely the result of Bush era tax-cuts for millionaires and tax-breaks for corporations. If it weren’t for the regressive taxation practices of the Bush administration, the budget deficit would be much smaller than it is. Also, let’s not forget to mention the cost of two wars, resulting in tremendously increased spending on contractual obligations to defense contractors like Haliburton."

anyone have any (intelligent) thoughts on this?

[Sub-stance1]

I haven't had a chance to look into this fully... and I skimmed the following...

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...amas-spending/



anyone have any (intelligent) thoughts on this?

well I think some people never believed that Obama's spending was bad as the GOP made it out to be. They have been spitting totally inaccuracies in this area and as well as the "growing government claims". They seem to get amnesia when you bring up the cost of the two wars and the tax cut on millionaires and corps. It doesn't surprise me though because they have lied about so much in the past. We know some people don't believe anything unless it comes from faux news nowadays.

[btbam]

I haven't had a chance to look into this fully... and I skimmed the following...

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...amas-spending/



anyone have any (intelligent) thoughts on this?

It is some funny accounting, not accurate at all. The Bush numbers were inflated because of the Bailouts and TARP so Obama's inflated budget is a minor increase from inflated level of the bailout programs. When Tarp was being paid back in 2010 then, those got counted as a "cut" from the budget further skewing the numbers. In other words, the bailouts under Bush spiked the increase for that fiscal year to nearly 18% averaging out to 8% overall for the three years. It is at this bloated level that the bar is set for the increases for Obama. Problem is, bailout is supposed to be a one time spike. if Obama had returned to normal spending levels, it would have been a huge decrease in spending, but his spending is an increase from the bloated bailout levels.

So basically the baseline for government spending was 2.98 trillion before the bailout and the new baseline afterwards was 3.4 trillion with the outlook for 2013 to be about 3.58 trillion. A more accurate measure would be to look at the day to day cost of each president or how much the government spends per day under each administration. Obama outpaces every president to date. However you slice it, Obama's spending is out of control, he can pretend he is a tightfisted fiscally responsible president but that is an outright lie.

[Morganator]

I haven't had a chance to look into this fully... and I skimmed the following...

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...amas-spending/



anyone have any (intelligent) thoughts on this?

I do. But it remains to be seen if anyone is intelligent enough to comprehend what I'm about to say. I promise I'll keep it short though. I don't want bore anyone to death. Here it goes.

The chart is reflecting spending increases which, while false, amounts to little more than a strawman argument. The fact remains, the Obama administration has spent more than any administration in history. It's a fact liberals are gonna have to accept and answer for come August. Of course, that's if my candidate wins the convention. There is one area the article and chart never accounts for. That area is monetary inflation of which $5 trillion went to bailing out Europe. But that is an issue presiding over liberals and neoconservatives alike and I can't solely put the blame on the Obama administration. Even so, I'd like you to look over these two numbers and the dates they fall on for clarification of what I'm trying to say.

Dollar inflation which is tax and spend i.e. outright theft.
QE1 $800 billion in 2008 (Bush presidency with democratic majority in congress)
QE2 $600 billion in 2010 (Obama presidency with democratic majority in congress)

Total amount is actually $2.5 trillion because all further amounts were added as time went on. I'd say the Bush administration is responsible for about $1.2 trillion of that and the Obama administration is responsible for about $1.3 trillion. Now, we still have the possibility of QE3 happening later this year if the Obama administration and the FED get what they want which would put the Obama administration clearly in the lead in regards to strictly the quantitative easing aspect. I haven't even taken into account the other $12.5 trillion in monetary inflation that went on during both presidencies of which $5 trillion went straight to Europe, bailing out auto companies, paying off bankrupt corporations like Solyndra and the unions as well as Wall Street etc... The fact is, throughout this whole ordeal, we the people have lost while everyone at the very top gained.

[Bigdoggy]

that graph is wrong. LOL right in some areas but did you see Obamas 1.4, are some of you going to seriously tell me in that graph that Obama is that low? what a bunch of shit.

sorry for the double post o.O

[Bigdoggy]

Government is no different than it was 8 years ago. Its just a different person in the oval office now. Its all politics bro. Left vs Right. Not my problem if that bothers you. Like I said before its a free country so if it bothers people then move to another country and see how that works for them.... I don't think they will though....lol



And i never claimed that it couldn't. I'm saying that more government isn't as bad as some make it out to be. The examples you gave (like TSA ) aren't really good one's IMO. More important issues than being searched at a airport. It probably wouldn't be happening if we weren't attacked back in 2001. You can't just look at the effect and ignore the cause.

stop fishing your making yourself look worse man. now all you are doing is saying the obvious for reason I have no clue why. yes, it's politics but Obamas politics spent as much money bailing out high corporate and it's going to cost everyone else including you more money, because of this the bubble didn't exploding resulting the prices for everything to go up and they are still up. it's not hard to understand and every single person knows this.

here is a fact, in politics you could have the worse people around, bush and Obama and people will still love Bush and others will love Obama, they are called derps, that's all there is to it. people that can't figure out right or wrong, they have to hear it on fox news because they, themselves can't do there own research and the study of economics to see what should be done Vs. what shouldn't be done. I have done the research, I have studied many forms so I know what I'm talking about. you don't and it's clear. there are a few others in here knowing what they are talking about. Now before you start saying something like "what Obama is doing is 100% right, his stimulus was brilliant, etc etc" it wasn't brilliant.

Tell me right now, how much money did we lose because of Obama and his stimulus packages? Remember that those packages are still causing problems even to this day.

also, right now things are not getting better. Medtronic is still laying off over 1000 people, a few other businesses right now are laying of thousands and thousands of more people. Sub, you have no clue on what your talking about.

sure, I agree on the fact that people have the freedom to vote for whoever, but there comes a time where people should use there brain instead of being a lemming on the opposite side just because it's different.

[Morganator]

that graph is wrong. LOL right in some areas but did you see Obamas 1.4, are some of you going to seriously tell me in that graph that Obama is that low? what a bunch of shit.

sorry for the double post o.O

Exactly. The Obama administration did nearly that with just the QE2 and the easing since he took office and after QE2.

[btbam]

that graph is wrong. LOL right in some areas but did you see Obamas 1.4, are some of you going to seriously tell me in that graph that Obama is that low? what a bunch of shit.

sorry for the double post o.O

Technically the graph is correct because it shows a percent increase from the previous set of years, but what it doesn't say is that the baseline for the start of obamas budget is skewed because of the 1st bailout under bush. Basically it's a 1.4 percent increase of the bush level spending plus bailout. Numbers don't lie...2.98 trillion to 3.4 trillion. And another whopper from obama.

[Sub-stance1]

stop fishing your making yourself look worse man. now all you are doing is saying the obvious for reason I have no clue why. yes, it's politics but Obamas politics spent as much money bailing out high corporate and it's going to cost everyone else including you more money, because of this the bubble didn't exploding resulting the prices for everything to go up and they are still up. it's not hard to understand and every single person knows this.

here is a fact, in politics you could have the worse people around, bush and Obama and people will still love Bush and others will love Obama, they are called derps, that's all there is to it. people that can't figure out right or wrong, they have to hear it on fox news because they, themselves can't do there own research and the study of economics to see what should be done Vs. what shouldn't be done. I have done the research, I have studied many forms so I know what I'm talking about. you don't and it's clear. there are a few others in here knowing what they are talking about. Now before you start saying something like "what Obama is doing is 100% right, his stimulus was brilliant, etc etc" it wasn't brilliant.

The stimulus saved and created jobs dude.
Who ever said the it was brilliant? It was far from it but it did way more good than harm. The auto industry would definitely be nothing today if that stimulus wasn't passed. The only problem was that it wasn't big enough IMO. That stimulus package saved jobs and families in Michigan. Are you try to say that it was the wrong thing to do?

Tell me right now, how much money did we lose because of Obama and his stimulus packages? Remember that those packages are still causing problems even to this day.

You tell me how many jobs it saved. We already had problems before the stimulus and will continue to. This problem won't be fixed overnight. Sure we lost money but look at where the industry is now compared to before it was passed. We lost much more on the two wars? The same people who criticizing the stimulus was also secretly taking some of that government money. Back in 2008 Romney and some other republicans said you need a stimulus to get the economy going again, but now they're against it. How do you explain that?

also, right now things are not getting better. Medtronic is still laying off over 1000 people, a few other businesses right now are laying of thousands and thousands of more people. Sub, you have no clue on what your talking about.

Its unfortunate that people are still getting laid off but who are you gonna throw the blame to? At least the President is attempting to protect the future of workers here in the country. He isn't getting much help from the other side. They have been against almost everything he has tried to do to save jobs and make things easier for people....including things like extending unemployment benefits which people depend on.

sure, I agree on the fact that people have the freedom to vote for whoever, but there comes a time where people should use there brain instead of being a lemming on the opposite side just because it's different.

I agree with that. I only go by the facts and whats in front of me, and what I see is that the president has had very little help from republicans on these issues. Its no secret that this is what they have planned to do since day 1. They said that they would do every thing they can to make sure Obama doesn't get re-elected . That is clearly putting politics over the people IMO. Now Obama has been far from perfect this first term but when I look at what happened the last 8 years, i don't see anything he's done bad enough to lose his job over. I think he has served well so far, but not perfect in any way, I say he has stood his ground pretty well when you look at what he is up against. I would much rather have him attempt to finish what he is trying to do rather than the alternative. What's sad about this whole thing is that people hate Obama so much that they will settle for Romney just to see him defeated.

What's funny about this is that you tell people to ignore me but you can't seem to do it yourself....lol

[btbam]

The stimulus saved and created jobs dude.
Who ever said the it was brilliant? It was far from it but it did way more good than harm. The auto industry would definitely be nothing today if that stimulus wasn't passed. The only problem was that it wasn't big enough IMO. That stimulus package saved jobs and families in Michigan. Are you try to say that it was the wrong thing to do?



You tell me how many jobs it saved. We already had problems before the stimulus and will continue to. This problem won't be fixed overnight. Sure we lost money but look at where the industry is now compared to before it was passed. We lost much more on the two wars? The same people who criticizing the stimulus was also secretly taking some of that government money. Back in 2008 Romney and some other republicans said you need a stimulus to get the economy going again, but now they're against it. How do you explain that?


Its unfortunate that people are still getting laid off but who are you gonna throw the blame to? At least the President is attempting to protect the future of workers here in the country. He isn't getting much help from the other side. They have been against almost everything he has tried to do to save jobs and make things easier for people....including things like extending unemployment benefits which people depend on.


I agree with that. I only go by the facts and whats in front of me, and what I see is that the president has had very little help from republicans on these issues. Its no secret that this is what they have planned to do since day 1. They said that they would do every thing they can to make sure Obama doesn't get re-elected . That is clearly putting politics over the people IMO. Now Obama has been far from perfect this first term but when I look at what happened the last 8 years, i don't see anything he's done bad enough to lose his job over. I think he has served well so far, but not perfect in any way, I say he has stood his ground pretty well when you look at what he is up against. I would much rather have him attempt to finish what he is trying to do rather than the alternative. What's sad about this whole thing is that people hate Obama so much that they will settle for Romney just to see him defeated.

What's funny about this is that you tell people to ignore me but you can't seem to do it yourself....lol

Stimulus did not create permanent jobs or sustained economic growth. Stimuls jobs are usually infrastructure, a temporary job that once over means no work. Funny thing is the stimulus actually diverts resources from long term investment projects that provide long term employment and sustained growth to short term imediate help that quickly ends.

Now let's take the auto industry like every pro stimulus yahoo likes to cite. Fact is the auto industry was in trouble because of stupid business practice ls that made them uncompetitive globally. I couldn't care if it died because their are other options out there. If GM had went under, for example, yes there would have been unemployment of those workers, but it would have been temporary until resources could be reallocatedto other sectors of the economy. Just because the auto industry was bad, doesn't mean other sectors weren't healthy. All the stimulus did was prop up a loser so it could loose at a later date.

Now how was the stimulus paid for? It wasn't. Basically a combination of going into debt and printing money created the dollars for it. This will hurt the economy in the long run. Printing money creates inflation which means higher prices. High prices decreases aggregate demand and the economy slows. High debt means high taxes which leaves less money to invest. If they ignore the debt we'll get a credit rating downgrade which leads to high interest rates.

So stimulus shouldn't have ever existed. It creates short term employment which quickly evaporates and leaves less money to invest into long term projects and leads to high prices and interest rates. But hey, some town in Illinois probably got a park out of it so it's worth it right?

[Sub-stance1]

Stimulus did not create permanent jobs or sustained economic growth. Stimuls jobs are usually infrastructure, a temporary job that once over means no work. Funny thing is the stimulus actually diverts resources from long term investment projects that provide long term employment and sustained growth to short term imediate help that quickly ends.

Now let's take the auto industry like every pro stimulus yahoo likes to cite. Fact is the auto industry was in trouble because of stupid business practice ls that made them uncompetitive globally. I couldn't care if it died because their are other options out there. If GM had went under, for example, yes there would have been unemployment of those workers, but it would have been temporary until resources could be reallocatedto other sectors of the economy. Just because the auto industry was bad, doesn't mean other sectors weren't healthy. All the stimulus did was prop up a loser so it could loose at a later date.

Now how was the stimulus paid for? It wasn't. Basically a combination of going into debt and printing money created the dollars for it. This will hurt the economy in the long run. Printing money creates inflation which means higher prices. High prices decreases aggregate demand and the economy slows. High debt means high taxes which leaves less money to invest. If they ignore the debt we'll get a credit rating downgrade which leads to high interest rates.

So stimulus shouldn't have ever existed. It creates short term employment which quickly evaporates and leaves less money to invest into long term projects and leads to high prices and interest rates. But hey, some town in Illinois probably got a park out of it so it's worth it right?

Your post has inaccuracies because the stimulus has saved and created permanent jobs. It doesn't just create just short term jobs. Where are you getting this stuff from? If we would of let GM go under it would of been catastrophic for that whole area. It would of been devastating to schools and small businesses. It was the right thing to do IMO and things would of been much worse without it.

[btbam]

Your post has inaccuracies because the stimulus has saved and created permanent jobs. It doesn't just create just short term jobs. Where are you getting this stuff from? If we would of let GM go under it would of been catastrophic for that whole area. It would of been devastating to schools and small businesses. It was the right thing to do IMO and things would of been much worse without it.

its common sense. most of the money from the stimulus goes to infrastructure jobs. That means roads, parks pools, buildings, bridges, whatever. It is a temporary job that once is over means they go back to the unemployment line. Yes there are some jobs that are permanents, but a majority of the jobs created are only temporary because it is a one time deal construction job. Its why they passed another stimulus under obama and why they are thinking about passing one now, because it doesn't create long term employment nor does it stimulate long term sustainable growth. obviously throwing more money at it must be the solution! If GM had went under, it would have freed capital to be moved to other sectors of teh economy. There would have been a time of unemployment, but once resources did shift to other markets, jobs would have been created. There is this nostalgia generated with cars in America which people go crazy at the thought we wouldn't have an American automotive company. But it wasn't worth the cost.

Now i don't follow your argument that schools and small business would have been deviated by GM going under....thats bullshit and completely unrelated. Oh, GM went under, guess we have to shut down the school even though its property taxes, an aggregated level of the assessed value of the homes within the school district, that pay for the schools...Fact is stimulus spending is an awful idea. it does not do what it is supposed to do and leaves us with shitpots of debt and higher prices and high interest rates all of which will fuck over our economy in the long run. Wonder why the recovery has been so slow? because the stimulus artificially prolonged the problem.

[Sub-stance1]

its common sense. most of the money from the stimulus goes to infrastructure jobs. That means roads, parks pools, buildings, bridges, whatever. It is a temporary job that once is over means they go back to the unemployment line. Yes there are some jobs that are permanents, but a majority of the jobs created are only temporary because it is a one time deal construction job. Its why they passed another stimulus under obama and why they are thinking about passing one now, because it doesn't create long term employment nor does it stimulate long term sustainable growth. obviously throwing more money at it must be the solution! If GM had went under, it would have freed capital to be moved to other sectors of teh economy. There would have been a time of unemployment, but once resources did shift to other markets, jobs would have been created. There is this nostalgia generated with cars in America which people go crazy at the thought we wouldn't have an American automotive company. But it wasn't worth the cost.

Now i don't follow your argument that schools and small business would have been deviated by GM going under....thats bullshit and completely unrelated. Oh, GM went under, guess we have to shut down the school even though its property taxes, an aggregated level of the assessed value of the homes within the school district, that pay for the schools...Fact is stimulus spending is an awful idea. it does not do what it is supposed to do and leaves us with shitpots of debt and higher prices and high interest rates all of which will fuck over our economy in the long run. Wonder why the recovery has been so slow? because the stimulus artificially prolonged the problem.

I guess we will have to agree to disagree because the way i see it, helping out a industry that supports so much of our infrastructure is far from an awful idea. And I think you're wrong about schools and small business being unrelated. Eeven some people in Michigan say that it has helped business there. You keep saying how bad the stimulus has been but the facts don't show it at all. It's the complete opposite. Like I said before, the only thing wrong with the first stimulus was that it wasn't large enough. So in this particular case stimulus spending wasn't such an awful idea. I really don't see how anyone can really say that this hurt the economy when it fact it helped. Jobs,families, and businesses were saved and you say it wasn't worth the cost. Since when have we put anything above the needs of people?

[weskurtz81]

I guess we will have to agree to disagree because the way i see it, helping out a industry that supports so much of our infrastructure is far from an awful idea. And I think you're wrong about schools and small business being unrelated. Eeven some people in Michigan say that it has helped business there. You keep saying how bad the stimulus has been but the facts don't show it at all. It's the complete opposite. Like I said before, the only thing wrong with the first stimulus was that it wasn't large enough. So in this particular case stimulus spending wasn't such an awful idea. I really don't see how anyone can really say that this hurt the economy when it fact it helped. Jobs,families, and businesses were saved and you say it wasn't worth the cost. Since when have we put anything above the needs of people?

So, even though you won't respond anyway because that's just how you roll, tell me this...

So, even though the CBO says the stimulus cost more than we were told it would, it did much less, and will over the long term, negatively effect the economy, you still think it was a "good" thing?

And, on a side note, you should not include the bailout of GM with the stimulus spending that has been done, they are two separate spending events.

The main problem I have with the bailout of GM is that the company should have been allowed to go into Ch11 IMMEDIATELY rather than bailing them out however many times they did and THEN allowing them to go into Ch11. And, I remember all those people, even in here, saying "No one of going to buy a car from GM if they go bankrupt".... "if they are allowed to go bankrupt they will die".... etc etc. Clearly, that never happened!

Anyway, go on, continue to ignore my posts... it's easier to ignore something when you have no rebuttal than it is to respond and remove all doubt.

Here is a pretty good article on the subject of stimulus spending.

The world today is in a state of perpetual déjà vu. The current global recession has already been compared countless times in the press to the Great Depression of the 1930s, so much so that both commentators and the public are beginning to think of the two events as one and the same.Many aspects of the current economic crisis certainly do evoke memories of the other major recession in world history; sharp plunges in personal and corporate incomes, widespread export slumps, record-high unemployment rates and a troubled stock market are symptoms all too familiar to scholars of economic history.

The parallels between the current situation and that of the 1930s solidified even further at the end of 2008 when governments around the world began to launch fiscal stimulus packages of historical dimensions.

Fiscal stimulus around the globe

Fiscal stimulus is a common economic tool used in times of recession to prop up falling aggregate demand through a combination of tax cuts and government spending. The size and content of these packages, however, have varied greatly among different countries.

European stimulus plans have thus far been relatively small due to the existence of built-in social security programmes in most European states. From September 2008 to January 2009, the 13 largest EU economies announced stimulus packages equalling only about 90 billion euros, or 0.78% of their total combined GDP.

Countries in other regions of the world have had to take more drastic measures. The Indian stimulus plan, launched in December 2008, is valued at approximately US$ 8 billion and specifically targets consumer spending through petroleum price subsidies and tax cuts on various consumer goods such as automobiles, cement and textiles. The Chinese stimulus package, on the other hand, costs a hefty US$ 825 billion and focuses on the development of roads and infrastructure.

The stimulus controversy

By far the most controversial stimulus package is undoubtedly the national plan that American President Barack Obama launched in early 2009 to help revive demand and lower unemployment in the United States. Costing a total of approximately US$ 775 billion, Obama’s fiscal stimulus plan involves a combination of government-funded public works projects to create jobs, individual and household tax cuts to encourage consumption and increased public spending on unemployment benefits, education and health care.

Since its announcement, the stimulus plan has become the centre of a storm of criticism from the nation’s conservatives, who warn that further stimulus spending would drive up inflation, destabilize the dollar and cause the national deficit to grow to gigantic proportions.

Most importantly, critics of the US stimulus plan are sceptical that it would lead to economic recovery, in terms of GDP growth and job creation, of a scale that would justify its extremely high costs. Conservative commentators have time and again expressed their frustration that the measures implemented as part of the stimulus package seem to have simply transferred money without improving the state of the economy as a whole.

Even amidst the storm, other influential voices have chimed in support of the plan. New York Times columnist Paul Krugman, for instance, hails Congress’s biggest Keynesian intervention in decades as a necessary step to keep the American economy afloat and on the right path to recovery.

“We must not make the same mistake that the FDR government made in 1937, when they withdrew stimulus prematurely and prolonged the recession as a result,” says Krugman in response to conservative demands to start scaling back stimulus spending now that the economy has begun to crawl back to its feet.

“Rising GDP doesn’t necessarily signal permanent economic recovery. Often, these figures are statistical illusions resulting from an ‘inventory bounce’ in which companies slash production to get rid of excess stocks, and then temporarily increase their production once the excess is gone,” Krugman writes.

“Unfortunately, growth caused by an inventory bounce is a one-shot affair unless underlying sources of demand, such as consumer spending and long-term investment, also pick up.” Ultimately, Krugman insists, this won’t happen without the help of second and third rounds of continued stimulus spending.

Smarter ways to implement fiscal stimulus

The fierce debate in Washington on whether or not Congress should increase or decrease stimulus spending has raised other, more compelling, questions about the way in which policymakers could improve the design of fiscal stimulus proposals in order to better maximize their effectiveness. The main problem with the New Deal-type provisions in the current American stimulus plan is that it focuses too heavily on boosting consumer spending and does not provide any specific incentives to increase investment.

In a commentary recently published in the Wall Street Journal, Harvard economist Alberto Alesina and University of Chicago finance expert Luigi Zingales point out that what distinguishes the current recession is that it is being driven by a lack of investment, not by a lack of household spending.

“Today, investors are reluctant to lend to risky firms,” say Alesina and Zingales. “This reluctance is making it difficult for these firms to refinance their debt, forcing them to default on their credit, which further validates investors’ fear. Thus, the problem is how to increase investors’ willingness to take risk. It’s unclear how the proposed stimulus package would inspire investors to do so.”

Alesina and Zingales advocate specific stimulus measures to encourage investment, including the temporary elimination of the capital gains tax as well as

"Often, these
figures are statistical illusions resulting from an ‘inventory bounce’ in which companies slash production to get rid of excess stocks, and then temporarily increase their production once the excess is gone …"

additional tax cuts on capital expenditures and on investments in corporate research and development. Besides giving an immediate boost to aggregate demand, measures that specifically target investment could also promote long-term economic growth.
Say Alesina and Zingales, “A large temporary tax incentive may be just enough to jolt investors from their current paralysis to take action. A temporary capital gains tax cut, for instance, will motivate people to move their savings from money-market funds to stocks, thereby increasing valuations, investments and confidence.”

Alesina and Zingales’ commentary makes the further point that stimulus packages must be adapted to tackle individual recessions at their source, rather than following a formulaic one-size-fits-all approach. Policy reactions to the current recession must consider its origin and cannot simply mimic the ones that were taken in the 1930s.
“This particular recession is unique not in its dimensions, but in its sources,” say Alesina and Zingales. “The current stagnation did not originate in the labor market, but in the credit market, thus necessitating a stimulus strategy based on promoting investment.”

The international dimensions

In addition to keeping confidence levels high at home, the American government must also keep reassuring their peers in Europe and Asia that the stimulus plan would have a positive impact on global markets as well.

Commodity shares all over the world from Hong Kong to Paris increased immediately following the launch of the American stimulus package, causing much celebration and renewed investor confidence in these countries.

In the long run, however, a more coordinated international effort is needed to turn American stimulus into “global stimulus”. Despite the temporary revival of some financial markets following the stimulus, America’s major trading partners such as Japan and China have continued to experience drastic declines in their economy due to the export slump.

Meanwhile, certain protectionist clauses in Obama’s original stimulus proposal – such as the “buy American” clause attached to consumer tax cuts and infrastructure projects – have soured relations between the US and the European Union. The leaders of many EU countries, reluctant to upgrade their own stimulus packages, had been hoping that the American stimulus bill would provide valuable trade and contracting opportunities that would help lift their own economies out of the GDP hole.

As the world eagerly watches the impacts of the American stimulus plan unfold in the hopes that it would revive international trade and the US demand for foreign goods, the stage remains open for further international cooperation on global stimulus initiatives.

Link

[btbam]

I guess we will have to agree to disagree because the way i see it, helping out a industry that supports so much of our infrastructure is far from an awful idea. And I think you're wrong about schools and small business being unrelated. Eeven some people in Michigan say that it has helped business there. You keep saying how bad the stimulus has been but the facts don't show it at all. It's the complete opposite. Like I said before, the only thing wrong with the first stimulus was that it wasn't large enough. So in this particular case stimulus spending wasn't such an awful idea. I really don't see how anyone can really say that this hurt the economy when it fact it helped. Jobs,families, and businesses were saved and you say it wasn't worth the cost. Since when have we put anything above the needs of people?

Ok how were schools devastated? Or were you just throwing out buzzwords? The stimulus did not stimulate the economy because it is inherently a flawed practice. It's a cop out answer to say we didn't spend enough and that if we just spend more it will work. Face ot stimulus does not do what it is supposed to do. Adding more spend will get the same mediocre result with huge debt and inflation. Have you noticed how much food prices have risen in the pas 4 or 5 years? How much gasoline has risen? How much everything has risen? That is infltion and considering wages are pretty stagnant, it's going to disproportionatly impact the poor. Real progressive economic policy there. Sad part is we havnt seen the bulk of inflation yet. Prices are going to keep going up and up and consumer consumption will plumit. This is just the calm before the storm. Government keeps up with this out of control fiscal policy I bet right now we will see chaotic interest rates, a credit freeze, and huge inflation. You can't spend and borrow without consequence and unfortunatly it will probably require a collapse to etch that lesson into the government. Too bad we have to be the scapegoat.

[Sub-stance1]

Ok how were schools devastated?[QU

When did I say that? I think i said would of been devastated.

The stimulus did not stimulate the economy because it is inherently a flawed practice. It's a cop out answer to say we didn't spend enough and that if we just spend more it will work. Face ot stimulus does not do what it is supposed to do. Adding more spend will get the same mediocre result with huge debt and inflation. Have you noticed how much food prices have risen in the pas 4 or 5 years? How much gasoline has risen?

Facts are facts dude. The stimulus is working to help bring the economy back. Not as much as we needed it too but it surely didn't do any harm. The price of food has been rising for years and gas prices have been rising and falling for years too. Right now they are falling but they will rise again. Its always been that way. It's about greed more than anything else. You can't blame that on just the stimulus....lol

How much everything has risen? That is infltion and considering wages are pretty stagnant, it's going to disproportionatly impact the poor. Real progressive economic policy there. Sad part is we havnt seen the bulk of inflation yet. Prices are going to keep going up and up and consumer consumption will plumit. This is just the calm before the storm. Government keeps up with this out of control fiscal policy I bet right now we will see chaotic interest rates, a credit freeze, and huge inflation. You can't spend and borrow without consequence and unfortunatly it will probably require a collapse to etch that lesson into the government. Too bad we have to be the scapegoat.

there are gonna be hard times and we will pull through just like we've done before. You are right about spending and borrowing without consequences. That's why it was such a good thing that we got out of Iraq and will draw down troops in Afghan. Those two alone will save us a ton of money. Some of that money we spent due to the last administration careless acts. Slowly but surely we are getting back on track though. In the end we will be just fine. No need to act like the world is coming to an end. We will get through this recession just like we did before.

[weskurtz81]

Facts are facts dude. The stimulus is working to help bring the economy back. Not as much as we needed it too but it surely didn't do any harm. The price of food has been rising for years and gas prices have been rising and falling for years too. Right now they are falling but they will rise again. Its always been that way. It's about greed more than anything else. You can't blame that on just the stimulus....lol

Gas and food prices increasing are about greed more than anything else? Care to back that up with something of substance?

[btbam]

Prices will always rise its natural. Point I was trying to make is they have skyrocketed. Prices on things you need to buy daily like food is waaay more expensive than its should be. Its is a direct result of inflation caused by printing money for they spending. Now you still havnt said how schools would have been devastated withoutt they stimulus.

Sent from my AT100 using Tapatalk

[Bigdoggy]

Your post has inaccuracies because the stimulus has saved and created permanent jobs. It doesn't just create just short term jobs. Where are you getting this stuff from? If we would of let GM go under it would of been catastrophic for that whole area. It would of been devastating to schools and small businesses. It was the right thing to do IMO and things would of been much worse without it.

the stimulus package ended up costing more money and caused a hike in certain areas. sorry man, but you really need to study this stuff before talking about it.

What you just said is if GM would have gone under it would have been devasting to schools and small businesses. that's wrong, the stimulus in and of itself was suppose to help small businesses and create job growth, but the problem here is that it did neither. it kept jobs that could have been lost but it actually didn't help in job growth or anything, it included bank bailouts all of this and it made things worse not better. This is why the economy that much better at this moment. if they wouldn't have done stimulus packages the bubble would have popped and the prices would have fallin the housing market would have went up. Your rational thought process during multiple threads is completely gone man, you've lost it. O.o

-Stimulus packages didn't create jobs, it put the country in more debt as well as causing job losses in smaller businesses o.O even Obama admitted it so the fact you are saying "he can't do no wrong" is bs, even to Obama since he (AGAIN) admitted fault.

-electricity prices going way up. It's a fact and guess what, it's doing no favors in the buisness and smaller business categories.



This is called forced inflation. Businesses making money then taxes get hiked as well as Electricity costs going up which smaller businesses will be paying they will increase consumer products & services to make up the difference. If they don't raise consumer products & services to make up the difference, those companies will be making less then what they were making before. It's a domino effect, the Electricity companies will pass that onto households/consumers/businesses, from there buisnesses will increase there prices to compensate for the higher electricity prices which effects consumers yet again. there is nothing good coming fromt his at all, nothing, nada, ziltch.

The bailouts did no favors because a few banks that got bailed out a couple of them are doing exactly what screwed them over in the first place. It's a waste of money because banks or any high corporate businesses never learn. If you don't let them sink, you will be creating a problem. Infact, Obama bailed out quite a few of the SAME banks twice now.

Now, you always try to spin everything away from Obama, I've noticed this. when discussions start to "checkmate" obamas plans you spin those discussions away from Obama. LOL Congress is a problem but so is Obamas thought process, stimulus packages, bank bailouts which by the way screwed up a lot of things. Federal also printing money out of thin air. I am going to point my main finger at Obama because he isn't even fighting for this country.

You usually end up blaming congress but technically Obama is pretty much in the same category in terms of foolish spending that he is still doing to this day, increased prices on certain things that shouldn't be raised, like electricity. o.O

[Sub-stance1]

Prices will always rise its natural. Point I was trying to make is they have skyrocketed. Prices on things you need to buy daily like food is waaay more expensive than its should be. Its is a direct result of inflation caused by printing money for they spending. Now you still havnt said how schools would have been devastated withoutt they stimulus.

Sent from my AT100 using Tapatalk

It is a know fact that auto industry donates to schools. This isn't anything new. They donate money as well as equipment to auto motive schools, elementary, middle and highschools. Now, in this situation i'm speaking about Detroit area but it happens all over the country and even outside of the country. There are schools in my area who gets huge donations from the auto dealers here and I know those go a long way and they do help. Theses are facts dude, i didn't just make that up.

More people would be unemployed if Obama wouldn't of done that bill. These are facts that you can't prove wrong.

Did the Stimulus Create Jobs?

Yes, the stimulus legislation increased employment, despite false Republican claims to the contrary.




Summary

The economic stimulus package is a favorite target of Republican candidates and groups, but more than a few ads falsely claim it did not create or save any jobs. Some recent examples:

• Republican House candidate Dan Debicella charges that Democratic Rep. Jim Himes failed Connecticut’s families because he voted for a "stimulus package that has done nothing to reduce unemployment."
• Rick Scott, the Republican candidate for governor in Florida, says Democrat Alex Sink "backed the failed stimulus bill, which created debt, not jobs."
• Similarly, Sink — who never served in Congress and didn’t vote on the bill — is attacked by the Republican Party of Florida in an ad that says the stimulus "gave us big debt and no jobs."
• Americans for Prosperity, a conservative group that does not have to disclose its donors, aired an ad against Democratic congressional candidate Denny Heck of Washington that claimed the "$787 billion stimulus … failed to save and create jobs." The group has launched similar ads against other Democrats.
• Kristi Noem, a Republican House candidate from South Dakota, calls the measure a "jobless stimulus."

The truth is that the stimulus increased employment by between 1.4 million and 3.3 million people, compared with what employment would have been otherwise. That’s according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.
Analysis

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, more commonly known as the stimulus bill, has been featured in more than 130 TV ads this year, according to a database maintained by Kantar Media’s Campaign Media Analysis Group. In many of those ads, Republicans claim the bill has "failed" (a matter of opinion) or state (correctly) that unemployment has gone up since President Barack Obama signed the bill into law on Feb. 17, 2009. The national unemployment rate was 8.2 percent in February 2009, and it now stands at 9.6 percent, having peaked at 10.1 percent in October 2009.
But it’s just false to say that the stimulus created "no jobs" or "failed to save and create jobs" or "has done nothing to reduce unemployment" – or similar claims that the stimulus did not produce any jobs.
As we have written before, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office released a report in August that said the stimulus bill has "[l]owered the unemployment rate by between 0.7 percentage points and 1.8 percentage points" and "[i]ncreased the number of people employed by between 1.4 million and 3.3 million."
Simply put, more people would be unemployed if not for the stimulus bill. The exact number of jobs created and saved is difficult to estimate, but nonpartisan economists say there’s no doubt that the number is positive.
http://factcheck.org/2010/09/did-the...s-create-jobs/

Where was all this concern when Bush did his stimulus bill which had lots of giveaways to the wealthiest but nothing to our schools, the VA or our diminishing infrastructure? What happen to the surplus that Clinton left when he left office? Obama has created more Jobs in his time than bush created in his. Median income dropped 4.2% under Bush. 49% of Americans still blame him for our economy. Things have been improving under Obama. GM is back because of the stimulus. You can play politics but these are facts.

This election will be about who can recover our economy. How can Romney do that if his plan is to take us back to where all this started?