PDA

View Full Version : Fux Noise Still Pushing 'Stimulus Failed' MYTH!



Gayle in MD
09-25-2011, 09:09 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Fox News' Stuart Varney is citing revisions to economic projections for 2012 to revive the myth that the 2009 stimulus failed. <span style='font-size: 14pt'>In fact, independent economists agree that the stimulus significantly raised employment and increased GDP, and experts say it is the winding down of stimulus spending that is causing a "fiscal drag" on the economy.</span>

Fox's Stuart Varney: Unemployment Forecast Proves The Stimulus Failed
OMB: Unemployment Expected To Average 9 Percent In 2012. The White House Office of Management and Budget released its mid-session budget review on September 1, projecting that the average monthly unemployment rate in 2012 would be 9 percent. [Fiscal Year 2012 Mid-Session Review, Office of Management and Budget, 9/1/11]

Stuart Varney: OMB's Updated Forecast Proves That The Stimulus Failed. On Fox & Friends, Fox Business host Stuart Varney said:

VARNEY: Look, there's a lot of pressure on the president to come up with something big, bold and new come next Thursday evening. And there's a lot of skepticism that he can do it. Is he going to propose a brand new trillion dollar stimulus program? I mean, this forecast of nine percent unemployment is an admission that the first stimulus program did not work. [Fox News, Fox & Friends, 9/2/11]

But Economists Have Said It's A Decline In Stimulus Spending That Is Causing A "Fiscal Drag" On The Economy
CBO: 85 Percent Of Stimulus Funds Spent By End Of June. In its latest report on the effects of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, the Congressional Budget Office reported that 85 percent of the stimulus had been spent by the end of June 2011. [Congressional Budget Office, August 2011]

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>Krugman: "When The Spending Begins To Tail Off, The Effect On Growth Turns Negative." Paul Krugman, a Nobel prize winning economist and New York Times columnist, wrote in December 2009 that stimulus spending was projected to peak in 2010. He added:

And when the spending begins to tail off, the effect on growth turns negative. [The New York Times, The Conscience of a Liberal, 12/27/09]</span><span style='font-size: 14pt'>Deutsche Bank: "As Stimulus Programs Wind Down" In 2011 "We'll Then Have A Straight Four Quarters Of Fiscal Drag." According to a November 2010, Business Insider report, Deutsche Bank projected that "the real effect of lost stimulus will start to hit" in the first quarter of 2011. The report continued:</span>We'll then have a straight four quarters of fiscal drag.

Mark Zandi: "The Benefit [Of The Stimulus] Is Fading, But This Is By Design." According to Talking Points Memo, Mark Zandi, Moody's chief economist, explained that the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act "was never intended to be a source of long-term economic growth," and that the stimulus provided "a significant benefit to the economy's performance over the past more than two years." Zandi added:

This benefit is fading, but this is by design. [Talking Points Memo, 7/5/11]

And The Stimulus Was An $825 Billion Plug ...
CBO: Cost Of Stimulus Is $825 Billion. In its latest report on the stimulus, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that the recovery act would cost $825 billion over 10 years. [Congressional Budget Office, August 2011]

... To Fit A $2 Trillion Hole
Krugman: Economic Gap Was Over $2 Trillion. Krugman wrote in a January 8, 2009, column:

Even the C.B.O. says, however, that "economic output over the next two years will average 6.8 percent below its potential." This translates into $2.1 trillion of lost production. "Our economy could fall $1 trillion short of its full capacity," declared Mr. Obama on Thursday. Well, he was actually understating things.

To close a gap of more than $2 trillion -- possibly a lot more, if the budget office projections turn out to be too optimistic -- Mr. Obama offers a $775 billion plan. And that's not enough. [The New York Times, 1/8/09]

NYT's Leonhardt: "The Recession Is Likely To Idle Almost $2 Trillion Of Resources." From David Leonhardt's February 4, 2009, New York Times analysis:

The recession is likely to idle almost $2 trillion of resources -- buildings, equipment and people -- this year and next, yet the current stimulus will fill only $700 billion of the hole. Several liberal economists, the forecasters at Goldman Sachs and Mark Zandi (an economist whose forecasts the administration has used) all argue for a bill of at least $1 trillion. [The New York Times, 2/3/09]

And The Stimulus Still Lowered Unemployment And Boosted GDP
CBO: Economic Stimulus Increased Employment By Over 1 Million Jobs. An August 2011 report by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated that the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act "[l]owered the unemployment rate by between 0.5 percentage points and 1.6 percentage points" and that the recovery bill "[i]ncreased the number of people employed by between 1.0 million and 2.9 million" during the second quarter. [Congressional Budget Office, August 2011]

CBO: Economic Stimulus Raised GDP. The same CBO report estimated that the recovery act "raised real (inflation-adjusted) gross domestic product (GDP) by between 0.8 percent and 2.5 percent." [Congressional Budget Office, August 2011]

Private Analysts Estimate Stimulus Increased GDP By 1.8 To 2.7 Percent. In its seventh quarterly report on ARRA, the president's Council of Economic Advisers (CEA) estimated that the stimulus "has raised the level of GDP as of the first quarter of 2011, relative to what it otherwise would have been, by between 2.3 and 3.2 percent." CEA also provided a chart showing that private analysts estimate that the stimulus boosted GDP between 1.8 and 2.7 percent:
<span style="color: #CC0000"> [b] <span style='font-size: 11pt'>Obviously, the stimulus did not fail, The Repiglican policy of having a main goal, of making this president a one term president, by using irrational Job killing policies across the country, and using obstructionist policies in Washington D.C., policies that reject needed higher revenues, and investments in jobs, have smothered out the progress, that the stimulus was creating.

As REASONABLE RESPECTED ECONOMISTS agree, this is not the time to prohibit stimulus, or spending and investing in JOBS.

This is NOT the time to leave millions of people out on a limb, when natural disasters have wiped them out of their homes, and they are living like vagabonds.

Republicans do the exact opposite of rational reasoning, on every level, of every issue, including cutting taxes while launching two wars.

How the hell are there enough people in this country that are stupid enough to be led around by their noses, by Fox Propaganda, brainwashed to vote against their own financial and economic interests?

I am stunned, by the ignorance of those who buy into the Fux/Repig/Tea Party, BS!

Stunned that they can't see through the BS that Republicans spew non stop.</span> </span>
See the chart:

Continued:



</div></div>

http://mediamatters.org/research/201109020016

cushioncrawler
09-25-2011, 03:56 PM
Krugman didn win a Nobel Prize. There aint no Nobel Prize for Krappynomix.
And, the stimulus did fail, or putting it another way it only partly didnt fail.
What theusofa really needed woz a real stimulus, which it will never get, koz krappynomix rules on both sides of the arguement.
The usofa will az uzual hav a choice of obama's wheelchair or the teaparty's poizon.

Recently i pointed out that Fox interviewed 7 guest krappynomicysts back there aways (11 interviews in all), and i pointed out that 6 of theze 7 were hardline teapartyers, ie poizoners, which iz why Fox selected them.

Poizon or paralysis. I hope the poizon. Its quick.
mac.

sack316
09-25-2011, 04:28 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">"When The Spending Begins To Tail Off, The Effect On Growth Turns Negative."
</div></div>

And we'll need more stimulus spending again as that happens.

Exactly the "band-aid" reference I gave about it back in '09.

If I hurt my legs badly, I'd much prefer to relearn how to walk again than to have a new set of crutches issued to me every two years. Sure, I suppose getting around on crutches is better than being bedridden--- success. But being able to walk again on my own two legs sure would be better---so then failure.

All a matter of perspective.

I can see the argument from both sides, really. Sure, things probably would have gotten even worse without the stimulus, so in that sense one could call it success. But also, it didn't really "fix" anything long term, just a band-aid to slow the bleeding for the last two years... and then as Krugman even says it will be negative as spending slows/ends. In that sense one could call it failure.

And both arguments would technically be correct.

So, in a rare occurrence... yeah, what Mac said!

Sack

cushioncrawler
09-25-2011, 05:01 PM
Yes -- crutches would be better than wheelchair.
I think that even Keynes disagreed with Keynes, later on. Funny that.
mac.

sack316
09-25-2011, 08:19 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: cushioncrawler</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Yes -- crutches would be better than wheelchair.
I think that even Keynes disagreed with Keynes, later on. Funny that.
mac. </div></div>

I suppose the problem that comes with any economic model is that there's still that pesky old human nature factor involved

Sack

LWW
09-26-2011, 12:52 AM
What charlotte left out is that the experts, including the CBO, also said that the amount it raised GDP was well below the amount that it cost ... and that it would be an anchor on the US economy for at least the next decade.

To date ... they have been right.

Gayle in MD
09-26-2011, 08:15 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sack316</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">"When The Spending Begins To Tail Off, The Effect On Growth Turns Negative."
</div></div>

And we'll need more stimulus spending again as that happens.

Exactly the "band-aid" reference I gave about it back in '09.

If I hurt my legs badly, I'd much prefer to relearn how to walk again than to have a new set of crutches issued to me every two years. Sure, I suppose getting around on crutches is better than being bedridden--- success. But being able to walk again on my own two legs sure would be better---so then failure.

All a matter of perspective.

I can see the argument from both sides, really. Sure, things probably would have gotten even worse without the stimulus, so in that sense one could call it success. But also, it didn't really "fix" anything long term, just a band-aid to slow the bleeding for the last two years... and then as Krugman even says it will be negative as spending slows/ends. In that sense one could call it failure.

And both arguments would technically be correct.

So, in a rare occurrence... yeah, what Mac said!

Sack

</div></div>

One could call it a failure, only if one refused to acknowledge that we were on the verge of the Bush Depression, which most economists predicted would be worse than The Great Depression, and which the stimulus was designed to prevent, and did successfully prevent.

Then one would also have to ignore the CBO's numbers on Job Creation, and GDP, after the stimulus, as well, and also add in all of the jobs which were maintained, with stimulus money.

Along with that, one would have ot ignore all of the job losses created by Republican obstructionism, continually chipping away at the confidence of the country, like, for example, their unprecedented refusal to extend the debt ceiling, which had a proven, negative impact, on Wall St., and economically, around the world, particularly here.....

Add to that, that economists, including the CBO, have stated that the Bush REcession, was deeper than originally thought.

The deeper a Depression, the longer it takes to plow out of it, hence, the stimulus worked, and things would have been far worse, without it, as virtually all of the expert economists, agree.

No, it did not fail, it worked, and would have worked better and faster, if not for all of the record breaking filibusters, and unprecedented obstruction.

G.

eg8r
09-26-2011, 08:24 AM
If the stimulus had been successful then we would be going backwards again. I liken it to a bandaid. It helped keep the blood from getting on our clothes but it did not stop the bleeding. A success for me would be that we stop the bleeding, not slow it down for a brief period of time only to get blood everywhere all over again.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
09-26-2011, 08:54 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If the stimulus had been successful then we would be going backwards again. I liken it to a bandaid. It helped keep the blood from getting on our clothes but it did not stop the bleeding. A success for me would be that we stop the bleeding, not slow it down for a brief period of time only to get blood everywhere all over again.

eg8r </div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> If the stimulus had been successful then we would be going backwards again. </div></div>

HUH? We would? /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif

Check it out, Ed. all of the policies we need to put through in order to prevent fraud, on Wall St., have been blocked by the Republicans, same guys who ignored the growing threat of economic collapse, with their Free Market Zealots, Greenspan and Bush.

For over a decade I've been saying that corporations cannot be trusted to regulate themselves.

Republican policies, always call for deregulation, no government oversight into the workings of the corrupt economic practices of the crooks who brought this country to it's knees.

Republicans have blocked and filibustered every attempt to hold the corrupt corporate CEO's, to account, for stealing America's collective wealthy, from BP's assault on the Gulf, to the common no good/no bid, war profiteering contractors connected to the Carlyle Group, who kidnapped and gang raped that young woman.

Do you think it was just a coincidence that Bush had implemented a policy of "The Ownership Society" as Greenspan held down interest rates, to unjustifiably low rates, hence, flaming the R.E. Bubble, while the SEC overlooked their duties?


Our recovery was going along pretty well, until Repigs got the majority back, then our recovery, which had been filibustered by obstructionist Repigs, all along, who admitted their main goal all along, since they lost te White House, and the Senate, was to make President Obama a one term president, and that was their statement within a few months of his win, hence, Repigs admitted, their concern was about getting power, not saving this country from the Bush Depression.

The president has made a mistake trying to find compromise, where there will be none, and Repubs offer nothing but the same policies which put us into the ditch.

What's with all of this blood talk? The bleeding took place throughout the last several years of BUSH!

No one predicted a speedy job recovery. All predictions were far worse than we have endured, so far.

Being unrealistic, about the humongous mess Bush left in his wake, won't cut it.

Everything is relative, and Bush and the blank check Repigs, dug the ditch extremely deep! We are still burried by Bush/Repiglican DEBTS!

The deeper the ditch, the more it costs to climb out of it.

Repubs have blocked the spending and investment needed to get us back in the black.

Obstruction isn't the answer. Throwing more out of work, like Repiglicans on Capitol Hill, and Repig Governors have steadily tried to do, isn't the answer, either.

There are times when investing is the only way up, and out, of devastation, and this is one of them.

No country can thrive with a dying Middle Class.

Corporate America is responsible, and they destroyed us with policies which have been REPIGLICAN policies for decades.

The RW media machine, refuses to tell the real story about the stimulus.


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Meet The Press Won't Stop Misinforming On "Obama's Economic Record"
July 10, 2011 2:34 pm ET by Zachary Pleat

Meet The Press moderator David Gregory is still misrepresenting President Obama's economic record.

In June, Meet The Press aired a graphic claiming that "President Obama's Economic Record" consisted of higher unemployment, debt, and gas prices.

During an interview with Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner Meet The Press aired a virtually identical graphic minus the line about gas prices, which Gregory called "the chart of the president's economic record":



<span style='font-size: 14pt'>What these graphics do not show, and what David Gregory did not see fit to mention, is that President Obama's recovery measures have boosted employment by several million jobs, according to several different independent estimates. Furthermore, a March 2010 study in The Wall Street Journal found that 70 percent of economists surveyed said the stimulus "boosted growth and mitigated job losses." As well, analyses have shown that virtually all of the debt added in the last several years are attributable to Bush-era policies and the economic downturn.</span>
When Gregory presented this graphic to Geithner, he dismissed it as "a ridiculous table." Watch:

</div></div>
see the charts:
http://mediamatters.org/blog/201107100006

If we don't get rid of the Repiglicans, you can kiss your future goodbye....

Depending on defense contracts, isn't going to cut it going forward...Americans have seen the light on the RW policies of blowing trillions on Wars, to benefit war profiteering corporate pigs....

Anyone who can deny the damages that fascist corporate greed is doing, and has been doing, to this country, isn't playing with a full deck.

They outsourced our entire manufacturing base, so they couuld utilize slave labor over seas, and they are sitting on their trillions, while Repiglicans in in there trying preserve tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires, they are working to prevent FEMA, from answering the call of hundreds of thousands of Americans, who have lost their homes and livlihoods, due to the same natural disasters which have grown worse, due to the ignorant Repiglican denials of climate change.

Every single problem we face, originated with failed Repiglican policies, of greed, and corruption!

This is a Repiglican war on the Middle Class, to further benefit the wealthy, as if they haven't already stolen enough.



G.

eg8r
09-26-2011, 01:18 PM
Basically as far as this country is concerned, the stimulus was a failure.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
09-26-2011, 03:09 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Basically as far as this country is concerned, the stimulus was a failure.

eg8r </div></div>

If the stimulus had failed, we'd have been stuck deep in the Bush Depression for the last three years.

G.

sack316
09-26-2011, 04:55 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Then one would also have to ignore the CBO's numbers on Job Creation, and GDP, after the stimulus, as well, and also add in all of the jobs which were maintained, with stimulus money.</div></div>

Maintained...until... stimulus ends. Then we're right back where were were. That's the "negative" and the drag mentioned in your own original post. IMHO (as well as most) "worked" would mean it's done and we would continue to propel forward and upward upon its completion.

As I said, in the "it would have been worse" perspective one could call it success. I don't believe the goal was ONLY to keep it from being as bad as it could be. I think an optimum goal was to stimulate and then continue without more necessary assistance.

My beloved Cubbies spent a lot of money this season. We'll still finish next to last in the Central Division with an awful record. But, it could have been worse (we could be the Astros)... so thanks for telling me they are a "success" /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif

Sack

Gayle in MD
09-26-2011, 11:23 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sack316</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Then one would also have to ignore the CBO's numbers on Job Creation, and GDP, after the stimulus, as well, and also add in all of the jobs which were maintained, with stimulus money.</div></div>

Maintained...until... stimulus ends. Then we're right back where were were. That's the "negative" and the drag mentioned in your own original post. IMHO (as well as most) "worked" would mean it's done and we would continue to propel forward and upward upon its completion.

As I said, in the "it would have been worse" perspective one could call it success. I don't believe the goal was ONLY to keep it from being as bad as it could be. I think an optimum goal was to stimulate and then continue without more necessary assistance.

My beloved Cubbies spent a lot of money this season. We'll still finish next to last in the Central Division with an awful record. But, it could have been worse (we could be the Astros)... so thanks for telling me they are a "success" /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif

Sack

</div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Maintained...until... stimulus ends. Then we're right back where were were. That's the "negative" and the drag mentioned in your own original post. IMHO (as well as most) "worked" would mean it's done and we would continue to propel forward and upward upon its completion.

</div></div>

I don't agree. As far as I know, we aren't losing seven to eight hundred thousand jobs a month, as we were during Bush's last months, and hence we aren't back where we were at all.

Additionally I guess it's easy for some to overlook record breaking filibusters, and republican created, consumer and small business, confidence killing tactics, which they have surely committed with their debt ceiling nonsense, SS threats, and Medicare threats, not to mention all of their other additional obsruction, and just pretend that things wouldn't have continued to progress, without such tactics.

And also, we would have to account for all of the Red State job losses, of public employees, which could easily have been maintained, if certain governors, weren't all in on ruining the recovery, for political purposes, that is.

I suppose Republicans don't understand that throwing more people out of work, regardless of what kind of employees they are, public, or private, is still bad for the economy, creating more unemployed, in an effort to destroy thhe president, in the midst of a shaky economy, is not a responsiblem nor sensible policy.

Whatever....their BS lies about creating a Job Killing policy, if we make millionaires and billionaires give up their loopholes and tax breaks, while they block FEMA moeny, ... holding up needed money for victims of natural disasters, makes me want to throw up!

They didn't have any qualms about sending billions upon billions to Iraq, to build schools, and rebuild their infratructure, after they blew the place up, even if they had to borrow the money to do it, but don't ask them to help our own people, rebuild our own schools and bridges, and infrastructure.

They make me sick! PIGS!

G.

Gayle in MD
09-27-2011, 11:12 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> In short, the Koch Bros increased their wealth by 30% in the last 2 years [ its a recession remember!!!]. At the same time they layed off 67,000 American workers.

</div></div>

Job creators?

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

sack316
09-27-2011, 01:47 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> In short, the Koch Bros increased their wealth by 30% in the last 2 years [ its a recession remember!!!]. At the same time they layed off 67,000 American workers.

</div></div>

Job creators?

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif </div></div>

Won't find me agreeing with their actions.

Although someone that does care for them could borrow a certain line of thinking and say "It could have been worse, their wealth could have only increased 15% and laid off a lot more workers. We'll call them a success for the economy". (of course I personally think that is ridiculous)

Sack

eg8r
09-27-2011, 02:39 PM
We still are. Just because things were mildly better (sorry for the gross exaggeration but I could not come up with a word that was exponentially smaller than mild) and now after 2 years we are falling back again would it ever be considered a success. UE has stayed high the entire time, the economy did not get any better at all, and any gains that were made have gone away.

The stimulus is an utter failure any way you look it, unless you thought all along that it was only supposed to be good for 2 years and then we would happily drop back down again and wait for another "stimulus".

eg8r

Gayle in MD
09-28-2011, 08:37 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sack316</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> In short, the Koch Bros increased their wealth by 30% in the last 2 years [ its a recession remember!!!]. At the same time they layed off 67,000 American workers.

</div></div>

Job creators?

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif </div></div>

Won't find me agreeing with their actions.

Although someone that does care for them could borrow a certain line of thinking and say "It could have been worse, their wealth could have only increased 15% and laid off a lot more workers. We'll call them a success for the economy". (of course I personally think that is ridiculous)

Sack </div></div>

Sack,

And I, presonally, think that comparison is ridiculous, given the size of the multi level mess that this President faced when he began his presidency, and the relentless obstruction by Republicans, who criticized everything he did, and refused to sign on to their own policies of the past.

Pure Obstruction, at a time of emergency, for political purposes.

Given their own contribution to the mess, their unprecedented spending and borrowing, and growing the government, while cutting taxes, IMO, to follow up with total obstruction as a policy, takes tremendous GALL, and irresponsibility!

G.

Gayle in MD
09-28-2011, 08:57 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">We still are. Just because things were mildly better (sorry for the gross exaggeration but I could not come up with a word that was exponentially smaller than mild) and now after 2 years we are falling back again would it ever be considered a success. UE has stayed high the entire time, the economy did not get any better at all, and any gains that were made have gone away.

The stimulus is an utter failure any way you look it, unless you thought all along that it was only supposed to be good for 2 years and then we would happily drop back down again and wait for another "stimulus".

eg8r </div></div>

Again, we are not losing 700,000 to 800,000 jobs a month, as we were under BUSH!

Is it possible for you to write a post without a lie included in it?

You righties refuse to acknowledge the impact of what has been clearly, Republican obstructionism, of basic recovery policies, but that won't hide the fact, that they have done everything they could do, to increase job losses, and block enough investment, to accomplish a more swift, and consistant recovery, including creating more psychological unease, in the marketplace, and by blocking standard economic policies, like insuring that others trust us to pay our debts, when they created the Debt Ceiling Crisis, for example, and using threats to shut down the government, you name it, they've done it.

And you cannot deny, that within months of president Obama's administration, they made it clear that their "Main goal" was to make him a one term president.

Gross irresponsibility on the part of those who had at the very least, contributed to the huge deficits, and weakened circumstances of all but the wealthy.

In short, one would have to deny that there was gross fraud going on in the market, throughout the Bush Administration.

Deny that Bush out spent and out borrowed, every previous administration, annd in fact, borrowed more than all previous administrations combined, with that blank check from Republicans.

Deny that Bush and Greenspan, were warned about the coming crash, and did nothing to prevent it.

Deny that the void of wealth between the wealthy and everyone else, grew during the Bush administration.

And deny that Bush's spending policies do not measure the majority of our debts, in spite of the fact, that many of them are underway, as we write, and have not yet even been calculated, like his colossal Embassy, in Iraq, and colossal unfinished CIS, and HLS, buildings around Washington D.C., still under construction, and still contributing to the deficit!

Bush's spending has been hidden from calculation, and was hidden all along.

IOW, Bush's unpaid for spending, is still going on!

Just saw another Republican critic of the president's stimulus, smiling center picture, at another ribbon cutting, taking credit, for the very spending which he has bashed, shown on the Ed Show, last night!

G.

eg8r
09-28-2011, 10:52 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Again, we are not losing 700,000 to 800,000 jobs a month, as we were under BUSH!
</div></div>UE went up and up and up and up. Obama did not slow that down at all. We are even higher than he said we would get. The stimulus failed.

eg8r

Qtec
09-28-2011, 11:33 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Obama did not slow that down at all. </div></div>

Rubbish.

Q

Gayle in MD
09-28-2011, 12:04 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Obama did not slow that down at all. </div></div>

Rubbish.

Q </div></div>

He knows better, I'm sure, he just likes to irritate others.

Some things never change, just like some people never grow up.

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif

G.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">In short, the Koch Bros increased their wealth by 30% in the last 2 years [ its a recession remember!!!]. At the same time they layed off 67,000 American workers.

</div></div>

eg8r
09-28-2011, 03:24 PM
Your head is in the sand.

eg8r

LWW
09-29-2011, 03:05 AM
I was guessing a different location.

LWW
09-29-2011, 03:08 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Obama did not slow that down at all. </div></div>

Rubbish.

Q </div></div>

What a tool you are.
http://i80.photobucket.com/albums/j191/mikesamerica/mikesamerica2/jobs.jpg

Qtec
09-29-2011, 03:59 AM
Your graph shows that the UE rate went down, does it not?

The claim was,

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">UE went up and up and up and up. </div></div>

Q

eg8r
09-29-2011, 08:10 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Your graph shows that the UE rate went down, does it not?
</div></div> It shows it blasting higher and higher above the lies Obama fed to his ill-informed voters.

eg8r

Qtec
09-29-2011, 09:12 AM
..but it still <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">shows that the UE rate went down, does it not? </div></div>

ie, your claim is false.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">UE went up and up and up and up. </div></div>

What a surprise.

Q

LWW
09-29-2011, 09:59 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Your graph shows that the UE rate went down, does it not?

The claim was,

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">UE went up and up and up and up. </div></div>

Q </div></div>

Ummmm ... no.

But I have an unfair advantage over you being that I'm not an idiot.

LWW
09-29-2011, 10:01 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Your graph shows that the UE rate went down, does it not?
</div></div> It shows it blasting higher and higher above the lies Obama fed to his ill-informed voters.

eg8r </div></div>

To snoopy ... it shows him whatever dear leader tells him that it shows him.

To think people it shows that we were told the stimulus would keep UE from going above 8% ... it went to over 10% ... and down to about 6.5% by now. We are now still over 9% UE.

Gayle in MD
09-29-2011, 12:18 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Again, we are not losing 700,000 to 800,000 jobs a month, as we were under BUSH!
</div></div>UE went up and up and up and up. Obama did not slow that down at all. We are even higher than he said we would get. The stimulus failed.

eg8r </div></div>


I don't agree. As far as I know, we aren't losing seven to eight hundred thousand jobs a month, as we were during Bush's last months, and hence we aren't back where we were when president Obama took office, and inherited Bush's muti-level disastrous legacy, at all.

And, The Bush Depression didn't happen, because President Obama spent money to prevent it, saved millions of jobs, and produced millions more.

And, had the Repigs been willing to sign onto a larger stimulus, as many economists stated was needed, the stimulus would have accomplished even more..

But, since you live in a state of denial, no surprise you even deny the actual findings of the Department of Labor, The Census, and CBO.

G.

eg8r
09-29-2011, 01:42 PM
Exactly but qtip will never get it.

eg8r