Feb. 17, 2014 is 5th anniversary of Prez Obama’s successful Stimulus Plan

What is more important is the fact that the alleged stimulus bill was for $800 billion and the government has spent over $3.5 trillion on those same people targeted by the stimulus in the last 5 years. How much has ever job cost the tax payers? Even if the total was 8 million put back to work have you any idea how much each job cost us?

 

Dear far left-wingers and far right-wingers,

Why waste time and energy posting useless statistics and graphs from questionable sources, all in some sort of perverse quest to rub your nebulous agendas in each other's faces?

Why not just post one message, i.e.;
"I ffuucckking hate you guys from the other side for not thinking the way my television stations and my partisan internet sources tell me I'm supposed to think, and I wish you would all drop dead!!" ?
Then you'd be done with it.

Then, you could go outside and throw a ball with your kids, take your wife out for a nice dinner, or (if you are single) call up your girlfriend and take her out for a drink.

Think about it, really.
Take a break from the partisan-political tit-for-tat nonsense.
You aren't going to change each others minds, and you certainly aren't going to effect meaningful change by partisan-pi$$ing at each other on the internet.

 

The OP is just plain silly and wrong! What an idiotic and inaccurate posting. Laughable to the nth degree!

 

The Democrats controlled congress from January of 2007 to January of 2011.

Best Regards
Molon

 

We've had a national debt since 1776. No one has cared about it before so why start worrying now?

 

Bush and his tax cuts created 8.2 million jobs in four years, then the Democrats gained control of congress in January of 2007 and squandered everything...



Regards
Molon

 

I noticed how you skipped everything I said in my post, probably because it had to much substance for you to deal with. As for the 2 charts in your OP, the first is monthly job growth or loss, it is exactly what one would expect when looking at a recession, lots of job losses going into the recession and job growth on the way out. Only thing is that the job growth on the way out has been much less than what usually is witnessed after a recession. I don't know why you are all happy about that. This is a historic trend, the exact one sees with or without stimulus. Now I agree short term the stimulus helped, but long term the debt is poisonous. Do you have any evidence that the historic norm wouldn't have taken part this time around without the stimulus?

As for your other graph it was the Dow jones industrial average, are you honestly saying the stock market = the economy? You do understand that the DJIA is just a valuation of stock price, if there is lots of money funneled into equities the value of them artificially increases, a sort of inflation. You do know the effect Tarp and QE have had in the stock market don't you?

Whats sad is you not addressing any of my points in my post, and just deflecting. I continually address your points and make counterpoints and you double down on your OP without any refutiation of anything I said. That fact that you think I am sad... well is sad.

Send me your regards when you actually prove a point, no more correlation is causation and ignoring every other possibility in order to celebrate partisan ignorance.

 

debt to GDP ratio, studies have shown that after a certain percentage of this ratio economic growth is hindered. Also interest payments are continually becoming larger and larger part of federal expenditures.

http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articles/2014/01/08/Rising-interest-rates-will-slam-Federal-Budget

Over half a trillion dollars in interest payments per year if rates go up as expected. This crowds out other spending. Imagine 1 out of every 6 dollars the government collects in a year going just to pay interest on the debt.

Now imagine what happens if rates go up higher then expected, say to late 70s or early 80s levels... where rates were double digits. Imagine $18 trillion in debt with 12% interest... thats 2.16 trillion in interest payments. over 2/3 of all federal revenue.

I don't know how anyone cannot think the debt is a serious problem.

 

Generational theft??!

LOL.

 

Those studies would be incorrect.

It is NOT a serious problem. It is a manufactured talking point by the right wing. There are many countries, specifically Japan and the EU, with public debts much higher than the US.

The interest rates is another scare tactic by the right wing. Interest rates are controlled by the Fed and the demand in our economy. Our demand is so pitiful you won't see them go up any time soon. Interest rates generally rise when demand and inflation rise.

 

Because national debt is always a problem when Democrats are in office. Suddenly there is a "Federal spending" problem.

When Republicans retake the WH, they spend like drunken sailors and no one says anything about it.

The TRUTH that right wingers don't want to hear is that federal spending is GOOD. It is a direct injection of cash into the private sector economy. Republican presidents intentionally cut taxes and spend in deficit because they know it creates jobs and increases the economy. Starving the beast when democrats are in office plays towards their plan of reducing the size of government through austerity.

A Federal deficit by definition is a surplus to the private sector. It means the amount of tax revenue coming is less than the amount of cash flowing into the private sector. Why tea party birds call for a balanced budget is beyond me. We don't benefit from balanced budgets at all.

 

largest increase in the growth rate in the history of the country, you left that out.....

 

And in liberal land they don't count those that dropped out of looking for employment anymore. Like many other items they just bury them under the bus.

 

It was a success.

It halted this country's head long dive into a severe Depression.

The fact that the GOP has worked hard to make sure that that Stimulus bill was not followed up by any other effort the stimulate the economy explains the statistics your right wing blog cites.

In 1933, Congress approved a far more radical stimulus bill in less than 100 days. That halted the nation's slide toward anarchy, and began the slow process of revival. That revivial ended when FDR gave in to conservatives and cut Federal spending in 1937, which sent the economy plunging back downward again. Of course, this isn't the version in the current right wing historical rewrite.

When FDR became president, banks were failing in the hundreds.

If he had faced a Congress like the Congress and GOP that Obama faced in 2009, there would have been riots in the streets, and our history would be much different than it turned out to be.

As another poster has already noted, Republicans only care about debt when they are out of office. Since 1980, the GOP has borrowed six times as much money as the US borrowed in the first 200 years of its history.

There is little doubt in anyone's mind that if a Republican were to be elected in 2016, all talk of fiscal responsiblity would cease (along with the tea party, which will vanish anyway), and deficits will begin climbing again.

That has been the consistant pattern through the last two GOP Presidencies.

 

Taxcutter says:
It takes a heckuva lot of chutzpah to post lies like this. The "stimulus" was nothing but a mega-payoff to teachers' unions. We have real unemployment (not BLS cooked data) at Great Depression levels and the Left has the nerve to tell us that the stimulus "proves" the discredited idea of Keynesian "pump priming."

Just pump out those lies. The stupid people will believe them.

Stalin would be so proud of the US left.

 

Lets talk basic arithmetic, is the debt going up or down right now?

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

Its not hard to figure out...

 

What is funny about leaving your children with a $17.5 Trillion debt? Please share with us why this is funny to you.

By the way, by the time Barack Obama is done, he will have taken an awful $9 Trillion debt to a horribly massive $22 Trillion debt.

 

.....because national debt is not a credit card.

 

Wrong, The 110th Congress in 2007 of our Legislative branch Dems only had 49 seats in the Senate, 48 if we count Little Judas err..ahhh. Little Joe Lieberman that always voted with GOPers making the Dick's tie breaking vote unnecessary. Dems only controlled the House plus GOPers controlled the Executive branch & the USSC.

Nice try though, try again.

Best Regards
Lobato1

 

Theres the answer. had 0 to do with stimulus or Obama "turning around" the economy.

People gave up, and dropped out of the hunt or went on disability. theres your drop in unemployment, and certainly nothing to break out the party hats and kazoos over.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/wall-...isery-index-worst-in-40-years/article/2542604

Yay Obama?

 

The Democrats controlled the House of Representatives from January of 2007 to January of 2011.

The Democrats controlled the Senate from January of 2009 to present.

While the Democrats controlled the House of Representatives, the economy went into the toilet.

 

Okay, your on:

Since charts are beyond your comprehension, allow me to educate you & lets debate simple numbers as follows & in round numbers:

The Reagan/Daddy team encountered a total historical National Debt of $950 billion bucks in 1980 & left a $4.5 Trillion debt for the incoming Clinton administration meaning a staggering 474% increase to the National Debt.


Clinton inherited a $4.5 Trillion National Debt & left a $5.5 Trillion debt for Bush Junior meaning a 22% increase to the National Debt.


Bush Junior inherited a $5.5 Trillion National Debt & left a $12 Trillion debt for Prez Obama meaning a 220% increase to the National Debt.



Prez Obama inherited a $12 Trillion National Debt & it now stands at some $17.27 Trillion meaning a 44% increase to the National Debt.

​

You can thank me now for educating you.


Best Regards
Lobato1

 

Nice spin, you previously wrote 2007 & that is what I contested.

Best Regards
Lobato1

 

Wrong:

For starters Bush left office January 20, 2009 & not January 2008 as you have tried to LIE, but you already knew that huh?

In addition on the 110th Congress in 2007 of our Legislative branch Dems only had 49 seats in the Senate, 48 if we count Little Judas err..ahhh. Little Joe Lieberman that always voted with GOPers making the Dick's tie breaking vote unnecessary. Dems only controlled the House plus GOPers controlled the Executive branch & the USSC.

Nice try though, try again.

Best Regards
Lobato1