The Stimulus Seems to have failed

http://jumpinginpools.blogspot.com/2010/08/proof-that-democrats-are-at-fault-for.html

Claims have been bandied about that President Bush was at fault for the economic down-turn that began in late 2007. … snip …Examining unemployment, national debt data, and GDP growth, the truth becomes clear and apparent. President Bush was not at fault for the recession we are in. The Democrats who took over Congress in 2007 are.

From 1995 to January of 2007, Republicans held at least one house of Congress. However, in the 2006 mid-term elections, Democrats won control of both the House and Senate. They took their new offices in January, 2007. Soon after that time until now, the United States has entered a deep recession, often attributed to President Bush. However, examining the actions of the Democratic Congress and the effects that came, the truth is revealed.

Under the Democrats, unemployment started to balloon. It stated to climb, rising past 4.5%, past 5%, past 6%, and past 6.5%, all the way to 8.5% by the time they had been in office for just two years. By then, President Obama had been inaugurated, and unemployment continued to rise as spending increased. This chart explains, in depth, the bills Democrats passed, and the effects they had from November 2006-March 2010 (click for a sharper, bigger image):

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_0IXE5-2Kv...AAOU/DkUrkHvQbtQ/s1600/Unemployment+Graph.jpg
Click to expand...

Seems pretty clear to me what happened. :D

More:

A large National Debt data is also something that Democrats like to blame President Bush for. However, examining our debt as a percent of our GDP shows the truth again. …. snip … From 2001-2007 (when Republicans left office), the percent of our debt grew from 57.4% to 65.6%, or 8.8% (around 1.2% a year). Though the number did rise, you must take into account 9/11, the devastation from Hurricane Katrina, and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Further, from 2005-2007, it slowed to an average of .5% per year, which means it may have began to go down in the near future.

Then Democrats took office. In their first full year in office, the debt as a percent of GDP rose 4.6%, from 65.6% to 70.2%. The next year was even more astounding, as the percent rose 15.9%, to 86.1%. So far this year, the percent is up another 5% to 91.1%. This graph explains in greater detail (click for a better image):

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_0IXE5-2Kv...nCY/s1600/Percent+of+National+Debt+to+GDP.jpg
Click to expand...

Yep, it's seem pretty clear to me what happened. :D

And continuing:

The growth of our very economy is also very important to examine. Under President Bush and the Republican Congress, our GDP grew on average around 3%, peaking in the fall of 2003 to nearly 7%. The GDP only decreased in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, and that was only for one quarter.

Then Democrats took Congress. At the beginning of 2008, our GDP sharply dropped. By the end of 2008, it was retracting at a rate of almost 7%. This graph shows everything in more detail (click for a bigger, sharper image):

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_0IXE5-2KvZU/THuDUGa_HvI/AAAAAAAAAOc/-3EjqpcfunY/s1600/GDP+Growth+Map.jpg
Click to expand...

Again. It's clear as can be what happened.

Like I said earlier.

Things went south when democrats (about 30% of them outright socialists) took control of Congress. And what happened is what history shows has repeatedly happened (as I proved earlier) when democrats take control of Congress. But this time it was a perfect storm … because a democrat (and a socialist to boot) entered the Oval Office too. And here we are.

I hope you will all keep this in mind when you vote for Congress this November. :D
 
joobz said:
You accused me of being dishonest.
Click to expand...

All the unemployment rates mentioned earlier on this thread, including the rates during the 1981/82 recession that were offered for comparison, were seasonally adjusted. So what was your purpose in tossing out non-seasonally adjusted rates other than to obfuscate? And in my book, deliberate obfuscation is a form of dishonesty because it's intended to cloud the truth.
 
joobz said:
the goal was to show trends. as I stated in my post.
Click to expand...

You could have done that using seasonally adjusted data. But ok, joobz, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. You weren't deliberatedly trying to obfuscate. You just didn't know the difference between seasonally adjusted and non-seasonally adjusted data and grabbed the first chart that was handy to depict whatever it is you thought you were proving with that graph. :D
 
BeAChooser said:
You could have done that using seasonally adjusted data. But ok, joobz, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. You weren't deliberatedly trying to obfuscate. You just didn't know the difference between seasonally adjusted and non-seasonally adjusted data and grabbed the first chart that was handy to depict whatever it is you thought you were proving with that graph. :D
Click to expand...
Your inability to address the argument I made is clear.
Feel free to continue these silly posts, I shall allow you to wallow in nonsense.
 
BAC, it is true that the Republicans aren't "to blame" for the recession, but then neither are the Democrats, at least not primarily. The Fed is the single entity with the most blame and even then there were multiple actors who share responsibility.
 
BeAChooser said:
http://www.businessinsider.com/chrstina-romer-not-my-fathers-recession-2010-9



So now it's "Whooops, we're sorry we wasted a TRILLION dollars. No, make that THREE TRILLION, when all is said an done." :rolleyes: :mad:
Click to expand...

Here's another interesting part of the speech, as quoted in your article:

In a report that Jared Bernstein and I issued during the transition, we estimated that by the end of 2010, a stimulus package like the Recovery Act would raise real GDP by about 3 1⁄2 percent and employment by about 31⁄2 million jobs, relative to what otherwise would have occurred. As the Council of Economic Advisers has documented in a series of reports to Congress, there is widespread agreement that the Act is broadly on track to meet these milestones....
Click to expand...

and:

As I’ve described, our estimates of the impact of the Recovery Act have proven quite accurate.
Click to expand...


Note that nowhere in the article's quote does she claim the stimulus failed, rather she claims that she made bad forecasts because this recession has been unlike any past recessions and therefore, the forecasters had:
failed to anticipate just how violent the recession would be in the absence of policy, and the degree to which the usual relationship between GDP and unemployment would break down.
Click to expand...

Apparently, BaC, reading pwns you.
 
MikeMangum said:
BAC, it is true that the Republicans aren't "to blame" for the recession, but then neither are the Democrats, at least not primarily.
Click to expand...

Curious how downturns in the economy always seem to coincide with democrats getting control of both houses of Congress. :D
 
Actually she is conceding the point of this whole thread, that the stimulus didn't work. Yes, she has nice excuses why (it was worst than we thought, the stimulus wasn't big enough, yadda yadda yadda), but the point is, it didn't do what THEY thought it would do, in the time frame THEY set out for it to be done.
 
Chris L said:
Actually she is conceding the point of this whole thread, that the stimulus didn't work. Yes, she has nice excuses why (it was worst than we thought, the stimulus wasn't big enough, yadda yadda yadda), but the point is, it didn't do what THEY thought it would do, in the time frame THEY set out for it to be done.
Click to expand...

Let me requote the quote of the quote in the article:

there is widespread agreement that the Act is broadly on track to meet these milestones
Click to expand...
My bold and italic for emphasis.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom