The Stimulus Seems to have failed

The goalposts were moved long ago. The stimulus was supposed to cap unemployment at 8.5%. Remember?

You know what else I just remembered? This is supposed to be "recovery summer". Remember that term? I haven't heard that in awhile. Hey, I also haven't heard "green shoots" in awhile. What gives!??!?

In addition to Unemployment benefits running out for many, many people, the housing market has taken a hit as the tax rebate program ended.

In other words: Your anti-stimulus stance has furthered the economic contraction that had appeared to, at least in some part, level off/stabilize prior to the latest hits.


Here's what I don't get - how the tax cuts are supposed to create jobs. And, yes, I know the rhetoric/boilerplate response of: "businesses use the saved money to create jobs" except that if I'm a business owner, and I have no market because relatively little money is flowing, why would I bother hiring more people? I'm more likely to cut people as the economy continues to contract. You'd have to be a very foolish businessman to hire new workers when the market for your products is shrinking.
 
This is like saying that the titanic wasn't a sunk ship because at the time they declared they were sinking they hadn't taken on all the water yet.

I wasn't the one predicting that unemployment would peak at (God forbid) 9% if there was no stimulus enacted. That was Obama who made that prediction. And we already knew that the country could survive such levels of unemployment without a massive Obama-style stimulus ... since it survived 10.3% unemployment during the 1981/82 recession. Of course, Obama never once mentioned that in all the cloud of rhetoric he threw out to obscure the facts. I really don't see what all the Obama driven hysteria could have been about other than being a concocted reason to enact his socialist agenda.

And talk about Titanic. I'd say the Stimulus has turned out to be one. Or perhaps White Elephant is more apt. :D
 
Hey joobz ...

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/31/business/31sorkin.html?_r=2&ref=politics

Why Wall St. Is Deserting Obama

… snip …

Daniel S. Loeb, the hedge fund manager, was one of Barack Obama’s biggest backers in the 2008 presidential campaign.

… snip …

So it came as quite a surprise on Friday, when Mr. Loeb sent a letter to his investors that sounded as if he were preparing to join Glenn Beck in Washington over the weekend.

… snip …

“So long as our leaders tell us that we must trust them to regulate and redistribute our way back to prosperity, we will not break out of this economic quagmire,” Mr. Loeb wrote.

“Perhaps our leaders will awaken to the fact that free market capitalism is the best system to allocate resources and create innovation, growth and jobs,” he continued. “Perhaps too, a cloven-hoofed, bristly haired mammal will become airborne and the rosette-like marking of a certain breed of ferocious feline will become altered. In other words, we are not holding our breath.”

Talk about Titanics. Looks like even the rats are jumping overboard. :D
 
Hey joobz ...

Talk about Titanics. Looks like even the rats are jumping overboard. :D

Wait. Are we supposed to believe that a hedge fund manager who was one of Obama's biggest supporters in '08 is now skeptical that Obama is the bastion of free market capitalism that he apparently was in 2008? Lol.

Sounds like sour grapes to me. Maybe Loeb wasn't one of the annointed wall streeters worthy of a bailout.
 
Last edited:
Sounds like sour grapes to me.

Certainly the stock market hasn't performed very well since democrats took control of Congress back in 2007. And Obama's actions haven't helped it either. What we do know is that Loeb made the maximum contribution to Obama's Presidential run and it looks like he wishes he hadn't. And since you apparently don't think much of him, you must agree he's a rat. :D
 
BAC, your entire argument is silly. The culmination of all data was showing that the economic conditions of the current situation was worse than 81/82. That was true

ETA:
And seriously? Free markets will save us? From a hedge fund manager?

wow, shall we remind us what happened with the banking crisis?
Should we remind us what happens when we do not properly regulate oil drilling?
Should we remind us what happened with Worldcom and Enron?
 
Last edited:
BAC, your entire argument is silly. The culmination of all data was showing that the economic conditions of the current situation was worse than 81/82. That was true

ETA:
And seriously? Free markets will save us? From a hedge fund manager?

wow, shall we remind us what happened with the banking crisis?
Should we remind us what happens when we do not properly regulate oil drilling?
Should we remind us what happened with Worldcom and Enron?

Or even better, let's return to the free markets of the turn of the 19-20th century (especially that free market prior to 1929...), seemed to work incredibly well for everyone then.
 
The culmination of all data was showing that the economic conditions of the current situation was worse than 81/82. That was true

False. The truth is that Obama lied about the seriousness of the situation back in February of 2009 in order to promote his socialist agenda. When he said back then that "we have inherited an economic crisis as deep and dire as any since the days of the Great Depression," the recession was not worse than the one in 1981-82 (or the one in the mid 70s) on many, many levels.

I proved this in previous threads (which you are aware of) by comparing specific figures (unemployment rate, inflation rate, the delta in real GDP, the delta in industrial production, the 30 year mortgage rate, and even the "misery index"). And you never once contested any of those figures, joobz.

You just keep repeating the same lie with the liberal-borne expectation that if you repeat the lie enough it will be believed by enough people to keep you liberals in power regardless of the facts.

As I've pointed out previously on this forum, on January 11th, 2009, Obama lied when he stated to ABCNews (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=a3YMkstD3JzA ) that "Whether it’s retail sales, manufacturing, all of the indicators show that we are in the worst recession since the Great Depression". That statement was simply not true.

And as also pointed out to you previously, the February 27th, 2009 issue of the leftist New York Times supported my view, not yours. It said (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/28/business/economy/28recession.html?_r=1) "Current conditions are not even as poor as during the twin recessions of the 1980s, when unemployment exceeded 10 percent". In fact, unemployment and many of the other measures I mentioned above still haven't exceeded the levels that occurred during 1981-1982 recession.

As further proof he was lying, just consider the fact that in selling the Stimulus bill in February, his own administration claimed that without the stimulus, the peak unemployment would be about 9% ... still well below the peak unemployment that was actually reached in 1981-82 recession. Now he had to have known that number at the time, else we can only conclude he and his staff are incompetent. So Obama lied when he told the public that "all of the indicators show that we are in the worst recession since the Great Depression". The fact that the contraction is now longer than that earlier one and as severe in some respects is likely due to government interference which has prolonged it due to the great uncertainty that interference has caused in the free-market decisions needed to end the recession.

Plain and simple, Joobz ... Obama was a liar. He lied in order to sell his stimulus/porkulus agenda. And you foolishly bought the lie. And here you are still trying to defend the lie ... with another lie. For about the 10th time. How appropriate. How like you.
 
False. The truth is that Obama lied about the seriousness of the situation back in February of 2009 in order to promote his socialist agenda. When he said back then that "we have inherited an economic crisis as deep and dire as any since the days of the Great Depression," the recession was not worse than the one in 1981-82 (or the one in the mid 70s) on many, many levels.
And yet, he was proven correct. Your "snapshot in time" approach to call him a liar is simple nonsense. Gauging on the rate of job losses and the other economic conditions at the time, we were in a horrible economic crisis. He was correct and in fact things were worse than what he predicted.

Your only complaint can be that he was right and you (as usual) were wrong.
 
http://www.marketwire.com/press-rel...DP-National-Employment-NASDAQ-ADP-1312551.htm

ROSELAND, NJ--(Marketwire - September 1, 2010) - Private sector employment decreased by 10,000 from July to August on a seasonally adjusted basis, according to the latest ADP National Employment Report® released today.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/LI02Dj03.html

Economists expect the US Labor Department to report on Friday that the economy lost another 80,000 jobs in August after shedding 131,000 in July.

Wow, Obama's Stimulus and "Recovery Summer" continue to amaze. :rolleyes:
 
If you say something that you know isn't true at the time you are saying it, that is called lie. If the situation changes, and it becomes true, that's called a self-fulfilling prophecy.
 
If you say something that you know isn't true at the time you are saying it, that is called lie. If the situation changes, and it becomes true, that's called a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Exactly. Obama had everything to do with the recession becoming what it has become.
 
If you say something that you know isn't true at the time you are saying it, that is called lie.
And it was true when he said it.
even before the stimulus money kicked in, things were getting worse and worse.
If the situation changes, and it becomes true, that's called a self-fulfilling prophecy.
You can't claim midfall that "the situation changed"
 
You can't claim midfall that "the situation changed"

Since the employment rate was lower at the time the stimulus was being debated than it is now, I'd call that a change. Those who actually had jobs at the beginning of this administration, but don't now, would probably agree.
 
Since the employment rate was lower at the time the stimulus was being debated than it is now, I'd call that a change. Those who actually had jobs at the beginning of this administration, but don't now, would probably agree.
You do understand that job losses were continually occuring before and after his administration started.
That is a change, but not a change in direction.

Hence, "Midfall".
 

Back
Top Bottom