Wow. We knew it was all but an abject failure, but even Obama's own circle of economists is now pretty much confirming the stimulus was too costly and didn't do what it was supposed to. In fact, the economy is now shedding jobs because of it...and it never achieved the stated goal of keeping unemployment below 8 percent.

As noted in the article, if the US had simply paid every one of these folks $100,000 in cash, it would have saved the country billions in new debt.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/obama-s-economists-stimulus-has-cost-278000-job_576014.html

Come on writer, you all nail people on here for citing and quoting left wing and mainstream media material and you link a Weekly Standard article? Mind as well just threw up a Heritage blog post.

Iunno, I just looked through the report and noticed the good things the Act did. Sure, it was temp, but the report also said it led to a growth of GDP. Go figure the Standard would pick the bad items.
The actual report so you can read for yourself, without the bias analysis.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/cea_7th_arra_report.pdf

What I cited were facts -- just because you don't like what I posted, don't blame the link for being conservative.

I have to laugh...you claim you don't really pay attention to or care about domestic policy stuff, and only like Obama because of the foreign policy things he's done -- but you jump at every chance to defend the man.

Also, you know as well as I do that growth of the GDP alone is not any indicator of economic health -- as we've seen, already. It has been growing for months now and no jobs have been forthcoming. So citing that as a reason for success is pretty vapid.

The bottom line on this is still the bottom line, regardless of who is reporting it: If you have to spend $283,000 every time you "create" or "save" just one job...whatever you're doing is FAILING. There is no way to spin that.

Oh, I'll admit his economic policy is pretty much as disaster and his Economic team has been pretty bad. They did an alright job of stopping us from going off a cliff, but can't do anything to help really grow the economy.

I just though it was funny who quoted a Weekly Standard article and not the actual report. At the very least link the report as well man. Don't just take the word of a conservative economist.
In the report, they even acknowledge how they can't predict what is going to happen, not really good for an economic team.

Is the administration failing on the economy? If your metric for success is staving off economic collapse and not creating a Depression, then the administration has done an alright , just barely passing. If you metric is really growing the economy and not stagnation, then they have failed and failed pretty badly.

Everyone who defends the stimulus SAYS if we'd have done nothing, it would have resulted in a depression -- but that is far from a fact.

One thing we learned from history is this: Most of the government policies implemented under FDR to try and bring the US out of the Great Depression were failures. Total failures. In fact, economists have now come to the conclusion that they actually EXTENDED the length and depth of the depression -- as opposed to what would have happened if those programs had not been implemented.

We have no way of knowing for certain that had things been left alone, the economy might well have corrected itself by now. Would the misery factor have been higher by doing nothing? Oh you bet it would. But in the end, more people might have been much better off, much earlier if history is any guide.

I have a deep and abiding suspicion that we have repeated past mistakes and we are seeing the same results. The more government interference we've seen in the economy of this country, the worse things seem to get.

278K per job is a fail...period.

Someone needs to pin BamBam down on his silly claim that "we prevented a Great Depression," too. He has zero empirical proof that it's a factual statement...he's just pulling shit out of his ass, as usual.

ptown_trojans_1;820877 wrote:Oh, I'll admit his economic policy is pretty much as disaster and his Economic team has been pretty bad. They did an alright job of stopping us from going off a cliff, but can't do anything to help really grow the economy.

I just though it was funny who quoted a Weekly Standard article and not the actual report. At the very least link the report as well man. Don't just take the word of a conservative economist.
In the report, they even acknowledge how they can't predict what is going to happen, not really good for an economic team.

Is the administration failing on the economy? If your metric for success is staving off economic collapse and not creating a Depression, then the administration has done an alright , just barely passing. If you metric is really growing the economy and not stagnation, then they have failed and failed pretty badly.

How did the administration sell the stimulus in the first place? If the metric is what they predicted, they get an F minus minus. And in no metric is barely passing considered an "alright" job - particularly when it was based on conjecture. I can tell my wife that me spending my time at a bar all night prevented me from accidentally burning down the house - but it is still just me rationalizing stupid behavior. This administration has been an economic disaster in any definition of the term. We've added trillions of dollars in debt with nothing to show for it, and their housing policies may cause another 10-20% dip countrywide (no pun intended re the disgraced company). Bernanke deserves as much blame but Obama is the chief executive. He's in charge and it is on him.

This administration should have made jobs and stable incomes its first priority, rather than a half-reared healthcare bill and a "stimulus" that went straight to its supporters coffers. If, and if, Obama is elected again he could possibly be the first POTUS to be impeached due to economic concerns. We're so far off track I'm not sure what can get us back.

Looks like it's time to move to Kanada...

With $278,000 my one company could advance the development of our new product, increase our sales, buy new equipment, hire or return maybe three people back to work, provided raises to the present remaining employees. In stead I may just say fuck this idea of building my company, close it down, take my SS now, Military Disability, Work for a friend (paid under the table not to pay taxes), screw trying to employ others and grow the local economy, take my entitlements and do jack shit and milk the system…

Manhattan Buckeye;821318 wrote:How did the administration sell the stimulus in the first place? If the metric is what they predicted, they get an F minus minus. And in no metric is barely passing considered an "alright" job - particularly when it was based on conjecture. I can tell my wife that me spending my time at a bar all night prevented me from accidentally burning down the house - but it is still just me rationalizing stupid behavior. This administration has been an economic disaster in any definition of the term. We've added trillions of dollars in debt with nothing to show for it, and their housing policies may cause another 10-20% dip countrywide (no pun intended re the disgraced company). Bernanke deserves as much blame but Obama is the chief executive. He's in charge and it is on him.

Yeah, my wife stopped believing that one a long time ago . . .

This administration should have made jobs and stable incomes its first priority, rather than a half-reared healthcare bill and a "stimulus" that went straight to its supporters coffers. If, and if, Obama is elected again he could possibly be the first POTUS to be impeached due to economic concerns. We're so far off track I'm not sure what can get us back.

Bingo. The priorities of this administration were made abundantly clear by their approach to getting Obamacare passed. Nothing else mattered.

Writerbuckeye;820847 wrote:As noted in the article, if the US had simply paid every one of these folks $100,000 in cash, it would have saved the country billions in new debt.

Government spending to stimulate the economy is nothing more than an artificial means to pacify the short term with no true value in solving the long term. With that said, the "pay folks 100K as an alternative" is frighteningly silly. Infrastructure was repaired....whether all that was needed is subject to debate. The money borrowed and spent now exhibit tangible results.

Now as for real pissing away of money.....how about bombing all the bridges, water systems, highways and airports in Iraq....and then forking over 61 billion of US taxpayer money to rebuild these ashes? Now there is some real deficit spending that only satisfies the "war party" members.

Footwedge;821744 wrote:Government spending to stimulate the economy is nothing more than an artificial means to pacify the short term with no true value in solving the long term. With that said, the "pay folks 100K as an alternative" is frighteningly silly. Infrastructure was repaired....whether all that was needed is subject to debate. The money borrowed and spent now exhibit tangible results.

Now as for real pissing away of money.....how about bombing all the bridges, water systems, highways and airports in Iraq....and then forking over 61 billion of US taxpayer money to rebuild these ashes? Now there is some real deficit spending that only satisfies the "war party" members.

It apparently didn't go much to "infrastructure" unless by "infrastructure" you mean public employees keeping their jobs or adding more public employees.

By most accounts there weren't that many "shovel ready" jobs actually done by the "stimulus".

jmog;821755 wrote:It apparently didn't go much to "infrastructure" unless by "infrastructure" you mean public employees keeping their jobs or adding more public employees.

By most accounts there weren't that many "shovel ready" jobs actually done by the "stimulus".

"Infrastructure" = making sure public employees don't feel the sting of the recession that everyone else in the private sector feels.

Foot: I'm not going to split this discussion. If you want to talk about the topic, which is the failure of the stimulus and how wasteful it was, and how much it added to the debt -- feel free.

If you want to talk about Iraq and its relationship to the debt, feel free to start your own topic elsewhere.

Writerbuckeye;821795 wrote:Foot: I'm not going to split this discussion. If you want to talk about the topic, which is the failure of the stimulus and how wasteful it was, and how much it added to the debt -- feel free.

If you want to talk about Iraq and its relationship to the debt, feel free to start your own topic elsewhere.

Not possible...everything is about Iraq in one form or another...it's like the Keven Bacon of political discourse for some.

Footwedge;821744 wrote:Government spending to stimulate the economy is nothing more than an artificial means to pacify the short term with no true value in solving the long term.

Correct! Taking water out of the South end of the bathtub and pouring it in the North end to redistribute it doesn't do anything except create a ripple. Same shit FDR did in the 30's that everyone thinks rescued us from the Depression. Couldn't be more wrong. FDR was creating a dependency class at a rate faster than ever before. One could argue WWII stopped him in his tracks from creating the USSR Lite. The only real stimulus is to let people keep more of what they earn. Works every time it's tried.

Instead of redistributing water, why not turn the damn spigot on and raise everything in the bathtub? Oh Lord no, we can't have that because...well...then...ummm...that would mean Reagan WAS right.

Manhattan Buckeye;821318 wrote:This administration should have made jobs and stable incomes its first priority, rather than a half-reared healthcare bill and a "stimulus" that went straight to its supporters coffers.

This is right on target.

I do not understand the defenders of Obama's economic policies and the insane notion that we did not SPEND enough in the first PORKULUS bill. This nonsense that the "stimulus" spending saved us all from Great Depression II and then having the audacity of stating it as a fact (as many in the media are so willing to do) is absolutely indefensible and mind boggling to say the least.

Manhattan Buckeye;821318 wrote:How did the administration sell the stimulus in the first place? If the metric is what they predicted, they get an F minus minus. And in no metric is barely passing considered an "alright" job - particularly when it was based on conjecture. I can tell my wife that me spending my time at a bar all night prevented me from accidentally burning down the house - but it is still just me rationalizing stupid behavior. This administration has been an economic disaster in any definition of the term. We've added trillions of dollars in debt with nothing to show for it, and their housing policies may cause another 10-20% dip countrywide (no pun intended re the disgraced company). Bernanke deserves as much blame but Obama is the chief executive. He's in charge and it is on him.

This administration should have made jobs and stable incomes its first priority, rather than a half-reared healthcare bill and a "stimulus" that went straight to its supporters coffers. If, and if, Obama is elected again he could possibly be the first POTUS to be impeached due to economic concerns. We're so far off track I'm not sure what can get us back.

At the time, the economy was extremely shaky and needed a huge jolt of capital. Otherwise, the story went, we would fall off the cliff. TARP was one part, and the stimulus was the follow up once the markets were sort of reassured of all the banks failing.

It was a choice of do nothing and risk a depression or do something in the short term to save the economy and deal with the aftershocks later.
The administration picked the right choice in my view.


That said, since then, it has been awful. They cannot grasp how to allow the private sector to create jobs. They jump all over the place with no grand message or even one set of specific policy choices. Asa result, overall, our economy is flat, barely growing, but stagnant really. The top companies are living large, but middle is just getting by.

Actually, they've been quite consistent in continuing to put out anti-business decrees and regulations...at the very time they should be doing the opposite. But Obama can't seem to understand (publicly anyway) why the economy isn't getting any better.

Well, when you are doing your best to stop all energy production in the country by putting up as many roadblocks as possible, it isn't going to help. Neither is allowing an agency to have full power to determine that co2 is not only a threat to human kind, but allow the agency to give itself absolute power in deciding how to deal with those who don't comply with this line of thinking.

At just about every turn in the road, Obama has chosen the path that blocks business growth and development in this country during the time we need it most.

To say he's inept is kind. Some are accusing him of deliberately hurting the US economy as part of some long-term goal of creating an even larger government-dependent class.

While I don't wear that kind of tinfoil hat, I have to marvel at how totally clueless this administration has been about even the most basic economics. Perhaps that's why Obama didn't want his transcripts released. It probably shows he didn't take one economics class during his entire time in school.

Writerbuckeye;821991 wrote:While I don't wear that kind of tinfoil hat, I have to marvel at how totally clueless this administration has been about even the most basic economics. Perhaps that's why Obama didn't want his transcripts released. It probably shows he didn't take one economics class during his entire time in school.

I have to believe that the BHO Administration has some reasonably intelligent people in the mix with regard to economics. My guess is Barry's anti-business & socialist-based narcissism keeps getting in the way of reason (hence the ineptitude) or his advisors are so out of touch with current economic realities they keep feeding him bad advice...or both.

"Perhaps that's why Obama didn't want his transcripts released. It probably shows he didn't take one economics class during his entire time in school."

Outside of the core studies, which include Contracts, Torts, Crim, CivPro, ConLaw, Property and in some schools Evidence and in others Legal Writing which may or may not be graded, for 3 years of classes outside of those disciplines you are free to choose from numerous courses. If one wants to take advanced Contracts, Corporations or other Business Entities, Income Tax, Corporate Income Tax, Partnership Income Tax, Secured Transactions, Securities Regulations, etc....they can do so. On the other hand if one wants to take "X studies and the Law", "Advanced Constitutional Remedies for X", "Independent Studies for the Benefit of X", etc. they are also free to do so. People can wager how far the scale tilts in Obama's experience.

Manhattan Buckeye;822186 wrote:People can wager how far the scale tilts in Obama's experience.

I'll wager a shot & a beer chaser that BHO's experience scale tilts heavily in the direction of "clueless".

BTW here is Harvard Law's schedule of classes, some hard hitting academic pursuits here!:

http://www.law.harvard.edu/academics/courses/2010-11/

My favorite is Diane Rosenfeld's "Title IX" classes - read the descriptions, "OMG, how can we turn a horrible thing that is the athletic situation on campuses to [completely made up and non-eventful] sexual assault problems, particularly at Ivy league campuses.

Harvard Law is a fraud, as is most of high academia today. This is a worthless class that still costs students nearly $70,000/year to attend, just to pad professors and admin/staff salaries, but Obama went to Harvard Law so it must be awesome, right? These people are emperors without clothing.

Manhattan Buckeye;822189 wrote:Harvard Law is a fraud,....

Yes but it looks great on a resume.

Fact-checker says its FALSE. Believer and his merry group of sycophants guilty of spreading more B.S. propaganda.

The White House points out that Recovery Act dollars didn’t just fund salaries - as the blog item implies - it also funded numerous capital improvements and infrastructure projects.

http://www.politifact.com/ohio/statements/2011/jul/15/john-boehner/house-speaker-john-boehner-says-obamas-economists-/