Conquer Club

Stimulus package still the right way to go?

Yes, let's just forget the fact that economic changes are the result of actions taken 2-3 years MINIMUM and more often about 5-8 years.

and, let's forget the fact that most of the stimulus plan was actually decided BEFORE Obama took office, but was "nicely" only implemented immediately after he came in.

I mean -- the biggest bill in history passed In January... and its still all OBAMA's fault?

(note, not saying its all Bush's fault, either, but blaming Obama is beyond silly).

Shit for brains, do you understand how any of this works, or do you just peruse sites where there is no place for honesty, and its all just a game?

PLAYER57832 wrote:Yes, let's just forget the fact that economic changes are the result of actions taken 2-3 years MINIMUM and more often about 5-8 years.

and, let's forget the fact that most of the stimulus plan was actually decided BEFORE Obama took office, but was "nicely" only implemented immediately after he came in.

I mean -- the biggest bill in history passed In January... and its still all OBAMA's fault?

(note, not saying its all Bush's fault, either, but blaming Obama is beyond silly).

biggest bill in history, that Obama demanded, that Obama ran on, that Obama promised would create jobs, that Obama SIGNED. Obama, like you say, practically had nothing to do with it!

Aradhus wrote:Shit for brains, do you understand how any of this works, or do you just peruse sites where there is no place for honesty, and its all just a game?

I know how to read a chart. you should try it sometime.

I am worried about our debt, and it's as simple as that. Debt/level to GDP should not breack 5%. That number is perfectly manageable. Obama completely misjudged the economy to this point (something he has admitted), and I knew Obama didn't understand the economy either, cuz here we are, right where I thought we'd be...opposite where he said we'd be.

PLAYER57832 wrote:Yes, let's just forget the fact that economic changes are the result of actions taken 2-3 years MINIMUM and more often about 5-8 years.

Just so I'm clear, you're crediting the huge economic boom throughout the 90s to the policies of Reagan and Bush (the first one)? I'm not trying to defend G. W. Bush. I think he, and the rest of the Republicans have a great deal to answer for given their small government ideology that managed to increase the size of the federal government by 50% in 7 years. But fair is fair.

Doc_Brown wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:Yes, let's just forget the fact that economic changes are the result of actions taken 2-3 years MINIMUM and more often about 5-8 years.

Just so I'm clear, you're crediting the huge economic boom throughout the 90s to the policies of Reagan and Bush (the first one)? I'm not trying to defend G. W. Bush. I think he, and the rest of the Republicans have a great deal to answer for given their small government ideology that managed to increase the size of the federal government by 50% in 7 years. But fair is fair.

Good point. But it also seems that every problem which surfaces now is being blamed on Bush, although I seldom--if ever--heard the blame for problems during the Bush years being placed on Clinton's shoulders. Or was it commonplace at that time also and I'm just don't remember?

Ray Rider wrote:

Doc_Brown wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:Yes, let's just forget the fact that economic changes are the result of actions taken 2-3 years MINIMUM and more often about 5-8 years.

Just so I'm clear, you're crediting the huge economic boom throughout the 90s to the policies of Reagan and Bush (the first one)? I'm not trying to defend G. W. Bush. I think he, and the rest of the Republicans have a great deal to answer for given their small government ideology that managed to increase the size of the federal government by 50% in 7 years. But fair is fair.

Good point. But it also seems that every problem which surfaces now is being blamed on Bush, although I seldom--if ever--heard the blame for problems during the Bush years being placed on Clinton's shoulders. Or was it commonplace at that time also and I'm just don't remember?

Well Ole Clinton had several chances to terminate Osama B and shrunk from his duties and let him live. Good move that turned out to be.

Doc_Brown wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:Yes, let's just forget the fact that economic changes are the result of actions taken 2-3 years MINIMUM and more often about 5-8 years.

Just so I'm clear, you're crediting the huge economic boom throughout the 90s to the policies of Reagan and Bush (the first one)? I'm not trying to defend G. W. Bush. I think he, and the rest of the Republicans have a great deal to answer for given their small government ideology that managed to increase the size of the federal government by 50% in 7 years. But fair is fair.

Actually, Reagan took credit for a boom that was created by his predecessors. Yes, Bush took credit for what was created before him.

In recent years some pretty phenomenal events and just a general "speeding up" of things generally mean that Bush saw some of the impacts of his own actions. (speaking broadly, in specifics each president made specific impacts that were felt more quickly)

I am just saying that Obama was blamed before Obama even took office and that when he took office, most options were already eliminated. So, Obama did sign the bill, and ask for support, but it was still not "his" bill.

Ray Rider wrote:

Doc_Brown wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:Yes, let's just forget the fact that economic changes are the result of actions taken 2-3 years MINIMUM and more often about 5-8 years.

Just so I'm clear, you're crediting the huge economic boom throughout the 90s to the policies of Reagan and Bush (the first one)? I'm not trying to defend G. W. Bush. I think he, and the rest of the Republicans have a great deal to answer for given their small government ideology that managed to increase the size of the federal government by 50% in 7 years. But fair is fair.

Good point. But it also seems that every problem which surfaces now is being blamed on Bush, although I seldom--if ever--heard the blame for problems during the Bush years being placed on Clinton's shoulders. Or was it commonplace at that time also and I'm just don't remember?

It was definitely commonplace and you don't remember. However, the people who blamed Clinton and the people who blame Bush are not necessarily the same people and the complaints are not the same.

Ray Rider wrote:

Doc_Brown wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:Yes, let's just forget the fact that economic changes are the result of actions taken 2-3 years MINIMUM and more often about 5-8 years.

Just so I'm clear, you're crediting the huge economic boom throughout the 90s to the policies of Reagan and Bush (the first one)? I'm not trying to defend G. W. Bush. I think he, and the rest of the Republicans have a great deal to answer for given their small government ideology that managed to increase the size of the federal government by 50% in 7 years. But fair is fair.

Good point. But it also seems that every problem which surfaces now is being blamed on Bush, although I seldom--if ever--heard the blame for problems during the Bush years being placed on Clinton's shoulders. Or was it commonplace at that time also and I'm just don't remember?

It's called class. I have commented here on Obama's lack of it a few times

PLAYER57832 wrote:

Doc_Brown wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:Yes, let's just forget the fact that economic changes are the result of actions taken 2-3 years MINIMUM and more often about 5-8 years.

Just so I'm clear, you're crediting the huge economic boom throughout the 90s to the policies of Reagan and Bush (the first one)? I'm not trying to defend G. W. Bush. I think he, and the rest of the Republicans have a great deal to answer for given their small government ideology that managed to increase the size of the federal government by 50% in 7 years. But fair is fair.

Actually, Reagan took credit for a boom that was created by his predecessors.

You saying Jimmy Carter gets the credit?! That's a first. for the dismissal...?

[quote] I am just saying that Obama was blamed before Obama even took office and that when he took office, most options were already eliminated. So, Obama did sign the bill, and ask for support, but it was still not "his" bill.[quote]

Uh, yeah. business owners have a "brain" and guessed, CORRECTLY, that if Obama WINS, their profits/ability to expand/hire LOSES. Also see: common sense

bush was shit, starting an endless war drained the economy, taking care of the rich and creating huge gaps and loopholes for the rich and indirectly stimulating the credit crisis, obama got handed a country in the greatest crisis in decades... its easy to crack down on him... but really what could he have done differently?

he can't let the economy fail... so he has to pump money in... maybe he could have given it to other sectors... but you only know this after the money is pumped most of the time... he cant remove the US from the war zones... it all takes time... and money... hard to fix a country that is in such a hole... dont think much could really have been done differently...

Pedronicus wrote:http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/HowTo:Blame_Your_Predecessor

lmao great link Pedro! also very handy for the future

jaimito101 wrote:bush was shit, starting an endless war drained the economy, taking care of the rich and creating huge gaps and loopholes for the rich and indirectly stimulating the credit crisis, obama got handed a country in the greatest crisis in decades... its easy to crack down on him... but really what could he have done differently?

he can't let the economy fail... so he has to pump money in... maybe he could have given it to other sectors... but you only know this after the money is pumped most of the time... he cant remove the US from the war zones... it all takes time... and money... hard to fix a country that is in such a hole... dont think much could really have been done differently...

Bush was shit.

the economy ran smoothly for almost 7 years 2000-2007. Unemployment was average(5-6%) until about 1 year after democrats took congress. Obama warned unemployment would go ALL the way UPPPPP to 8% without the stimulus package .....7%....stimulus....8%.....stimulus......9%.....stimulus.....10%.....stimulus.....10.4% oh shit more stimulus!

Now a Jobs bill is coming. just in time.

Remember, 10.4% unemployment ONLY means that 10.4% of people have qualified to receive unemployment benefits. there is another 12% comprising of those who did not qualify, those who did qualify but have exhausted their benefits, those who have given up looking for work and dropped out of the workforce altogher, those recieving other benefits but can't find work, and also students who can't find work. combine that with those who need full time work but can only get part time, and we are looking at 18% unemployment as of today, 22% un/underemployment

hey phats, i agree its not looking good... but what bush did was build a bubble in his 8 years. The economy fluctuates in boom bust cycles you wiselly start at 2000 just after the dot com bubble... but to be precise, bush started serving in 2001 and lasted till 2009. In the last couple of years the cracks where already visible the financial bubble burst in 2007 during Bush's term. the unemployments started during bush's term the billions of dollar help packages started during bush's term.

Bush's main fault may be that he ran the economy off the rails = too much unsustainable growth (in thin air as it proves to be). If the economy is growing so rapidly, the government's and central bank's main task is actually to stop it from overheating (growing too fast!!)... the bush administration failed in this dramatically! And now Obama is has been left with the bust cycle of this unsustainable growth as well as the greatest budget deficit's wich bush was already running plus an extra of the crisis stimulation packages!

jaimito101 wrote:hey phats, i agree its not looking good... but what bush did was build a bubble in his 8 years. The economy fluctuates in boom bust cycles you wiselly start at 2000 just after the dot com bubble... but to be precise, bush started serving in 2001 and lasted till 2009. In the last couple of years the cracks where already visible the financial bubble burst in 2007 during Bush's term. the unemployments started during bush's term the billions of dollar help packages started during bush's term.

Bush's main fault may be that he ran the economy off the rails = too much unsustainable growth (in thin air as it proves to be). If the economy is growing so rapidly, the government's and central bank's main task is actually to stop it from overheating (growing too fast!!)... the bush administration failed in this dramatically! And now Obama is has been left with the greatest budget deficit's wich bush was already running plus the extra crisis stimulation packages!

I hope you are not discounting the FED's and greenspan/bernanke effects. Not to mention the treasury and the banks/wall street. I really do not beleive Bush gave these guys orders, and very much so beleive it is the other way around in certain aspects. (even average citizens who leveraged themselves to the hilt in real estate like) I also really don't buy the premise the president has to power to turn the economy around. If we had a dictator, sure, could probably turn the economy around in about 6 months. but we have a democratic republic. the gov't can tax the shit out of our businesses, but they can't literally shut you down...to the mass effect of turning an entire 15 trillion dollar economy around, and tell you what kinf od business you are going to do. so we have the ups, and the downs. either a president serves during an up, or during a down. the rest is politics.

a supporting MSNBC clip(kind of) but it shows where I am coming from
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ue8RzGoVHsg

Phatscotty wrote:the economy ran smoothly for almost 7 years 2000-2007.

I don't think many people in 2002/2003 thought the economy was running smoothly. And why leave out 2008? Not much important happened?

Bush:


Obama:


This comparison is no more informative or misleading than the first post in this thread. Just facts.

sully800 wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:the economy ran smoothly for almost 7 years 2000-2007.

I don't think many people in 2002/2003 thought the economy was running smoothly. And why leave out 2008? Not much important happened?

Bush:


Obama:


This comparison is no more informative or misleading than the first post in this thread. Just facts.

Do you think you could repost the first with a scale, like the second one has? Otherwise it's kind of worthless...

yeah i like ron paul, he has great ideas and good points, but... would it be acceptable to the public for a president to do nothing? let companies go bankrupt?

Obama: hey guys, i'm sorry... but we have spent too much during the bush years. During my presidency I have decided to cut back on spending and start paying back our deficit with your tax money. It may cost jobs and we'll have 15%+ of unemployment for some 5-10 years and it'll hurt like hell but in the long run we will be better off.

if he dares to say that he will be impeached. any president will be impeached, that is the result of the democratic system


getting back on topic, i heard some time ago that for every dollar spent on stimulus by the government there is actually only a percentage of that dollar that is trully reaches the economy.
So say the goverment spends 100 dollars to stimulate the economy, the economy will only pick up by 70 dollars. I dont know the exact figures... and cant find them at the moment but what i do know is that it is acutally a negative investment! so you are actually shooting yourself in the foot! i'll look this up and get back to this with real facts, or maybe if you know this you can help?

sully800 wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:the economy ran smoothly for almost 7 years 2000-2007.

I don't think many people in 2002/2003 thought the economy was running smoothly. And why leave out 2008? Not much important happened?

Bush:


Obama:


This comparison is no more informative or misleading than the first post in this thread. Just facts.

i did leave out 2008. i acknowledge 2002-3, but it was.......2002-3 IE very short

you gonna pull out a perfect chart somewhere where the economy doubled every year of a presidency? really, where you goin with that?

OMG your charts are SEVERELY MISLEADING! and im not touching it further. matching a presidents performance the the DOW jones is economic no-no 101, which is why this conversation is over. stick to the rules gimpy