What happened to all of the doom and gloom economic threads?

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

How come these southern states you're referring to all have low per-capita incomes and flaccid economies?

I think you might want to look up where the growing economies are; you might start with that government census chart showing the shift away from the Blue Union States...

It also might reflect the huge number of unregistered new Democrat voters.

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

Please show a non-terrible source proving the poor were significantly punished.

Show me one that says they weren't

Cost to the taxpayer per vehicle: $24,000
http://www.edmunds.com/about/press/...old-reports-edmundscom.html?articleid=159446&

NPR says a wash:

The government's "cash for clunkers" program boosted auto sales by 360,000 during the two months it was in place, according to a new study.

But in the seven months that followed, sales were down by 360,000 compared with what they would have been without the program, the study found.

The implication: The program didn't bring new buyers into the market. But it encouraged people who would have bought a car anyway to make their purchase a few months sooner.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2010/09/02/129608251/cash-for-clunkers
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1670759

A key rationale for fiscal stimulus is to boost consumption when aggregate demand is perceived to be inefficiently low. We examine the ability of the government to increase consumption by evaluating the impact of the 2009 “Cash for Clunkers” program on short and medium run auto purchases. Our empirical strategy exploits variation across U.S. cities in ex-ante exposure to the program as measured by the number of “clunkers” in the city as of the summer of 2008. We find that the program induced the purchase of an additional 360,000 cars in July and August of 2009. However, almost all of the additional purchases under the program were pulled forward from the very near future; the effect of the program on auto purchases is almost completely reversed by as early as March 2010 – only seven months after the program ended. The effect of the program on auto purchases was significantly more short-lived than previously suggested. We also find no evidence of an effect on employment, house prices, or household default rates in cities with higher exposure to the program.

Heritage says:

New auto sales reports show that August 2010 sales are down 21 percent from August 2009, which included the cash-for-clunkers program. For those who couldn’t afford to take advantage of the taxpayer-funded subsidy for the purchase of a new vehicle, the news is also grim. The reduction in the supply of used cars—partly from destruction of traded-in vehicles and partly because new car sales are down—has driven up used car prices. The prices of some models have risen as much as 30 percent, and even the smaller models are up 10 percent. So by what measure can this program be called a success?

http://blog.heritage.org/2010/09/03/new-study-says-cash-for-clunkers-was-…-a-clunker/

You took 690,000 used cars off the market. What does your Econ 101 have to say about the effects of limiting supply on costs?

 

[mercury14]

I think you might want to look up where the growing economies are; you might start with that government census chart showing the shift away from the Blue Union States...

It also might reflect the huge number of unregistered new Democrat voters.

Looks pretty much like northern states.

http://media.economist.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/original-size/gsp_1110.png


Edit: (This is from late 2009 though)

 

[mercury14]

Show me one that says they weren't

Nope, take responsibility for your posts. It's nobody else's job to back your points but you. Seems you have no evidence that C4C significantly hurt the poor, huh? Just making things up?

Cost to the taxpayer per vehicle: $24,000

*yawn*. It's a 3-billion dollar one-time program. These wars cost $4 trillion.

A single jounalist at NPR says it's a wash:

Fixed your post for you.

Heritage says:

It doesn't matter what Heritage says.

 

[mercury14]

So what about it Merc?




What about that 90% dividends and capital gains tax on the idle rich and the Socialists attached to the Military teat who play the market?

Would you be WILLING to pay for your Socialism?

Would that not be fair and stimulative?

Straw man argument. Nice try though. No wait, awful try.

While we're at it, would you be WILLING to support a 10% tax rate for the rich? Or for everyone? Silly.

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

Heritage used NPR for its source.

Thanks for proving you don't read and thank for proving you ignore valid points like the Econ 101 question I asked, and do you really think that a $24,000 investment per auto was a wise use of taxpayer dollars?

I, personally, could have done a helluva lot more if you just gave me the 24K to spend on things OTHER than the broken window...



So you would be fine if we took 90% of your stock profits there player?


PS - Nice chart there merc, too bad it does not represent the population shift. In America, when it comes to economics, people vote with their feet. In Greece, they got nowhere to go, so they riot...

As for those "wars..."

Democrats wanted them too, authorized them, and they own them too, we do note that when they find it advantageous, they love to step up and take credit for anything positive happening in them...

And they also love starting them as we see with Libya, Yemen and Somalia, and yet I don't see you, or much of anyone else in the Democrat Party, jumping up and down screaming about the cost of not just the new actions, but continuing the old ones WHILE we add more unfunded future entitlement spending onto the shoulders of our grandchildren (which, obviously, you may not intend on actually having)...

Now, I'm going to go find someone fun to play with.

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

“I’m the only major candidate who opposed this war from the beginning. And as president I will end it. Second, I will cut tens of billions of dollars in wasteful spending. I will cut investments in unproven missile defense systems. I will not weaponize space. I will slow our development of future combat systems. And I will institute an independent “Defense Priorities Board” to ensure that the Quadrennial Defense Review is not used to justify unnecessary spending. Third, I will set a goal of a world without nuclear weapons. To seek that goal, I will not develop new nuclear weapons; I will seek a global ban on the production of fissile material; and I will negotiate with Russia to take our ICBMs off hair-trigger alert, and to achieve deep cuts in our nuclear arsenals.”
Barack Obama

__________________
"As I said, we will be out of Afghanistan by the end of this year."
Barack Hussein Obama, January, 2011

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Looks pretty much like northern states.

http://media.economist.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/original-size/gsp_1110.png


Edit: (This is from late 2009 though)

Forty years ago Schlubville had a pretty diverse economy. We had agriculture, ranching, mining, fishing, food processing, transportation, manufacturing, tourism, construction, horse racing, dog racing, jai alai, military, etc.

Today almost all of its gone replaced by call centers, flea markets, super-centers, and government. The schools employ one adult for every 7 kids, the cops work one crime report every 3 weeks, and I cant recall the last time I saw a dairy, citrus grove, tomato field, meat packing plant, or egg farm. The air force base is a sleepy post, too, full of desk commandos. The big industry around here now are foreclosures...mostly homeowner associations confiscating homes for delinquent dues.

 

[RightField]

“I’m the only major candidate who opposed this war from the beginning. And as president I will end it. Second, I will cut tens of billions of dollars in wasteful spending. I will cut investments in unproven missile defense systems. I will not weaponize space. I will slow our development of future combat systems. And I will institute an independent “Defense Priorities Board” to ensure that the Quadrennial Defense Review is not used to justify unnecessary spending. Third, I will set a goal of a world without nuclear weapons. To seek that goal, I will not develop new nuclear weapons; I will seek a global ban on the production of fissile material; and I will negotiate with Russia to take our ICBMs off hair-trigger alert, and to achieve deep cuts in our nuclear arsenals.”

Barack Obama

__________________
"As I said, we will be out of Afghanistan by the end of this year."
Barack Hussein Obama, January, 2011

lol...good one.

 

[RightField]

Factually incorrect. You refuse to acknowledge that the cost of the war is more than just an appropriations bill. You have to add in the cost of record-shattering VA care, the damage to the economy, the raised cost of oil, and many other things. Like financing - The Republicans in power didn't think they should have to pay for the wars so now we have finance charges spanning over decades that add a ton of cost.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/much-wars-cost-report-says-4-trillion-130934180.html

That new study says the government has already paid (er, borrowed and paid) 2.3 trillion to 2.7 trillion and the total cost will be around 4 trillion. That's far greater than the $800 billion stimulus.

My cousin participated in that study, it was pretty bogus. It was a liberal love-in and it's not the number used by the government.

This depends on how you want to spin it. In the deepest months of the recession we were losing -600,000 jobs per month. Factor in the stimulus that might have either created new jobs or prevented private or public sector layoffs and that figure might have been -800,000 jobs per month without it. Why does it matter?

There are many issues with your statement. First, borrowing from the future to keep the many new-hires in place that the government (mostly state and local) hired from the windfall in tax revenues they got from the real estate bubble might be considered by some wasted money. Extra state and local workers for the most part aren't building new products and capabilities nor adding to our standards of living or permanent private sector jobs. They might give the local homeowners associations "more muscle" to ensure that you don't paint your front door pink, but generally aren't the first thing that you think of when you think about "stimulus". If we'd shed the "new" state and local jobs at the start of the recession, hit bottom quickly and started rebuilding instead of lingering and having those meaningless jobs "funded" until now and not incurred the huge additional debt that we'll be paying for for 20 years, we'd be bouncing out of this recession instead of keeping it alive is mis-allocated debt funding.

No, Obama did not start the wars. And he would not have invaded Iraq had he been president. Those costs were handed to him. Just picking up and exiting both wars is not a militarily, politically, or ethically-possible option. Bush committed both America and future administrations to this cost.

As AJ pointed out above, he said he'd end the wars and end wasteful spending. Instead, annual spending has increased by about a $ trillion a year since the democrats took over and he didn't get us out of the wars. It's his spending once he decided to keep the wars going and blaming it on Bush, like the dems do with every misfortune they encounter, is getting to be a stale refrain for most people.

And yes, spending "exploded" with Obama in control due to the one-time stimulus which worked according to all independent analysis, and because of increased social security and medicare spending which are mandatory expenditures that would be the exact same under a hypothetical president McCain.

The stimulus didn't accomplish much. It failed miserably on its primary stated goal which was to use Keynesian theory to keep unemployment down below 8%. It was never going to work because the Keynesian theory is worthless and has always failed. See the USSR and Cuba as references.


No stop putting words in my mouth. I never credited Clinton with creating the surplus, ever. If you think I did then quote me.

Also, I love how under Republicans there was increased spending and government expansion that "had to be done". Then conservatives look at the numbers of federal employees under Obama and say there are too many despite practically all new hires being in defense and intelligence. How come Bush gets a pass for hiring intel guys and Obama doesn't?

By all objective measurement seen on this forum, the stimulus "had to be done" too. The Moody's report even demonstrates that the $800 billion cost of the stimulus was cheaper to the taxpayer than simply allowing unemployment to push 12%, pay for massive welfare benefits for the unemployed, pay for the damage to the economy, pay for the much higher deficits under 12% unemployment, pay for being in a recession - if not a real depression, etc. And TARP was cheap as hell compared to watching the American financial sector collapse.

I think you're the only one left in the world that thinks that the stimulus was worthwhile. Even Obama was joking about it last week.

Okay now you're backpedaling. But no, I'm not interested in Democrats giving political answers. You may listen to them but I don't. I'm only interested in professional, independent analysis. If you can show me some that backs your position I would sincerely take it into consideration.

Secondly, no more of this bullshit about how the entire concept economic analysis is useless since there's an inherent certainty level of less than 100%. It's just dumb.

You tend to focus on the superficial. Often you have to look a level down, especially with democrats who are overly focused on "appearances" rather than results. You mention the stimulus "tax reductions"...but they really weren't tax reductions per se, at least not the kind used by Kennedy in '63 or Reagan later that helped put money back into the hands of private citizens and resulted in significant economic growth, they were put into things like "Cash for Clunkers" which was a waste of money and didn't accomplish anything (as AJ pointed out above).

Second, you talk about jobs saved. When the stimulus was a few months old and wasn't having any effect, Axelrod and the other public relations focused people put out a call to states recieving money and said "We've got to show results" or we're political dogmeat. The states took the federal money, started applying it to already existing projects that had been approved long before the "stimulus", put up signs at each site describing how it was a "stimulus" project and sending in estimates of "saved" jobs. Of course, these are the figures cited by your "independent" analysts, but how real are they? Many states had been having trouble meeting their pension reserve fund obligations and had been underfunding them for years (many because of overly generous union commitments - pension reserves and payments much higher than the average citizen) and used the money they saved from construction projects and used it to recap the pension funds instead of renegotiating them to a level more in line with average Americans. Did that help "save" jobs?

I think there are some very valid criticisms of the implementation as well, and that if the administration had a do-over it would do things a bit differently. But in all the money reached the economy much faster and more efficiently than a Bush-esque tax rate deduction.

When you demonstrate a factual, objective understanding of what the (temporary) health care waivers actually are, let's talk.

Haven't you gotten your Obamawaiver yet, you seem to be quite dedicated to the dems and seem like a perfect candidate to get relief from the rule of law?

Correct, the administration underestimated how serious the recession was going to be. So did Republicans - few or none of them saw it coming either. But it's bullshit spin on your part to say that this administration's policies caused the 10% unemployment rate. Obama took over with 8% unemployment and he ate a -600,000 job January report ten days after he was sworn in. Nine months later the unemployment rate peaked at 10.1%. No administration could have done anything in nine months to stop that. Do you honestly think Bush or McCain could have?

That's a good dodge...."It was worse than we anticipated" lol...Didn't Jimmy Carter say something like that too. I think Jimmy Carter said that we're in a new world, there's malaise and we'll never see robust economic growth again. Then, of course, Reagan came in and said, "lets put the money back into the hands of our enterprising citizens and see what happens" and we got back to robust growth pretty quickly and maintained it until recently when the dems got back into power in all three branches of government. Dems always screw up the economy because they think they know how to run things for us better than we as citizens know (they favor more government control and more government-directed projects and more "income redistribution").

The consensus of independent analysis (including non-Keynsian sources supported by AJ) say that without the stimulus unemployment would have been 1.5%-1.7% higher. So be glad you didn't have to bitch about 11.8% Obama unemployment.

There weren't as many jobs "created" or "saved" as the dem spin doctors would have you believe. For the ones that were saved, all he did was postpone the inevitable and stretch the pain out longer. We never could afford all the new spending and new state and local government positions made possible by the increased tax revenues coming from the temporary and fleeting real-estate bubble and now we're going to be saddled with that increased debt of many years into the future. The worst part is that the money was spend in ineffective priorities...cash for clunkers, energy program that try to make wind power efficient when current technology can't support it, other energy programs rife with democrat cronyism and fraud (see Obama's former deputy energy secretary). It was a basket full of wasteful and often fraudulent democrat giveaways to their supporting constuents ($14B for the UAW???).

Yeah that's probably why the Dow climbed 4,500 points. Silly.

And please explain how "spending" put people out of work. I'll wait.

You're talking out of both sides of your mouth. You say Obama was right to extend the Bush tax cuts but then you turn around and blame him for the increased deficit caused by them.

It's the increased government spending that is the problem, it is saddling us with long term debt that is going to take away from the needed spending that we need for a stable and growing economy and at the same time will impoverish our kids and grandkids.

This is ridiculous. I feel like I'm debating a junior high school kid. I'm going to spend the rest of the day with my kids, at least they have some sense and aren't easily swayed by superficial and obvious Axelrod spin (don't you find it a little disturbing that Obama's primary advisor is a advertising/consumer affairs type person?).

 

[busybody..]

Nigger Maff

Friday Afternoon News Dump: Obama Releases Quarterly Report On Stimulus Bill, Shows Each Job Cost Taxpayers $278,000…

Shhhh, loose lips sink wannabe dictatorships.

(Weekly Standard) — When the Obama administration releases a report on the Friday before a long weekend, it’s clearly not trying to draw attention to the report’s contents. Sure enough, the “Seventh Quarterly Report” on the economic impact of the “stimulus,” released on Friday, July 1, provides further evidence that President Obama’s economic “stimulus” did very little, if anything, to stimulate the economy, and a whole lot to stimulate the debt.

The report was written by the White House’s Council of Economic Advisors, a group of three economists who were all handpicked by Obama, and it chronicles the alleged success of the “stimulus” in adding or saving jobs. The council reports that, using “mainstream estimates of economic multipliers for the effects of fiscal stimulus” (which it describes as a “natural way to estimate the effects of” the legislation), the “stimulus” has added or saved just under 2.4 million jobs — whether private or public — at a cost (to date) of $666 billion. That’s a cost to taxpayers of $278,000 per job.

In other words, the government could simply have cut a $100,000 check to everyone whose employment was allegedly made possible by the “stimulus,” and taxpayers would have come out $427 billion ahead.


Furthermore, the council reports that, as of two quarters ago, the “stimulus” had added or saved just under 2.7 million jobs — or 288,000 more than it has now. In other words, over the past six months, the economy would have added or saved more jobs without the “stimulus” than it has with it. In comparison to how things would otherwise have been, the “stimulus” has been working in reverse over the past six months, causing the economy to shed jobs.

 

[mercury14]

Heritage used

It doesn't matter what Heritage used.

PS - Nice chart there merc, too bad it does not represent the population shift. In America, when it comes to economics, people vote with their feet.

How come my red state of Ohio has been losing population for decades? Low taxes... business-friendly environment. We lost two more seats in congress with the last census. Seriously though, there are many complex reasons for population shifts. Righties like to credit it all to state tax rates though, which is preposterous.

As for those "wars..."
Democrats wanted them too, authorized them, and they own them too

And it was the Republican majority's responsibility to come up with a budget. Why didn't they do that?

 

[busybody..]

^^^Insane cretin...............

 

[mercury14]

My cousin participated in that study, it was pretty bogus. It was a liberal love-in and it's not the number used by the government.

This is how Lit's right wing, when desperate, tries to discredit objective research. *laughs* Tell me, how was your "cousin" involved.

Regardless, the number the government uses only counts war appropriations bills (and still says the cost is far greater than the $800 billion stimulus). Do you honestly believe that the only cost for the wars is in these bills?

- Cost of the Stimulus: $800 billion

- Cost of War Appropriations submitted to the Pentagon so far: $1.31 Trillion + $184 billion interest (this is your government figure, though they don't think they should count the interest)
- Additions to Pentagon resources to fight the wars: $652 billion
- VA care for wounded troops thus far: $32.6 billion
- International assistance to Iraq and Afghanistan (thus far): $74 billion
- Expansion of intel, creation of Dept of Homeland Security: $401 billion

- Total cost of VA care for the next 40 years because of the wars: $934 billion
- Social costs of legions of veterans being unable to function in society, being less-than-productive, mentally-ill, often on several types of welfare, etc: $400 billion

And the Pentagon just asked for $112 Billion for fiscal year 2012 alone. This is all in the study.

 

[busybody..]

In other words, the government could simply have cut a $100,000 check to everyone whose employment was allegedly made possible by the “stimulus,” and taxpayers would have come out $427 billion ahead.

 

[RightField]

Friday Afternoon News Dump: Obama Releases Quarterly Report On Stimulus Bill, Shows Each Job Cost Taxpayers $278,000…

Shhhh, loose lips sink wannabe dictatorships.

(Weekly Standard) — When the Obama administration releases a report on the Friday before a long weekend, it’s clearly not trying to draw attention to the report’s contents. Sure enough, the “Seventh Quarterly Report” on the economic impact of the “stimulus,” released on Friday, July 1, provides further evidence that President Obama’s economic “stimulus” did very little, if anything, to stimulate the economy, and a whole lot to stimulate the debt.

The report was written by the White House’s Council of Economic Advisors, a group of three economists who were all handpicked by Obama, and it chronicles the alleged success of the “stimulus” in adding or saving jobs. The council reports that, using “mainstream estimates of economic multipliers for the effects of fiscal stimulus” (which it describes as a “natural way to estimate the effects of” the legislation), the “stimulus” has added or saved just under 2.4 million jobs — whether private or public — at a cost (to date) of $666 billion. That’s a cost to taxpayers of $278,000 per job.

In other words, the government could simply have cut a $100,000 check to everyone whose employment was allegedly made possible by the “stimulus,” and taxpayers would have come out $427 billion ahead.


Furthermore, the council reports that, as of two quarters ago, the “stimulus” had added or saved just under 2.7 million jobs — or 288,000 more than it has now. In other words, over the past six months, the economy would have added or saved more jobs without the “stimulus” than it has with it. In comparison to how things would otherwise have been, the “stimulus” has been working in reverse over the past six months, causing the economy to shed jobs.

Yeah, but the multipliers are not based on sound reasoning either. It's the same bad assumptions that they used when coming up with the figures needed to argue for the stimulus...the one where they determined that the multiplier on a "new" clerk in the local government office was as strong as the hiring of an engineer designing a new product for market (paraphrased for ease of understanding). Not a valid figure, but I'm sure you already know that and are just publishing this for it's other news, that the stimulus was completely wasteful on another level, that it cost $278K per employee (and that's based on the bad multiplier...just think if they used an accurate one).

 

[mercury14]

Yeah, but the multipliers are not based on sound reasoning either. It's the same bad assumptions that they used when coming up with the figures needed to argue for the stimulus...the one where they determined that the multiplier on a "new" clerk in the local government office was as strong as the hiring of an engineer designing a new product for market (paraphrased for ease of understanding). Not a valid figure, but I'm sure you already know that and are just publishing this for it's other news, that the stimulus was completely wasteful on another level, that it cost $278K per employee (and that's based on the bad multiplier...just think if they used an accurate one).

So when AJ posted a 100% Keynsian-free independent study with completely different multipliers, what did you think? Which multipliers do you approve of?

And no taking the cost of the stimulus and dividing it by a number of jobs estimated is willful narrow-mindedness. Any independent economic analysis will tell you this. You're spewing dogma from the right and have completely fallen off the reason wagon here.

 

[RightField]

So when AJ posted a 100% Keynsian-free independent study with completely different multipliers, what did you think? Which multipliers do you approve of?

And no taking the cost of the stimulus and dividing it by a number of jobs estimated is willful narrow-mindedness. Any independent economic analysis will tell you this. You're spewing dogma from the right and have completely fallen off the reason wagon here.

So, the economy is really booming but there's a vast right wing conspiracy keeping it a secret from everyone? Unemployment is really 4% but MSNBC is skewing the news and telling everyone that its creeping back up towards 10% because they like Republicans? lol.

 

[garbage can]

So, the economy is really booming but there's a vast right wing conspiracy keeping it a secret from everyone? Unemployment is really 4% but MSNBC is skewing the news and telling everyone that its creeping back up towards 10% because they like Republicans? lol.

But you've heard it from the most credible senators, the Republicans are trying to sabotage the economy.

 

[mercury14]

So, the economy is really booming but there's a vast right wing conspiracy keeping it a secret from everyone? Unemployment is really 4% but MSNBC is skewing the news and telling everyone that its creeping back up towards 10% because they like Republicans? lol.

Another stupid straw man argument? Really?

No, the stimulus along with the other instruments of intervention saved us from another Great Depression. The great recession was still extraordinarily bad and recovery is slow.

From the nonpartisan Moodys - a scenario in which there was little or no government intervention:

In the scenario that excludes all the
extraordinary policies, the downturn con-
tinues into 2011. Real GDP falls a stunning
7.4% in 2009 and another 3.7% in 2010
(see Table 3). The peak-to-trough decline in
GDP is therefore close to 12%, compared to
an actual decline of about 4%. By the time
employment hits bottom, some 16.6 million
jobs are lost in this scenario—about twice as
many as actually were lost. The unemploy-
ment rate peaks at 16.5%, and although
not determined in this analysis, it would not
be surprising if the underemployment rate
approached one-fourth of the labor force.
The federal budget deficit surges to over $2
trillion in fiscal year 2010, $2.6 trillion in fis-
cal year 2011, and $2.25 trillion in FY 2012.
Remember, this is with no policy response.

With outright deflation in prices and wages
in 2009-2011, this dark scenario constitutes
a 1930s-like depression.

 

[busybody..]

^^^Insane deranged NIGGER PROTECTOR

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

"I think you're the only one left in the world that thinks that the stimulus was worthwhile. Even Obama was joking about it last week."
RightField

Barry 2012 Says: ”’Shovel-ready’ was not as shovel-ready as we expected.” (Laughter)
http://pajamasmedia.com/tatler/files/2011/04/obama-wide-grin80.jpg

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Economists remind me of the Gilbert Gnarley skit involving a psychic.

Gilbert calls the Psychic Hotline for help finding his lost lottery ticket. Economists are almost as helpful as psychics and charge more.

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

A scenario is a guess, either gut or model and I already outlined the failures of non-chaotic models and let us add the errors of the Historical Wing of the Economic family which tries to find fixes, in theory, to past events and then apply them to current events while ignoring the different circumstances.

We're not putting any stock into anyone's scenario; it's the stuff of "What if?"



What we take stock in is this:

From Washington DC came the definition of the problem, "We have a Depression Scenario (nothing to offer you but fear itself)."

What followed from Washington DC was the solution to the scenario, "Massive spending in 'shovel ready' projects is always the answer. We will stop this Depression dead in its tracks, we will hold unemployment to 8% and by Summer 2010, we will be adding half-a-million jobs a month and a ear later unemployment will be under 7%."

What happened in reality was that most of the money (as per the studies we linked which you decided in your infinite wisdom, sufficiently valid to impeach us with, good luck with that, by the way...) went to protecting Democrat constituencies and little to stimulus, for as I continually observe whether it be Science, Economics, or Charity, government make political decisions, not efficient decisions. We went over 9% unemployment, where we remain and the only dip under it was "fixing the books (Master of the White House, cunning little brain, thinks he's a regular Voltaire) and we have yet to have a single month of significant job creation.

Furthermore, by willful disregard of the rule of law and angry hate-filled class rhetoric, the Great Uniter has filled the business community with fear and trepidation, save for the ultra-rich business class which is in a protective symbiotic relationship with our Fascist-leaning President, and unwilling to invest in transformative change knowing that a positive outcome for the Fascist Party will most certainly be a negative outcome for them by way of legalized, and blatantly ignored illegal, theft. This is a change that it seems like they believe in.

The latest example is Barry and the Jets, he gave the tax credits to stimulate the producers and then he uses the tax credits to stimulate and enrage his flash mobs and then again hits us with a heavy dose of fear, and back to step one:

If you don't give me more tax money, we're going to go into a Depression.

So the obvious question is: If the fucking stimulus worked why the hell are we on the brink of a Depression?

Vast right-wing Conspiracy?

Republican Sabotage?
__________________
"Sometimes the law defends plunder and participates in it. Sometimes the law places the whole apparatus of judges, police, prisons and gendarmes at the service of the plunderers, and treats the victim - when he defends himself - as a criminal.”
Frederic Bastiat

"We know that the moment of greatest danger to a society is when it comes near realizing its most cherished dreams."
Eric Hoffer

 

[mercury14]

"I think you're the only one left in the world that thinks that the stimulus was worthwhile. Even Obama was joking about it last week."
RightField

Barry 2012 Says: ”’Shovel-ready’ was not as shovel-ready as we expected.” (Laughter)
http://pajamasmedia.com/tatler/files/2011/04/obama-wide-grin80.jpg

Yeah just me, America's economists, and the democrats. When will you stop giving credit to the NRO over objective sources? Stop cherry picking your data and maybe you'll be taken seriously someday.