and Obama supported TARP on the senate floor!! he even tried to illegally use some oif the unspent money for other purposes. TARP is the one thing here that has even a hint of usefulness, and ........ is trying to disown it from Obama.
Notice the word stimulus isn't being used this year even though it's still there. Someone thought that one out. It's all too clear, they got together and saw an opening into which they ram more of their socialism. Now they pretend they can't do a damn thing about it a year later. National Politics, a game of deception and control.
Also notice that Dems continually try to say that the stimulus saved the economy yet, only a third of it has ever been spent and none of it will ever come back. The only jobs which have been saved by the stimulus are government jobs, which only continues to exascerbate the problem. While private sector jobs are lost at an alarming level, the Obama admin is trying their hardest to hold on to every single government job they can, which will be one of the single biggest deficit producers in history. The fact remains that any economist will tell you that government stimulus NEVER works because by the time money gets spents by the government, and it beats the red tape, the recession is already long over, leaving an ever bigger gap in the budget deficit, and also creating jobs in the government sector which are un sustainable by future taxes because of a lack of private sector growth. People who argue that government spending can get you out of a recession, need to take a rudimintary economics class. It doesnt work. Period. You can not spend your way out of a mess. There is not an economics teacher in the world who will teach you that. Thats what i dont get when they say that there is such a thing as a left wing economist.
Krugman suggested much higher deficits, I guess he would qualify. If government actually knew how to stimulate and run an economy, there should never be recessions. Economic policy would simple. For that matter, marxism would have been successful.
LOL, or how bout that idiot Robert Reich, these guys dont want a recovery they want a shift whereby distribution of jobs is random and no longer has anything to do with skill. We are quickly becoming survival of the unfittest under Obama, as evidenced by guys like ......... who live off media matters, and have no clue what is actually happening in society. ROBERT REICH QUOTE "I am concerned as im sure many of you are that these jobs not simply go to high skilled people who are professionals, or to white male construction workers." <object style="height: 344px; width: 425px"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/opxuUj6vFa4"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/opxuUj6vFa4" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="425" height="344"></object>
You idiots keep complaining about a 700 billion dollar stimulus,Bush's Tax cuts,Medicare expansions and wars cost far more.But you hypocrites have no problem with that On February 6, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities issued an analysis, "Cost of the Bush Tax Cut Rises; Making Rate Cuts Retroactive Adds $400 Billion." The report concludes that the tax cut plan proposed by the Administration could cost as much as $2.5 trillion over a ten year period. The report makes the following points: Total Ten-year Costs Rise From $1.3 Trillion to $2.1 Trillion: The Bush tax cut, when properly measured, costs $2.1 trillion over the ten-year period 2002-2011, rather than the $1.3 trillion figure used in the campaign and the $1.6 trillion figure used by the Bush Administration and commonly cited by the press. The $2.1 trillion figure takes into account both the extra federal interest costs automatically generated by the tax cut and the inevitable costs of fixing the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT). The total costs of the proposed ten-year tax cut thus includes $1.6 trillion in revenue losses over the period 2002-2011, another $200 billion in revenue losses caused by the changes that inevitably will be made to the AMT so that it will not encroach heavily upon the middle class, and an additional $400 billion in interest costs. The total (with rounding) is $2.1 trillion over ten years. The total rises to $2.5 trillion if the proposed rate cuts are made effective immediately rather than being phased in gradually through 2006 and these added costs are not offset by scaling back other parts of the plan.
Lets look at Bush's wars,which costs much more then Obamas 700 billion dollar Stimulus According to a Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report published in October 2007, the U.S. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan could cost taxpayers a total of $2.4 trillion dollars by 2017 when counting the huge interest costs because combat is being financed with borrowed money. The CBO estimated that of the $2.4 trillion long-term price tag for the war, about $1.9 trillion of that would be spent on Iraq, or $6,300 per U.S. citizen.[9][10] Stiglitz, former chief economist of the World Bank and winner of the Nobel Prize in Economics, has stated the total costs of the Iraq War on the US economy will be three trillion dollars in a moderate scenario, and possibly more in the most recent published study, published in March 2008.[11] Stiglitz has stated: "The figure we arrive at is more than $3 trillion. Our calculations are based on conservative assumptions...Needless to say, this number represents the cost only to the United States. It does not reflect the enormous cost to the rest of the world, or to Iraq."[11] The extended combat and equipment loss have placed a severe financial strain on the U.S Army, causing the elimination of non-essential expenses such as travel and civilian hiring.[12][13] Long-term health care costs A recent study indicated that the long term health care costs for wounded Iraq war veterans could range from $350 billion to $700 billion.[14]
So if i give you this as a freebie, it equals 210 billion per year. What exactly equates to the other 1.3 trillion Obama is spending this year.
And Obamas stimulus is only 70 billion a year Obama care is 100 billion a year (even though tax hikes and cuts will lower that number,I know its not deficit neutral like they claim) So Obamacare and Obama stimulus combined cost less then Bush's tax cuts,and Bush's wars and Medicare expansion haven't been taken into account
Pretty typical liberal accounting, you said it cost 1.3-2.1 trillion over 10 years, by your source not mine. So i gave you the upward end of the spectrum, 210 billion per year over 10 years. What was Obamas most recent budget deficit? it was 1.5 trillion, I am giving you 210 billion as your article states bushes war will cost 2.1 trillion over ten years, so what makes up for the other 1.3 trillion? Total Obama deficit including the war = 1.3 trillion.