The reason Obama's stimulus failed.

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Max E., Dec 11, 2011.

  1. Max E.

    Max E.

    Pretty good video that goes over a few of the many reasons why the Stimulus was such a failure.

    <iframe width="640" height="360" src="" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
  2. pspr


    In other words, this was a colossal waste of nearly a Trillion Dollars of taxpayer money. Thank you, again, Obama.

    Yes, you are the worst president in the last 100 years.
  3. [​IMG]

    FACT: Since Obama Policies Began To Influence The Economy In Summer 2009, We've Had Nine Consecutive Months Of Private Sector Growth

    The Economy Shed Almost 8 Million Jobs Under Republican Policies Before The Recovery Act Took Effect. According to economist Robert J. Shapiro:

    From December 2007 to July 2009 - the last year of the Bush second term and the first six months of the Obama presidency, before his policies could affect the economy - private sector employment crashed from 115,574,000 jobs to 107,778,000 jobs. Employment continued to fall, however, for the next six months, reaching a low of 107,107,000 jobs in December of 2009. So, out of 8,467,000 private sector jobs lost in this dismal cycle, 7,796,000 of those jobs or 92 percent were lost on the Republicans' watch or under the sway of their policies. Some 671,000 additional jobs were lost as the stimulus and other moves by the administration kicked in, but 630,000 jobs then came back in the following six months. The tally, to date: Mr. Obama can be held accountable for the net loss of 41,000 jobs (671,000 - 630,000), while the Republicans should be held responsible for the net losses of 7,796,000 jobs. [, 8/10/10, emphasis added]

    Based on Shapiro's research, the Washington Post's Ezra Klein created the following chart showing net job losses before and after the Recovery Act was enacted:


    Princeton, Moody's Economists Say "Highly Effective" Government Response To Crisis Saved 8.5 Million Jobs. According to the New York Times: "Like a mantra, officials from both the Bush and Obama administrations have trumpeted how the government's sweeping interventions to prop up the economy since 2008 helped avert a second Depression. Now, two leading economists wielding complex quantitative models say that assertion can be empirically proved. In a new paper, the economists argue that without the Wall Street bailout, the bank stress tests, the emergency lending and asset purchases by the Federal Reserve, and the Obama administration's fiscal stimulus program, the nation's gross domestic product would be about 6.5 percent lower this year. In addition, there would be about 8.5 million fewer jobs, on top of the more than 8 million already lost; and the economy would be experiencing deflation, instead of low inflation. The paper, by Alan S. Blinder, a Princeton professor and former vice chairman of the Fed, and Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody's Analytics, represents a first stab at comprehensively estimating the effects of the economic policy responses of the last few years. 'While the effectiveness of any individual element certainly can be debated, there is little doubt that in total, the policy response was highly effective,' they write." [New York Times, 7/27/10, emphasis added]
  4. well done ak, you better reload though, they will be coming for ya. Many republicans dont appreciate that our leaders had to bail out the financial sector otherwise we would have 30% unemployment. Dont expect republicans to agree with your numbers though, they still believe in Santa clause rallies and the laffer curve. I mean no "real" political party in the history of America EVER cut taxes and engaged in wars. Reckless and irresponsible behavior is not confined to just one party though.
  5. Max E.

    Max E.

    CBO: Stimulus hurts economy in the long run

    The Congressional Budget Office on Tuesday downgraded its estimate of the benefits of President Obama’s 2009 stimulus package, saying it may have sustained as few as 700,000 jobs at its peak last year and that over the long run it will actually be a net drag on the economy.

    CBO said that while the Recovery Act boosted the economy in the short run, the extra debt that the stimulus piled up “crowds out” private investment and “will reduce output slightly in the long run — by between 0 and 0.2 percent after 2016.”

    The analysis confirms what CBO predicted before the stimulus passed in February 2009, though the top-end decline of two tenths of a percent is actually deeper than the agency predicted back then.

    All told, the stimulus did boost jobs and the economy in the short run, according to CBO’s models. At the peak of spending from July through September 2010 it sustained anywhere from 700,000 to 3.6 million, which lowered the unemployment rate by between four-tenths of a percent to 2 percent.

    The Obama administration had promised 3.5 million jobs would be produced at the peak of spending.

    For this current quarter CBO said the stimulus is sustaining between 600,000 and 1.8 million jobs, which has improved the unemployment rate by as much as 1 percent versus what it otherwise would have been.

    The White House did not return a message seeking comment Tuesday afternoon, but the president has defended the stimulus package as a bulwark against an even weaker economy.

    Earlier this fall he proposed another round of spending, calling for $447 billion in expanded tax breaks, additional aid to states to hire teachers and emergency workers, and more infrastructure spending.

    That broad effort has stalled, though on Monday Mr. Obama signed a slim portion of the package that offers tax breaks to businesses that hire veterans, and that repeals a 3 percent contract withholding requirement for government contractors.

    CBO has re-evaluated the stimulus every three months, and its estimates for the total cost of varied. Initially the package was pegged at $787 billion, rose as high as $862 billion at one point, and it now projected to be $825 billion once all the money is paid out.

    The non-partisan agency also has changed its model for the spending’s impact on the economy, and the new calculations show the Recovery Act did less than originally projected.

    CBO said it has concluded there is less of an indirect multiplier effect of federal spending.

    Those changes caused it to drop its estimates for total employment sustained by the spending in 2011 from between 1.2 million and 3.7 million down to between 600,000 and 3.6 million.

    As for the long-term situation, CBO said its basic assumption is that each dollar of additional federal debt crowds out about a third of a dollar’s worth of private domestic capital.

    CBO does not calculate crowding out in the short term, which is why the Recovery Act boosts the economy in the near term.

    © Copyright 2011 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.
  6. Max E.

    Max E.

    AK47, please remind me gain what the unemlployment rate was when the stimulus was passed and what it is today, also Obama said it would never go over 8% and he is already on the record admitting there was no such thing as shovel ready jobs, so here even your comander in chief has admitted he failed, yet you still continue to deny it.
  7. 377OHMS


    The stimulus was a giant exercize is crony capitalism, the paying off of political contributors and payment to the unions for their votes. The crooked use of taxpayer money to enrich Obama's, Ried's and Pelosi's contributors is shameful.

    The Obama regime is a huge larceny operation, nothing more.
  8. And what about the Bush stimulus...was that roughly 1 trillion money well spent?
  9. Max E.

    Max E.

    Nope, i didnt agree with TARP either but lets be realistic about which one really saved the country from a depression. TARP saved the entire banking system from collapse, had we let it go that easily would have been another 10% higher in the unemployment. Pkus when it is all said and done TARP will only end up costing abot 100 billion because most of it has been paid back.

    Like i said i hated the idea of bailing bankers out, and would not have done it, simply because it basically let the bankers know they could do whatever they wanted from now on and the government would be there to bail them out. But lets be realistic about which of the two programs was the real piece of shit.
  10. pspr


    The Ak's and Bigarrows of the world will never open their eyes and see the truth of those statements. But, enough people will to toss Obama out on his butt next year.
    #10     Dec 11, 2011