Do media really think Obama promised stimulus alone would fill 8 million-job hole?
Media figures have falsely suggested that Vice President Joe Biden admitted the stimulus failed when he said, "There's no possibility to restore 8 million jobs lost in the Great Recession." In fact, the administration said all along that the stimulus would mitigate job losses but that government action alone could not restore all of the jobs lost since December 2007 and that "the private sector needs to do the rest." In addition, private analysts have said the stimulus significantly raised employment over what would have occurred otherwise, and Congressional Budget Office estimates show that the unemployment rate is expected to return to pre-recession levels in the coming years.
Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.
Biden was neither saying that the stimulus failed to create jobs nor that employment levels would never recover
Biden was not saying that the stimulus failed nor was he saying that employment levels would never return to pre-recession levels. The Obama administration has long maintained that the stimulus was necessary in order to stem job losses and jump-start the economy but that the government alone would not be able to restore all of the jobs lost due to the recession. The administration has repeatedly argued that the government could provide a start to the recovery, but that "the private sector needs to do the rest." In his comments, Biden was reportedly defending "the Obama administration's record on working to turn around the nation's economy" when he remarked that "[t]here's no possibility to restore 8 million jobs lost in the Great Recession." Biden presumably was arguing, as the administration has done in the past, that it is unreasonable to expect the stimulus alone to completely reverse the effects of the recession. Biden clearly was not saying that the stimulus had failed or that the economy would never recover, as conservatives have falsely claimed. From the Chicago Tribune's Mike Memoli:
During 47 minutes of remarks, Biden defended the Obama administration's record on working to turn around the nation's economy, something that has become boilerplate for him at these party functions. The pool reporter -- Dan Walker of the Journal Sentinel -- did flag this particularly blunt assessment, though.
"There's no possibility to restore 8 million jobs lost in the Great Recession," he told about 150 people at a $500-per-plate luncheon.
The quote itself is not necessarily out of line with any administration talking points. The Recovery Act that Biden is tasked with administering was sold with the goal of saving or creating at least 3 million jobs. But given the push by the administration in the "Recovery Summer," and Obama's own bullish comments today about what the administration was further poised to do, they were indeed worth flagging.
Obama admin. has repeatedly said govt. action alone would not restore the 8 million lost jobs and that the private sector needed to act
Obama: "Magnitude of the crisis" means that even with the stimulus, "you're going to have some net job loss" in the short term, "but at least we can start slowing the trend." During a February 9, 2009, press conference, President Obama cited "the magnitude of the crisis" and stated that even with the stimulus package that would save or create millions of jobs, "[t]hat still means that you're going to have some net job loss" in the short term, "but at least we can start slowing the trend and moving it in the right direction."
Obama: Stimulus "not expected to restore the economy to full health on its own but to provide the boost necessary to stop the free fall." Obama wrote in a July 12, 2009, Washington Post op-ed: "The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act was not expected to restore the economy to full health on its own but to provide the boost necessary to stop the free fall."
Goolsbee: "[T]he stimulus was never capable of restoring the 8 million jobs hole," but "[i]t did part of it and the private sector needs to do the rest." During the February 17 edition of Fox News' America's Newsroom, co-host Bill Hemmer asked if the administration was considering not spending the rest of the stimulus package. White House economic adviser Austan Goolsbee responded, in part, by stating:
GOOLSBEE: We should not reverse the second half of the stimulus. It's needed to get us out of the woods. Look out the window: The unemployment rate is near 10 percent. Now, it was never capable -- the stimulus was never capable of restoring the 8 million jobs hole that was created by the recession beginning in 2007. It did part of it, and the private sector needs to the rest.
Obama: "[G]overnment on its own can't replace the 8 million jobs that have been lost. The true engine of job growth in this country has always been the private sector." From Obama's April 2 speech in North Carolina:
It's not quick and it's not easy. And the truth is, there are some limits to what government can do. Government can't reverse the toll of this recession overnight, and government on its own can't replace the 8 million jobs that have been lost. The true engine of job growth in this country has always been the private sector, businesses like Celgard. What government can do is create the conditions for companies to succeed. It can help to create the conditions for companies to hire again. What it can do is build the infrastructure and create the incentives that will allow small businesses to add workers; that will help entrepreneurs to take a chance on an idea; that will lead manufacturers to set up shop in places like Charlotte.
Biden: In economy "that has lost more than 8 million jobs," stimulus has meant the economy is "a lot better than the alternative." From Biden's June 17 USA Today op-ed:
First, we think the Recovery Act is working because of the progress we've made in slowing job loss. In the three months before the act took effect, America lost 750,000 jobs a month. In the last three months, we've lost about 35,000 jobs a month. That's progress -- not good enough, not where we need to be, but progress. And most economists agree that that progress is thanks in a very large part to the Recovery Act.
Independent economists believe that, thanks to the Recovery Act, about 2 million people are on the job today who would not have work otherwise. Is that good enough in an economy that has lost more than 8 million jobs? Of course not. But it is a lot better than the alternative.
Administration's estimate of stimulus job impact calculated from "the no-stimulus baseline." In a January 9, 2009, report on the job impact of a "prototypical" stimulus package "in the range that the President-Elect has discussed," Christina Romer and Jared Bernstein estimated that a stimulus package would raise employment by between "3.3 to 4.1 million jobs" by the end of 2010. The report clearly notes that this estimate is calculated "relative to the no-stimulus baseline."
CBO, Obama admin. expect unemployment rate to return to pre-recession levels by 2016
Administration estimates that unemployment rate will fall to 5.5 percent in 2016. The Obama administration's 2011 budget estimates that the unemployment rate will fall to 5.9 percent in 2015 and to 5.5 percent in 2016. The budget estimates that the unemployment rate will be 5.2 percent in 2020.
CBO expects unemployment rate to return to 5 percent mid-decade. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) stated in January 2010: "CBO expects that the unemployment rate will average slightly above 10 percent in the first half of 2010 and then turn downward in the second half of the year. As the economy expands further, the rate of unemployment is projected to continue declining until, in 2016, it reaches 5 percent." From CBO:
Independent and private analysts agree stimulus significantly raised employment over what would have happened otherwise
CEA: As of first quarter of 2010, ARRA raised employment "by between 2.2 and 2.8 million." In its third quarterly report on the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, the Council of Economic Advisers (CEA) stated: "The CEA estimates that as of the first quarter of 2010, the ARRA has raised employment relative to what it otherwise would have been by between 2.2 and 2.8 million. These estimates are similar to those of other analysts, and are broadly consistent with the direct recipient reporting data available for 2009:Q4."
CBO estimates job impact of between 1.2 and 2.8 million. CBO estimated in May that as of the first quarter of 2010, the stimulus package "[i]ncreased the number of people employed by between 1.2 million and 2.8 million" and "[i]ncreased the number of full-time equivalent jobs by 1.8 million to 4.1 million compared with what those amounts would have been otherwise." CBO also estimated that the unemployment rate would be 0.7 percent to 1.5 percent higher today without the stimulus package.
IHS/Global Insight estimates job impact of 1.7 million "by the first quarter of 2010." PolitiFact.com stated on February 17 that "[u]sing updated estimates provided to PolitiFact, IHS/Global Insight estimates that 1.7 million jobs will be created or saved by the first quarter of 2010." The CEA report also cites this estimate from IHS/Global Insight.
Moody's Economy.com estimates job impact of 1.9 million by the first quarter of 2010. The PolitiFact.com post further stated that "[u]sing updated estimates provided to PolitiFact ... Moody's economy.com estimated that 1.9 million jobs will be created or saved" by the first quarter of 2010. The CEA report also cited this estimate from Moody's Economy.com.
Macroeconomic Advisers estimates job impact of 1.5 million in first quarter of 2010. The CEA report stated that Macroeconomic Advisers estimates that the Recovery Act raised employment by 1.46 million as of the first quarter of 2010, citing an analysis provided to CEA.
Economists say stimulus helped economic recovery
Wall Street Journal: 70 percent of economists surveyed said stimulus helped. The Wall Street Journal reported on March 12 that 38 of the 54 economists it surveyed "said the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act boosted growth and mitigated job losses, while six said the legislation had a net negative effect."
ABC News: Most on panel of economists "think the economy would be worse" without the stimulus. ABC News reported on February 18 that "most" of the economists on its panel "think the economy would be worse today without the big aid package, which totaled $787 billion and was signed into law by President Obama on Feb. 17, 2009."
NABE: 83 percent say stimulus raised GDP. A February survey of 203 members of the National Association for Business Economics (NABE) found that "[e]ighty-three percent believe that GDP is currently higher than it would have been without the 2009 stimulus package (ARRA)."
USA Today: Surveyed economists said "stimulus package saved jobs." USA Today reported on January 25:
President Obama's stimulus package saved jobs -- but the government still needs to do more to breathe life into the economy, according to USA TODAY's quarterly survey of 50 economists.
Unemployment would have hit 10.8% -- higher than December's 10% rate -- without Obama's $787 billion stimulus program, according to the economists' median estimate. The difference would translate into another 1.2 million lost jobs.
Media falsely suggest Biden's remarks were an "admission" that stimulus failed
Limbaugh: "Either Joe Bite Me has rebuked Obama or he's telling us our president's been a spectacular failure." From the June 28 edition of Rush Limbaugh's radio show:
LIMBAUGH: Joe Bite Me announced this weekend America would never, ever be able to create enough jobs to recover from the Great Recession. That's not what we were promised, folks. That's not what Obama told us when he took $1 trillion in the Porkulus bill. It's not what he told us when he was immaculated. Either Joe Bite Me has rebuked Obama or he's telling us our president's been a spectacular failure, just like Jimmy Carter.
Moore: "This is quite an admission of failure." From the June 28 edition of Fox News' On the Record:
GRETA VAN SUSTEREN (host): Joining us live is Steve Moore. He's a senior economics writer for The Wall Street Journal editorial page. Now, Vice President Biden is saying that we are not going to get those 8 million jobs back.
MOORE: Now he tells us, because it was his office, Greta, that exactly a year-and-a-half ago was saying if we pass this economic stimulus, we will create 3 million jobs. So, this is quite an admission of failure.
Doocy: "We found out from Joe Biden" that job creation isn't "happening the way they thought." From the June 28 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends:
STEVE DOOCY (co-host): So, Frank, now voters are moved by the fact that if you're on the left and you voted for President Obama, you thought he was going to end the war quickly. You thought he could probably plug up that hole in the Gulf floor a little faster, and you thought that he could actually create jobs. But we found out from Joe Biden a couple of days ago, that's not happening the way they thought.
Beck says "we should fire" Biden if he doesn't think we can create 8 million new jobs. From the June 28 edition of Glenn Beck's radio show:
BECK: Now The New York Times is carrying the water for the president of the United States, in particularly Joe Biden, who says we are not going to be able to replace those jobs. Well, then we should fire your ass and make you unemployed. Because you are the guy who said -- I'm sorry, your boss is the guy who said only the federal government could create these jobs. Only the federal government.
Well, if you don't think you can now do it, well, welcome to the party, because that's what we've been saying the whole time. The federal government doesn't create jobs; the federal government creates redistribution of wealth. And if you really believe now that America cannot create 8 million new jobs, get the hell out. Resign. Because I know America can, but we need you out of office. We need the clowns in Washington to leave us, the job creators, alone.
IBD: Stimulus "didn't work"; even Biden "admit[ted]" that 8 million jobs can't be restored. From a June 28 Investor's Business Daily editorial:
Krugman was among those who encouraged the new Obama administration and the Democratic Congress to spend massive amounts of money early on in a kind of Keynesian frenzy to shock the moribund economy back to life.
It didn't work. With a stimulus -- a deficit, that is -- of nearly 11% of GDP, our economy is barely growing, while unemployment remains shockingly close to 10% of the adult working population.
This even prompted our nation's vice president, Joe Biden, to admit last weekend: "There's no possibility to restore 8 million jobs lost in the Great Recession."
And he's right -- at least with current policy, which is based on massive spending, new tax hikes, trillion-dollar deficits for decades to come and tight government control of vast swaths of our nation's economy, from banking to autos to energy.
Hoft: Biden "admits" Obama admin. "won't be able to create lost jobs." In a June 26 Gateway Pundit blog post, Jim Hoft wrote, "Biden Admits Obama Administration Won't Be Able to Create Lost Jobs." Hoft further wrote, "Joe Biden announced on Friday that the Obama Administration will not be able to replace the jobs that were lost during the recent recession." His post also included a misleading chart comparing the average unemployment rate over the eight years of the Clinton and Bush administrations to the less than two years of Obama's presidency, which began in the middle of a deep recession.
The reality is that American workers can't compete with Chinese workers who make 50 cents an hour. Not unless we lower our standards to their levels. How many Americans are willing to do that? None? I thought so.
"Green jobs" may sound like a catch-phrase but it really is where we most need to encourage innovation, and that should be part of a larger effort to move towards sustainable development so that people are healthier and happier where they live, even as we reduce fossil fuel dependence.
Overseas labor is cheaper reagardless of the corporate tax rate.
(Duh!)
------------------------------------------------
Or were you being sarcastic?
------------------------------------
Thinking is not his forte.
Then .... Graduate the corporate tax system so that we promote small business
... and tax all money leaving the the United States as income.
Finally add or subtract amounts on sale tax equal to the societal cost of each product. (see the Gulf oil leak).
Try again.
You're an a**hole seahawks. If you want to talk about greed, look no further than those jerks at the top who think they are 500 times more productive than the average working man, even though worker productivity rise every year while executive malfeasance also rises.
D**k.
Not even a thumbs down!
You know how it is; I don't give a crap what Right On thinks.
I don't like using foul language all that much, I just get tired of these trolls and all their bs, to the point that obscenity is preferable to niceties.
And the unions should volunteer and take a vow of poverty?
Amazing, isn't it nerzog? The modern day right-wing is so out of touch with reality and so ignorant of the most basic elements of macro-economics that this is actually the argument. The unions are at fault because they want their workers to make more money than we can get away with paying to Chinese laborers. Startling ignorance.
You wanna know why the recovery isn't producing jobs?
It's because corporations are sucking more and more productivity out of fewer and fewer people. Computers are helping to eliminate many positions through the sheer power of information.
If anything, run of the mill corporate stooges should think about Unionizing! IF the Upper echelon has an opportunity to axe someone, they will, especially when they have the veil of an economic specter like the Great Recession!
There's no doubt in my mind that
You might as well forget manufacturing in this country. You are right, Wages are too high in comparison to other countries. Add in the utilization of robotics to complete many assembly line tasks, and it's fairly hopeless for joe sixpack. Unions have done a great job of getting the most out of employers, but the fact is, employers are out to get the most out of their employees for the least amount of compensation. He who holds the purse strings and kill switch holds the greatest power. You are right, they will eventually off-shore every low skill position and even some more technical jobs that they can get away with.
Remember who they are and buy union and buy American whenever you can. The disposable income of those "Overpaid?" Union workers helps fuel the rest of the economy. ESPECIALLY for guys like you Seabagger, who are quite obviously working the fryer and mopping the floors somewhere.
My advice get educated, or get out of the way! The job you save may be your own!
Uhhh, I like your sentiment on unionization, but I'm gonna give you a big, 'go f**k yourself,' for that condescending jab. Who do you think you are, trashing working people like that? In fact, those are the very at risk, low wage workers who need union protection the most. I also resent the implication that someone working a fast food joint is somehow intellectually inferior. People have dignity and jackholes like you are some low mother-f**kers for disparaging their sweat and toil. I've worked those jobs; they are not easy. And when some self important jerk of a customer comes along and publicly dresses down an employee for forgetting fries, or whatever, it's the most undeserved, humiliating experience a person can endure.
"My advice get educated, or get out of the way! The job you save may be your own!"
Absolutely get educated, if you can afford it and if you are the type of person who can flourish in the classroom. However, thanks to state and local budget cuts, to which we can give our thanks to Republican tax cuts, the cost of education is being passed on to the student and their family. Also, those jobs that require degrees are leaving too because corporate profits just aren't fat enough to satisfy these greedy morons.
It's tough out here for the underprivileged. Good luck to us all.
There is still a ton of money out there for college if you look hard enough.
I too have worked the fryer in my life, while working my way through COLLEGE. I know it's a tough job, but I gave it my best, and took pride in my work.
I am the first to admit that I'm nothing special, and If I can work my way through college, anybody can.
I am not the type to dress down the fry guy unless he's really screwing up. Tolerance of mediocrity is ANOTHER thing killing this country. Yeah, maybe they should unionize. At least this is one job that can't be off-shored.
Obviously, there are many with disabilities of every kind. We, as a society, should do everything we can to help them. However, the Self Pity from those less fortunate yet able bodied can be really tiring sometimes. There are STILL Myriads of programs out there that can help. Until someone is ready to help themself, there is nothing anyone else can do.
Get up, Get out of the door, light out and look all around.
I'm very touchy when it comes to the fast food industry. I simply believe in respecting individuals for their work, for their professional pride. And I'm not one to publicly chastise any service industry worker, no matter how bad things are going. It's arrogant and petty. It reveals one's own lack of character, not any ineptitude on the part of the guy behind the counter. You have no idea what's going on in that person's life; so it's best to lay off, be patient and wish them a good day.
However, there is nothing preordained about the way the fast food industry conducts their business, it doesn't have to be that way. In fact, it could be a decently respected job/career with just a little more consideration for the well being of their employees. Living wages, benefits, pension, a stake in the future of the company; those bastards could afford it, still prosper and secure a better future for the company. Because a happy employee is an infinitely more productive employee. We should not accept- in the name of low prices, speed and efficiency- the desperate plight of workers anywhere in our country.
Heck, before the fast food industry came along, short order cooks and cooks were fairly skilled tradesmen who earned a decent wage.
I guess that gets to my point, by taking pride in your work and educating yourself about your skilled trade, you can progress and improve your standard of living.
I bet even Bobby Flay ran the fryer before he started making the salads, running the grill, and then planning the menu, And finally running the whole damn show. It takes pride in your work and a continuous commitment to improving your craft to move up. Success is hard work, no matter the trade you are called to.
I have a friend that started as a busboy in high school, and quickly moved up to sous chef. Worked his way through college as a sous chef, and last I heard, he was running the food safety program at a major supermarket chain down south. I have lost touch, but I also heard he was doing a few spots about cooking on a local news show down there.
A few decades ago Rubbermaid made fantastic stuff that lasted forever. Wal-Mart would only buy from them if they could sell cheaper so they cheapened the product to match the Sterlite prices so Wal-Mart would buy from them. The way Wal-Mart has dominated the industry, they really had no choice.
So now, I can't get good quality totes because Wal-Mart doesn't want to sell them. The same story is seen over and over with many different items Wal-Mart dictates the price which dictates the specs and things just keep getting lower and lower in quality.
I counter that by refusing to give Wal-Mart a dime of my money, ever. And I encourage others to do the same. When this came along, I liked the concept, but it made me realize I was already doing that and more to support local businesses.
BTW Walmart isn't so much saving money for the consumer as just pushing the true costs into other areas such as lost US manufacturing jobs, paying illegals below minimum wage, tighter margins for manufacturers, and employees their families going on Medicaid.
This Kaiser Aluminum?
I thought they went out of business?
No, they certainly have NOT shut down due to unions. And, now you are a proven liar...once again.
Guess what, seahawks123, you're quite wrong. Know what the average hourly wage is at the non-Union Toyota plant? About $27 an hour. Know what the average hourly wage is at GM with UAW labor? About $27 an hour.
Just for a little perspective, the last president of GM took home $15 million a year his last year at GM while driving the company into the ground. Know how much money that is? That means that two weeks of his 'labor' is paid at the same rate as a full year's labor for the average guy who is working on the line. And you're complaining about 'union wages' when they are equivalent to non-union wages within the same industry.
Oh, and I am curious what the golden parachute for that GM president pays him now that he got canned for non-performance. That comes out of current workers' salaries (or gets added into the price of each car).
1890 to 1920 was a period known as The progressive period which laid the groundwork fort the new middle class. The roaring 20's existence is due in large art to PROGRESSIVE legislation that protected and supported a new and prosperous middle class.
JMS=FOS
The 50's saw a 90% tax rate on the wealthy and a union membership in over 30% of our workforce. The middle class was at it's strongest.
The 80's saw lot's of government borrowing which helped stimulate the economy. The debt went up from 200 billion as Reagan entered office all the way to 2 trillion as he left office. Give me an unlimited credit card amount and I'll show you what prosperity looks like.
The late 90's saw the tech and housing boom. Both of which came falling down in the end.
So in conclusion, it looks like the Progressive era of the 50's and 60's when we manufactured everything here at home and saw the strongest middle class was the most successful economic period.
G. W. Bush and Reagan taught us that huge tax cuts always bring in less tax revenue.
http://www.mackinac.org/article.aspx?ID=676
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2003/08/The-Historical-Lessons-of-Lower-Tax-Rates
How long did it take Reagan to reduce the unemployment rate to below 8%?
1/1981 - unemployment rate 7.5% .... Reagan sworn in.
1/1981 - 7.4%
3/1981 - 7.4%
4/1981 - 7.2%
5/1981 - 7.5%
6/1981 - 7.5%
7/1981 - 7.2%
8/1981 - 7.4% * Reagan CUTS taxes for top 1% & said unemployment would DROP to 6.9%
9/1981 - 7.6%
10/1981 - 7.9%
11/1981 - 8.3%
12/1981 - 8.5%
1/1982 - 8.6%
2/1982 - 8.9%
3/1982 - 9.0%
4/1982 - 9.3%
5/1982 - 9.4%
6/1982 - 9.6%
7/1982 - 9.8%
8/1982 - 9.8%
9/1982 - 10.1%
10/1982 - 10.4%
11/1982 - 10.8%
12/1982 - 10.8%
1/1983 - 10.4%
2/1983 - 10.4%
3/1983 - 10.3%
4/1983 - 10.3%
5/1983 - 10.1%
6/1983 - 10.1%
7/1983 - 9.4%
6/1983 - 9.5%
7/1983 - 9.4%
8/1983 - 9.5%
9/1983 - 9.2%
10/1983 - 8.8%
11/1983 - 8.5%
12/1983 - 8.3%
1/1984 - 8.0%
2/1984 - 7.8%
Took Reagan 28 MONTHS to get unemployment rate back down below 8%.
***Stock Market C R A S H E D in 1987.
How long did it take Reagan to reduce the unemployment rate to below 8%?
Took Reagan 28 MONTHS to get unemployment rate back down below 8%." - jarossiter
Funny how that is fine for Seahawks. In fact, Reagan is his anointed one. Yet, he blames Obama for the unemployment after a year in office.
That's a rightwing lie, and this whole string is an off-topic derailment by a troll poster so that we won't concentrate on the actual topic being covered here or pay attention to other MMFA articles.
Seahawks is NOT interested in participating in a fair debate. If he were, he wouldn't be pushing lies, distortions, and omitting relevant info.
Please stop feeding the troll.
In defense of Seahawks, I believe he may actually be as ignorant and ill-informed as he claims to be.
Repubs ctrld senate from 81-87. They ctrld 2/3s of gov't so the claim that the deficit was the Dems FAULT is demonstrably false.
We didn't get our Public Option, we didn't get everything we wanted in financial reform, especially the reigning in on derivatives, we didn't get unemployment benefits for the jobless and the list goes on. ConservaDems are definitely not helping.
Parties should be disjointed. They should have a diversity of thought.
A unified party is a show of facism.
The reality of the situation is that there are no moderate or liberal Republicans left. But there ARE moderate and conservative Democrats. The upshot? The balance is almost evenly split between 'liberals' and 'conservatives'. Just because Lieberman has a (D) after his name doesn't really mean much, know what I mean?
As for unification, yes. The Faux Cons/Republicans ARE very unified. Marching in goosestep formation down the strasse like the good little fascists they are. They even have a very simple minded group motto: No!
The Dems have not held more than 58 seats in the last 2 years. And even if you count the 2 independents as caucusing with the Dems, they have only held a 60 count filibuster breaking majority for 5 months of the last two years, and they lost that advantage in February.
A group of people working to craft a financial stimulus bill that would be ready for signature shortly after Obama was inaugurated were using preliminary data from the 4th quarter of 2008 to estimate what the stimulus bill could do for the unemployment rate.
Once they got the final numbers from that 4th quarter, and saw that the economy was tanking much worse than anyone had ever estimated it would be, they knew, and TOLD America, that unemployment would be higher than the initial estimates had shown.
And why is the economy still having trouble? Because there was a worldwide economy recession that was on the brink of a depression, you doofus. How is it possible that you don't know this, and don't know that it takes a while to completely recover from an event like that, even with a significant financial stimulus infusion?
See, but Obama knew that, and THAT'S why the stimulus bill was supposed to continue to pump money into the economy through this year! They weren't clueless like you are.
Clearly you ARE still NOT interested in actually participating in a fair debate on this topic, since you threw out nonsense here.
Please don't feed this troll post.
And that's because, despite your claims, you can't, because it doesn't exist.
Even Politifact debunked your claim!
What we can rule on is whether the Obama administration "promised" that unemployment rates would not rise above 8 percent if the stimulus were passed. We could find no instance of anyone in the administration directly making such a public pledge.
And yet again you show everyone that you're simply a troll who's not intent on joining any kind of a fair debate using actual facts, and you should be ignored.
It's SHAMEFUL how many people allowed themselves to be distracted by your nonsense, and how deluded they were - that they thought that interacting with you was a good idea!
Nice try, birdman, but you, and Eric, and the rest of us are well aware that the 8% number (actually it was 8.5%) was a projection and not a promise--and one that was made before the worst than imagined fourth quarter figures from 2008 were made available.
So, for as long as we've got so many voices on the right screaming that the solution for everything is a return the the economic policies that screwed up everything in the first place, we'll keep mentioning that Bush broke it.
But, to answer an earlier question from the birdman, what I would want is a stimulus specifically aimed at rebuilding the manufacturing sector of the U.S. Factory jobs are the foundation of a solid economy. If we can't do anything to bring those jobs back then no other efforts large or small, tax cuts or tax hikes, government run or private sector run, will succeed.
Couldn't agree more. Bravo!
Also, my friend who works in a steel mill was called back from the lay-off.
Good signs, both. Now, if we can just keep the momentum.
You're completely wrong. Most Democratic legislators aren't liberal. There are more conservative Democrats than there are liberals and most are pretty moderate. Put that together with a pragmatic President who's just barely left of center and liberals are getting very little that we'd like.
Not that I'd ever expect you to acknowledge that reality.
What do you call an economist who's prediction comes true? Lucky.
All any stimulus can do is to provide a temporary bulwark against approaching recession, which this one did. No stimulus could have stopped it. But that was never the point, it was to try to mitigate the damage. That jobs were created is unquestionable. It would have been more successful had not nearly half of it been tax cuts.
Pants-on-fire lie.
Well, it took Bush/Cheney & Co. eight years to crash it, so it will take a little more than just a year or two to get it back on track. Need more financial regulation and oversight.
Prove you know the definition of the word 'socialism'. I think it does not mean what you think it means.
Why? It's STILL his fault he tanked the economy. He started two wars of choice, funded off the books by tax cuts. He's a moron. What does that make you for defending him?
You're looking for a cause-and-effect that isn't there. It's like looking at the sales patterns of a business that only runs promotions when business declines and concluding that their more successful periods are because they didn't run promotions. It's ignorant and simple-minded.
The 1920's? Are you serious? A completely unsustainable bubble, proppsed up by fraud and perpetrated by your fool's love of lessie-faire non-regulation of the markets.
The 1950's saw several economic recessions - just as just about every other decade did. What's more... the was still some stimulus: GI.Bills paying for college and housing, the construction of interstate highways (Ike's biggest achievement.)
The 1980's also saw several recessions, not to mention a truly monumental stock market crash. (And again - they were not free of gov't stimulus either.)
The 1990's saw tons of growth primarily due to the digital revolution. This was driven by the expansion of the internet which was... da-da-daaaaa: FUNDED AND LARGELY CREATED BY THE GOV'T. (Yeah, and those who know what they're talking about realize that AL Gore did in fact have a LOT to do with that!)
What's more, you lot don't know jack about Keyens. You think "Kensian Economics" just means "deficit spending all the time." It doesn't. It's a recognition, and proof of, the fallacy of the lassie-faire polices that you lot champion, and of the Classical Economic school that you love, but also don't know jack about.
No one has EVER managed to truly debunk Keyenes. Pigou and Freedman both tried, and a mere MBA such as myself can blow their refutation away with relative ease. The right LIE about Keyens all the time, but they never really DEAL with the truth of his theories.
And finally - the one detail that reveals the utter stupidity of your post: STIMULUS is done IN REPOSNSE to economic catastrophies! DUH! So of course there's not a whole lot of stimulus going on during BOOM TIMES*... IT'S NOT NEEDED!
*The exception to that would be the post 1980 Republicans. They seem to run up deficits in good times and bad.
You really should get a history teahcer OTHER than Glenn Beck.
------------------------------------------------------------
IMHO
Reagan and Bush's tax cuts caused our bubble-recsession pattern.
And it doesn't matter whose fault this is ... It's Beagle Politics.
LIMBAUGH: Joe Bite Me announced this weekend America would never, ever be able to create enough jobs to recover from the Great Recession. That's not what we were promised, folks. That's not what Obama told us when he took $1 trillion in the Porkulus bill. It's not what he told us when he was immaculated. Either Joe Bite Me has rebuked Obama or he's telling us our president's been a spectacular failure, just like Jimmy Carter.
And he's been using the "Bite Me" name since it got raised by the McChrystal/Rolling Stone article.
One of Limbaugh's favorite tricks is to fabricate a bifurcation consisting of two awful choices. You can hear it coming almost anytime Rush uses the word "either."
Either Limbaugh is a simpleton or he's a complete idiot.
...but YOU decide.
I thought Conservatives wanted less, not more, government.
Do we want our government to be an employer of last resort or a government of employment as a first resort?
Clifford Spencer