Fox News Still Pushing Myth That Stimulus Failed
Fox News' Stuart Varney is citing revisions to economic projections for 2012 to revive the myth that the 2009 stimulus failed. In fact, independent economists agree that the stimulus significantly raised employment and increased GDP, and experts say it is the winding down of stimulus spending that is causing a "fiscal drag" on the economy.
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.
Fox's Stuart Varney: Unemployment Forecast Proves The Stimulus Failed
OMB: Unemployment Expected To Average 9 Percent In 2012. The White House Office of Management and Budget released its mid-session budget review on September 1, projecting that the average monthly unemployment rate in 2012 would be 9 percent. [Fiscal Year 2012 Mid-Session Review, Office of Management and Budget, 9/1/11]
Stuart Varney: OMB's Updated Forecast Proves That The Stimulus Failed. On Fox & Friends, Fox Business host Stuart Varney said:
VARNEY: Look, there's a lot of pressure on the president to come up with something big, bold and new come next Thursday evening. And there's a lot of skepticism that he can do it. Is he going to propose a brand new trillion dollar stimulus program? I mean, this forecast of nine percent unemployment is an admission that the first stimulus program did not work. [Fox News, Fox & Friends, 9/2/11]
But Economists Have Said It's A Decline In Stimulus Spending That Is Causing A "Fiscal Drag" On The Economy
CBO: 85 Percent Of Stimulus Funds Spent By End Of June. In its latest report on the effects of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, the Congressional Budget Office reported that 85 percent of the stimulus had been spent by the end of June 2011. [Congressional Budget Office, August 2011]
Krugman: "When The Spending Begins To Tail Off, The Effect On Growth Turns Negative." Paul Krugman, a Nobel prize winning economist and New York Times columnist, wrote in December 2009 that stimulus spending was projected to peak in 2010. He added:
And when the spending begins to tail off, the effect on growth turns negative. [The New York Times, The Conscience of a Liberal, 12/27/09]
Deutsche Bank: "As Stimulus Programs Wind Down" In 2011 "We'll Then Have A Straight Four Quarters Of Fiscal Drag." According to a November 2010, Business Insider report, Deutsche Bank projected that "the real effect of lost stimulus will start to hit" in the first quarter of 2011. The report continued:
We'll then have a straight four quarters of fiscal drag. [Business Insider, 11/5/10]
Mark Zandi: "The Benefit [Of The Stimulus] Is Fading, But This Is By Design." According to Talking Points Memo, Mark Zandi, Moody's chief economist, explained that the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act "was never intended to be a source of long-term economic growth," and that the stimulus provided "a significant benefit to the economy's performance over the past more than two years." Zandi added:
This benefit is fading, but this is by design. [Talking Points Memo, 7/5/11]
And The Stimulus Was An $825 Billion Plug ...
CBO: Cost Of Stimulus Is $825 Billion. In its latest report on the stimulus, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that the recovery act would cost $825 billion over 10 years. [Congressional Budget Office, August 2011]
... To Fit A $2 Trillion Hole
Krugman: Economic Gap Was Over $2 Trillion. Krugman wrote in a January 8, 2009, column:
Even the C.B.O. says, however, that "economic output over the next two years will average 6.8 percent below its potential." This translates into $2.1 trillion of lost production. "Our economy could fall $1 trillion short of its full capacity," declared Mr. Obama on Thursday. Well, he was actually understating things.
To close a gap of more than $2 trillion -- possibly a lot more, if the budget office projections turn out to be too optimistic -- Mr. Obama offers a $775 billion plan. And that's not enough. [The New York Times, 1/8/09]
NYT's Leonhardt: "The Recession Is Likely To Idle Almost $2 Trillion Of Resources." From David Leonhardt's February 4, 2009, New York Times analysis:
The recession is likely to idle almost $2 trillion of resources -- buildings, equipment and people -- this year and next, yet the current stimulus will fill only $700 billion of the hole. Several liberal economists, the forecasters at Goldman Sachs and Mark Zandi (an economist whose forecasts the administration has used) all argue for a bill of at least $1 trillion. [The New York Times, 2/3/09]
And The Stimulus Still Lowered Unemployment And Boosted GDP
CBO: Economic Stimulus Increased Employment By Over 1 Million Jobs. An August 2011 report by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated that the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act "[l]owered the unemployment rate by between 0.5 percentage points and 1.6 percentage points" and that the recovery bill "[i]ncreased the number of people employed by between 1.0 million and 2.9 million" during the second quarter. [Congressional Budget Office, August 2011]
CBO: Economic Stimulus Raised GDP. The same CBO report estimated that the recovery act "raised real (inflation-adjusted) gross domestic product (GDP) by between 0.8 percent and 2.5 percent." [Congressional Budget Office, August 2011]
Private Analysts Estimate Stimulus Increased GDP By 1.8 To 2.7 Percent. In its seventh quarterly report on ARRA, the president's Council of Economic Advisers (CEA) estimated that the stimulus "has raised the level of GDP as of the first quarter of 2011, relative to what it otherwise would have been, by between 2.3 and 3.2 percent." CEA also provided a chart showing that private analysts estimate that the stimulus boosted GDP between 1.8 and 2.7 percent:
[Council of Economic Advisers, 7/1/11]
Private Analysts Estimate Stimulus Increased Employment By 2.4 To 2.5 Million. In its report, the CEA provided the following chart showing that private forecasters estimate that as of the first quarter of 2011, the stimulus increased employment between 2.4 and 2.5 million:
[Council of Economic Advisers, 7/1/11]
While Meeting The Administration's Projections
2009: Obama Economic Advisors Predicted Stimulus Will Boost GDP By 3.7% And Increase Employment By 3.675 Million In The Fourth Quarter Of 2010. In January 2009, economic advisors to then President-elect Obama projected the effects of a fiscal stimulus based on economic conditions as they were understood at the time. They estimated the relative effects on employment and gross domestic product, predicting that during the fourth quarter of 2010 the stimulus would increase gross domestic product by 3.7 percent, increase employment by 3.6 million, and reduce unemployment by 1.8 percent. [Job Impact of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan, 1/10/09]
2009 Projections Are In Line With Actual Data From 2010. From Congressional Budget Office's August 2011 report on the estimated impacts of the stimulus:
[Congressional Budget Office, August 2011]
*This item has been updated for accuracy
Unemployment higher than when Obama took office, as is the country's debt. Foreclosures are up. Unemployment among blacks is at a record level. More people on food stamps and welfare. $500 million dollars wasted on the Solyndra Company and 1000 layoffs.
It's a good thing the Justice Department had enough money & resources to raid the Gibson Guitar Factory. I wonder if stimulus money was used to send the Obamas on their multi-million dollar vacations?
MediaMatters keeps using the word "myth". In the words of Inigo Montoya "I a do not a think it a means a what a you think it a means".
Thank God we have only 505 days until this moronic, unqualified socialist boob is out of office! http://obamaclock.org/
If any of you nitwits thinks he has any chance at all to be re-elected then it only confirms your complete stupidity in voting for this corrupt Chicago goon in the first place!
You saw a man campaigning for President who is good looking, charming, charismatic, with a great smile and commanding speaking voice & thought that would translate into competent leadership. Unfortunately you chose to ignore his past associations, lack of accomplishments & anything else that would fog your rose colored glasses. You bought into his promises of blissful prosperity for all without considering that talk is cheap and wealth redistribution aided by a massive federal government were his goals.
Last year, General Accounting Office auditors found that the "stimulus" loans given to Solyndra and four other energy companies were approved without proper assessments of the risks involved. Solyndra is now bust, 1,100 workers are laid off and the US taxpayer is on the hook for the $500 million dollar loss. Just think how many deserving young people could have gone to college for that same $500 million. Instead, Obama and his idealistic band of idiots just thought "Oh, solar power! It's green so lets shovel money into it and who care about the business reality of research & development, overhead costs, product viability and all that other hooey that gets in the way of our dream of green energy!"
That's what I mean when you need business intelligent leaders to make sound fiscal decisions. Obama don't qualify NO WAY, NO HOW!
If you can't see this miserable failure for what he is by now then you need to take classes focusing on the concept of reality.
It doesn't really prove anything regarding solar energy, nor does it disprove the stimulus doing some good. In fact, most economists say the stimulus kept the economy from totally tanking. Their criticism is that it wasn't enough and included the usual tax cut bromides that got us into this mess in the first place. Two wars off the books completed the disaster.
The company went bust. Under capitalized, mis-managed or bad business plan - take your pick.
"most economists say the stimulus kept the economy from totally tanking"
Where is the list of economists you speak of and what number qualifies as "most"?
I agree about the wasteful wars. So why is Obama keeping us in them?
I didn't care about Obama's charm or appearance. I supported him because of his position on the issues and because he was the preferable choice and i'll do it again unless somebody better comes up. He is far from the best choice, but the other choice was the sell-out McCain and the whiny idiot from Alaska.
I vote by ideas & plans, not strictly by party affiliation. I voted for Clinton the first time around until it was obvious the guy couldn't open his mouth without lying. Overall he did a good job but he brought his Arkansas style of cutthroat politics into the White House & I will tolerate a President who commits perjury FOR ANY REASON!
I'll make my choice for the election when I know who's who. Not Palin cause she's a celebrity wh*re with limited experience. Bachman is a nut so no way.
Like I said, if a clear thinking and straight talking Dem has a chance I'll vote that way but a lot can happen till next election. It won't be for Obama, that I know for a fact!
I'm sure that you've noticed that state and federal employees HAVE been cut from the government. Are we really better off? That contributes to the poor economy and unemployment rate.
Who gave guns to Mexican drug gangs?
How is Obama trying to "kill" our domestic oil business? The oil companies are sitting on oil leases that they're not developing as we write.
In fact, the oil companies want to run a pipeline through the U.S. to EXPORT Canadian oil to Asian markets.
I'm all for cutting unnecessary red tape and regulation; however, cutting necessary regulation that protects the public, no way. I want my children to breathe clean air and have decent water and be able to see old growth forests.
I totally support your suggestion about giving incentives for companies to keep them from off-shoring jobs. I'd suggest tariffs when they import their goods. NAFTA and CAFTA need to be greatly modified.
This is the reality as I see it: the multi-national corporations have politicians bought and paid for that do their bidding. I see this on both sides but it appears that other than Ron Paul, the Republican side of the aisle is totally run by them on the Federal level. And these multi-nationals have no interest in the American economy. They are responsible for tanking it in the first place. They want to develop their Asian markets and don't care at all about how we fare here. That's my take.
And, the hyperbole about Obama which you still haven't really explained. I'd appreciate some further response about the points mentioned in the post above yours.
It's not emotional to expect your President to obey the law. It's called respecting the law, having standards and requiring that the President (the chief law enforcement officer) to obey the law, however inconvenient it might be.
What hyperbole do you mean?
And if you ever read the original Republican health care proposals by say, Bob Dole, and find they're identical to what the very moderate President Obama put forward, you'd find your characterization of him much hyperbole.
You have provided zero examples of why you call Obama a socialist. None.
As usual, your blinding hatred of Obama has made you misplace the blame on the jobs issue.
The economy was recovering slowly, but still recovering until the Rethugs decided to hold the economy hostage, damage the recovery, all in an effort to pin the blame on Obama and weaken him in 2012. You're supporting traitors, people who value party and power over people.
And like the good little authoritarian you are, you believe that narrative.
You should be asking Mr. Boehner, Cantor, and Ryan - when are the jobs???? After all, bills originate in the House of Representatives. Where is the Republican jobs bill?
You chowderheads elected a total "community organizer" boob with no real world experience & who couldn't write a business plan for a lemonade stand. Big Government programs, massive wasteful spending, taxes & regulations is what Liberal-Socialists cream over and it is all Obama the Buffoon can think to do. It is strangling the country and all you whining weenies is shriek "It's someone else's fault!"
Barry Barack Hussein Soetoro Obama is the worst President EVER! Suck up like adults & face the TRUTH!
I sure, however, that you will continue praising a naked Obama for his fine tailored threads, After all, your perfect emperor can do no wrong.
He's a pathetic joke and you know it!
No, idiot, it's what Sen. Mitch McConnell actually SAID.
Your a clueless dolt and/or a shameless troll and/or a closet racist. Which is it? Or is it all of them?
Perfect Example:
Lib: You understand when Obama took office the economy was in freefall, left by the previous administration for him to fix.
Con: Oh no! Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid led a "democrat" majority from 2006, you can't blame Bush for 2008!
Lib: Very well, then using your logic, the republicans took back majorities in 2010, as well as a sweep of many state governorships. It's almost two years later and you're complaining about the economy. Must be the republicans this time, right?
Con: Oh no! You see...uh...uhm...errr..,socialist! Obama is bad! William Ayers! Acorn! Nancy Pelosi!! socialism!!!, birth certificate!!!! SOCIALISM!!!!!!!!!!
AMEN!
And, you ask, "Why?". Well, I will tell you why. The astounding ignorance on the modern day right wing concerning the most basic ideas of Macroeconomics has decimated our economy. And, it continues to stifle it. YOUR inability to understand the simplest ideas behind a middle school graph is a perfect illustration of this.
Your "AMEN" is very fitting. It means "I believe". And you do believe. You believe in supply-side Economics as if it were a religion. You believe in the media entertainers playing characters on your radio and TV that sell you supply-side Economics as a doctrine as if they were prophets. You believe it in because you are told to. As if it were a matter of faith. But, it is not a matter of faith. It is a matter of learning from your mistakes. As reasonable adults do.
Supply side Economics argues that once we get cash into the hands of the corporations, they will become job creators. Well, they have more cash on hand than they have ever had. EVER. Where are the jobs they are creating? Nowhere. Because that is not how jobs are created. Jobs are created by demand. Not by corporations being free of regulation and accumulating cash.
This is very basic Macroeconomics. And, if you are too ignorant to even understand a graph, you are probably too ignorant to understand basic Economics. Which is fine. We can't all get high school diplomas. But, if you can't read the graph without making a fool out of yourself then you should probably refrain from the adult conversation concerning the Economy. You are probably the same simpleton that elected an incompetent TWICE and got us into this mess. Give us adults as least as long to clean up the mess you created as it took you to make it. Then, you can start on screwing it all back up again.
You clowns elected an unqualified moron who rose to the top of corrupt Chicago politics, has never had ANY business experience and has proven himself to be an absolute, complete & total failure.
ALL of the economic numbers PROVE THIS BEYOND ANY DOUBT! Simply put, you idiots want to ignore the mathematical reality of your buffoon president.
I'm sure most of your anger & frustration comes from your self loathing at having been conned by that idiot face man. So go ahead and shriek at those who had the brains to recognize what a putz he was and what a loser he has proven himself to be.
As for Obama, you've made a straw man argument once again. Your over the top analysis about his presidency is ridiculous and you believe it only because you've become a total partisan. You're blind, deaf and dumb.
The straw man is you saying that people here worship him. That's a total made up theme which is debunked totally by reading these threads or any left wing blog.
You're a tool. Get help, seriously.
Some thoughts: Cutting government jobs won't fix anything.
The job outlook is tepid because outsourcing hasn't been addressed in any meaningful way by either Republicans or Democrats. Companies continue to be rewarded for moving their factories overseas. This, and our horrible trade agreements, are a major source of job loss.
What your side tries to pretend is that absent "absolute" improvement, one can't claim improvement. But that's ridiculous.
When someone is sick, and their fever goes up to 103, you give them a fever reducer, and their temperature goes down to 100. It's still not normal, but it was an improvement nonetheless.
Obama's stimulus made the fever that the economy was suffering from less severe. There are all kinds of statistics that can show that to you, but you aren't interested in those facts. We know that you aren't really interested in the statistics that would prove you wrong for a couple of reasons - one is that you're a troll, only here to irritate others, and another is that if you really wanted this info, you'd already know it without us having to provide it to you! It's not like we have some secret access to factual information that we've been keeping from you, after all. If you cared to learn the truth, you could have already learned the same things we already know.
So true, and sadly that is why misinformation is so pervasive and effective. No one is withholding this information from Kata...but at the same time no one is forcing him to find it and learn from it. Fox news present a slick package of finely tuned rhetoric and misinformation that feeds on the darker aspects of human nature. It's easier to believe something when fancy people in nice suits on a billion dollar network are spoon-feeding it to you with giggling, leggy, blond sidekicks between eye catching graphics and exciting stingers.
Who wants to take a few brief minutes and do boring nerdy research? Especially when that research might teach you things that intrude upon your comfortable worldview that Fox beams into your eye-holes 24/7.
So why do republicans then demand we pay off our debt? if it worked so well in texas, why isnt it good enough for the rest of the US?
Its almost as if youve realised that the talk of debt is meaningless. That we should just ignore it to improve things. Please inform your elected officials of your new progressive opinion, because in this matter, you are correct, but the rightwing nationally doesnt seem to get it.
We shouldnt focus on paying off meaningless debt, we should focus on creating jobs. I will wait anxiously to see the response you get from telling your elected officials this.
Any time now.
Rank hypocrisy
But IOKIYAR
Oh yeah... And Texes is 2nd to last in per student school spending, and dead last in Health Coverage. (GO figure that Massachusetts is first, thanks to a Republican idea that Republicans now all seem to hate!) What's more? Those jobs? Mostly paid minimum wage or less. And the rest of their money? Comes form the high gas prices the rest of us get stuck paying.
So... That's Rick Perry's recipe for success, huh?
Immigration (which the Con's want to stop), Gov't Spending (which the con's want to stop), Low Wages, Crappy Schools, No Health Insurance and High Gas Prices.
Wow, what a plan!
If that $#!t works? Maybe I WILL start believing in miracles!
------------------------------
IMHO
UTOPIA
So yes, the tax cuts helped. its a shame they helped aboout a billionth as much as increasing taxes on the uberrich by a tiny amount would have. But yes, once you throw an incomprehensible amount of money at something, that something tends to improve to some degree.
But failing to see the forest for the trees is Republican 101. So we shouldnt expect much else from them.
And of course he didn't do what was required of him. He claims that it's easy to find plenty of evidence of these restrictive regulations, but he can't/won't provide a single one.
His argument falls apart immediately when he fails to do that.
"Regulatory uncertainty is particularly vexing for the biggest driver of employment — small businesses. Small businesses simply can't absorb the legal and accounting fees that help large businesses navigate through the mists of regulatory change"
"On Wednesday, February 9, 2011 at 1:00 pm, the House Small Business Committee held its first full committee hearing entitled, "Buried in Paperwork: A 1099 Update.
During the hearing, the Committee examined the expanded 1099 information reporting requirements in Section 9006 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. The Committee heard testimony from small business owners about the mandate's administrative burdens and its potential negative impact on job creation, growth and business investment. The Committee also heard testimony from Representative Daniel E. Lungren (R-CA), the sponsor of legislation to repeal Section 9006 of the Act."
"WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama says his administration is considering seven new government regulations that would cost the economy more than $1 billion each a year, a tally Republicans will pounce on to argue that Congress needs the power to approve costly government rules.
In a letter to House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, Obama lists four proposed Environmental Protection Agency rules and three Department of Transportation rules estimated to cost in excess of $1 billion. One of the proposed EPA rules — an update to the health-based standard for smog — is estimated to cost the economy between $19 billion and $90 billion."
Just a few I picked up off the net....
It is clear that spending money up front to keep our air and water clean is an investment that delivers high returns.
Why do you want America to be more like China?
Seriously, do you ever go out?
looks like you are so brainwashed reality is a foriegn concept to you. If it was the tax cuts why did the Bush tax cuts fail so miserably? You Randinistas are the most pitifully ignorant people in the world
But pointing that out- not acceptable at this site.
I really hope the Democrats are not going to invest too much time and money next year on commercials crowing that the stimulus saved us from a Depression and kept the unemployment rate at 9 percent while allowing the stock market to bounce back wonderfully. Because I really don't think that will be a winning argument.
You're blinded by your hatred of Obama.
I think it'll be the only possible winning argument, in fact, and so did FDR in 1936. I provided links yesterday to speeches he made that were covered by MSNBC on Thursday where he told his audience that, although things were bad, they'd be much worse if the Republicans were put back in charge of things.
The Depression had not lifted by 1936. The American people overwhelmingly returned FDR to the White House that year because he was clearly devoting his time, energy and political capital to pulling us out of the economic crisis. We were clearly on the right path. Most Americans see nothing like this in the actions of President Obama and the Democrats, who are far more interested in taking baby steps which do not offend the Top 2% than they are in easing the pain and anxiety of the Middle Class and poor.
FDR didn't win in 36 by merely blaming the Republicans and reminding them who put is in this mess. He won primarily by showing himself engaged in the process of FIXING it. Americans don't see that in Obama, which is why his approval rating is at 39% (yes, the GOP Congress's is worse, but as I pointed out on another thread, his opponent will not be the GOP Congress.)
Worst bumper sticker ever!
If that makes sense to you, then you are a moron. Read it again. See if it says what you think it says.
Which companies in the private sector are being taxed into oblivion? Please illustrate.
Government needs to get out of the way of capitalism? What a simpleton. Corporations are sitting on record piles of cash. That is not how jobs are created. Demand creates jobs. Get out of middle school.
It didn't do as well as it could have, but it didn't fail.
I have tried to be reasonable and ask for more on what jjamele's plans are, but I've been ridiculed as some sort of Obama lover for not being completely overrun with extreme hatred for anything Obama.
It's like talking with a right winger.
Economic stimulus is never intended to fully replace the absent consumer spending. It's there to mitigate the damages being done to the economy by that missing spending.
The only thing that can "create" a full recovery is for consumer spending to return to its previous levels, and so no stimulus can "create" that - the actual consumer spending can only accomplish that. Economic stimulus simply fills in the gap a little bit to make the economic downturn less painful. And it succeeded in doing that.
It's not a reasonable opinion to say that it failed. It was supposed to cushion the blow the economy was getting, and it accomplished that goal.
No question about that. And, frankly, it is what Obama gets for capitulating to the Republicans. They demanded the stimulus be all about tax cuts rather than job creation. He went for it and now they are complaining because the stimulus did not create jobs. I am not a professional politician, but I could have seen this one coming. The Republican party chose party over country a long time ago.
Regardless of our feelings about the Republicans, we still can't do things without them (unfortunately). Watch the musical "1776". While dramatized within an inch of its life and many fictitious elements added, it expresses what happens when there's one side that refuses to compromise on certain things.
In the musical, the entire South walks out of Congress over the failure to compromise (rightly) over the slavery clause in the Declaration of Independence. Without the South's vote, the vote for independence would fail. Finally, in order to win the South's vote, they had to remove the slavery clause in order to attain independence.
Later, the issue of slavery would come up again when the slaves were finally freed, but it didn't happen in 1776. The Declaration of Independence did not "fail" because it didn't free the slaves. They had to compromise with an uncompromising block in order to get it. The issue of slavery was fixed later.
Same too with the stimulus and things like the health care bill. The stimulus and health care bill did not fail but they were weakened like the Declaration of Independence was. Later, we can strengthen these things....if people like jjamele have the courage to stand up and not cut off our own noses to spite our face.
Read this excerpt from the 1776 musical and I hope what I'm saying is clear:
Edward Rutledge: Remove the offending passage from your Declaration.
John Adams: If we did that, we would be guilty of what we ourselves are rebelling against.
Edward Rutledge: Nevertheless... remove it, or South Carolina will bury, now and forever, your dream of independence.
Dr. Benjamin Franklin: John? I beg you consider what you're doing.
John Adams: Mark me, Franklin... if we give in on this issue, posterity will never forgive us.
Dr. Benjamin Franklin: That's probably true, but we won't hear a thing, we'll be long gone. Besides, what would posterity think we were? Demi-gods? We're men, no more no less, trying to get a nation started against greater odds than a more generous God would have allowed. First things first, John. Independence; America. If we don't secure that, what difference will the rest make?
And the reason it didn't do as well as it could have matters - that's why Repubicans in Congress have a much lower approval rating than even Obama has!
Could not agree more!
As near as I can tell, according to the people on this thread, the fact that we didn't go into a Depression is proof that the stimulus worked. There is zero point trying to argue with such "logic."
Because that is not how jobs are created. Demand creates jobs. That should be learned in basic Macroeconomics. Because a few moronic Austrians decided to believe otherwise (the French Revolution be dammned) we still have to pretend as if laissez-faire Economics is a viable option. It is not. And, those that sold this bill of goods to the American people (Republicans) need to sit down and shut up while the adults clean up their awful mess they have made.
Being hoodwinked by Austrian laissez-faire Economics is bad enough for an actual adult who has learned basic Economics. Refusing to learn from the reality of the undeniable failure of supply-side Economics is unforgiveable. And, our country is suffering for it. Do I think the stimulus went far enough? Of course not. We could borrow a trillion dollars at 2.5% and earn ten times that for our Economy. That is a no-brainer at this point. But, the main reason our stimulus was almost nothing but tax cuts is because of these same simple-minded supply-side fools. When I want something critiqued on whether it succeeded or failed, I will ask a group of people that are at least somewhat tethered to reality.
Riiight. Are you trying to appear smart by stating the obvious? So, how do you spur demand?
"Businesses are NOT going to hire if there is no demand for their business. They hold on to the cash to STAY IN BUSINESS." - Beans
Close. Demand does create jobs. How do we create demand? Figure it out. Corporations are not holding onto all the extra cash to stay in business. They are doing it because demand is low and because taxes are low. When taxes are higher, it actually encourages pre-tax investment back into your business. Clearly, you have never run a business so I would not expect you to understand that one. Try to figure out where demand comes from first.
"Supply side means you supply when you have demand. No demand no supply." - Beans
No, no, no, NO! Incorrect. Unfortunately, not surprising at all. Most of you teabaggers who preach supply side Economics do not understand the very basics of it. Supply side states that lower taxes and lower regulations will create more cash in the hands of the job creators. Then they will create more goods and services, thus spurring demand. It is bassackwards. Which, you almost seem to get. Which makes it all the sadder that you defend supply-side Economics while actually believing in Keynsian. Very sad. Look it up. Understand the terms you use and defend and believe in. It will help you make much more informed decisions in the future.
Corporations are not holding onto all the extra cash to stay in business. They are doing it because demand is low and because taxes are low. When taxes are higher, it actually encourages pre-tax investment back into your business.-mikeshmuck. Ok shmuck, how do they stay in business? If they are not holding onto their assets what keeps them from going under? How do you invest in a business if you are unsure what the future holds? Is there suddenly going to be a demand for your product? Is the great black hope going to bail you out if you can't stay open? Well maybe if you are a too big to fail business or a bank. But I wouldn't hold my breath waiting.
So, you want Mikehuck to explain how businesses stay in business when demand is low? Why is that his responsibility?! You didn't seem to understand what "supply side economics" is, so he explained that to you and why it's a bogus idea that doesn't work.
It's all about demand, duh. People must have purchasing power, and for that, they have to have income that allows them to purchase stuff above and beyond basic necessities. So, people have to have jobs and those jobs must pay a decent wage. It's circular.
Corporations who ship jobs overseas are the biggest obstacle, and the government NEEDS to stop enabling them.
Since you are too stupid to understand simple concepts why dont you just move along?
Ok Einstein then explain that statement. Raising taxes on business spurs them to invest in themselves? This I gotta hear.
The more that is taken from them in taxes on their profits, the more motivation they have to reinvest in their business and get full value from those profits!
And this has been explained countless times on this site and all around. If you haven't heard it before, then it's because you've been wearing your partisan ear plugs way too much, and that's your fault, not ours. An Einstein would know to take them out so that he can gather all the info he needs to understand an issue and come up with an informed opinion. You rightwingers only hear that which supports your preconceptions and you ignore the rest and avoid info that disproves your side's spin.
No really....number 2 was certain he was the sum of the stimulus.
Unemployment remained below 8%.
GDP growth is better every quarter and Obama is cruising to re-election.
More popular every day.