Obama Fail?

[Cancel 2016.2]

So that means the stimulus didn't create jobs?

Unemployment rate went from 7.8% when Obama took office, to 8.2% when the bill passed to the current 9.1% (in between it jacked up to 10.1% before receeding again). But unemployment is still far above where it was when the bill passed. So no... the stimulus didn't create jobs.

Yes, things could have been worse. They could also have been better. We will never know. What we do know is what ACTUALLY happened.

 

[Onceler]

There must be some DEM leftwing nut website issuing this nonsensical talking point. The only people with a problem establishing a baseline are the idiotic lemmings who believe whatever leftwingnut site is spouting this bullshit.

If you want to measure the 'success' of the stimulus... you look at what transpired since it took place. If you are going to look at what has happened under each President, you look at the time since they were in office. Saying 'it could have been worse' is a meaningless comment.... because it also 'could have been better'.

The stimulus fell short of some of its promises, but it was a completely necessary measure, and has been misportrayed through repetition (the GOP's fave tactic) as "failed." On this site, I have heard posters argue that no jobs at all were created, and that the money just disappeared into a black hole.

I'm sort of a stickler on the idea that, if you're going to criticize something, you should at least know a little bit about it. The idea that the stimulus didn't create jobs, and many of them, is just a fallacy. And yes - it did SAVE jobs, in ways that were measurable.

And the idea of it was to create & save jobs. The fact that it couldn't keep up with layoffs for a time isn't something the gov't can really control.

 

[Onceler]

Unemployment rate went from 7.8% when Obama took office, to 8.2% when the bill passed to the current 9.1% (in between it jacked up to 10.1% before receeding again). But unemployment is still far above where it was when the bill passed. So no... the stimulus didn't create jobs.

Yes, things could have been worse. They could also have been better. We will never know. What we do know is what ACTUALLY happened.

You're wrong. The stimulus DID create jobs.

Sorry.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

The stimulus fell short of some of its promises, but it was a completely necessary measure, and has been misportrayed through repetition (the GOP's fave tactic) as "failed." On this site, I have heard posters argue that no jobs at all were created, and that the money just disappeared into a black hole.

I am one who believes the stimulus was necessary at that time (along with TARP) even though it grinds me that TARP had to be done (and grinds me even more than the money that has supposedly been paid back is unaccounted for).

It contained many short term measures, which is understandable as they were trying to shock the system to stop the bleeding. That said, while they 'could have' spent it better (which is easy to say admittedly) where the really dropped the ball is when they shifted focus to health care instead of first taking care of the LONG term economic problems. That is where they truly failed.

That said, a measure of jobs is the unemployment rate. How many jobs have been lost or gained on a net basis is another. On both counts, we are not better off than we were. Is it all Obama's fault... no... of course not. But it is absolutely absurd to claim that things are better in the jobs market than they were. That is simply not the case.

I'm sort of a stickler on the idea that, if you're going to criticize something, you should at least know a little bit about it. The idea that the stimulus didn't create jobs, and many of them, is just a fallacy. And yes - it did SAVE jobs, in ways that were measurable.

It did save jobs, in the short term.... but here we are again saying we have to pump MORE short term fixes into the system. Once again failing to address the long term problems. The stimulus may have technically created jobs, but you have to look at the NET position. Are more people unemployed today than there were when it passed? Are the hours worked more or less? Are people taking big hits by taking jobs they are over qualified for and thus taking hits to pay? These are all tangibles that are measured. In every case, we are worse than we were.

And the idea of it was to create & save jobs. The fact that it couldn't keep up with layoffs for a time isn't something the gov't can really control.

This is where we disagree. The concept many on the left don't grasp is the role uncertainty plays in the business world. The more uncertainty, especially that coming from DC, the more businesses and consumers pucker up spending habits.

I know my ideas would never actually pass Congress due to the lack of a collective spine in DC to do the right thing. But the fix is something that we can implement. The fix is something that would get that cash on corporate books put to work. It is a LONG term fix that may have several months of pain while implementing. But several months of pain is better than several years of what we have been going through since the start of 2008.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

You're wrong. The stimulus DID create jobs.

Sorry.

Sorry, but the statistics tell a different story. No matter how much you want to pretend otherwise.

Did the unemployment rate go up or down?

Did the NET number of jobs go up or down?

 

[Damocles]

Sorry, but the statistics tell a different story. No matter how much you want to pretend otherwise.

Did the unemployment rate go up or down?

Did the NET number of jobs go up or down?

The stimulus saved more jobs than there are people, so you just shut up man... Just shut up!

:tantrum:

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

The stimulus saved more jobs than there are people, so you just shut up man... Just shut up!

:tantrum:

My fault... of course it did... I mean when unemployment rate goes up, that really doesn't mean anything because we can just set OUT 'baseline' to the highest unemployment rate of his tenure and then pretend that the stimulus created jobs to bring it down again.

OR we can pretend not to count the job losses and just point to the areas that had job gains and thus proclaim VICTORY!

 

[Onceler]

I am one who believes the stimulus was necessary at that time (along with TARP) even though it grinds me that TARP had to be done (and grinds me even more than the money that has supposedly been paid back is unaccounted for).

It contained many short term measures, which is understandable as they were trying to shock the system to stop the bleeding. That said, while they 'could have' spent it better (which is easy to say admittedly) where the really dropped the ball is when they shifted focus to health care instead of first taking care of the LONG term economic problems. That is where they truly failed.

That said, a measure of jobs is the unemployment rate. How many jobs have been lost or gained on a net basis is another. On both counts, we are not better off than we were. Is it all Obama's fault... no... of course not. But it is absolutely absurd to claim that things are better in the jobs market than they were. That is simply not the case.



It did save jobs, in the short term.... but here we are again saying we have to pump MORE short term fixes into the system. Once again failing to address the long term problems. The stimulus may have technically created jobs, but you have to look at the NET position. Are more people unemployed today than there were when it passed? Are the hours worked more or less? Are people taking big hits by taking jobs they are over qualified for and thus taking hits to pay? These are all tangibles that are measured. In every case, we are worse than we were.



This is where we disagree. The concept many on the left don't grasp is the role uncertainty plays in the business world. The more uncertainty, especially that coming from DC, the more businesses and consumers pucker up spending habits.

I know my ideas would never actually pass Congress due to the lack of a collective spine in DC to do the right thing. But the fix is something that we can implement. The fix is something that would get that cash on corporate books put to work. It is a LONG term fix that may have several months of pain while implementing. But several months of pain is better than several years of what we have been going through since the start of 2008.

A thoughtful response, but it's not what we're discussing. For starters, it's not the claim that the jobs market is "better" now. You're shifting the discussion The discussion is, did the stimulus create jobs? And it did. It didn't technically create jobs. It created jobs.

I'm not talking about "net," because the "net" has to do w/ a lot of things that are outside of the control of the stimulus, and of gov't in general. If more jobs were lost than the stimulus could keep up with, how is that the fault of the stimulus? Looking at that, my reaction is more one of wow, am I glad there was a stimulus, because how much worse could it have been?

And that's what I never really hear out of the right. If they didn't like the stimulus, what was the big plan? Cut some taxes? The stimulus was about 1/3 tax cuts & breaks. People talk about waste, and there is no doubt there was, but it was a time sensitive bill. If they wanted to take their time & craft something where the money was spent in a way that pleased everyone in Congress and there was as little waste as is possible in Washington, it would have taken 3-6 months at minimum...and I think you understand how much further the market would have dropped in that time.

 

[cancel2 2022]

Sorry, but the statistics tell a different story. No matter how much you want to pretend otherwise.

Did the unemployment rate go up or down?

Did the NET number of jobs go up or down?

I contend that without the concerted will of nations to pump money into the world's economy there would have been a financial catastrophe of mega proportions. It may well happen yet and I don't see the same unity that existed two or three years ago. The Euro crisis still has the potential to cause mayhem not seen since the 1930s.

 

[Bonestorm]

Sorry, but the statistics tell a different story. No matter how much you want to pretend otherwise.

Did the unemployment rate go up or down?

Did the NET number of jobs go up or down?

This is hilarious. You're either a truly ignorant shit or you're just putting us on for giggles.

 

[zappasguitar]

Unemployment rate went from 7.8% when Obama took office, to 8.2% when the bill passed to the current 9.1% (in between it jacked up to 10.1% before receeding again). But unemployment is still far above where it was when the bill passed. So no... the stimulus didn't create jobs.

Yes, things could have been worse. They could also have been better. We will never know. What we do know is what ACTUALLY happened.

Well then using your logic, we can prove conservatives were lying when they claimed lower taxes for the rich mean more jobs...After all, when the Bush tax cuts took effect in 2003 the unemployment rate was 6.2 percent. Now, in the ninth year of those cuts, the unemployment rate is 9.2 percent.

 

[Phantasmal]

Sorry, but the statistics tell a different story. No matter how much you want to pretend otherwise.

Did the unemployment rate go up or down?

Did the NET number of jobs go up or down?

What do you think would have happened if there was no stimulus?

Would there have been a Wall Street? What banks would still remain? How would this have affected the Federal Reserve?

I would just like to know how you think things would have worked out? More companies gone besides Lemann Brothers?
What do you think would have happened to the auto industry? Ford would be sitting fat?

 

[cancel2 2022]

you could answer the question......

He is asking you to venture an opinion, seems fair enough to me.

 

[cancel2 2022]

What do you think would have happened if there was no stimulus?

Would there have been a Wall Street? What banks would still remain? How would this have affected the Federal Reserve?

I would just like to know how you think things would have worked out? More companies gone besides Lemann Brothers?
What do you think would have happened to the auto industry? Ford would be sitting fat?

What would have happened is that access to people's bank accounts would have been shut down. There would have been riots on the streets when the nation's ATMs closed down.

 

[Crashk]

the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office released a report in August that said the stimulus bill has "[l]owered the unemployment rate by between 0.7 percentage points and 1.8 percentage points" and "ncreased the number of people employed by between 1.4 million and 3.3 million."

Simply put, more people would be unemployed if not for the stimulus bill. The exact number of jobs created and saved is difficult to estimate, but nonpartisan economists say there’s no doubt that the number is positive.
http://www.factcheck.org/2010/09/did-the-stimulus-create-jobs/

Stimulating Hypocrisy: 114 Lawmakers Block Recovery While Taking Credit For Its Success
By Lee Fang on Feb 20, 2009 at 5:45 pm

House Of Representatives
House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) Said Stimulus Funds Would Create “Much Needed Jobs.” Minority Leader Boehner: “The stated intent of the so-called stimulus package was to create jobs, and certainly a $57 million slush-fund studying projects did nothing to achieve that goal. With Ohio’s unemployment rate the highest it’s been in 25 years, I’m pleased that federal officials stepped in to order Ohio to use all of its construction dollars for shovel-ready projects that will create much-needed jobs.” [Boehner Statement, 6/15/09]
-Congressman Boehner Voted Against The Recovery Package Twice [Roll Call Vote #46; Roll Call Vote #70]
-Congressman Boehner Regularly Blasts The Stimulus And Instructed His Caucus To Oppose It. [Huffington Post, 1/27/09]
Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-VA) Held A Job Fair Where Nearly Half The 30 Organizations Received Stimulus Funds; Cantor Also Supported Using Stimulus Funds To Build A Washington To Richmond Rail. Washington Post: “For months, Democrats have dubbed U.S. Rep. Eric Cantor of Virginia a hypocrite for strongly opposing the federal stimulus package only to promote aspects of it later. Here’s the latest example: Nearly half of the 30 organizations participating in a job fair Cantor is holding Monday in Culpeper were recipients of the stimulus…In the summer, Cantor came under fire after he talked about his support of using stimulus money to build a rail project from Washington to Richmond.” [Washington Post Virginia Blog, 11/18/09]
- Congressman Eric Cantor Voted Against The Recovery Package Twice [Roll Call Vote #46; Roll Call Vote #70]

Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA) Took Credit For $35 Million In Stimulus Highway Funds. According to ThinkProgress, McMorris Rodgers released a statement taking credit for $35 million dollars in stimulus highway money. The House GOP website featured the McMorris Rodgers release on the one year anniversary of the stimulus. [TP, 2/18/10]
- Congresswoman McMorris Rodgers Voted Against The Recovery Package Twice [Roll Call Vote #46; Roll Call Vote #70]
Rep. Jack Kingston (R-GA) Issued Pres Releases Bragging About Bringing Stimulus Jobs To His District. On July 28th, Kingston’s press office fired off two releases bragging about a $106,901 grant for the Alma Police Department and a $138,286 grant for the Jesup Police Department in Georgia. These grants, distributed by the Department of Justice for the “hiring of new police officers, to combat violence against women, and to fight Internet crimes against children,” were fully-funded by President Obama’s Recovery Act. [Think Progress, 8/4/09]
- Congressman Kingston Voted Against The Recovery Package Twice [Roll Call Vote #46; Roll Call Vote #70]

there's more hypocrisy here...
http://thinkprogress.org/report/touting-recovery-opposed/

Did Faux 'News' report this....? Didn't think so...

If you can't believe what your conservative leaders are telling you, if they have been proven liars once, twice and more when will you start to question what they say? Or are you just that brainwashed and stupid.

 

[PostmodernProphet]

What would the unemployment rate have been in the absence of the stimulus?

what would unemployment have been if I hadn't had bacon for breakfast this morning!..........I have saved the economy!..........

 

[Bonestorm]

what would unemployment have been if I hadn't had bacon for breakfast this morning!..........I have saved the economy!..........

Such wit. You should go on tour with that.

 

[Onceler]

Such wit. You should go on tour with that.

Go easy. He probably spent the last few days thinking up that one...

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

A thoughtful response, but it's not what we're discussing. For starters, it's not the claim that the jobs market is "better" now. You're shifting the discussion The discussion is, did the stimulus create jobs? And it did. It didn't technically create jobs. It created jobs.

I'm not talking about "net," because the "net" has to do w/ a lot of things that are outside of the control of the stimulus, and of gov't in general. If more jobs were lost than the stimulus could keep up with, how is that the fault of the stimulus? Looking at that, my reaction is more one of wow, am I glad there was a stimulus, because how much worse could it have been?

Ok, I do see where you are coming from now. That said, the design of the stimulus has a LOT to do with the fact that the stimulus couldn't keep up.

And that's what I never really hear out of the right. If they didn't like the stimulus, what was the big plan? Cut some taxes? The stimulus was about 1/3 tax cuts & breaks. People talk about waste, and there is no doubt there was, but it was a time sensitive bill. If they wanted to take their time & craft something where the money was spent in a way that pleased everyone in Congress and there was as little waste as is possible in Washington, it would have taken 3-6 months at minimum...and I think you understand how much further the market would have dropped in that time.

I think the above is a cop out. They had from the start of the Lehman implosion to figure out the plan. Hell, the market was screaming back in June of 2008 that things were headed for the crapper. To say they didn't have enough time just goes to show the incompetence of the idiots in DC.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Well then using your logic, we can prove conservatives were lying when they claimed lower taxes for the rich mean more jobs...After all, when the Bush tax cuts took effect in 2003 the unemployment rate was 6.2 percent. Now, in the ninth year of those cuts, the unemployment rate is 9.2 percent.

As I have stated a billion times.... tax cuts are short term stimulus, they most certainly did drop the unemployment rate. However, for tax cuts to work long term, you MUST have corresponding spending cuts. As we all know, Bush didn't cut. He increased spending right along with the vast majority of idiots in both parties in Congress.