nevermind. I re-read your statement I guess that is true since it would be hard to spend 19% of 787 billion and not have it do anything. I call weasel wording on your part though.
Well it's hard to say that it has worked COMPLETELY since it's not even spent yet. But it has worked:
OR if the bill should have been more focused towards small business... the real job creators in the U.S. economy.
We all found out what these projections are worth But I doubt anyone can disagree with your wording. And I doubt anyone could tell you what "worked completely" means either.
larger why? so the money would still not have been spent yet? Look, there was obviously a need for some intervention, but even the most loyal BO-ite would have to agree that there was un-needed fluff in that bill. Not to mention there could have been more assistance in terms of tax breaks and such.
That chart is a great argument as to why the stimulus should have been larger...and, btw, the sources are from private forecasters. And part of it is historical data, not a projection.
i agree. a leaner bill with some breaks for business would have been the best route, imo. Business' are much better at creating jobs than the govt
If I won the lottery tomorrow I would create a small business the same day and pay myself a salary. Thanks for the tax break for my tax shelter.
Because the economy is even weaker. Can you give some specifics backed by actual data? This sounds like platitudes you are just parroting. As to your first aspect, please give me some specifics, which programs are fluff - have you done cost-benefit analyses? And can you tell me why you feel tax cuts represented a superior ROI? Most economists believe tax cuts are a terrible way to enact a short term stimulus as compared to spending, that is backed by data. for your perusal: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/21/business/economy/21stimulus.html?ref=business
I think we can all agree on this. I doubt we can all agree that a larger debt will help us long term.
Certainly I disagree with a some of Obama's decisions too but I think it is a fact that he did accomplish a fair amount and has shown decisiveness. Now whether you agree with those actions is a different matter.
IMO, jobs is a false measure for the economic stimulus. GDP is the measure, I am with economist who say that Americans need to understand that we will be working with higher unemployment rates going forward. Most of these jobs that were shed aren't coming back.
Wasn't the opposite argument used during the Bush years to argue why the economy was bad before it was bad?
I don't know you mean, but Bush didn't come following one of the biggest financial meltdowns in US history. The tech bubble shed no where near the jobs this recession will eventually.
The jobs were pretty slow in coming, but the real problem was the stagnation in wage growth and related income inequality - Bush's policies actively promoted this.
I really don't remember, I do remember people saying that about the stock market. but I don't want to sit here and debate about bush/obama, my point is that the admin, the congress, dems/repubs, the media, etc need to be more honest about what expectations on what the unemployment rate should be.
in general, sf, i don't agree with a lot of the health and educational expenses. Nor am i particularly fond of some of the energy and educational aspect. Now each of these items is important, but i do not think that they should necessarily be billed as a "stimulus package".
