Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 09-01-2015, 08:40 AM
 
Location: Long Island, NY
19,792 posts, read 13,907,902 times
Reputation: 5661

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by OICU812 View Post
Do you know how many years out the stimulus money was being spent, that only about 12% of the entire stimulus was spent in 2009? Do you know what that 12% was spent on in 2009? Do you know that almost nothing was spent before June of 2009, when the recession ended?

ARRA Spending for 2009 Close to CBO's Estimate - CBO.gov

At the close of fiscal year 2009, agencies reported spending a little under $108 billion in ARRA funds, about 1 percent higher than CBOs initial estimate.

Half of the 2009 stimulus spending is attributable to two programs: $32 billion for Medicaid and $22 billion for unemployment insurance. A one-time payment to Social Security beneficiaries added another $13 billion; spending for financial assistance to states (from the new State Stabilization Fund) added $12 billion; and direct assistance to college students (mostly for Pell grants) added $7 billion. Together, those five programs account for almost 80 percent of stimulus spending in fiscal year 2009.


So, spending $91 billion out of the total $108 billion of stimulus, in 2009, was spent on Medicaid unemployment insurance, social security, Pell grants, is what you think turned the economy around?
Read this CBO report.

Quote:
When ARRA was being considered, the Congressional Budget Office and the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation estimated that it would increase budget deficits by $787 billion between fiscal years 2009 and 2019.

CBO now estimates that the total impact over the 2009–2019 period will amount to nearly $840 billion (Table 1). By CBO’s estimate, close to half of that impact occurred in fiscal year 2010, and more than 95 percent of ARRA’s budgetary impact was realized by the end of December 2014.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-01-2015, 08:48 AM
 
Location: Long Island, NY
19,792 posts, read 13,907,902 times
Reputation: 5661
Quote:
Originally Posted by OICU812 View Post
...
Except that the reality is that Obama has record levels of debt, almost doubling our national debt...
Please elaborate on how, specifically, Obama caused record debt? Did he lower tax revenue? No. Did spending increase? No.

In fact, there were increasing expenditures under Bush that ceased under Obama.



So how exactly did Obama cause this debt that upsets you so much?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-01-2015, 09:50 AM
 
23,838 posts, read 23,074,543 times
Reputation: 9408
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTAtech View Post
Bailing out the banks was a necessity. If nothing was done it would have caused more havoc, as there wouldn't have been any liquidity for businesses and individuals.

I wouldn't have bailed them out. I would have let the banks fail and have the government take them over, the way the government takes over insolvent banks under FDIC.

What's amusing is that Obama critics called him a socialist as he saved the pillar of capitalism. As it is, the banks have paid back all the money, with interest.
TARP was a Bush product, not Obama's. You are one of the millions of American's who confuse TARP and the stimulus. That's pretty embarrassing.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/more-americans-think-obama-not-bush-enacted-bank-bailouts-poll-shows/
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-01-2015, 09:57 AM
 
Location: Lost in Texas
9,827 posts, read 6,919,495 times
Reputation: 3415
Quote:
Originally Posted by AeroGuyDC View Post
TARP was a Bush product, not Obama's. You are one of the millions of American's who confuse TARP and the stimulus. That's pretty embarrassing.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/more-americans-think-obama-not-bush-enacted-bank-bailouts-poll-shows/
You stole my thunder....
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-01-2015, 10:12 AM
 
14,293 posts, read 9,653,703 times
Reputation: 4254
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTAtech View Post
Thanks for proving my point for all the Obama fanboyz, the stimulus had nothing to do with ending the recession in 2009.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-01-2015, 10:16 AM
 
14,293 posts, read 9,653,703 times
Reputation: 4254
Quote:
Originally Posted by AeroGuyDC View Post
TARP was a Bush product, not Obama's. You are one of the millions of American's who confuse TARP and the stimulus. That's pretty embarrassing.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/more-americans-think-obama-not-bush-enacted-bank-bailouts-poll-shows/
On a side note, Bush set aside $350 billion of TARP II for Obama, at Obama's request. So $350 billion in TARP and $787 billion in the stimulus, and still we had nothing to really show for it. Good grief, no president in US history was ever given that much taxpayer money to play with before, What a waste.

Obama Asks Bush To Request Rest Of TARP Money

WASHINGTON — Acting at Barack Obama's behest, President George W. Bush on Monday asked Congress for the final $350 billion in the financial bailout fund, effectively ceding economic reins to the president-elect in an extraordinary display of transition teamwork. Obama also sharply criticized Bush's handling of the money and promised radical changes.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-01-2015, 10:47 AM
 
Location: Long Island, NY
19,792 posts, read 13,907,902 times
Reputation: 5661
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTAtech
Bailing out the banks was a necessity. If nothing was done it would have caused more havoc, as there wouldn't have been any liquidity for businesses and individuals.

I wouldn't have bailed them out. I would have let the banks fail and have the government take them over, the way the government takes over insolvent banks under FDIC.

What's amusing is that Obama critics called him a socialist as he saved the pillar of capitalism. As it is, the banks have paid back all the money, with interest.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AeroGuyDC View Post
TARP was a Bush product, not Obama's. You are one of the millions of American's who confuse TARP and the stimulus. That's pretty embarrassing.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/more-americans-think-obama-not-bush-enacted-bank-bailouts-poll-shows/
I am not confusing anything. I know the difference between the stimulus and TARP.

Bush signed TARP but it was still administered later by the Obama Administration. TARP gave the Treasury Secretary, who was Timothy Geithner, under Obama, wide discretion.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-01-2015, 11:03 AM
 
1,589 posts, read 1,178,940 times
Reputation: 1097
TARP itself was a minor player. ARRA was more than that, but neither compared to the various Fed/Treasury asset swap facilities or to the global forces of stimulus that Geithner and Obama pulled together during the G-20 meetings in the Spring of 2009. Having the whole world on the same page was a big deal.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-01-2015, 11:09 AM
 
11,155 posts, read 15,676,782 times
Reputation: 4209
Quote:
Originally Posted by OICU812 View Post
On a side note, Bush set aside $350 billion of TARP II for Obama, at Obama's request. So $350 billion in TARP and $787 billion in the stimulus, and still we had nothing to really show for it. Good grief, no president in US history was ever given that much taxpayer money to play with before, What a waste.

Obama Asks Bush To Request Rest Of TARP Money

WASHINGTON — Acting at Barack Obama's behest, President George W. Bush on Monday asked Congress for the final $350 billion in the financial bailout fund, effectively ceding economic reins to the president-elect in an extraordinary display of transition teamwork. Obama also sharply criticized Bush's handling of the money and promised radical changes.
Considering 36% of the stimulus was in tax cuts, you're claiming that $288 billion in tax cuts had no impact on the economy. Got it.

In reality, stimulus resulted in 1.4 to 3.3 million jobs that wouldn't have existed without it, so the impact was significant.

I think people misunderstand what stimulus does. It's a bridge to keep people working and not falling into welfare. It keeps capital flowing so businesses stay afloat until markets can recover. It lessens the impact in other words. It's not a magic fix.

The problem is that economic collapse was so epic that the bridge stimulus provided wasn't enough to make it to the other side of recovery. But, we eventually got there and had a faster recovery because of it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-01-2015, 11:34 AM
 
1,589 posts, read 1,178,940 times
Reputation: 1097
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluefly View Post
Considering 36% of the stimulus was in tax cuts, you're claiming that $288 billion in tax cuts had no impact on the economy. Got it.
It was the largest two-year tax break in US history. Bigger than W's. Bigger than Reagan's.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluefly View Post
In reality, stimulus resulted in 1.4 to 3.3 million jobs that wouldn't have existed without it, so the impact was significant.
There were many estimates of ARRA impact done by top statistical shops. Most were toward the 3 million jobs and up range.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluefly View Post
I think people misunderstand what stimulus does. It's a bridge to keep people working and not falling into welfare. It keeps capital flowing so businesses stay afloat until markets can recover. It lessens the impact in other words. It's not a magic fix. The problem is that economic collapse was so epic that the bridge stimulus provided wasn't enough to make it to the other side of recovery.
Thanks in large part to Republican opposition to the recovery. In their view, the worse the economy, the more votes they might eventually get, so they blocked every bit of constructive legislation they could. The GOP's turning off of the fiscal spigot in 2011 was what led the Fed to ramp up QE. That should not have been necessary.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top