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.
Actually, he gave us low taxes and increased government spending, and the result was disastrous. Nothing good happened until (to his credit) he realized things were going all wrong, got rid of his supply-side advisors, cancelled the rest of his tax cuts in 1982, and enacted tax increases in all of 1983, 1984, 1985, and 1986. That reversal of course along with the collapse of OPEC as a cartel was the path to relative prosperity. Poverty and homelessness still increased dramatically, but heck, that always seems to happen under Republicans...
"Reagan had 4 basic principles (quoted from earlier link):
1) Reductions in tax rates to restore incentives for economic growth.
2) Spending reductions.
3) Anti-inflation monetary policy to restrain money supply growth.
4) Deregulation."
Obama's policies are the exact opposite.
"Ronald Reagan was interested in inspiring people to greatness. Barack Obama wants to scare people into socialism."
You weren't told any such thing. You were pointed by your managers and handlers to a projection done last December on the basis of preliminary November data with the expectation that you would draw a baseless conclusion from it. You did.
We were'nt told any such thing? What was the basis of that chart presentation by the Obama administration then? That chart was used to gain political support for the most outrageous spending bill in history. It was a blatent scare tactic used by the administration to gain support. And in the end it turned out to be a lie.
The stimulus is a farce anyway. 787 billion in a multi trillion dollar economy will have little if any effect. The only thing it does is extend US debt and create a record deficit both of which we will all have to pay for.
Bottom line is with or without the stimulus the economy would recover. The price of the stimulus is not nearly indicative of its pawltry value.
I have never, ever read in a financial advice book that you should go into deep debt in order to get out of debt -- rather, I've always heard the opposite.
The stimulus was designed as a two-year program, steadily pumping stimulus throughout that period. As Paul Krugman noted, the Obama Administration by their own projections did not design the program to achieve an instantaneous increase in jobs in the first three months. You can't accuse them of failing to do something they never said they were going to do.
So Sen. Ensign was correct. No honest assessment can be made at this point whether or not the fundamental stimulus strategy is working.
The stimulus was designed as a two-year program, steadily pumping stimulus throughout that period. As Paul Krugman noted, the Obama Administration by their own projections did not design the program to achieve an instantaneous increase in jobs in the first three months. You can't accuse them of failing to do something they never said they were going to do.
So Sen. Ensign was correct. No honest assessment can be made at this point whether or not the fundamental stimulus strategy is working.
Well then how do they explain that unemployment chart with the "with stimulus" and "without stimulus" figures ?
The stimulus was designed as a two-year program, steadily pumping stimulus throughout that period. As Paul Krugman noted, the Obama Administration by their own projections did not design the program to achieve an instantaneous increase in jobs in the first three months. You can't accuse them of failing to do something they never said they were going to do.
So Sen. Ensign was correct. No honest assessment can be made at this point whether or not the fundamental stimulus strategy is working.
But according to Obama the stimulus has already done its job:
In that clip he said the stimulus was supposed to keep people working ( = businesses afloat) -- firefighters, schoolteachers -- and it's doing that, as long as the states apply the money as intended. Here's an example.
Stimulus money may save more jobs in Texas than it creates | Fort Worth | Star-Telegram.com (http://www.star-telegram.com/metro_news/story/1458808.html - broken link)
There's another example where the city didnt apply the money as directed and policemen lost their jobs -- Columbus, O? -- but cant find it right now.
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.
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.
