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.
The recession ending in June 2009 only meant that the economy was no longer in free fall, but it was hardly a sign we were out of the woods, we were still lounging at rock bottom more several years after. It only meant we weren't free falling anymore.
It's pointless debating right wingers on this--economists are almost unanimous in proclaiming the Stimulus as a success. Bushbots are the only lone voices of dissent, for obvious reasons.
The recession ending in June 2009 only meant that the economy was no longer in free fall, but it was hardly a sign we were out of the woods, we were still lounging at rock bottom more several years after. It only meant we weren't free falling anymore.
It's pointless debating right wingers on this--economists are almost unanimous in proclaiming the Stimulus as a success. Bushbots are the only lone voices of dissent, for obvious reasons.
More Economists Agree
"Fiscal stimulus doesn't work, claims Harvard economics professor Robert Barro":
"In the long run you have got to pay for it. The medium and long-run effect is definitely negative. You can't just keep borrowing forever. Eventually taxes are going to be higher, and that has a negative effect," [Barro] said.
More Economists Agree
"Fiscal stimulus doesn't work, claims Harvard economics professor Robert Barro":
"In the long run you have got to pay for it. The medium and long-run effect is definitely negative. You can't just keep borrowing forever. Eventually taxes are going to be higher, and that has a negative effect," [Barro] said.
The Initiative on Global Markets at the University of Chicago — hardly a hotbed of liberal or Keynesian thought — regularly surveys a number of the leading American economists about a variety of policy issues. The economists surveyed constitute a good sample of the leading economists in the nation, and the panel was chosen to be geographically diverse, to include older and younger economists, and importantly, to include Democrats, Republicans and independents. The most important qualification is that these are top-notch economists: senior faculty at the leading economics departments in the United States who are also vitally interested in public policy.
Recently each of these eminent economists was asked whether the unemployment rate was lower at the end of 2010 than it would have been without the stimulus bill. Of the 44 economists surveyed, 37 responded, yielding a healthy response rate of 84 percent. Among those who responded, 36 agreed that the stimulus bill had lowered the unemployment rate, while one disagreed. That lone disagreeing economist, Harvard’s Alberto Alesina (who was one of my thesis advisers), has been a virulent opponent of the stimulus, although the research that he’s based this upon has come under sustained criticism, particularly from the International Monetary Fund, which views the study as flawed.
He's killed a ton of innocent people with drones and many many many more by his lack of action again terrorism. Hell, he escalated the civil war in Syria so all the deaths of innocents and millions of refugees are on his hands. The moment Hussien and Hillary provided weapons to the rebels the responsibility for the deaths and suffering that followed were on the heads.
Then he stands in front of the UN and tells everyone about peace, pot and microdots. He's s complete idiot.
True, but again everything is relative. Also true, hard right-wingers will never agree with anything that doesn't suggest Obama was/is a failure, because that works against their agenda -- can't have that.
For academic purposes, however, surely anyone can see that anyone can Google for the statistics and economic opinion that supports their beliefs. Where does that leave us?
We've all done pretty much enough of that here; more than enough "evidence" of failure submitted, just as much "proof" to the contrary...
There certainly seems enough information available to all of us to suggest there is no simple "black or white" failure or success conclusion that can be drawn about Obama or America post 9/11, post Iraq, post the Great Recession, but we have surely devoted enough wasted time about all that to confirm the time is wasted, right?
Your mind is made up and you know it. Whomever you might be...
Back to paying for what we spent to avert economic disaster, however. Let's at least try to get this into better perspective as well, because forever we bemoan the tab for TARP and the rest, but also of course conservatives never seem to factor the alternative cost of not averting economic disaster. Problem here as well is that your economic equation is going to be very different if you somehow think the economy would have recovered without doing all that the Bush and Obama administrations did to avert an economic collapse. Here too we had (and still have) most economists agreeing that those actions needed to be taken.
If you don't think so, then obviously all that TARP money was a waste at tax-payer expense.
On the other hand, I'm pretty sure no POTUS under those circumstances would have ignored all those economists and advisers at the time, ignored all the economic indicators flashing red, ignored everything and just done nothing.
We're all free to decide what the truth of these matters are, and of course if you were against Obama from the beginning, then you are likely to always be against all-things-Obama, because that is human nature (unfortunately), but as to what is the truth or not? We should know better than to pretend the next opinion piece that gets posted one way or another is going to make one key-stroke bit of difference to anyone...
Which haven't? We now have the widest wealth gap in history, 6.67 years into Obama's presidency.
We know the problem. It's been occurring since the Reagan era. But blaming Obama, when he has promoted policies that lower inequality, is misguided.
Since you won't identify any specific policies of Obama that is contributing to inequality, I can only assume that you are either lazy or you can't find any.
Obama policies, such as raising taxes on upper-income Americans and wanting to raise the minimum wage all are methods used in the past to lower inequality. If you really are serious about lowering inequality, then you should talk to the GOP about passing the minimum wage raise and about raising taxes on the wealthy.
If you look at the policies the GOP stands for, it's lowering taxes on the wealthy.
But if you are just going to whine that inequality is up, while also supporting the GOP, whose policies promote inequality, don't pretend that we're having a serious conversation.
This is a question that doesn't need to be asked- for obvious reasons.
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.
We now have the widest wealth gap in history, 6.67 years into Obama's presidency.
