2012 Elections in the USA

[QUOTE=Doppelganger; 426874]Provide any proof what so ever Obama's Stimulus package 'saved' the country from a worse recession.

Well, well, now are we finding it difficult to prove a negative? Liberals demand this of conservatives all the time. How does it feel to now have the proverbial shoe on the other foot?

As you cannot find any creditable definitive data to support your assertion it would have been worse without the Stimulus, let us deal with the reality.

1. Obama promised, if enacted, his Stimulus package would prevent unemployment from rising over 8% and be a little over 5% by this date. Unemployment increased beyond 10% and is still above 8.

2. Obama also promised prosperity and a thriving economy by this date as well. Our current anemic growth rate is so low it will not even provide enough jobs for those entering the work force each year much less recover all the jobs lost, not to mention the growth rate is so low it barely keeps us above a second recession.

3. Not to mention Obama promised to cut the deficit in half during his first term in office, which means the deficit should be at $5 Trillion and change by this date, but he instead increased the national debit by 50% all by his little self in just 3. 5 years.

Get a grip, it's a bust and the money was wasted in real terms of promised performance vs actual results.

I know, I know, Bush did it, the Republicans did it, the rich did it everyone is to blame except the Democrats and Obama.[/QUOTE]As far as the 8% number. That's a canard, because it was already significantly worse than 8% before the Stimulus was enacted. That's simply an example of how much worse the economy was at the time than anyone, even Obama's economists, had realized. It was close to 10% by the time the Stimulus actually came into law and the first stimulus dollar was actually spent. So, all of those projections were irrelevant, as well as obviously wrong because the situation was already far more dire than was recognized at the time. That's why the Stimulus was too small - because the unemployment was already far worse than believed at the time it was architected.

As for proof. The fact is, there is exactly the same amount of proof available for both sides of the argument, about how effective it was. There is, and cannot be, any proof either way. But what we DO know, is that the stimulus DID stop job losses in their tracks. When it took effect, we were losing over 800K jobs per month. Within 8 months, that number was flattened to nearly zero, and within 12 months, the economy was gaining 150-200K jobs per month. Any economist will tell you that Unemployment lags the economy by 6-12 months, so, that's as good as could possibly have been expected. It would have been nice if the jobs being added were at the 400-500K per month rate that was hoped for, but as I said, the Stimulus was actually too small, relative to the actual magnitude of the problem, which was far worse than was understood at the time, by either Republicans or Democrats and their preferred economists. Unfortunately, the Debt ceiling fiasco stopped that mini-recovery in it's tracks, for perhaps a year, but obviously, that was what McConnell and Cantor hoped would happen, and they were successful in doing so - because, as I said earlier, Obama played into their hands, IMHO, the great failure of his Presidency. The unemployment data is clear

http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000

If one looks at the unemployment statistics, the obvious inflection points - at the start of Q2 2009, where the slope of the job losses finally decelerates, coincides with the first expenditures under the stimulus act, and the start of Q4, where unemployment actually finally drops, corresponds to ~6-7 months in from that point - which, as any economist would tell you, is what was hoped for. The small unemployment hump in 2011 corresponds to the debt ceiling fiasco. And as can be seen, at the time the first dollar was spent by he Stimulus, unemployment was already at 9.4% - hence, the prior claim that the stimulus would keep it below 8% was obviously rendered moot at that point in time. Heck, on the day Obama took office, unemployment was already 8.3% and we were losing 850k jobs per month (i.e. it was increasing at ~1/2 percent per month).

As for the debt. More than half of the added debt during Obama's Presidency was baked in well in advance of his taking office, by virtue of the two wars Bush engaged in but never funded. Those two wars alone added some $3 Trillion of the debt incurred during Obama's Presidency, and Obama scaled back the Iraq war as soon as was possible.

[QUOTE=Member #2041;426822]No, bills that the majority party supports get brought to the floor, but fillibustered if they lack 60 votes. Whereas bills that the minority party supports don't get brought to the floor without 60 votes. In essence, there is no difference, as neither party can get a bill passed without 60 votes, so long as the minority party consistently uses the fillibuster. All of this is why nothing gets done in the Senate when everything is hyperpartisan as is presently the case. Net net, neither party has control of the Senate sufficient to get a bill passed without significant crossing of the aisle, and only ultra-rare bipartisan bills get passed.[/QUOTE]And yet Obamacare got passed. How exactly did that happen? They circumvented the rules.

[QUOTE=Dccpa;426881]And yet Obamacare got passed. How exactly did that happen? They circumvented the rules.[/QUOTE]Something that they learned from the Republicans during the Clinton and Bush administrations.

What an intelligent, insightful analysis. But it is too technical for me.

[QUOTE=Dccpa;426881]And yet Obamacare got passed. How exactly did that happen? They circumvented the rules.[/QUOTE]

Clinton was not a "REAL leader". He was same as Obama and other presidents. He, just like other presidents, told the GOP majority Congress that he would veto the (ideologically extreme) bills he strongly opposed. Many bills were amended "by the Republicans" to avoid a veto, some bills without amendments were succesfully vetoed, and a few bills were vetoed but enacted through overide of the veto. The same old story without Julius Caesar.

[QUOTE=Jackson;426857]: A [u]REAL[/u] leader would have met with, schmoozed, backslapped, buttonholed and otherwise used his innate people skills to bring his detractors together to get things done, much like Clinton did with Gingrich on a number of issues.[/QUOTE]

It looks like you are learning from Ryan and Romney.

Just change the names, even if they are wrong.

Kind of reminds me of a Parrot.

You might want to check this site out.

[url]http://www.factcheck.org/[/url]

[QUOTE=Jackson; 426853]I keep thinking if Obama and Biden wins.

They would have to have meetings with Foreign Countries, negotiating treaties, trade agreements, defense problems, etc.

But, what would the other Countries think about our new government?

One that used misinformation and Lies to win.

How could they Trust the USA any more.

A President that has changed his position more times than his age, and a old guy that couldn't run a marathon, period.

The Countries watch what is going on in our politics. They know they Lie and Change positions, how can They Trust Us?

Obama has already insulted a few countries already.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Member #2041; 426870]Growth from a catastrophic base level does not mean an economy is sound, Mexico is a basket case. Oh, and BTW, the percentage of overall economic activity that comes from government spending vs. The private sector, excluding defense, in Mexico is FAR greater than in the USA In any case, the fact is, other than South Korea, every economy you mentioned is only growing because they started out as a 3rd world country, with well below average prosperity. South Korea happens to have the biggest increase in manufacturing productivity in the world over the past several years, which is the basis for their growth. Indonesia is similar but to a lesser degree. Thailand is not by any means healthy, and Russia is benefitting from moving to being an open society from a formerly totalitarian one. The simple fact is, under policies such as those that Mitt Romney espouses, by definition, poor countries will do better than affluent countries moving forward, because every nation will drift toward the mean, and ALL affluent economies will do poorly relatively speaking. In that scenario, there is no possible way that an affluent country can do well, it can merely slow the drift toward the mean. But Romney's policies accelerate that process as the manufacturing jobs are aggressively outsourced. Only tax policy and trade barriers can slow that down, while aggressive education and training policies for the middle class. Which Romney opposes, can actually allow the country to maintain some sort of comparitive advantage worldwide. That's what has happened with South Korea.

Basically, any poor country, that has any infrastructure at all, unless it has a repressive regime that limits mobility and communication, such as North Korea or Burma, will by definition have far more robust growth than will advanced, developed nations, as all of their high-value jobs tend to get outsourced. And policies such as Romney's tend to accelerate that process, thus allowing only the wealthiest people to benefit who can leverage that, at the expense of the vast majority of the populace. Suggesting that the loss of half of the USA wealth, without much of it being restored as quickly as possible, would have been beneficial for the USA in the long haul is utterly ludicrous. If Mitt Romney's policies were to really be implemented in the USA, in a couple of decades there really would be very little to distinguish the USA economy from that of Mexico, except that the poor and the middle class in Mexico do get basic healthcare at little to no cost.[/QUOTE]Uh, what's your point? Mine was that the USA has gone trillions and trillions of dollars deeper into debt and has very little to show for it. This started under Bush and went into overdrive under Obama. Other countries, including Russia, Mexico, Thailand, Indonesia and South Korea, went through deeper recessions but didn't emerge having mortgaged their futures. Yes, some stimulus spending was merited. But much of what was spent was wasted, and now we've got a deep hole that will be very difficult to dig out of.

[QUOTE=Matt Psyche;426885]Clinton was not a "REAL leader". He was same as Obama and other presidents. He, just like other presidents, told the GOP majority Congress that he would veto the (ideologically extreme) bills he strongly opposed. Many bills were amended "by the Republicans" to avoid a veto, some bills without amendments were succesfully vetoed, and a few bills were vetoed but enacted through overide of the veto. The same old story without Julius Caesar.[/QUOTE]While I disagree with you about both Clinton and Obama, this worked well for Gary Johnson when he was Republican governor of New Mexico. He was detested by both pork-loving Democrats and Republicans. But the citizens of New Mexico, who are overwhelmingly Democrat, liked him and he left the state in great shape when he left. Too bad he doesn't have a snowball's chance of winnning this November. Johnson vetoed more legislation than all 49 other governors combined.

Member 2041, umemployment was 7. 3% according to BLS when Obama took office and he promised the stimulus would keep it from going over 8, the facts speak for themselves, it has not dropped to 8% yet much less the 5% promised by now and that is with the constantly shrinking workforce. He lied.

Member 2041, Obama said he would cut the deficit by 50% during his first term yet he increased it by 50%. The facts speak for themselves. He lied.

Bush added 7+Trillion fighting two wars in 8 years, Obama added $6 Trillion in less than 4 years. I did not agree with Bush "financing" the wars, we should have paid for them as we went but still Obama has out done him in spades, sorry for the pun!

Why did they bother to pass so many bills which were told to be vetoed anyway? (Ans. political demonstration to their constituencies.)

[QUOTE=Tiny12;426890]While I disagree with you about both Clinton and Obama, this worked well for Gary Johnson when he was Republican governor of New Mexico. He was detested by both pork-loving Democrats and Republicans. But the citizens of New Mexico, who are overwhelmingly Democrat, liked him and he left the state in great shape when he left. Too bad he doesn't have a snowball's chance of winnning this November. Johnson vetoed more legislation than all 49 other governors combined.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Tiny12;426890]While I disagree with you about both Clinton and Obama, this worked well for Gary Johnson when he was Republican governor of New Mexico. He was detested by both pork-loving Democrats and Republicans. But the citizens of New Mexico, who are overwhelmingly Democrat, liked him and he left the state in great shape when he left. Too bad he doesn't have a snowball's chance of winnning this November. Johnson vetoed more legislation than all 49 other governors combined.[/QUOTE]Gary is fantastic and has my vote this NOV! LIVE FREE.

Fred

[QUOTE=Doppelganger; 426891]Member 2041, umemployment was 7. 3% according to BLS when Obama took office and he promised the stimulus would keep it from going over 8, the facts speak for themselves, it has not dropped to 8% yet much less the 5% promised by now and that is with the constantly shrinking workforce. He lied.

Member 2041, Obama said he would cut the deficit by 50% during his first term yet he increased it by 50. The facts speak for themselves. He lied.

Bush added 7+Trillion fighting two wars in 8 years, Obama added $6 Trillion in less than 4 years. I did not agree with Bush "financing" the wars, we should have paid for them as we went but still Obama has out done him in spades, sorry for the pun![/QUOTE]Nope, the number was 8.3% end of January 2009. By the time the first actual dollars were being spent on projects under the stimulus package in Q2 2009, the actual number had already reached 9.4%. In any case, the specific number is a moot point because the Stimulus package almost immediately flattened the job losses from 850K per month to less than half of that, and within 7 months, led to unemployment actually was falling, as jobs were being added. No economist who knows anything about unemployment numbers ever expected anything different from those timeframes. Again. 8% was based upon erroneous projections that both Republicans and Democrats were using at the time. The fact is, all of those projections were 1. 5-2% low at the time - and not just the projections Obama was using, but also the projections that Republicans were using as well. So, the 8% number is irrelevant, from a perspective of whether or not the Stimulus actually worked, because unemployment was already at 9.4% when the stimulus actually kicked into effect, rather than the 7.5% that it was believed it would be at the time it was proposed, and which had been the basis for that 8% number being stated as the hoped-for unemployment cap. The forecasts were wrong and had been VERY wrong at the time the Stimulus was proposed, but the Stimulus DID work to knock down unemployment, as the inflection points on the graph I cited earlier make clear. Unfortunately, it should have been significantly larger, and it would have been, had the severity of the employment crisis been appreciated at the time it was being architected in Q4 2008 and early Q1 2009.

And the simple fact is, at least $3 Trillion of Obama's added debt comes from Bush's two wars, that were not paid for with any source of revenues. An additional Trillion came from the Stimulus, which, had we NOT spent it, we'd have seen 12% unemployment for sure, looking at the actual data from that time, without the job-losses being flattened almost immediately, as actually did happen in Q2 2009 with the stimulus kickng in.

As far as Obama cutting the deficit - the sad reality is that the Republicans, led by Eric Cantor, walked away from a deal that Obama and Boehner had brokered that would have made major inroads in doing that. Cutting the deficit requires the Congress and the White House to work together, and there is no doubt that Cantor torpedoed that from happening, even as Boehner was willing.

[url]http://kdvr.com/2012/09/28/colorado-gop-dumps-firm-with-ties-to-voter-fraud/[/url]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v_IMT1xr__0

Cheating is the only way Romney wins.

Member you just can not get your facts straight. Here is the link to the BLS, you and Obama share a trait, neither one of you has been formally introduced to the truth.

[url]http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000[/url]

Member I am only repeating what your boy Obama promised. What no answer to his lies, come on you can up with some sort of wild ass excuse I know you can

[QUOTE=Jackson; 426857]I know that this is hard for you to envision, but the fact is that Cantor and McConnell fought to stop Obama because they genuinely thought that the Obama Stimulus Program was a waste of money. As it turns out, they were right.

However, here's the real issue: A [u]REAL[/u] Leader would have met with, schmoozed, backslapped, buttonholed and otherwise used his innate people skills to bring his detractors together to get things done, much like Clinton did with Gingrich on a number of issues.

Unfortunately, Obama does not possess these leadership skills. This is his failing.[/QUOTE]Given that Republicans made a pact to oppose Obama on everything, it's hardly credible they opposed the Stimulus just because they didn't agree with it. The Stimulus was 1/3 tax breaks, so Republicans should have at least been able to support that part. Even the US Chamber of Commerce said a big Stimulus package was needed, surely Republicans could have backed an organization representing American business. It turns out the USCoC was right, and multiple economists have concluded the Stimulus was a success.

So it's abundantly clear that Republican opposition to the Stimulus was a case of 'party over country'.

Now let me get this straight. Even though Republicans made a pact to oppose Obama, the fact they didn't work well together is Obama's fault because he wasn't a good schmoozer? ROTFLMAO !!!

It is to Gingrich's credit that he had enough humility and common sense to work with Clinton on many issues. I'll agree schmoozing helps, and Obama probably could have tried harder. But when you pro-actively make a pact to oppose a president, as Republicans did in 2009, all bets are off. In this case the blame is squarely in the court of the side that refuses to work with the other side.