Obama: Stimulus Bill Saved Troubled Economy

Originally posted by sos37
Which stimulus do you think helped the nation? The one passed by Bush or the one passed by Obama?

Bush gave $700 B to bail out Wall Street.

Obama put $787 B into unemployment extensions, help with housing, energy projects, jobs, infrastructure, education, tax benefits, health care, loans, grants, etc.

Look at the projects on this map

The one passed by Bush didn't do squat to help the nation because it was passed by the most hated administration since Carter.

I actually disagree. If Wall Street had crumbled, we'd be in a LOT worse shape than we are now and have a long way to build back up.

As I said, I was against both projects, but I would wager that they both kept us from falling into an even Greater depression.

Now, what were you calling me again? Assume much?

Saying that things would be worse without the Stimulus Package is like Pat Robertson claiming that his prayers diverted a hurricane. It’s just not a statement that can be tested.

I can’t help but notice that CNN started its big “the Stimulus is working” pitch the very day after the democrats lost the Massachusetts senate seat. They realized that democrats were losing independent voters. This time, the independents shifted republican. But if voters who consider themselves independent started voting for real independent candidates, it could throw a monkey wrench into the two-party illusion machine. Hence, the two-pronged strategy: convince liberal independents that higher taxes creates more jobs (i.e. vote democrat), and have the republican party co-opt and absorb enough of the Tea Party voters to render them ineffective. Classic divide and conquer.

Let’s take a look at this “Stimulus” package. I’m doing this from memory, so please feel free to fact-check me and point out any mistakes. As you may recall, the Federal Reserve Chairman tells the government that we are on the verge of economic collapse. Unless immediate action is taken, the consequences will be dire. To alleviate this disaster, he wants the government to borrow $800 billion from the Fed, then the Fed will loan it to undisclosed banks and business to save the economy of not only the US, but the world. After some haggling, pork, bribes, and back room deals, a bill is presented to Congress. It fails in the House, but through some Congressional sleight of hand it’s passed in the Senate, then sent back to the House where it passes. The amended version includes assurances of transparency and accountability. This was when some Americans still believed in government promises of transparency. Still, the majority of Americans were opposed to the bailout, not that it mattered to Congress, the President, or any major presidential candidate except Ron Paul. The bailout was going through no matter what Americans wanted.

My first thought is, if the bailout was so important, why go through the government at all? Why does the government need to borrow money from the Fed, to give to the Fed, who will loan it to banks and businesses? Can’t the Fed just loan the money directly to the banks and businesses it chooses? Why do they need the government and the US taxpayers in the loop? Can’t they just cut out the middleman (us)? Of course not, the Fed doesn’t have “money”. Money = debt = slavery. You can’t have slavery without slaves.

Well, so much for the “bailout”. The economy is still bad, so we’re told we need “economic stimulus”. News pundits conveniently ignore the fact that the Federal Reserve Bank has been the cause of every recession and depression since it’s inception. Instead, the proposed cause of our economic woes is sub-prime mortgages, or derivative trading, or toxic assets, or Wall Street malfeasance, anything except the Fed. The Fed, they say, will help to solve the problem. We just have to borrow more money from the Fed to create jobs. Oddly enough, no one seems to suggest that perhaps the fact that we’ve been spending over $2 billion a week to wage war in the Middle East since 2002 might be a contributing factor to our economic woes. 52 wks * 8 yrs * $2 billion = $832 billion, or roughly the proposed cost of the bailout, plus a few extra billion to create a few jobs. What a coincidence!

I think I could go on for quite a while with this, but I don’t want to waste my whole night typing. I’ve got dishes to do, dogs to bathe, etc. I’ll just leave you with this. The recession/depression will be over if and when the Federal Reserve decides to end it.


[edit on 17-2-2010 by VictorVonDoom]

Originally posted by VictorVonDoom
Saying that things would be worse without the Stimulus Package is like Pat Robertson claiming that his prayers diverted a hurricane. It’s just not a statement that can be tested.

It's true it can't be tested. Saying the stimulus package didn't help is also just a guess. It can't be tested either. Even if things are the same, they could have been worse. We can't really know. We're all just guessing.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


I think a definite difference is that when you or I guess about something like this and make statements on a website related to our guesses, the effects and ramifications are negligible at best. When, however, accepted and recognized authority figures present their guesses as being facts from the dias, it is far more dangerous. For instance, it was just as reasonable to correlate that Saddam Hussein was constructing or reaching the means to construct WMDs. You and I could sit here on ATS and argue the merits of either side until the cows came home with no ramifications whatsoever aside from our discourse. But, the instant we had Colin Powell standing before the UN making the same statements, it became the groundwork for a massive war.

When the government makes statements based on guesses, money is lost and the ends are usually proven by history to have not been worth the means.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

It's true it can't be tested. Saying the stimulus package didn't help is also just a guess. It can't be tested either. Even if things are the same, they could have been worse. We can't really know. We're all just guessing.

Also true but that's what conspiricy websites are for, right?

You know, I look forward to your posts, Benevolent. There's just something about civil, intelligent, disagreement with you that I enjoy. It seems to be getting so rare these days. Now, on to those dishes.

[edit on 17-2-2010 by VictorVonDoom]

Originally posted by VictorVonDoom
You know, I look forward to your posts, Benevolent. There's just something about civil, intelligent, disagreement with you that I enjoy. It seems to be getting so rare these days.

Thank you. In my opinion, it's WAY more fun to have a civil debate.

What's on Biden's head in that video? (Never mind - It's ashes from an Ash Wednesday service)

Anyway... A picture paints a thousand words...

Job loss chart:



[edit on 2/17/2010 by Benevolent Heretic]

(Ok, I was wondering what the hell was on Biden's head, thanks for the info BH)

I am not so sure whether or not the stimulus helped at all. I am not sure that anyone can say for certain if it would have been worse without the bailouts.

I just thought it was an interesting tidbit and thought I would share with you all.

reply to post by whatukno


Obama and Biden are out there trying to sell the idea that the
stimulus worked?
IF the stimulus worked then it would be self-evident.
Instead they both have to run out there and give us all
a stupid dog and pony show.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by sos37
Which stimulus do you think helped the nation? The one passed by Bush or the one passed by Obama?

Bush gave $700 B to bail out Wall Street.

Obama put $787 B into unemployment extensions, help with housing, energy projects, jobs, infrastructure, education, tax benefits, health care, loans, grants, etc.

Look at the projects on this map

The one passed by Bush didn't do squat to help the nation because it was passed by the most hated administration since Carter.

I actually disagree. If Wall Street had crumbled, we'd be in a LOT worse shape than we are now and have a long way to build back up.

As I said, I was against both projects, but I would wager that they both kept us from falling into an even Greater depression.

Now, what were you calling me again? Assume much?

As a libertarian I say wall street should of gone to the wall.
Or as a Texan Rep. put it 'You don't put out a bushfire by making the entire country rain.'

Americans don't reward failure and yet your leaders broke one of the cardinal rules by bailing out those parasites.
I think this will cause you long-term damage that you'll never quite recover from.
A bit like the British Empire between WW1 and WW2.

Originally posted by Eurisko2012
IF the stimulus worked then it would be self-evident.

I think the chart is pretty self-evident.

Originally posted by WatchRider
As a libertarian I say wall street should of gone to the wall.

I tend to agree with you, as I'm "part Libertarian". If I think only about myself (my husband and I), we were and are in fine shape to withstand a Wall Street meltdown. But if I think about the whole country and how many negative repercussions there would have been to our whole financial system, then I'm not so sure it was the wrong thing to do.

This is the Bloomberg Index right around the time Lehman failed and was "saved" by us. We thought Sept 11th made a big impact... It's nothing compared to the Lehman failure.

Here’s Sterling’s graph of the behavior of the Bloomberg index, in which the remarkable character of events following September 12 is pretty striking.

Even if the Lehman failure is agreed to as a definitive event, it is not clear to me that this establishes that all would have been fine if the Fed had only bailed out Lehman as they had Bear Stearns and AIG before. That question is inherently and unavoidably counterfactual. We can’t know– and decision-makers at the time couldn’t know– which domino might have been next to fall had this one been propped up.

Consequences

Americans don't reward failure and yet your leaders broke one of the cardinal rules by bailing out those parasites.

I agree. If we look at the situation without looking at any other factors or consequences, then it's easy to see that we shouldn't have rewarded the failure of these companies. But the government HAD to consider the effect that allowing the failure would have on the entire country and the world. If we hadn't bailed out these companies, banks and Wall St., how many people would have lost their homes? Their jobs? From people I've talked to, NONE are in the position that my husband and I are in and could have weathered a complete market crash. NONE. They all have mortgages, credit, jobs that depend on the market doing well, etc. The domino effect could have wiped out SO many people.

It's a hard position to take, because I DO hate it so much, but I can understand why the bailouts had to happen. I contacted my representatives so many times to say that I was against it. But after the fact, I've got to say that I don't see how the country could have survived otherwise.

I think this will cause you long-term damage that you'll never quite recover from.

You may be right. But we will never know how things would have been different if we hadn't done what we did.

I don't completely disagree with you. However, I think they should have thought more on it. So many banks too the money when they could have said no. A good example is My bank; NBT Bank. They didn't take the bailout and are still doing just fine.

Personally, I think the government should have given the money to the PEOPLE who needed bailing out and said "up yours" to the banks that allows executives to waste funds and take raises.. let alone the "parties" they had. I cannot recall who it was, but I remember reports of corporations still having their expensive X-Mas parties and the like in the midst of financial chaos. If it were up to me, our citizes would have been paid directly for their needs and the idiots that caused it would have folded. If they needed a bailout, it wasn't money they needed but more like firing the fools that made the wrong decisions in the first place.

Again, just my opinion.

I've heard that they only spent 1/3 of the stimulus money.

What are they planning to do with the other 2/3?

Originally posted by coastalite
I've heard that they only spent 1/3 of the stimulus money.

What are they planning to do with the other 2/3?

21-12-2012 they will throw a big party. you and I wont be invited

Obama's Socialist action is just to put more money into the hands of the elite and further the Progressive Communist Agenda

Originally posted by coastalite
I've heard that they only spent 1/3 of the stimulus money.

What are they planning to do with the other 2/3?

They will continue to spend it as they have been. The plan was never to give it all out at one time. Read about it here.

I'm still without a job, and see things continueing to get worse in my area. I believe the bail-outs were a failure. The Recovery Act is also bogus, because all they are doing that I've seen is tear up roads that are perfectly fine to rebuild them and stay busy. What happens come 2012 when most of these projects will be wrapped up? We'll be back to square one and Obama can bail out himself and leave it to blow up in the next guys face...It seems the status quo now, "How can I screw the next guy?"