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 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act was designed to put millions of people to work, mainly for "shovel-ready" projects. By their very nature, most of those projects last only until the work is completed or the funding runs out.
That means millions of workers hired with stimulus funding are left looking for a job after the stimulus-funded program is completed.
Cue the radical conservatives who stalk this board all day every day, waiting for any excuse to lash out at how horrific their president is who's actually fixing the problems he inherited.
Oh, the horror.
He was fixing the problems he inherited. Now they're trying to pass a healthcare bill when people are worried about their next meal, next month's bills, or freezing. The House, the Senate, and the President need to get their priorities straight. One of the many elected officials in the government needs to stand up for the unemployed and underemployed.
He was fixing the problems he inherited. Now they're trying to pass a healthcare bill when people are worried about their next meal, next month's bills, or freezing. The House, the Senate, and the President need to get their priorities straight. One of the many elected officials in the government needs to stand up for the unemployed and underemployed.
And now they also have to worry about mandatory insurance and fines if they don't have it or sign up for it.
I saw David Brooks on Face The Nation and he pointed out that so far the stimulus dollars were mainly preventing people from being laid off and weren't producing the "multiplier effect" that is supposed to come with stimulus spending leading to new job creation. Is he right? Or does it take time for the multiplier effect to happen?
When Hillary, I mean Sanganista, gets back to the office on Monday I'm sure she'll chime in with some Keynsian jibberish about the velocity of money of employeed (but not laid off because of stimulus money) workers vis-a-vis newly employeed workers.
All the "stimulus" did was take money from one group, the taxpayer, and give it to another. Rearranging money doesn't stimulate anything.
Also, you can be sure that when all is said and done the stimulous money will end up in states that were iffy for Obama in the 2008 race. Why send it to Utah? They won't vote for him anyway. Why send it to New York? They will vote for no matter what. It will end up in places like Missouri and Ohio. It's about politics, not the economy.
He was fixing the problems he inherited. Now they're trying to pass a healthcare bill when people are worried about their next meal, next month's bills, or freezing. The House, the Senate, and the President need to get their priorities straight. One of the many elected officials in the government needs to stand up for the unemployed and underemployed.
Umm... health care accounts for 16% of the economy. To try and do a recovery without addressing it would be pretty shortsighted.
Anyway, stimulus is never meant to be long-term. It's meant to stimulate to help people through until the economy can recover. Plus, he's enacted good policy to prevent this from happening again (at least until the next run of long-term conservative control - I don't mean that in a negative, way, but they will loosen the markets and then the greed will push them over again).
he is on target 100%. there is no stimulus no recovery. there never was a recession. there was a contraction of the economy. 10% unemployment is a contraction those jobs are gone that is why 4th round UIB. next move is welcome to burger king may i take your order.
Anyway, stimulus is never meant to be long-term. It's meant to stimulate to help people through until the economy can recover.
No, that is not the definition of a traditional stimulus. Unfortunately, obama's boondoggle was nothing more than a wish list of liberal programs and pork barrel spending. There was nothing stimulative in the least and they were warned, repeatedly that it would not work.
Quote:
Plus, he's enacted good policy to prevent this from happening again (at least until the next run of long-term conservative control - I don't mean that in a negative, way, but they will loosen the markets and then the greed will push them over again).
Umm... health care accounts for 16% of the economy. To try and do a recovery without addressing it would be pretty shortsighted.
Anyway, stimulus is never meant to be long-term. It's meant to stimulate to help people through until the economy can recover. Plus, he's enacted good policy to prevent this from happening again (at least until the next run of long-term conservative control - I don't mean that in a negative, way, but they will loosen the markets and then the greed will push them over again).
The implication here is that under the Bush adminstration the markets were loosened and greed caused the economic crises. LOLs.
How many times have I heard this.
What markets did Bush loosen? None
He gave us more financial regulation. Look at the patriot act and sarbanes-oxley.
Anyone that says Bush eased regulation is lying or just ignorant.
Plus, you have to ignore all of American history and all of economic law to say the markets or greed caused this.
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.
