Ever wonder why the stimulus package isn't working?Follow

What they earn, yes. However, they want to pay for their pet projects with your money.

Obama made a fairly large mistake in allowing the state houses to set priorities for stimulus cash. Here in my state, as soon as the stimulus funds came up for appropriation, the Republicans that swore up and down that they didn't see a need for it, didn't want it - took a big, healthy chunk for their projects. So we have funds going to things in the **** end of nowhere.

That's the power of OPM (other people's money), and is typical of the conservatives in my state. At least the dems actually tell you they're planning to spend the cash, and what for, rather than trying to double deal under the table.

I already addressed this. It's because the whole point of a "stimulus" is to provide a jolt to the economy to get things running again. In this particular case, it might be because the folks pushing us to DOITNOW!!! were all saying that if we didn't, we'd face immediate financial disaster. Which kinda implies that the effects are supposed to happen somewhat "immediately".

I'll also point out the absurdity of this entire line of reasoning. It was the Conservatives who opposed the proposed stimulus for exactly those reasons. It was sold to the people on the assumption that it would "jolt the economy back into shape" (Obama's words, not mine). Yet, it was abundantly obvious that the actual bill Congress wrote was largely full of programs which would not take effect for years. It was a bait and switch. For you to now question why anyone would think the stimulus was supposed to fix everything right away is hilariously ironic, and represents an amazing ability to forget the events of just a few months ago...



I think it's you who is missing the point. We didn't think it would "fix everything immediately". But it was sold to the public as though it would. I'll re-ask the question you didn't answer: If the components of the bill were not supposed to have immediate effects, but rather act over a longer period of time, then why was there such a rush to pass the bill?

I'm pretty sure it had a lot to do with realizing that the only way they'd get the public to let them spend money on so many programs was if they thought it was necessary to prevent an economic meltdown. The Dems took advantage of the panic about the economy to pass this bill. Um... But if you have another explanation, I'd lover to hear it...



Beats me. Let me add the full quote:



Do you see why us Conservatives kept yelling and screaming that this was all BS? Funny how it's unreasonable to expect to create that many jobs that fast, and yet none of you Lefties took any notice when your High Commander promised to do exactly that when selling his stimulus bill.

Again. We conservatives knew this was BS. The Liberals all ate it up and called us evil partisans who wanted the economy to collapse when we said anything about it. And now, it's unreasonable to expect that what he promised was possible? Gee! Why didn't you realize that before we spent another 800 billion dollars we didn't have? Now if only some group of people had thought of this ahead of time. Oh wait! We did. You all just didn't listen.



One of the scare tactics used to sell the stimulus bill was a claim that if we didn't pass it, we'd see 10% unemployment, but if we did we could keep unemployment below 8% (technically, those were two separate claims, but both by the Obama administration). Gee. How's that working out, huh? We passed the stimulus bill and are now at around 10% unemployment. Hmm... Seems like we could have just... I don't know... not passed the bill in the first place?




No. It was a bad economy caused by the government foisting the cost for their social programs onto the financial sector via GSAs lying about the risks and values of securities they then sold on the open market (with regulations requiring said financial folks to buy said securities). In a nutshell, that is the core source of the problem. It was not the financial tools being used that broke things, but the bad materials they were forced to work with.




Sure. I blame the Dems for causing the problem and the Republicans for failing to stop them from causing the problem. Um... That doesn't mean they are both at fault evenly though...



But this isn't one of those times. In this case, the blame falls overwhelmingly on the Democrat party. They used a threatened veto by Clinton back in 1999 to push an amendment into a bill which effectively forced large financial institutions to purchase mortgage securities from the GSAs in order to qualify for FDIC. They accepted massive amounts of election donations and support from the GSAs while providing political cover for them. This cover allowed the GSAs to launder the costs for the Dems housing programs into the private sector. When the Republicans, not once, but twice brought the CEO of Fanny Mae into investigative hearings about discrepancies in the risks and value of the securities they were selling, the Dems (Barney Frank in particular) leaped to defend him and attacked the Republicans viciously. They were able to prevent the Republicans from applying sufficient oversight on Fanny and Freddy to avoid the sub-prime mortgage crisis.


All of those things were done by the Dems and the Dems alone. It was the sub-prime mortgages which caused the financial crash(es). The financial institutions holding these securities suddenly realized that they had been lied to about them and that they were much riskier and worth much less than they'd been told. As a result, they no longer had sufficient capital to continue running their businesses (some of them).

The Republicans didn't do anything to cause this. The Dems did everything to cause it. Who should we blame?

Versus not making those choices or taking those actions? I'm not sure what you're asking here...


Let me give you an analogy. If we string a high wire between two buildings, how many people will attempt to cross it? Not many right? Maybe those who have very good balance will try it, and they'll be very careful when they do. Cause they'll likely die if they fall. But what if we hang a safety net under the high wire? Wouldn't more people attempt to cross? Sure. Because the consequences of failure are much less dire.

Now. Let's imagine that there's some value to be gained by traveling from one building to the other, and that the high wire is a shortcut. We could travel down to the lobby, cross the street, then into the lobby and back to the top of the other building (a slow but safe route), or we could attempt the high wire. By not having a safety net, very few people will attempt the high wire as a route between buildings. Most will use the safer route.

By adding the safety net, you'll increase the number of people who will "risk it" by traveling across the high wire because we've removed the most harsh consequences (dying in this case). However, if one falls it'll take them quite some time to get out of the net and back inside the building (and require others helping them perhaps). Thus, the total time if you just take the safe route is faster than if you fall, but slower than if you cross the high wire and don't fall.

So that safety net, while making things "safer", actually ends out increasing the amount of time it takes the average person to cross from one building to another. Because before most people just took the safe route. A very small number took the risky route. Most of them made it (because only those very capable would attempt it), and those who fell died, but didn't take up anyone else's time. Now, many more people are attempting the risky route. And a much higher number are falling. They aren't dying, but they're taking up much more total time getting out of the net.


If you think of crossing the buildings as an analogy for upward mobility in life, the high wire represents risky or bad choices (but with potential high rewards), and the safety net represents government assistance programs of all kinds. Most people, if they take the slow and safe route will be able to gain upward mobility. It'll take time and effort, but they can do it. The risky or bad choices always exist. Some will make those choices despite the risk. And some will succeed and some will fail. The point is that a safety net increases the number of people who fail. It increases the number of people who get "stuck" between buildings in the net. Sure. They didn't die, but many of them wouldn't have made that choice if the net wasn't there in the first place. Worse, many of them are just making "bad" choices instead of risky choices (like dealing drugs, joining a gang, dropping out of school, etc). Those choices are virtually guaranteed to cause you to fall. But hey! There's this net there and it'll make sure I don't hit the pavement, so it's all good...

Actually what is disgusting and more than a little bit amusing is watching Liberals try to re-write History.

The stimulus was nothing more than a huge pork laden bill designed to pay back loyal supporters to the Democratic party passed off as a instant job creation bill.

It did not do what was advertised to the public and now those same politician who most of them did not even read the bill before they voted for this 700+ billion joke are now trying to cover thier asses by claiming this instant jolt (Obama's own words)hasn't worked by first saying "we underestimated the bad economy we were left" (biden's own words)despite the fact they ran thier campaign on "this is the worst economy ever" and when that didn't fly they are now claiming that they didn't mean it would work right away.











Edited, Aug 7th 2009 11:21pm by ThiefX

Actually I edited out because I worded that wrong.

A better way to have put it would have been to simply say governement intervention can only prolong a recession they cant end one.

And because the statement is no longer true because this recession was caused by liberal politicians trying to engineer a social utopia.

Edited, Aug 7th 2009 11:39pm by ThiefX

Edited, Aug 8th 2009 12:15am by ThiefX

Maybe you're getting it. Welfare programs are aimed at those that have no choice.

Well, yeah, Ok. I can't with any absolute authority claim to have any sure knowledge of the existence of a Gbaji soul. You got me there.

However, having read through many, many of his diatribes his utter disregard for the suffering of other humans is undeniable.



ETA:

Just in case someone thought I was making **** up.


Edited, Aug 8th 2009 1:06am by Bijou

No, recessions are natural products of a free market oscillation. There are economic systems that do not have them, but they also limit peak growth to a slower exponential function.