Feb. 17, 2014 is 5th anniversary of Prez Obama’s successful Stimulus Plan

Time & again GOPers have successfully misled our Country as to the runaway National Debt Red ink starting January 2009, taking advantage of our countrymen’s general ignorance that our country budgets on a fiscal year basis from October 1 of the previous year & ending September 30 of that fiscal year. This means that fiscal 2009, started October 1, 2008 during the Bush Administration & ended September 30, 2009 with >$1.9 Trillion bucks of red ink to our National Debt at <$12 Trillion. But only >$700 Billion bucks were from Prez. Obama’s successful “Stimulus” plan & the rest of the fiscal 2009 year’s red ink were in large part from the monies thrown away overseas in the illegal Iraq “OIL” war & more important on the Bush financial bungled “Bailout” plan enacted October 2008

“PREZ. BUSH’S FAILED BANK BAILOUT”

TARP 1:

The Bushista financial bungling actually started on day one when after receiving >$200 Million surplus from the outgoing Clinton administration, the Bushistas gave their Tax cuts to the rich & what we got was the 2001-2002 recession. Then to solve this financial fiasco the Bushistas created the housing bubble by dropping interest rates to <<1% , then shot themselves on the foot by bursting that bubble with 18 consecutive interest rates in 27 months to fund their illegal Iraq war (that was supposed to pay for itself) making the ARM to shoot to >>20% effectively bursting the housing bubble on May 2007. These events broke the financial glass bottom of our country in August 2008 because banks stopped lending money because of record housing closures due to unpaid mortgages.

The Bushistas then went to congress on hands & knees to get those TARP 1 monies on September 2008 assuring our congress that those TARP 1 monies would enable banks to start lending money again. But after getting those monies, the Bushistas then had their U.S. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson outright give those TARP 1 monies to the banks by purchasing non-voting stock & as a result once the banks had those free gifts, the banks not only didn’t loosen credit but instead tightened credit & used those monies to give themselves lush bonuses in December 2008 & January 2009.

As can be expected of all this financial bungling all our stock markets went into vertical nose dives & unemployment skyrocketed unequaled since the days of the great depression.
​

“PREZ. OBAMA’S SECCESSFUL STIMULUS”

TARP 2:

Here’s a recap of President Barack Obama’s successful “Stimulus” plan to revive the depressed American economy & to create or save 3.5 to 4 million jobs with his $787 Billion ”Stimulus” he signed into law on February 17, 2009:

In Billions:

$288 Tax relief

$144 State municipalities

$111 Infrastructure & Science

$81 Poor & unemployed

$59 Health Care

$53 Education & Training

$43 Energy

$8 Other

My Reference: http://www.economicstimulusdetails.com/stimulus-category.html

​

“Can you notice the difference of cause an effect between TARP 1 & Tarp 2?:

Job loss or gain in private industry, by month. Red months mark Bush presidency, blue months mark Obama presidency. ”Stimulus” bill was signed into law in February 17, 2009. Source: Steve Benen at Washington Monthly





​

Best Regards

Lobato1

 

Pretty moronic definition of the word "successful". The following chart shows what an abysmal failure this taxpayer fleecing was. This chart is over a year old so if you fill in the actual unemployment rate, you will see it is still percentage points higher than what was promised.

 

No no no, it's "SECCESSFUL", Wolf!

 

Unemployment was "8.9% on February 2009" (Prez Bush left office January 20, 2009) & now 5 years later it's, "6.6% February 2014"



My 8.9% February 2009, Reference: http://forecast-chart.com/chart-unemployment-rate.html
&#8203;

Best Regards
Lobato1

 

You should look at historical employment numbers and GDP growth after leaving recessions... it may shock you.

Also on a fun note http://reason.com/blog/2011/11/17/cbo-on-the-stimulus

The CBO estimates that the stimulus will have a net negative effect on GDP after 10 years... in other words if we did nothing the GDP would be higher 10 years later because the cost of borrowing the money for the short term growth becomes a drain on the economy that trumps the benefits of the stimulus. Its like taking Roids, sure it helps you lift more in your first few years, but after that your balls shrink, you go insane and your heart explodes at the young age of 40... well not quite like that, but it is sacrificing tomorrow for today... never a good plan, unless you are a politician whose only in office today.

 

They are both failures and neither was succesful.

Maybe you had not noticed but the economy has yet to recover

 

When Obama took office unemployment was 7, it's now 6.6. That's .4 improvement with millions leaving the labor force. Only in liberal land would they call that success.

 

Any GDP under 3.0 is a failure.

Barack Obama ran up the National Debt to $17.5 TRILLION and counting... it's generational theft and the only thing he has to show for it is very happy bankers and crony capitalists.

 

Time & again the CBO's actual findings have been distorted by GOPers due to it's extensive report such as the recent 2.5 million "equivalent man-years of jobs" - people working less, not 2.5 million people told to hit the bricks as was explained on page 36 (If memory serves me right).

As for your 10 year projection contentions, give one single occasion that this or any projection ever came true e.g. 10 years ago our country was embroiled in a "VICTORIOUS" illegal Iraq OIL war that was going to pay for itself & actual history has proven the inanity of these "VICTORIOUS" projections.

Sad.

Best Regards
Lobato1

 

That is not true, it was 8.9% on February 2009 & I've given my reference, you have given nothing.

Nice try though, try again.

Best Regards
Lobato1

 

Investors are a finicky group & if you check the DOW chart on my TP, each & every time GOPers have gone the sequester route, the markets have panicked & gone south with a consequent negative effect on employment.

For now unemployment stands at 6.6% in spite of the GOPers intentions of making Prez Obama a one term president by destroying our country's economy & that continues to this very day.

My 6.6% reference: http://ycharts.com/indicators/unemployment_rate
​

Sad.
Best Regards
Lobato1

 

I didn't realize burying future generations in debt was the kind of shovel ready job Obama had in mind. Mission accomplished!

 

I have no idea where the (*)(*)(*)(*) that chart came from, but it is incorrect. I was going on memory, but it was 7.8. It is now 6.6, but regardless it is because people have left the labor force in droves.

 

What part of my TP charts are you contesting that don't coincide with the theme of my essay?
Best Regards
Lobatp1

 

Unemployment is higher and rising. It has nothing to do with GOp and dems both parties are doing the same things and none of it is working

 

I didn't distort their findings, i gave you a link to the CBO director and his exact words...

You are right CBO estimations to have to be taken with a grain of salt, but that doesn't necessarily make them wrong. As for your Iraq war rant, I don't think we should have gone into Iraq or Afghanistan, interfered with Libya or Syria... so save that for someone who cares. If you want to reject the CBOs numbers, where are you getting numbers that touts the stimulus's success?
If you use historic numbers http://www.cbo.gov/publication/43707

Look at the recovery on page 2 of this dallas fed report. The recovery after this recession has been abhorrent.
http://dallasfed.org/assets/documents/banking/firm/fi/fi1304.pdf

You realize coming out of every recession there is increased GDP and a decrease in unemployment? It happens normally. Here you give it credit to the stimulus like it is the only reason we are not still in a recession. But it is what normally happens... Do you have evidence that we would be worse off now if the stimulus was not passed? Because so far all we have is the CBO saying that in 10 years the cost of the stimulus is a negative effect on the economy all else being equal... and you saying to ignore that. Well I'm going to need more than just your say so.

Best Regards as well
Crafty

Ohh and on a side note, your Tarp 1 and Tarp 2 story in the OP is quite spurious, Obama voted for TARP 1 and it had completely different goals than Obama's stimulus. You are comparing apples to oranges... I think both sucked just so you know.

 

You mean this?

The rise in the green line in 2009 is a bit unfair. That would not be Obama's trajectory if he hadn't followed Bush. It would reflect that he has cut the deficit in half and look more like Clinton's. He inherited an economy running on steadily ballooning debt. Pugs have made it quite clear that this is over their heads....as is arithmetic.

​

Sad.
Best Regards
Lobato1

 

There is some truth to that.

Both party's and bill Clinton conspired to move manufacturing to china and with it the American Dream.

May they all rot in hell.

 

My God man, those charts of my TP mean nothing to you huh?

Sad.

Best Regards
Lobato1

 

That is not true & I've given my reference that not one of you has contested & I'll repeat once again

unemployment was "8.9% on February 2009" (Prez Bush left office January 20, 2009) & now 5 years later it's, "6.6% February 2014"

My 8.9% February 2009, Reference: http://forecast-chart.com/chart-unemployment-rate.html
​

What part is it you don't understand?

Best Regards
Lobato1

 

what part of the whole story are you ignoring.

Unemployment is higher now your source is only one.

Not enough jobs are being created to replace those lost and the lower numbers are basedon the fact that the only ones measured are those who apply for benefits.

Those who have given up and no longer look for work or apply for bennies are not included in the measurement you reference.

Sorry but you lose

 

& once again, I've given my reference & you have given nothing, what part is it you don't understand?

Best Regards
Lobato1

 

Says the person using an unquantifiable number to win

 

Your personal opinion (& mine for that matter) is worthless unless accompanied by appropriate reference & I gave mine, you've given nothing.

Best Regards
Lobato1