The Viking wrote: Failed $870 Billion dollar Stimulus bill that Obama laughs about?
244 - 188. ALL Dems voted for that failure and waste! And even 11 Dems voted against it! Again another $870 billion on the Dems.
Less than $200 million of that was in FY2009.
When was it passed? And who signed it?
I corrected my typo before I saw this post... should of said $200 billion.
The stimulus was Obama's bill, signed Feb 2009. TARP was Bush's bill signed Oct 2008. TARP contributed more to the FY2009 deficit than did the stimulus.
Again, you need to read my above posts! They are ALL Democrat Congress passed bills! I didn't even notice the million. I knew what you meant
Vice Lord wrote: Guys..Saying the stimulus did'nt work is like saying rain doesn't make you wet..If you dropped the money outta airplanes it would work. Money pumped into the economy can't not work...All you can say for sure is that we put 100's of billions into the economy and we are still in a resession. You can say it wasn't enough, but you can't say it did'nt work..The money, for the most part, is in the economy. I wish we could say the same for the trillion dollar Bush Bank Bailout
It was $700 Billion and the Dems drew it up and passed it in congress. Bush shouldn't have signed it but it was passed with over 66% of the yes votes being the Democrats. I will give you time to think and see if you can understand that..........this could take a while.
pineinthegrass wrote: You start with a faulty arguement which we hear from many of the conservative talking heads.
The 2009 deficit was about $1.4 trillion, but that fiscal year began October 1st, 2008 which is nearly four months (1/3rd of the entire year) before Obama even took office. That was a budget signed of by George Bush, not Obama. So 1/3rd of the the year is gone before Obama even steps a foot in office and you are giving Obama all the blame?
Here is an article from the Cato Institute about it, and they are a pretty conservative organization (credit to them for being honest about it)...
What is unavoidable is that the deficit went from a downward trend the last few years of Republican control of Congress and the White House to an out of control upward trend once control of Congress, and later the White House as well, was transferred to the Democrats. Yes, Bush did sign TARP and might technically be saddled with that increase to the deficit, but there is a problem with doing that. That bill was passed by Congress with both Obama and McCain signing off on it first. Both of them had the opportunity to voice opposition to enacting it and thus prevent it from going forward, perhaps Obama more so than McCain given that both houses of Congress were controlled by his party at that time.
But all of that ignores the reality of why TARP was necessary to begin with, which was the realization that Freddie and Fannie were on the hook for making good on the mortgage securities that they had sold to these financial institutions as assets and it was the full faith and credit of the federal government that was the entity that was responsible for making good on those guarantees. Fannie had a leverage ration in excess of 20:1, Freddie was tickling 70:1 - and those numbers didn't include what they were on the hook for all of the mortgage backed securities they had guaranteed using the full faith and credit of the US government.
Without the guarantee issued with the full faith and credit of the US government for a private company, there would have been no sub-prime bubble waiting to burst in the first place. It was that guarantee issued by the federal government that gave Wall Street the ability to take such risks to begin with. What the federal government did in essence was tell Wall Street that they would ultimately guarantee any money they walked up to the roulette table and plunked down on 17 Black if they lost it and that Wall Street could keep the money if the ball landed on that number. What's to lose under that scenario? That's why TARP had to be passed - to protect the full faith and credit of the US government who foolishly guaranteed the securities issued by a couple of GSE's more greedy than all the rest of Wall Street combined.
Vice Lord wrote: Guys..Saying the stimulus did'nt work is like saying rain doesn't make you wet..If you dropped the money outta airplanes it would work. Money pumped into the economy can't not work...All you can say for sure is that we put 100's of billions into the economy and we are still in a resession. You can say it wasn't enough, but you can't say it did'nt work..The money, for the most part, is in the economy. I wish we could say the same for the trillion dollar Bush Bank Bailout
While there is no question the stimulus did create jobs (throw away even more billions and you can create even more jobs), I think it's still been a failure. And a very expensive failure at that. The reason I think it failed is because it didn't meet it's projected goals. And it's not even close.
And I won't even quibble so much about the Obama administration's projection to keep unemployment below 8% with the stimulus, that was a projection which had some error. But they didn't even come close to that with the stimulus as unemployment went over 10%. There has been a drop in the unemployment rate, but that drop has been anemic, and has gone back up the last 2 months.
Here were the projections for the stimulus. See the graph on page 5.
Now so far as TARP goes, while far from perfect, I actually think we can show that it accomplished something and that the final cost will be far less than the original projections.
It isn’t often that the government launches a major program that achieves its main goals at a tiny fraction of its estimated costs. That’s the story of TARP — the Troubled Assets Relief Program. Created in October 2008 at the height of the financial crisis, it helped stabilize the economy, using only $410 billion of its authorized $700 billion. And most of that will be repaid. The Congressional Budget Office, which once projected TARP’s ultimate cost at $356 billion, now says $19 billion. This could go lower.
Vice Lord wrote: Guys..Saying the stimulus did'nt work is like saying rain doesn't make you wet..If you dropped the money outta airplanes it would work. Money pumped into the economy can't not work...All you can say for sure is that we put 100's of billions into the economy and we are still in a resession. You can say it wasn't enough, but you can't say it did'nt work..The money, for the most part, is in the economy. I wish we could say the same for the trillion dollar Bush Bank Bailout
Problem being that QE1 and QE2, the printing of money which depressed the value of the dollar, is the money that is now in the economy. That depressed value of the currency is why a barrel of oil still hovers around $100 per barrel. $100 USD today, after QE1 and QE2, will only buy what $70 USD did before the Treasury gave the OK to the Fed to monetize $2 Trillion of the excessive federal spending. That pretty much means that we printed the money necessary for TARP, SwindleUs and about another $500 Billion of the deficit spending - lowering the value of everyone's savings, everyone's earnings and driving up the cost of goods and services for everyone at a time when they could least afford that inflation.
Edited to add:
It isn't like saying rain doesn't make you wet. It's more akin to piddling down someone's neck and telling them it's raining.
The Viking wrote: Failed $870 Billion dollar Stimulus bill that Obama laughs about?
244 - 188. ALL Dems voted for that failure and waste! And even 11 Dems voted against it! Again another $870 billion on the Dems.
Less than $200 million of that was in FY2009.
200million! Are you kidding! Thats nothing!? And you think that shoulda pulled us outta a depression?
I had no idea Dr Evil was posting here.
Ridiculous!
I posted my correction over 45 minutes before you posted this. It was part of the post you quoted, but you chose to leave it out. And now you deny it was even there?
pineinthegrass wrote: You start with a faulty arguement which we hear from many of the conservative talking heads.
The 2009 deficit was about $1.4 trillion, but that fiscal year began October 1st, 2008 which is nearly four months (1/3rd of the entire year) before Obama even took office. That was a budget signed of by George Bush, not Obama. So 1/3rd of the the year is gone before Obama even steps a foot in office and you are giving Obama all the blame?
Here is an article from the Cato Institute about it, and they are a pretty conservative organization (credit to them for being honest about it)...
What is unavoidable is that the deficit went from a downward trend the last few years of Republican control of Congress and the White House to an out of control upward trend once control of Congress, and later the White House as well, was transferred to the Democrats. Yes, Bush did sign TARP and might technically be saddled with that increase to the deficit, but there is a problem with doing that. That bill was passed by Congress with both Obama and McCain signing off on it first. Both of them had the opportunity to voice opposition to enacting it and thus prevent it from going forward, perhaps Obama more so than McCain given that both houses of Congress were controlled by his party at that time.
But all of that ignores the reality of why TARP was necessary to begin with, which was the realization that Freddie and Fannie were on the hook for making good on the mortgage securities that they had sold to these financial institutions as assets and it was the full faith and credit of the federal government that was the entity that was responsible for making good on those guarantees. Fannie had a leverage ration in excess of 20:1, Freddie was tickling 70:1 - and those numbers didn't include what they were on the hook for all of the mortgage backed securities they had guaranteed using the full faith and credit of the US government.
Without the guarantee issued with the full faith and credit of the US government for a private company, there would have been no sub-prime bubble waiting to burst in the first place. It was that guarantee issued by the federal government that gave Wall Street the ability to take such risks to begin with. What the federal government did in essence was tell Wall Street that they would ultimately guarantee any money they walked up to the roulette table and plunked down on 17 Black if they lost it and that Wall Street could keep the money if the ball landed on that number. What's to lose under that scenario? That's why TARP had to be passed - to protect the full faith and credit of the US government who foolishly guaranteed the securities issued by a couple of GSE's more greedy than all the rest of Wall Street combined.
As I've just posted above, you'll see I agree TARP was necessary, even though it added hundreds of billions to the FY2009 deficit. But in the end, most of it will be paid off.
I still do look at TARP as Bush's bill, because as I recall he pushed for it very hard, and obviously he signed it (he wanted the bill so it doesn't matter to me what the vote in Congress was, it's the President that takes the credit or blame). So I'll give him responsibility for the 2009 deficit, but also credit for a bill that I think did help prevent a depression from happening.
