Hit the road Barack... (Page 2)

Some of the 'failures' you listed that haven't been accomplished (such as the smart grid and upgrading schools) aren't things that were included in the stimulus but then failed, they're things that were left out because of lack of support from republicans needed to pass the bill (refit and rebuild schools) or because it was felt they couldn't be done quickly and so shouldn't be part of the stimulus and shouldn't be a federal program (smart grid).

Not saying it's been a total success, and surely there's lots of things that could've been done better (not to mention Obama claiming it would keep the unemployment rate below 8% was a pretty boneheaded thing to say), but to say it didn't accomplish a single thing and has been a total failure just isn't right. 

http://thehill.com/opinion/columnists/juan-williams/212641-partisans-ignoring-stimuluss-success

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/interrogation/2012/08/the_new_new_deal_a_book_argues_that_president_obama_s_stimulus_has_been_an_astonishing_success.html

Where did I say it hasn't done a single one?  I said it has failed.  That does not mean it has not partially addressed the issues.  You can do 50% of the work but that'll still get you a F.

I think it's perfectly fair to call it a failure.  It was meant to stimulate the economy.  Based on the rate of unemployment and lack of growth of the economy I think it failed in it's purpose.

Of those $800B only $35 billion has been paid out for transportation projects. http://www.recovery.gov/Transparency/fundingoverview/Pages/contractsgrantsloans-details.aspx#Transportation

Look at the overall breakdown.  Do you really see this as a plan that addresses the statements in his speech?

We complain that now days elected officials from both sides misrepresent the truth and twist the facts to make them fit their talking points, but we do the same.

What was voted down was Obama’s Budget blue print, which was presented by the republicans, more specifically by Jeff Sessions without any policy language knowing well in advance that it wouldn’t pass the senate.  It was done exclusively as a stunt to say that Obama had failed once again.  It was just a game.

Those elected officials that we like to critisize so much (both sides) are a closer representation of their electorate than we would like to admit.

I think the problem is the expectations for what the stimulus would do have been greatly exaggerated.  Partly by the republicans pushing the idea that unless the economy has recovered 100% in 3 years, it's a failure, but also by Obama in overselling the effect it would have.  

It has most definitely has had a stimulative effect, it's just the the effect hasn't been large enough to counteract the hole we were in.  It's generally credited with creating 200-300m jobs, which sounds like a lot until you realize that we've lost something like 800m jobs overall.  It stopped the freefall, which was crucial, but it could never get us back to full employment, which somehow is what the measure of success has turned into.

I'm not sure using stimulus projects to judge whether or not Obama accomplished what he said wanted to accomplish in his inaugural speech is the right metric (although yes, I do think Obama tried to use stimulus spending to forward priorities he laid out in his speech such as the $27b for health records modernization and $60b for renewables development), but I think you pointed out a big reason why it hasn't had as big of a stimulus effect as hoped for - and that's its composition.  A big chunk of it was in aid to the states, which helped to stop the freefall, but doesn't do much in the way of stimulus or creating new jobs. The biggest chunk of the cost was in tax breaks which had to be included to get the votes from the republicans needed to pass it, and in general, tax breaks don't have as much bang for the buck as direct spending when it comes to stimulus. According to the website you posted, only a little over 1/4 of the money went to real spending, real stimulus but I'm not sure where any money could've come from to increase that.

I think realistically, the stimulus has been successful in doing what it could, it's not like it had no effect at all.  It stopped the freefall and laid the conditions for the recovery to start.  It wasn't composed of the best ways to get the most stimulus, but that's what could get passed, not what would've been ideal.  But as far as expectations...  It never would've been able to get us back to full employment yet, that's what we were sold by Obama and then the republicans.  In that way it's been a failure.  But it did what it could, it just never would've been able to do enough given how bad the crash was.

Do you know that Newsweek does not fact-check their stories and "we, like other news organisations today, rely on our writers to submit factually accurate material."

So some have taken the story to task....

Paul Krugman Bashes Niall Ferguson's Newsweek Cover Story As 'Unethical' [UPDATE]

A Full Fact-Check of Niall Ferguson's Very Bad Argument Against Obama

Well and the interesting thing is that most of the jobs that have been created have been either at the high skilled (I think the unemployment rate for college grads has been pretty low throughout the recession) or the low-skilled (service industry) sides.  Most of the middle-skill jobs are gone or going, which is more of a structural change, the recession just sped it up, and something I'm not sure anyone has really figured out how to address. 

jeeesh....lets see.....President Obama's leadership and orders got us out of Iraq, is getting us out of Afganistan, killed Bib Laden, saved General Motors and Chrysler so we wouldnt have just one US automaker, Bailed out so many so-called "equity firms" that were "too big to fail" that we cant even count them all, brought health care to folks that didnt have it so they wouldnt be a drain on the rest of us.....lets see...what else.....

Things MUST be getting good because there is a lot of AMNESIA over how things were when this man stepped into office.

You do realize that Obama has basically followed Bush's foreign policy and timetables for Iraq and Afghanistan right?  And the last time I checked we are still in Afghanistan.  Oh yeah there was that little skirmish in Libya too that we had no business involving ourselves in.

I notice Gitmo is still open.  Didn't he promise to close that day one?  And no credit to the previous admin for intel for finding Osama?  Nope, that's right Obama did it all..

Many would argue bailing out GM and Chrysler was the wrong choice.  The same goes for bailing out the banks.  (We can blame Bush for that one partly...)

I'll agree with you here Drew & Tony.  In my experience it's hard to find good engineers and highly skilled people.  I saw one study that said for technical jobs the unemployment rate is closer to 4%.  For unskilled labor (factory workers etc..) it's close to 12%.  It's a major shift in employment demographics.  And it may not ever go back to the previous balance.

It's his stimulus program.  Gov't spending is gov't spending whether you spend it on roads and bridges or whether you spend it on tanks and planes.  It's the same stimulus program Reagan used to get us out of the recession in the early 80's.

Cutting Defense is long overdue.  War in Afghanistan,  operations in Iraq, Islamic brotherhood in Egypt, a civil war in Syria that Obama is threatening to get involved in, growing Chinese military, Russian subs patrolling the Gulf of Mexico.  Yep we need to cut that massive defense budget after all it takes 24% of the federal budget to defend the United States that is 2% more than the government spends on  heath care 22% and pensions 22%.  Who needs a military anyway we need more free heath care and pensions.

http://www.usfederalbudget.us/federal_budget_detail_fy13

Bottom line is it all needs to be on the table. Period. Defense spending has always been the Right's entitlements program to the military industrial complex. We have more than an ample military to "defend the United States". I am tired of the military we have built to project our power into every corner of the world.

Now it is debatable what role that military has played post WWII and where it has got us to today. However, TODAY, we do not need to be the world police. TODAY, we can't afford to be the world security force. And China is not even in the same league as the USSR. China can nuke us economically simply by dumping our debt. Period. We would be ruined. The U.S happens to be the consumer market funding their incredible expansion. Not only that... the next WWIII will likely be fought in cyber space, not storming beaches. Our reliance on technology is one of our biggest liabilities tanks can't protect.

So TODAY, the military budget is most certainly fair game just like entitlements and government spending. Everything is fair game.

We should simply pull out of almost every country that we are in, he!!, most of the countries we have bases in do not even want us there, so close down those bases, pull the troops back and put them on our borders.  Our military is the strongest on the planet but we are too nice with it, why have all that stuff if we aren't going to use it?  Not that it matters, the way to beat the USA is simply economically, which is happening right now.

Well I don't mean to take a snap shot of today and say how silly it is. We are where we are today because of the two World Wars and the cold war with the USSR. We decided we needed to project our power overseas to protect our shores. The Cold war was a very serious threat... or at least it was played as one for decades, and we already learned we could not send enough troops and supplies over after Russia swept through Europe. So debating the merit of those decisions can be saved for another thread, but today, the same world does not exist that we spent for during the Cold War. And we do not need to keep spending right now to maintain that type of military projected all around the globe. IMO

Iraq and Afghanistan were not that big compared to historical wars, but those stretched us pretty thin. So I am not talking about gutting the military and our capabilities, but there are certainly cuts that can be made.

wow, sounds like you have all found common ground!  good job guys!

I agree that it needs to be on the table.  I also think there's probably still room to cut wasteful spending to even maintain the same military for much cheaper.

I know there was a ton of waste back when I was in the Navy (91-97).  We would buy Gerber multi-tool pliers for $100 each each through the Navy Stock System but you could go buy them at any civilian store for $60.

I'm sure some of those types of expenses have been cleaned up though because my company sells IT gear to the military and we do bid competitively and we lose the bid if we don't.  Dam capitalist economy

But, but, but, he didn't have a "perfect majority" or at least that is what one of my very good friends told me........

I don't know how someone can say that with a straight face, the bolded that is.

Could you explain exactly how he did this (the bolded part) and give me the detail on how he is funding this and it NOT being a drain on the rest of us?

Why would you ask that when it was "Obama's leadership and orders that got us out of Iraq"?

Next you are going to say that Obama did nothing but follow the plans and timeline that Bush had laid out.

It was all Bush's fault in the first place and you know it!