No 2016 olympics, but the Stimulus worked...

[FNA209]

WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) -- The U.S. labor market weakened in September as 263,000 payroll jobs were lost and the unemployment rate rose a tenth of a percentage point to a 26-year high of 9.8%, the Labor Department reported Friday.
It marked the 21st consecutive month of job losses. Since the recession began in December 2007, 7.2 million jobs have been lost and the unemployment rate has doubled.

Details of the report were almost universally dismal, with the number of unemployed people rising by 214,000 to 15.1 million.
Of those, 5.4 million have been out of work longer than six months, accounting for a record 35.6% of the jobless. The employment participation rate fell to 65.2%

Okay, I lied. The Stimulus Package worked about as good as Obama's bid for the Olympics worked.

[kcso]

It's Bush's fault.

[livestrong6]

Chicago not getting the Olympic's is not a Government issue. If anything the USOC problems played a large roll in it. Trying to link Tarp to Chicago getting booted out of the running. Is just as absurd as saying ice isn't water.

[JasperST]

Someone should have told Obama the Olympics wasn't a government issue.

And who gives a flip about Michelle's dad and his health problems? Those have to be the two most narcissistic people on earth. Their act is officially wearing thin.

[BigPat]

WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) -- The U.S. labor market weakened in September as 263,000 payroll jobs were lost and the unemployment rate rose a tenth of a percentage point to a 26-year high of 9.8%, the Labor Department reported Friday.
It marked the 21st consecutive month of job losses. Since the recession began in December 2007, 7.2 million jobs have been lost and the unemployment rate has doubled.

Details of the report were almost universally dismal, with the number of unemployed people rising by 214,000 to 15.1 million.
Of those, 5.4 million have been out of work longer than six months, accounting for a record 35.6% of the jobless. The employment participation rate fell to 65.2%

Okay, I lied. The Stimulus Package worked about as good as Obama's bid for the Olympics worked.

History question: How long did it take for the economy to turn around under teh leadership of President Reagan in the 1980s?

[JasperST]

History question: How long did it take for the economy to turn around under teh leadership of President Reagan in the 1980s?http://www.heritage.org/research/taxes/bg1414.cfm

In 1981, newly elected President Ronald Reagan refocused fiscal policy on the long run. He proposed, and Congress passed, sharp cuts in marginal tax rates. The cuts increased incentives to work and stimulated growth. These were funda-mental policy changes that provided the foundation for the Great Expansion that began in December 1982.

[BigPat]

http://www.heritage.org/research/taxes/bg1414.cfm

In 1981, newly elected President Ronald Reagan refocused fiscal policy on the long run. He proposed, and Congress passed, sharp cuts in marginal tax rates. The cuts increased incentives to work and stimulated growth. These were funda-mental policy changes that provided the foundation for the Great Expansion that began in December 1982.

You still failed to answer the question. How long did it take for the economy to turn around under President Reagan? Look it up and get back to me on that one.

As to Reagan's fiscal policy, I don't see how it would work in the present climate, seeing as the top marginal tax rates are nowhere near what they were in 1980. Entitlements have also increased dramatically since that point, so without addressing entitlement spending, tax cuts would simply worsen our deficit situation. The Heritage foundation also forgot to mention how Reagan stimulated the economy with deficit spending (mostly in defense) in addition to doing so with tax cuts.

[JasperST]

You still failed to answer the question. How long did it take for the economy to turn around under President Reagan? Look it up and get back to me on that one.Let's see...from early 1981 to December 1982...hmmm. I guess that's too vague?:confused:
As to Reagan's fiscal policy, I don't see how it would work in the present climate, seeing as the top marginal tax rates are nowhere near what they were in 1980. Entitlements have also increased dramatically since that point, so without addressing entitlement spending, tax cuts would simply worsen our deficit situation. The Heritage foundation also forgot to mention how Reagan stimulated the economy with deficit spending (mostly in defense) in addition to doing so with tax cuts.This again is where reading comes in handy. It says:

"HOW DID REAGAN'S POLICIES AFFECT FEDERAL SPENDING?

Although critics continue to focus on President Reagan's budget "cuts," federal spending rose significantly during the 1980s:

*

Federal spending more than doubled, growing from almost $591 billion in 1980 to $1.25 trillion in 1990. In constant inflation-adjusted dollars, this was an increase of 35.8 percent.6
*

As a percentage of GDP, federal expenditures grew slightly from 21.6 percent in 1980 to 21.8 percent in 1990.7
*

Contrary to popular myth, while inflation-adjusted defense spending increased by 50 percent between 1980 and 1989, it was curtailed when the Cold War ended and fell by 15 percent between 1989 and 1993. However, means-tested entitlements, which do not include Social Security or Medicare, rose by over 102 percent between 1980 and 1993, and they have continued climbing ever since.8
* Total spending on all national security programs never equaled domestic spending, even when Social Security, Medicare, and net interest are excluded from domestic totals. In addition, national security spending fell during the Administration of the senior President Bush, while domestic spending increased in both mandatory and discretionary accounts.9 (See Chart 1.)"

[kc12]

As to Reagan's fiscal policy, I don't see how it would work in the present climate, seeing as the top marginal tax rates are nowhere near what they were in 1980. Entitlements have also increased dramatically since that point, so without addressing entitlement spending, tax cuts would simply worsen our deficit situation.

There were many more deductions and "loopholes" back in the early 80's also. So the tax rate might be lower now, but so are the deductions. The end result is a less complicated tax system with about the same revenue collected. Our system is still very complicated and needs to be simplified a lot more, but that would take a lot of power out of the Congress and we all know that isn't going to happen no matter who is running the show. Personally I like the idea of a national sales tax on retail sales only (no VAT tax). If you are on welfare then you can be given a card that allows all purchases to be rung up tax free.

I do agree that non-essential spending needs to be cut. For a good list of essential items that must not be cut look at the Constitution. If the program is not specifically listed there, it is on the table for spending cuts. I agree with the pay-go bill that was passed, but as usual Congress and the POTUS are screwing up a good idea, by not applying it to EVERY bill passed, no exceptions, period.

[phillyrube]

The IOC is RACIST!!!!! They turned their backs on Obama, Ms Obama, and Oprah......

[livestrong6]

Someone should have told Obama the Olympics wasn't a government issue.

And who gives a flip about Michelle's dad and his health problems? Those have to be the two most narcissistic people on earth. Their act is officially wearing thin.

It's to show support for your countries bid. The leaders from every country attended the voting. President Obama by news articles was the first head of state to leave.

About the story the first lady had. The Olympics is always filled with those stories. Every year you hear about some athlete's brother was sick and told him to win the gold or something like that. It's nothing different!

[livestrong6]

It's to show support for your countries bid. The leaders from every country attended the voting. President Obama by news articles was the first head of state to leave.

About the story the first lady had. The Olympics is always filled with those stories. Every year you hear about some athlete's brother was sick and told him to win the gold or something like that. It's nothing different!

Oh and to add,

IOC member Denis Oswald of Switzerland cited the USOC instability as a problem and said it was his impression "this was a defeat for the USOC, not for Chicago."
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-olympics-hersh-04-oct04,0,7643606.column

[SRT936]

Oh and to add,

IOC member Denis Oswald of Switzerland cited the USOC instability as a problem and said it was his impression "this was a defeat for the USOC, not for Chicago."
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-olympics-hersh-04-oct04,0,7643606.column

When you get right down to it, Rio was the choice for the 2016 Olympics LONG before the official decision. Short of Brazil collapsing into total anarchy, there was no chance for Chicago to get it, even with high-powered star power behind the USOC's bid (I'm talking Oprah, not Obama.... ;)).

[JasperST]

It's to show support for your countries bid. The leaders from every country attended the voting. President Obama by news articles was the first head of state to leave.

About the story the first lady had. The Olympics is always filled with those stories. Every year you hear about some athlete's brother was sick and told him to win the gold or something like that. It's nothing different!What's your evidence that the leaders were there representing their country? What's Obama's leaving first have to do with it? Michelle's dad is entering into the Olympics?

They should have medals for mental gymnastics.

[livestrong6]

When you get right down to it, Rio was the choice for the 2016 Olympics LONG before the official decision. Short of Brazil collapsing into total anarchy, there was no chance for Chicago to get it, even with high-powered star power behind the USOC's bid (I'm talking Oprah, not Obama.... ;)).

Well, In the Olympic community, Pele is a bigger star then Oprah. I would totally agree with you. Like the article I linked in my previous comment. The IOC can take credit for helping improve the way of Life in Rio.

[livestrong6]

What's your evidence that the leaders were there representing their country? What's Obama's leaving first have to do with it? Michelle's dad is entering into the Olympics?

They should have medals for mental gymnastics.

Each of the four cities vying for the bid will have a head of state at the vote. Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama of Japan was the final leader to confirm his travel plans, with the announcement made Monday, shortly after Mr. Obama’s. Almost immediately, I.O.C. members and others questioned the necessity of having top leaders drop everything to make the trip.

In a teleconference last week, Jacques Rogge, the I.O.C. president, said it was an honor — not a requirement — that the cities have their country’s top leaders at the vote.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/29/sports/29olympics.html?_r=1

Each bid has brought its stars. President Barack Obama is flying in Friday morning. Spain has King Juan Carlos I. Japan has Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama. Brazil has President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva.


http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/02/sports/02iht-OLY.html?scp=4&sq=&st=nyt

In Copenhagen, the Spanish prime minister, José Luis Rodr�*guez Zapatero, told Reuters: “Rio was a great candidate. We put up a great fight.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/03/sports/global/03madrid.html?scp=1&sq=&st=nyt

Come on really? do some research! Tony Blair has gotten a lot of press for his role in London winning the 2012 olympics.

[Southflaguy]

Why would Obama go all the way out to Copenhagen, keep in mind we're talking about the 2016 games, the next Olympics (2012) are going to be held in London...Either way Obama will not be the president come 2016, even if he wins re-relectoion...It seemed like a personal business...Had it just been Michelle I wouldn't have cared, it would have been a pet project for the 1st lady, no problem...

[kcso]

Seriously, who really cares about the Olympics?

[Taylor13]

http://i37.tinypic.com/u261i.gif

[FNA209]

Chicago not getting the Olympic's is not a Government issue. If anything the USOC problems played a large roll in it. Trying to link Tarp to Chicago getting booted out of the running. Is just as absurd as saying ice isn't water.

Cherry pick Obama’s performance all you like. The fact is he and his administration has used TARP as one of his achievements. They frequently issue reports saying it worked. It hasn’t. Now he invested his office in the attempt to bring the 2016 Olympics to Chicago.

So, he attempts to take credit for TARP. He owns it. It failed. He decides to use his celebrity status to beg for the games. It failed.

You want to count his failures in the “government arena” separate from his failures from different arenas, fine, we’ll do that. But both issues are failures and as such, are ice and water. Same thing- failures.

History question: How long did it take for the economy to turn around under teh leadership of President Reagan in the 1980s?

That isn’t the point. Nice try to explain why TARP didn’t do what they said it would do. Re-read what Congress, Obama and members of his administration said about TARP and what amazing effect it would have. Go back to February. Now look what it did. Any questions?

[livestrong6]

Cherry pick Obama’s performance all you like. The fact is he and his administration has used TARP as one of his achievements. They frequently issue reports saying it worked. It hasn’t. Now he invested his office in the attempt to bring the 2016 Olympics to Chicago.

So, he attempts to take credit for TARP. He owns it. It failed. He decides to use his celebrity status to beg for the games. It failed.

You want to count his failures in the “government arena” separate from his failures from different arenas, fine, we’ll do that. But both issues are failures and as such, are ice and water. Same thing- failures.



That isn’t the point. Nice try to explain why TARP didn’t do what they said it would do. Re-read what Congress, Obama and members of his administration said about TARP and what amazing effect it would have. Go back to February. Now look what it did. Any questions?

All I have to say is hear you go! http://zapatopi.net/afdb/

An Aluminum Foil Deflector Beanie (AFDB) is a type of headwear that can shield your brain from most electromagnetic psychotronic mind control carriers. AFDBs are inexpensive (even free if you don't mind scrounging for thrown-out aluminium foil) and can be constructed by anyone with at least the dexterity of a chimp (maybe bonobo). This cheap and unobtrusive form of mind control protection offers real security to the masses. Not only do they protect against incoming signals, but they also block most forms of brain scanning and mind reading, keeping the secrets in your head truly secret. AFDBs are safe and operate automatically. All you do is make it and wear it and you're good to go! Plus, AFDBs are stylish and comfortable.

Look into this if you need to.

[BigPat]

Let's see...from early 1981 to December 1982...hmmm. I guess that's too vague?:confused:


That was my mistake, in my haste I missed that your citation gave a date at the end.

The point that I was trying to bring out was that under Reagan's economic policies, which conservatives claim was successful (I agree), it took until after the midterm elections in 1982 for the recession to end. Unemployment did not subside until mid-late 83. Yet the same folks who claim Reagan's policies as successful have already declared Obama's policies a failure, when only about half the time has elapsed that it took for Reagan's policies to work. It seems as if we have quite a double standard here.


This again is where reading comes in handy. It says:

"HOW DID REAGAN'S POLICIES AFFECT FEDERAL SPENDING?

Although critics continue to focus on President Reagan's budget "cuts," federal spending rose significantly during the 1980s:

*

Federal spending more than doubled, growing from almost $591 billion in 1980 to $1.25 trillion in 1990. In constant inflation-adjusted dollars, this was an increase of 35.8 percent.6
*

As a percentage of GDP, federal expenditures grew slightly from 21.6 percent in 1980 to 21.8 percent in 1990.7
*

Contrary to popular myth, while inflation-adjusted defense spending increased by 50 percent between 1980 and 1989, it was curtailed when the Cold War ended and fell by 15 percent between 1989 and 1993. However, means-tested entitlements, which do not include Social Security or Medicare, rose by over 102 percent between 1980 and 1993, and they have continued climbing ever since.8
* Total spending on all national security programs never equaled domestic spending, even when Social Security, Medicare, and net interest are excluded from domestic totals. In addition, national security spending fell during the Administration of the senior President Bush, while domestic spending increased in both mandatory and discretionary accounts.9 (See Chart 1.)"

Yes, Reagan utilized deficit spending to stimulate the economy.

[BigPat]

That isn’t the point.


Sure it is. Reagan's policies took two years to turn the economy around in the early 1980s. Yet you write off Obama's policies as a failure in less than half that period of time.



Nice try to explain why TARP didn’t do what they said it would do. Re-read what Congress, Obama and members of his administration said about TARP and what amazing effect it would have. Go back to February. Now look what it did. Any questions?

1) The TARP program was originated by Henry Paulson and President Bush (who deserve the credit for its' success if it turns out successfully).

2). While TARP has had its problems, it did prevent a systemic collapse of the financial and banking systems like happened during the Great Depression.

If you look at some of the triggers for the financial meltdown that occurred during the Great Depression. they were actually significantly worse in the current recession. If you compare the monetary policy in reaction to the Great Depression to current monetary policy, it is obvious that the policy was much more effective this time around.

In an economic liquidity crisis like teh current one, the givernment needs to spend money and to maintain low interest rates and a loose monetary policy. Despite all of the government spending, there was no inflation, there was actually a slight deflation last year. If the government had not taken the measures that it did we most certainly would have had a disastrous cycle of deflation.

Certainly the TARP program and the stimulus package were far from perfect in their execution. That being said, those programs generally did what needed to be done economic policy wise.

[FNA209]

Sure it is. Reagan's policies took two years to turn the economy around in the early 1980s. Yet you write off Obama's policies as a failure in less than half that period of time.



It's easy to write it off. He lies about what it did.

Feb 2009: Obama signs Stimulus Bill: “We expect you the American people to hold us accountable to the results,” Obama says, referring to the stimulus package. He points out that Americans can go to the Internet to track how the money is being spent.”

Funny- still can't do that. The government doesn't even know if it can account for the distributed money. So, big fail- he didn't do what he said he'd do. Since we have no accountability, prove the money helped.... anything.

May 27, 2009 - US President Barack Obama said Wednesday his mammoth 787 billion dollar stimulus plan had saved or created 150,000 jobs in the first 100 days since it cleared Congress.

Can't prove it. As a matter of fact, a report from that time showed "the latest monthly government snapshot shows the US unemployment rate rose to 8.9 percent in April with 539,000 jobs lost in the month." And the Obama administration could not show where the 150,000 jobs were. Empty rhetoric- another fail.

April 2009: WASHINGTON - U.S. President Barack Obama said on Monday that thousands of major infrastructure projects being undertaken as part of his economic stimulus plan were ahead of schedule and under budget.

"What is most remarkable about this effort ... isn't just the size of our investment or the number of projects we're investing in. It is how quickly, efficiently and responsibly those investments have been made," Obama said.

"This government effort is coming in ahead of schedule and under budget," he said.
"Because these projects are proceeding so efficiently, we now have more recovery dollars to go around, and that means we can fund more projects, revitalize more of our infrastructure, put more people back to work," he said.


Again there is no proof of those claims. At the same time he made them, various government sources said they were unable to explain the progress, or lack thereof, of the stimulus package. The GAO is unable to substantiate anything when it comes to the money being spent.

July 2009: Dodd along with some other Democrats state: "The stimulus isn’t working- we need a second package."

Another 800 billion should do it. :rolleyes:

Christina Romer in August- "After we administered the medicine, an economy that was in free fall has stabilized substantially, and now looks as though it could begin to recover in the second half of the year. The timing and strength of this change is highly suggestive that the stimulus has been important."

Except we are not recovering and the economy is posed to take another big hit. Plus, we are in the second part of the year and were in it when she spoke. The second part of the year is six months long. What improvement is there? Or maybe she meant the second part of the second part of the year. Or maybe the second half of the second half of next year. ;)

Back in July, Larry Summers, a White House adviser, assures us that Google searches for “economic Depression” have gone down. So obviously, the stimulus package is working. :confused: In August, the now Former Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers says a fiscal stimulus program must be added to the $700 billion financial bailout to prevent the economy from sinking into a deep morass.

The first package didn't work, we need to spend more.

So Obama and all his crew say it worked and it hasn't. They lied. Of course, they lied when they promoted the package and lied to get it passed, so I don't suppose we should hold it against them when they lie about the success of it. The failure, which I am sure you will ignore since you refuse to admit he failed, is in the lies. He sold the package based on hope. Hope wasn't strong enough. Now the economical impact is rearing its debt-heavy, non-payable head.

You want to give it two years. Fine, in two years, the deficit will be due. Who pays that and how does paying what will have to be higher taxes help the economy? Or are we just going to print more fake money and make believe nothing is wrong?

[JasperST]

That was my mistake, in my haste I missed that your citation gave a date at the end.

The point that I was trying to bring out was that under Reagan's economic policies, which conservatives claim was successful (I agree), it took until after the midterm elections in 1982 for the recession to end. Unemployment did not subside until mid-late 83. Yet the same folks who claim Reagan's policies as successful have already declared Obama's policies a failure, when only about half the time has elapsed that it took for Reagan's policies to work. It seems as if we have quite a double standard here.

Yes, Reagan utilized deficit spending to stimulate the economy.Unemployment numbers are still going up, businesses still closing down. Yet, we are told it's a successful policy.:eek: Also Reagan had to make concessions to get the military funding with his Democrat congress. That explains much of the spending. But only a fool looks at that and assumes that's what turned the economy around. How is that possible? It was business productivity and growth, that increased income, not spending. We now have much higher levels of spending without growth in the private sector. You didn't understand what they were saying. You need to read the whole thing, not just the portions you like.

[E3CSHARP]

The country just lost the olympics and people are happy? America lost the olympics and people are celebrating? The hatred continues to get exposed even when it is something that would benefit the country. Thank goodness there is the internet for the international community to see the mentality of some Americans. Hate for Barry so much that if the country fails anything its a victory. ..... Pitiful.

[Outshined]

I think the bigger issue here is that he should have been dealing with Afghanistan instead of pulling his johnson trying to get the olympics in Chicago. There are pressing issues this man needs to be on top of this wasn't one of them.

[Southflaguy]

The country just lost the olympics and people are happy? America lost the olympics and people are celebrating? The hatred continues to get exposed even when it is something that would benefit the country. Thank goodness there is the internet for the international community to see the mentality of some Americans. Hate for Barry so much that if the country fails anything its a victory. ..... Pitiful.

Some people are not happy the US lost the Olympics...Hey we didn't get the Olympics no big deal, the MLB playoffs are about to start and the NFL season is getting good, that how most sport fanatics are saying/thinking...

Keep in mind we're talking 2016 Olympics not the 2012 Olympics, thats 7 years away...I don't know about you, but I hope the economy in this country is so good (come 2016) that the Olympcs would just be an after thought...

And yes Obama has bigger issues to deal with, he doesn't seem have his priority straight...

Brazil probably would need it more then us...

[1042 Trooper]

I think the bigger issue here is that he should have been dealing with Afghanistan instead of pulling his johnson trying to get the olympics in Chicago. There are pressing issues this man needs to be on top of this wasn't one of them.
X2 Chief. It's about symbolism and his priorities. In a word, they are mighty misguided. Sorely misdirected. Badly flawed. Absurdley misinformd. Woefully inept. Oh wait a minute ...

I guess once again my blatent racism is showing. Just ask Livestrong. He'll back me up on this. I have him convinced. And he's a mighty smart lad!

And just when I had figured out how to appear fair and balanced. Dayum.

[JasperST]

The country just lost the olympics and people are happy? America lost the olympics and people are celebrating? The hatred continues to get exposed even when it is something that would benefit the country. Thank goodness there is the internet for the international community to see the mentality of some Americans. Hate for Barry so much that if the country fails anything its a victory. ..... Pitiful.That's your view, not everyone else's. It's possible that long term there would be an economic benefit to hosting the 2016 Olympics but it's not certain by any means. What is certain is that it would be a huge financial investment and not at a very good time. Regardless of who's in the White House. Shouldn't be recover the economy somewhat before we spend even more money?

Maybe those international readers already know that those making the charges are often the worst offenders.

[1042 Trooper]

We've lost money every time we've hosted. Without exception. NOT GOOD FOR THE COUNTRY - NOT NOW.

[Outshined]

General Stanley McChrystal told CBS reporter David Martin in a television interview that aired Sunday on 60 Minutes that he’s only spoken with the President once in the 70 days since being appointed by Obama to oversee our efforts in Afghanistan.

Remember that during the 2008 campaign and at the start of the Obama Administration the focus was on making Afghanistan the highest priority national security issue.

Come on people, should our President really be worrying about where the Olympics will be held.

[Taylor13]

The country just lost the olympics and people are happy? America lost the olympics and people are celebrating? The hatred continues to get exposed even when it is something that would benefit the country. Thank goodness there is the internet for the international community to see the mentality of some Americans. Hate for Barry so much that if the country fails anything its a victory. ..... Pitiful.

You know, there are a lot more issues affecting the world outside of what you hear on NPR. Such as our military getting their butts handed to them, because we've got a President that has AD-DUH and thinks the olympics are more important than dealing with A WAR.

[Outshined]

You know, there are a lot more issues affecting the world outside of what you hear on NPR. Such as our military getting their butts handed to them, because we've got a President that has AD-DUH and thinks the olympics are more important than dealing with A WAR.

It is amazing to me that a 14 year old kid has more smarts than most of the other posters I read on this forum, oh wait, no it's not. +2 Taylor.

[Taylor13]

Thanks Chief, I get tired of the dribble that comes out of the libs every once in a while, and have to put my foot down before it gets too out of hand :D

[SRT936]

I think the bigger issue here is that he should have been dealing with Afghanistan instead of pulling his johnson trying to get the olympics in Chicago. There are pressing issues this man needs to be on top of this wasn't one of them.

Libs love to point out how Bush waited 7 minutes after the 9/11 attacks. Where's the outrage over Obama hemming and hawing for months over a decision for Afghanistan? :rolleyes:

[Outshined]

Libs love to point out how Bush waited 7 minutes after the 9/11 attacks. Where's the outrage over Obama hemming and hawing for months over a decision for Afghanistan? :rolleyes:

I hear you, 7 minutes is nothing, he STILL has not made the move.

[E3CSHARP]

Some people are not happy the US lost the Olympics...Hey we didn't get the Olympics no big deal, the MLB playoffs are about to start and the NFL season is getting good, that how most sport fanatics are saying/thinking...

Keep in mind we're talking 2016 Olympics not the 2012 Olympics, thats 7 years away...I don't know about you, but I hope the economy in this country is so good (come 2016) that the Olympcs would just be an after thought...

And yes Obama has bigger issues to deal with, he doesn't seem have his priority straight...

Brazil probably would need it more then us...

The country I am sure will be in better shape by then nothing has ever stopped our progress.

[kc12]

The country I am sure will be in better shape by then nothing has ever stopped our progress.

...but then agan we've never had the socialists in charge either.


Just thought I'd finish your sentence for you.:D

[ray8285]

The country I am sure will be in better shape by then nothing has ever stopped our progress.

Olympics, economically, are short term gains with long term losses. NO country has ever had long term financial gain because of the olympics. The host cities spend millions, if not billions now, on building sites which after the games most are rarely if ever used.

[Southflaguy]

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2009/10/chicago-olympics-michelle-obama.html


What Michelle Obama told the International Olympic Committee about her Chicago (and father)

MRS. OBAMA: President Rogge, ladies and gentlemen, Mesdames et Messieurs of the International Olympic Committee: I am honored to be here.

I was born and raised on Chicago's South Side, not far from where the Games would open and close. Ours was a neighborhood of working families -- families with modest homes and strong values.

Sports were what brought our community together. They strengthen our ties to one another.

Growing up, when I played games with the kids in my neighborhood, we picked sides based not on who you were, but what you could bring to the game. Sports taught me self-confidence, teamwork, and how to compete as an equal.

Sports were a gift I shared with my dad -- especially the Olympic Games.

Some of my best memories are sitting on my dad's lap, cheering on Olga and Nadia, Carl Lewis, and ...


... others for their brilliance and perfection. Like so many young people, I was inspired. I found myself dreaming that maybe, just maybe, if I worked hard enough, I, too, could achieve something great.

(UPDATE: Michelle Malkin did some calendar-comparing right here and figured out that Mrs. Obama was 20 years old when Carl Lewis first competed in the Olympics.)

But I never dreamed that the Olympic flame might one day light up lives in my neighborhood.


But today, I can dream, and I am dreaming of an Olympic and Paralympic Games in Chicago that will light up lives in neighborhoods all across America and all across the world; that will expose all our neighborhoods to new sports and new role models; that will show every child that regardless of wealth, or gender, or race, or physical ability, there is a sport and a place for them, too.

That's why I'm here today. I'm asking you to choose Chicago. I'm asking you to choose America.

And I'm not asking just as the First Lady of the United States, who is eager to welcome the world to our shores. And not just as a Chicagoan, who is proud and excited to show the world what my city can do. Not just as a mother raising two beautiful....

[BigPat]

Unemployment numbers are still going up, businesses still closing down. Yet, we are told it's a successful policy.:eek: Also Reagan had to make concessions to get the military funding with his Democrat congress. That explains much of the spending. But only a fool looks at that and assumes that's what turned the economy around. How is that possible? It was business productivity and growth, that increased income, not spending. We now have much higher levels of spending without growth in the private sector. You didn't understand what they were saying. You need to read the whole thing, not just the portions you like.

Again you miss the point, It took two years into Reagan's term for the economy to grow again, and it was several months after that before unemployment subsided. Yet you are writing Obama's policy off as a failure when only half as much time has elapsed.

BTW government spending does stimulate the economy, just as tax cuts and loose monetary policy do. In a liquidity crisis (i.e. the current recession) Government spending will most likely have a larger stimulative effect than tax cuts.

[BigPat]

oops wrong topic

[JasperST]

Again you miss the point, It took two years into Reagan's term for the economy to grow again, and it was several months after that before unemployment subsided. Yet you are writing Obama's policy off as a failure when only half as much time has elapsed.

BTW government spending does stimulate the economy, just as tax cuts and loose monetary policy do. In a liquidity crisis (i.e. the current recession) Government spending will most likely have a larger stimulative effect than tax cuts."Most likely"? Based on what? I'm basing my view on history, I don't know what yours is based on.

http://www.uspolicy.com/ch3empl.htm
The comparison of the performances of Reagan and Carter on employment supports the results of the comparison of their performance on the basis of GDP. To assess the relative performances of the two presidents, trend changes and averages for both unemployment and employment growth rates must be compared. Carter recorded good employment growth, although he presided over a sizeable reduction in that growth, 2.6 percentage points. Reagan's average employment growth rate was slightly less than Carter's, 2.0 vs. 2.2 percent, although his performance was aided, to some degree, by his increase in the growth rate of employment, 1.0 percentage point. With respect to the unemployment rate, Carter ended with a high rate of unemployment of 7.6 percent, and averaged 6.7 percent for his administration. Reagan's average unemployment was, however, higher at 7.3 percent, although he reduced the unemployment rate more than any other president, 2.3 percentage points. Reagan's high average unemployment was mainly due to his first two years in which unemployment averaged 9.7 and 9.6 percent.

In summary, with Reagan's better performance with respect to the unemployment rate and comparable performance on employment growth, his overall employment performance was superior to that of Carter.

[BigPat]

"Most likely"? Based on what? I'm basing my view on history, I don't know what yours is based on.

http://www.uspolicy.com/ch3empl.htm
The comparison of the performances of Reagan and Carter on employment supports the results of the comparison of their performance on the basis of GDP. To assess the relative performances of the two presidents, trend changes and averages for both unemployment and employment growth rates must be compared. Carter recorded good employment growth, although he presided over a sizeable reduction in that growth, 2.6 percentage points. Reagan's average employment growth rate was slightly less than Carter's, 2.0 vs. 2.2 percent, although his performance was aided, to some degree, by his increase in the growth rate of employment, 1.0 percentage point. With respect to the unemployment rate, Carter ended with a high rate of unemployment of 7.6 percent, and averaged 6.7 percent for his administration. Reagan's average unemployment was, however, higher at 7.3 percent, although he reduced the unemployment rate more than any other president, 2.3 percentage points. Reagan's high average unemployment was mainly due to his first two years in which unemployment averaged 9.7 and 9.6 percent.

In summary, with Reagan's better performance with respect to the unemployment rate and comparable performance on employment growth, his overall employment performance was superior to that of Carter.

What relevance does this have to our discussion? I never claimed that Carter had a more effective economic policy than Reagan. If anything. you are just supporting the idea that Reagan's deficit spending worked in terms of stimulating the economy.

[JasperST]

What relevance does this have to our discussion? I never claimed that Carter had a more effective economic policy than Reagan. If anything. you are just supporting the idea that Reagan's deficit spending worked in terms of stimulating the economy.But Reagan did much more than spend money to stimulate the economy, he rose the GNP significantly by reducing the punitive tax on business, etc. See the post earlier. That's the point that can't get through your filters. Obama is headed into the same direction as Carter and we are going to end up with double digit inflation and probably the return of the misery index.

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/07/29
Obama Faces Carter/Clinton Parallels

by Robert Parry

After six months in office, Barack Obama’s presidency reveals striking parallels not only to Bill Clinton’s troubled first term, but to Jimmy Carter’s only term. And, how those dangers are reappearing show that the Democrats and American progressives have learned little over the past 30 years.