DNC Chair: It’s Baloney to Say the Stimulus Didn’t Work

Spread the love

Loading

DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz told reporters today, “The “mantra that the Recovery (stimulus) Act did not work is such baloney,”.”

It depends on what your definition of “work” is.

The stimulus worked so well that the Obama White House managed to triple the US deficit Obama’s first year in office… And, his second year in office… And, his third year in office.

The Obama deficit this year is expected to reach $1.29 trillion. (The Captain’s Comments)

Read more

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of

13 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

As a woman I will say that I am totally embarrassed that I am of the same gender as that idiot.

Sometimes I wonder if they actually believe what they say.

The stimulus worked so well that the Obama White House managed to triple the US deficit Obama’s first year in office… And, his second year in office… And, his third year in office.

A surge in the federal deficit was locked in before the end of 2008. The Bush White House was officially projecting a record 2009 deficit as early as July 2008. The extent of that surge was greatly increased due to federal revenue losses resulting from the 2008 recession, which proved to be far worse than the Bush White House predicted.

@Hard Right, #2:

Sometimes I wonder if they actually believe what they say.

Sometimes I wonder at how readily conservatives believe what they hear–particularly when the message changes.

Listen closely to Rick Perry during the republican debate tonight. I’ll give you 5 to 1 odds that since last week Social Security is a Ponzi scheme will have morphed into Adjustments need to be made to Social Security to make sure it’s there for younger workers.

Ummm greg, the largest increase in the deficit happened thanks to stimulus. It’s not even debatable that it’s on the heads of the dems and obama.
Second, saying SS is a ponzi scheme and wanting to reform it isn’t necessarily contradictory.

@Hard Right, #4:

Second, saying SS is a ponzi scheme and wanting to reform it isn’t necessarily contradictory.

A “Ponzi scheme” can be tweaked into a fiscally sound retirement insurance program? A few adjustments can transform the “unconstitutional” into something constitutional? A “monstrous lie” can be turned into something working people can put their faith in?

@Greg:
Depends on how it’s “reformed”.

Today Obama had a very sympathetic audience for his Rose Garden announcement that the Congress should ”pass this bill right away.”
At the 5:15-5:35 mark on this video you can hear Obama claim that his bill is completely paid for…..and you can hear these supporters LAUGH at him for making that claim.

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7380793n

Greg: A “Ponzi scheme” can be tweaked into a fiscally sound retirement insurance program?

No, Greg. A ponzi scheme should only translate to a jail sentence.

Any reform that has been proposed is to ween off the younger generations while the current beneficiaries, and those too close to drawing benefits (thereby having no time to reverse the effects of stolen money for the Ponzi Scheme) remain intact. Guess Congress will just have to give up their personal piggy bank, cash in the IOU chits in that bogus “lock box”, and start shrinking the size of their agencies and help to pay for it.

As a matter of fact, the accurate pigeon holing of SS as a Ponzi Scheme has not been limited to conservatives over time. Allow Stanley Kurtz at the NRO to walk you thru a bit of liberal history. Including many of those who admit it’s a Ponzi Scheme, but thought it was a demographically workable Ponzi Scheme. The father of that notion is liberal economist and Nobel laureate Paul Samuelson, who used the Ponzi theory to defend Social Security in a Newsweek 1967 article.

Eleven years later, he wrote another for Newsweek, recanting his own model as workable reality, but still defending the idea of SS.

You’ll find a few more revelations in there, Greg. At least these liberals are honest about the structure of the program, even tho they so desperately want it to work.

Which of course, this historical overview of liberal ponzi scheme confessors makes me want to ask you… would you like to revise your comment changing messages and beliefs below?

Greg #3 : Sometimes I wonder at how readily conservatives believe what they hear–particularly when the message changes.

Or will you use as your defense that you never heard the original message – that SS is a Ponzi scheme – from liberal lips prior to this?

A surge in the federal deficit was locked in before the end of 2008. The Bush White House was officially projecting a record 2009 deficit as early as July 2008. The extent of that surge was greatly increased due to federal revenue losses resulting from the 2008 recession, which proved to be far worse than the Bush White House predicted.

The projected deficit for 2009 was $482 billion, Greg. I believe the final was actually $458 billion. I might also add that it was the Pelosi/Reid chambers who controlled the purse strings since 2007… so if they didn’t like the spending, they had full power to not appropriate, as is their Constitutional authority. But I digress….

The real deficit for 2009 was more like $1.4 trillion… a difference of $918 billion more, if we use the higher number estimated, and not the actual lower number.

So your excuse is the US took in $918 billion dollars less in revenues due to the recession?

Math still ain’t your strong suit… almost as bad as your tarot card abilities, Greg.

2008 total direct federal revenue in billions: 2,524.0
2009 total direct federal revenue in billions: 2,105.0

hummm… $419 bil, not even half the increase in that year’s deficit.

Gee.. what else happened? Oh that’s right… ARRA.

The CBO had anticipated about $120 billion of the full ARRA would be spent by the end of 2009. But of course, with some “accounting”… i.e. $14 billion in payments for health insurance premiums of unemployed workers, but those payments were ultimately recorded as a reduction to federal revenues (instead of as federal outlays, as the CBO initially assumed)…. the federal agencies reported spending about $108 bil.98. Ironically, over half of that ($54 billion) was attributable to two programs… Medicaid and unemployment insurance alone. Another $13 billion was a “one time”payment to that solvent, non-ponzi scheme (/sarc), Social Security.

One can understand why there was so little “shovel ready”, save for the verbal BS type shoveling.

But wait… we’re still missing $391 billion, Greg. Where’s the money? In addition to the ARRA, in 2009 Obama had more stimuli…. $275 bil for the Homeowners bailout in Feb (waste of cash that one…), $30 bil in March to AIG plus $15 bill for lenders to encourage small business loans. How’s that work out for you? That accounts for another $320 bil in “stimulus” that was anything but stimulating.

But wait, March was a particularly prolific spending month for Obama, because that’s when he and Geithner got together for the $1 trillion dollar “toxic asset” bank/notes buyout.

All are toxic mortgages are gone now, right? uh no…. just have more, and most with the taxpayer’s wallet on the line.

Oh yes.. rounding out March was GM and Chrysler’s bailout, illegally using Obama’s half of the TARP funds that he had released within the first week of his presidency. TARP was for financial institutions only… but definitions don’t mean much here.

Here’s the bottom line, Greg. You can’t lay off the increased spending to the Bush/Pelosi/Reid spending, for a budget that wasn’t even approved until after Obama took office. That year alone was almost a trillion dollars higher, and it sure wasn’t because of what happened between July and Dec of 2008.

@Nan G, or perhaps they are laughing at Obama’s instructions to Congress to pass a bill he hasn’t sent to them. But I understand that’s deliberate. He wants to “campaign” on the do nothing Congress (i.e., not passing a bill he doesn’t send to them) a bit before he sends it to them.

Either way, this guy must think the electorate is as dumb and gullible as it was in 2007 and 08.

@MataHarley:
So, basically, Obama can’t decide whether he wants to channel FDR or Truman (who nicknamed the 80th Congress the ”Do Nothing Congress.”)
LOL!

LOL, Nan G…. well, I heard on this afternoon’s news blurbs from an Obama speech that he said he sent the bill to Congress today. Haven’t found a copy of the tome online yet. But haven’t had time to look, either. Guess he and his handlers figured they won’t get much mileage out of complaining about non passage of a bill never received. Just like you can’t pass those trade agreements without them being sent on either.

And, of course, Obama finds floor debate “optional” in his pressing schedule.

@Greg:
thanks, Greg.
I note on page 6 (Section 5) Obama is keeping his economy destroying Davis-Bacon Act.
BO (Before Obama) the Davis-Bacon Act only applied to a few construction-type jobs.
Obama applies it to everything where one thin dime of public money goes into the project.
It alone is why so few homes ever got weatherized despite all the money to such programs.

On page 30 Obama grants 4 Billion toward high speed rails.
LOL!
CA’s little two cow-town connecting rail would cost way more than that!
It remains to be seen if Jerry Brown puts aside a dime for it since the $43 billion matching fed money is not ever going to happen.

No page cite but Obama wants to take even more money out of money that goes into Social Security so as to give workers a little tax break right now.
This is really stealing from Peter to pay Peter.
The average worker is younger than 50.
The money they are getting into their pockets now is money Social Security won’t have later.
Dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb!