democrats kill virus relief bill

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

saved the auto industry - didn't it?

Then why didn't the Repubs. make some substantive suggestions?

And you're still worried about a joke Obama made 10 years ago. - Post up what he said bc it wasn't that it didn't work.

How Well It Succeeded


In a 2009 report, the CBO projected ARRA would stimulate gross domestic product by 1.4% to 3.8% for the fourth quarter in 2009.[7] The stimulus was successful in 2009 GDP. The economy grew 1.7% in the third quarter and 3.8% in the fourth quarter. That's a big improvement over the first quarter's 6.7% drop and the second quarter's 0.7% decline.[8]


In 2009, the CBO predicted that ARRA would increase employment by 7 million full-time jobs by the end of 2012.[9] By 2010, the CBO said that ARRA's policies increased the number of full-time-equivalent jobs by 2 million to 4.8 million.[10

the earlier bailouts saved the auto industry.

obama promised his stimulus would
keep unemployment below 8% (maybe he promised it would stay below 6%, can’t remember?). . after it passed, unemployment went over 10%.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

the earlier bailouts saved the auto industry.

obama promised his stimulus would
keep unemployment below 8% (maybe he promised it would stay below 6%, can’t remember?). . after it passed, unemployment went over 10%.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

the stimulus probably did far less than the Democrats in Washington would like to believe. But I also think it borders on absurd to say that it did nothing.


can see this repeating with this package when passed

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

the earlier bailouts saved the auto industry.

obama promised his stimulus would
keep unemployment below 8% (maybe he promised it would stay below 6%, can’t remember?). . after it passed, unemployment went over 10%.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So it looks like you agree it wasn't large enough. The Dems. kept lowering the $ at the suggestions (demands?) of the Repubs. and then the Repubs didn't vote for it.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

So it looks like you agree it wasn't large enough. The Dems. kept lowering the $ at the suggestions (demands?) of the Repubs. and then the Repubs didn't vote for it.

nooo, I said it didn't work as it was promised it would. Unlike liberals such as yourself, I don't assume that spending more money always makes things better.

Obama did other things that worked well. I've said 100 times I think Obama gets good grades on handling the economy. I think the recovery act was a flop, I think the empirical results, compared to promises, make that clear. More importantly is that overall he helped guide us way, way back from a horrible recession.

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

nooo, I said it didn't work as it was promised it would. Unlike liberals such as yourself, I don't assume that spending more money always makes things better.Have I ever said that?

Obama did other things that worked well. I've said 100 times I think Obama gets good grades on handling the economy. I think the recovery act was a flop, I think the empirical results, compared to promises, make that clear. More importantly is that overall he helped guide us way, way back from a horrible recession.

I showed you facts that indicated it did lower unemployment.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

I showed you facts that indicated it did lower unemployment.

Yes, you did say that. You said the fact it's flawed, means it should have been a bigger (more expensive) government program.

I never said unemployment didn't eventually go down after that act was passed. WHat I said, and I'm 100% correct, is that Obama promised unemployment would stay below 8% (or maybe 6%) if it passed, but then after it passed, unemployment went over 10%. Therefore, the program didn't come close to doing what it was touted to do.

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Yes, you did say that. You said the fact it's flawed, means it should have been a bigger (more expensive) government program.

I never said unemployment didn't eventually go down after that act was passed. WHat I said, and I'm 100% correct, is that Obama promised unemployment would stay below 8% (or maybe 6%) if it passed, but then after it passed, unemployment went over 10%. Therefore, the program didn't come close to doing what it was touted to do.

You said that "Unlike liberals such as yourself, I don't assume that spending more money always makes things better". I asked you if I ever said that? So you can't point out where I said spending money always makes things better. As you have said - How about a thread of honesty.

So it made things better but less than Obama said and that makes it a flop?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

You said that "Unlike liberals such as yourself, I don't assume that spending more money always makes things better". I asked you if I ever said that? So you can't point out where I said spending money always makes things better. As you have said - How about a thread of honesty.

So it made things better but less than Obama said and that makes it a flop?

things got better. i don’t know if things got better because of the recovery act. all i know for a fact, is that it didn’t do anywhere near what Obama promised it would, to minimize unemployment. This we know. all else is speculation.

and you said to me, in response
to the bill not working, that it wasn’t big enough, or that the feds didn’t go far enough. funny i recall your posts better than you do.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

So it looks like you agree it wasn't large enough. The Dems. kept lowering the $ at the suggestions (demands?) of the Repubs. and then the Repubs didn't vote for it.

How did the GOP have the clout to demand anything then? The dems controlled the white house, the house, and the senate.