Perhaps. But conservatives tend to think that liberals love just spending money they don't have when historically that has never been the case. I, for one, would love to see us have zero debt and zero deficit. But again, without massively cutting the budget in certain areas (defense as well as some quasi-social programs) and raising taxes that won't happen. Conservatives have a fit if taxes are raised 1 cent on the wealthiest .000000001% of America and they won't touch defense spending, so here we are. Both the extreme left and extreme right will eventually bankrupt the country and then we can all go looking for real estate in Shanghai (I mean, whomever isn't killed in the next civil war).
The NEA grants are a part of the stimulus. I think that was the reason for his answer. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/200...-obscene-programs-funded-nea-stimulus-grants/
The total amount in the stimulus package allocated to the NEA was slightly less than $50 million. barfo
He quoted "hundreds of millions"..there are not hundreds of millions going towards the NEA. So either he was incorrect or he mis-spoke. I don't support stimulus money going to the NEA for non-job related grants and I'm sure there are other examples of stimulus money that shouldn't have been spent but I maintain that the bulk of the stimulus money is warranted.
Right. And I still maintain it's warranted. I haven't said "it absolutely worked" and you haven't said "it absolutely hasn't worked". But that wasn't the original point.
It hasn't absolutely worked. Obama and his finance wizards forecast that without the stimulus bill, the situation would be actually better than it is now. Where does the buck stop?
Let's be fair. His administration now claims they didn't realize the extent of the problem. Of course, I see this as an admission of incompetence, but that's me.
This graph was making the rounds on the various economists' WWW sites/blogs. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJu0DgpiK8c
But you said... Please give me a link to Obama stating this before the stimulus. Please identify Obama's "finance wizards" and where they made this statement. A graph running around some website doesn't really do much for me with such bold claims being thrown around. You also said "the situation" - are you now wishing to refine your statement to "only unemployment"????!?!?!?!? Are you one of the unemployed? Because that would be the only way I could see how "the situation" as "unemployed" would relate to you.
Watch the video. It has a clip of Obama in his own words. That lots of people are unemployed is a serious downer to everyone, including the employed. By his own figures, the economy (jobs-wise) would be better off without that stimulus package. How about a link to an oregon paper? http://oregonbusinessreport.com/200...-obama-jobless-predictions-off-by-29-million/ Here's a link that mentions Obama's economic advisors, Rohmer and Bernstein, along with how miserably the administration and the stimulus has failed. It's an economist's blog. That was in May, and unemployment is 9.7% and rising. http://www.econinternational.com/bl...ions-off-by-almost-3-million/#ixzz0FL5yGKVG&A But jobs aren't the only story. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0709/24899.html That story from February warns about Obama's too rosy predictions on GDP growth and deficits. FWIW, he recently upped his projected 10 year debt accumulation from $7T to $9.somethingT
$50 million has been allocated to the NEA, of which $5 million has been spent. If you want to claim that hundreds of millions will be allocated to the NEA in the future, go ahead. Let's see a link. barfo
Good. Let's keep it at that and demand our money back. Are you disagreeing with the general idea, or being nitpicky that I mis-remembered the exact numbers? The point is that this "stimulus" package did NOT prevent a worldwide economic meltdown and global apocolypse. If you want to blindly support your leader and all his actions, go ahead. Don't let reality get in the way.
I am disagreeing with the general idea that the NEA funding is relevant, and yes, being nitpicky that $50 million is not the same as "several hundreds of millions of dollars". Is that really being nitpicky? So make that point. The NEA has very little to do with the truth or falsehood of that claim. barfo
It is called an "example". Read through the "stimulus" package for more like it. It isn't my job to read it to you.
Ah, the "maxiep" gambit. Yes, it's not your job to do my research for me. Luckily, I can and have already done the research myself. That's why my numbers were right. Unlike yours. So, good thing it isn't your job to read it to me. barfo
Apparently it's nobody's job to read it. It was passed less than 16 hours after being passed in committee. Anybody defending the bill is doing it out of a postion of ignorance, just as anybody criticizing it is. I'll take the side being critical of a $787 billion bill that nobody read before voting on every day of the week.
You seem to have read for memorization, not comprehension. You remembered the exact 50million number, but don't comprehend why it is absurd.
