[img]http://www.washingtonpost.com/rf/image_6...HEeC4Lb8lBMZ5GQ[/img]

That ain't all ya got is it Hank?

A graph with a hypothetical track?

Exactly how is it possible to know what would have happened without the stimulus?

I'll tell ya... it ain't.

Voting the "lesser" of two evils got us Gov G. Liking that are you? How far in debt do you have to go before you give it up? I know...you got yours, right? Screw the kids. BTW, Obama IS the 1%.

The red lines at the top are updated and real...the other "hypothetical track" is from the chart released by the Obama administration from a report by economists Christina Romer and Jared Bernstein on the impact of the stimulus, showing projected unemployment with and without the proposed spending bill.

Failed policy or not failed policy?

Ten reasons O Man is out

Not.

The funny (or not so funny) thing about the graph I put up is the "hypothetical track" that shows unemployment without the "stimulus" spending. By this time, according to the graph, the unemployment rate should be right around 6%.

That begs the question, which of the current Obama policies are keeping unemployment higher than he projected?

Not happy with ANY politician right now, but no one can tell you where we would be with the alternative.
I have not spent any money that I did not earn and President Obama was not a 1%er until after he became President and wrote a book.
The Bilderberg group, banksters, hedge fund managers and the other 1%ers et al have been at the trough for far too long and have cost us many times over and above what the GOP claims are "entitlements".

Interesting thing about Polls is that whom ever pays for them will always come out on top...


Fishy

The extended bush tax cut policy.

Gohardley is still washing Huessin balls...laffin'

hehehehe

Hank and Sol Duc:

Does that mean without the Bush tax cuts, government could create more jobs?

If that's the case, wouldn't cancelling all of the Bush tax cuts, up and down the line, help the government create even more jobs?

Eliminating the bush tax cuts would significantly reduce the national deficit, which would have a positive effect on consumer's anxiety about spending money, which would create demand for products, which would cause businesses to produce more products, which would justify them hiring people to produce those products, which creates jobs.

Pretty simple, really.

A balanced story .
Dont be too put off by the chart below, the article shares the responsibility.

Eliminating all of the Bush tax cuts would add around $1.3 trillion in revenue to the govt. That would just about make up for the deficit this year but would do nothing to eliminate debt.

Yeah, that's what I said: ..significantly reduce the national debt. I don't see the word eliminate in my above post.

But you just keep workin' on that deflection thing you got goin' on.

This has been discussed here before, but there's a difference between the amount of debt added during a president's time in office, and whose policies are responsible for that debt.

Semantics. Let me make it clear enough so that even you can understand it. With the elimination of all the Bush tax cuts, federal revenue would increase by approximately $1.3 trillion. We have a spending deficit that exceeds that amount. A reduction of the national debt under that scenario isn't possible.

Overly simplistic by either your ignorance or naivety. Nice deflection.