While the stock market is showing signs of revival, the only reason for this is because of the natural pattern of the free market, not because of Obama's stimulus. The unemployment rate is despicable, and I hope that if/when it goes back up, people realize it was because it was bound to get better as our economy strengthened on its own, without the help of any BS stimulus package. Attention all promoters of the Stimulus package--go take an Econ 101 class and learn that THEY DON'T WORK.
>> Ugh Friday, August 7, 2009 10:00 AM

I am going to keep checking this website to make sure this is up even as the job numbers start to go up and it will show how many jobs were created after the stimulus bill signed. It is unfortunate that you won't give credit. The economic GDP numbers for Q2 2009 showed the largest push for jobs came from government spending meaning the stimulus. To believe that this turn is natural up and down is wrong because it would have fallen further.
>> Max Friday, August 7, 2009 11:16 AM

LEARN FROM HISTORY: In the 1930s Herbert Hoover pushed for the government to not intervene. Subsequently, we got into the Great Depression. FDR came around and established the New Deal which pushed government stimulus like never before. That stimulus agenda pushed us out of the Great Depression. And today, we loo up to FDR more than Hoover or the economist Keynes (pushed govt stimulus in recessions) rather than Milton Friedman (pushed for no government intervention).
>> Max Friday, August 7, 2009 11:23 AM

LEARN FROM HISTORY MAX: the U.S. did NOT get into the Great Depression as a result of Hoover's decision to not intervene into our economy; the U.S. economy crashed in 1929 as a result of citizens' buying on the margin with no actual capital to back up their purchases. Furthermore, the U.S. did not emerge from the Great Depression because of the ill-wrought New Deal; we got out of the Great Depression because of World War II, which gave Americans more jobs than any government-run stimulus could have, Max. The next time you try to give someone a history lesson, you should probably go read up on some history yourself.
>> Ugh Friday, August 7, 2009 11:40 AM

Oh UGH: The New Deal brought tons of jobs. Vouchers that were passed by the government helped as well. And most of all Ugh, if you are going to say that the war pulled us out, then you are countering your own ideals. The war forced the government to put more people into work, how? By producing guns, tanks, airplanes, etc. That is GOVERNMENT SPENDING whether it was used for war, or whether you put money in to create wind farms, highways, bridges,etc. It was government money. So your comment still proves that government spending is what brought us out of the Great Depression. :) You are in denial that the theory is successful.
>> Max Friday, August 7, 2009 11:49 AM

Max, I would direct you here-http://www.atr.org/stimulus-economics-historical-case-study-a3628-The United States, under President Hoover, rapidly increased government spending in real terms by over 70% between 1930 and 1932 (from $2.7b to $4.7b, adjusted for deflation), despite revenue collapsing by over 40% ($3.3b. to $1.9b, adjusting for deflation). The goal? Stimulating the economy.
>> Maximillian Friday, August 7, 2009 11:59 AM

Another note, people buying stocks on margin, THEN having the govt. retroactively increase the amount of holdings required, thus leading them to sell off stocks to increase their monetary holdings, is what caused the sudden crash in '29...govt intervention
>> Maximillian Friday, August 7, 2009 12:04 PM

Unbelievable ignorance from Max. Take a look at the data. GDP growth did not grow until the war. Roosevelt's socialist economics sustained low-economic growth until the war. It kept people in the dark ages of America. When the National Recovery Act was passed, 40,000 workers lost their jobs on the first day it was enacted and over half of Puerto Rico lost their jobs. Don't read your crazy history book and expect a historian to tell you what an economist needs to tell you. That's ignorant. The minimum wage kills jobs. Government spending crowds out private sector. Tariffs prevent trade. Roosevelt send the US to hell.
>> Conservative Tom Friday, August 7, 2009 12:07 PM

Govt spending to protect our country is completely different from govt spending on economic stimulus plans that DON'T WORK. As defined by our founding fathers, one of the responsibilities of the govt is to preserve the peace, which FDR did when he declared war on the Axis powers after Pearl Harbor was bombed. FDR's decision to enter into World War II is completely irrelevant to his decision to rectify the country's economic depression. I am in no way saying that when someone attacks the U.S. that the govt should not retaliate; I am, however, saying that the govt should allow the economy to recover on its own, which it is bound to do. You are in denial about what actually went on in our country's history.
>> Ugh Friday, August 7, 2009 12:14 PM

Ugh, It is completely erroneous to compare to another countries' numbers, maybe in percentages but definitely not in numbers. Why? Because, the Great Depression really started here. Even during this recession, the problem came from our nation. So, we are the ones that will take the biggest hit and have to take the biggest measures. f my house burned down, and you lived 3 houses down you would suffer from the smoke that my house is causing, but there isn't much you can do. However, when it all clears I am left with paying the most money to clean up my mess, because my house burned down. The article should have at least brought percentages but they are trying to prove their views here.
>> Max Friday, August 7, 2009 12:16 PM

How can you say that defense spending helps but the current stimulus won't. I agree the govt did the right thing to protect us, but the current stimulus has a more long term economic effect than the war did. Sure we are not part of Nazi Germany, but today clean energy helps our lungs, new roads and rails help move people and goods faster that helps our economy grow further. There is no difference. Actually this govt spending gives us a bigger buck in the long run.
>> Max Friday, August 7, 2009 12:20 PM

Conservative Tom, To say that people lost their jobs the day the stimulus was signed doesn't even make sense, I shouldn't even reply to it because it is a wacko comment. I am all open for a good share of ideas. C'mon. You know it couldn't save jobs the same day it was signed, stop drinking the conservative Kool-aid, and keep an open mind. Secondly, the GDP numbers that just came out don't lie, government spending pushed those numbers, the private sector actually dropped it. So this is not about leave it alone it was getting better all by itself, it wasn't getting better without govt at all.
>> Max Friday, August 7, 2009 12:29 PM

The only thing I will agree with anyone here is that the deficit is a problem, and that Obama needs to do something about it. (If he can drop it at a good pace by 2012 I might consider voting for him) However, to say that government spending after the latest GDP numbers or after seeing what happened when Lehman Brothers failed without the govt jumping in to help like it has with other banks is crazy. Facts are facts, government even helped ease Wall Street which was going down the drain. Two months ago we were talking about disaster you can agree we all are starting to talk about recovery. Whether you like it or not credit goes to Obama for it, because it came faster than leave-it alone market forces would have brought it.
>> Max Friday, August 7, 2009 12:35 PM

I am not going to dignify your ill-guided, Liberal ignorance any more. Like I said, go take an Econ 101 course, maybe you'll change your mind on whether a stimulus package actually does anything for an economy.
>> Ugh Friday, August 7, 2009 12:39 PM

Ugh I took Econ 101 and 4 other classes in Economics. The problem here is not theory is accepting the facts. You don't want to accept the fact that government spending helped after the great depression. That counts the expenditures by the government for WW2. You still don't want to give credit to the theory, and that means you are too embedded in your politics. If you or the Republicans want to win again you have to accept economic principles and not just fiscal ideals, that don't always prove right, you have to be able to mold, but then again the party is still led by only whites, and as a white American that makes me embarrassed.
>> Max Friday, August 7, 2009 1:16 PM

As an African-American Conservative Republican, you should really think again before bringing race into a discussion about GOVERNMENT SPENDING. Furthermore, technically the Republican party is led by Michael Steele, who is also an African-American, so no, Max, the Republican Party is not led by Whites. I got 99 problems but a Lib ain't one!
>> Ugh Friday, August 7, 2009 2:30 PM

First of all I did not bring the two things together. I said the Republicans should mold their agenda and not base it on ideals. Was Clinton being a real Democrat spender when he brought the deficit to a surplus? I brought in race as to say that Republicans to this day do not control the majority of the African American or the Latino vote. Sure there are people of those races that vote Republican but the party has not done a good job making it a fair game. Again, because it is so closed in its approach to problems and can't progress.
>> Max Friday, August 7, 2009 2:39 PM

"The economic GDP numbers for Q2 2009 showed the largest push for jobs came from government spending meaning the stimulus." I'm not sure what this is supposed to prove. The government could declare everyone a public employee tomorrow and pay them $50 a day if they wanted. That wouldn't mean the economy was actually getting better. Government can't create economic wealth. It can only misallocate it.
>> Corry Friday, August 7, 2009 3:03 PM

Max, While the temptation is strong to correct your economics, I will defer that to Ugh and, rather, correct your grammar. If you want your ideas to be taken seriously, you may consider proofreading your posts. If, however, you are not as confident in your proficiency with the English language as you are in your ability persuade the rest of us with your, brilliant, Keynesian ideas, allow me to help. 1. "another countries' numbers" - I believe "another" refers to a single country. "Countries" would imply more than one. Maybe that's just nit-picking. Here's a good one:
>> Disgusted Friday, August 7, 2009 3:08 PM

2. "If you or the Republicans want to win again you have to accept economic principles and not just fiscal ideals, that don't always prove right, you have to be able to mold, but then again the party is still led by only whites, and as a white American that makes me embarrassed." What are you even saying here? I think I know, but I had to read this sentence several times to make any sense of it. Is it a run-on? Possibly. How about using a few periods in place of all those commas? And then this one:
>> Disgusted Friday, August 7, 2009 3:11 PM

3. "However, to say that government spending after the latest GDP numbers or after seeing what happened when Lehman Brothers failed without the govt jumping in to help like it has with other banks is crazy." Get to the point, Max. You lost me after "numbers". Pare down your sentences, Max. It will make it easier for everyone to read them (and then to refute your misguided logic.) Thank you, English speakers everywhere
>> Disgusted Friday, August 7, 2009 3:15 PM

What in the world are you saying? How can you "mold an agenda" and NOT base it on ideals? That doesn't even make sense! Political agendas are in existence because of ideology. Your arguments are completely off base. Typical liberal--you have no idea what you're talking about and are trying to impress socialism upon everyone. And I agree with Disgusted, you really need to brush up on yo gramma skillz.
>> Ugh Friday, August 7, 2009 3:19 PM

I like pumpkin pie.
>> Peter-Pumpkin-Eater Friday, August 7, 2009 7:29 PM