The argument for a larger Stimulus, doesn't hold water.


As it became more undeniable in recent weeks that Obama's Stimulus Economy is a spectacular failure, Liberals went into spin gear claiming that if only the Stimulus was larger, if only it was $1.2 trillion as Ms. Christina Romer wanted, things would have been great.
It may sell for a talking-point, but let's look at three points:


1) Until recently, Dems pointed out how "worse" things could have been if not for the Stimulus - despite the fact that the Stimulus promised great times, not "could have been worse" times. Regardless, the Stimulus - according to the Left - was a success because things could have been worse. Therefore one would wonder, why the need for the recent spin?


2) If the initial $800 billion Stimulus gave us despair (during the first twelve Stimulus months, we lost way more jobs than the amount lost in the twelve months leading up to the Obama/Dems win in November 2008), why should we think that increasing the Stimulus by 50% would have given us a flourishing economy?

3) The Stimulus was indeed more than $1 trillion! If you add up all the "jobs bills" that the Dems passed and pushed through since the original Stimulus (and if you also add up the additional in-budget spending that the Dems gave us under the name of "fixing the economy"), you easily pass the $1.2 trillion mark. This little fact renders as junk the spin that if only we had a $1.2 trillion Stimulus, all would have been great.

 

As always, facts don't matter to some when it gets in the way of their agenda and ideology...



As it became more undeniable in recent weeks that Obama's Stimulus Economy is a spectacular failure, Liberals went into spin gear claiming that if only the Stimulus was larger, if only it was $1.2 trillion as Ms. Christina Romer wanted, things would have been great.

It may sell for a talking-point, but let's look at three points:


1) Until recently, Dems pointed out how "worse" things could have been if not for the Stimulus - despite the fact that the Stimulus promised great times, not "could have been worse" times. Regardless, the Stimulus - according to the Left - was a success because things could have been worse. Therefore one would wonder, why the need for the recent spin?


2) If the initial $800 billion Stimulus gave us despair (during the first twelve Stimulus months, we lost way more jobs than the amount lost in the twelve months leading up to the Obama/Dems win in November 2008), why should we think that increasing the Stimulus by 50% would have given us a flourishing economy?

3) The Stimulus was indeed more than $1 trillion! If you add up all the "jobs bills" that the Dems passed and pushed through since the original Stimulus (and if you also add up the additional in-budget spending that the Dems gave us under the name of "fixing the economy"), you easily pass the $1.2 trillion mark. This little fact renders as junk the spin that if only we had a $1.2 trillion Stimulus, all would have been great.

 

As always, facts don't matter to some when it gets in the way of their agenda and ideology...


RECENT VIDEOS