Here’s how the stimulus turned things around

Whatever you do, don’t allow this video to fall into the hands of a right-wing Republican.

It will only confuse the hell out of him (or her) and lead to mindless babbling about bowing to dictators, apologizing for America, destroying religious freedom, hating capitalism, disrespecting the flag, waging class warfare and conspiring to sap us of our precious bodily fluids.





  1. We have added more mostly temporary, mostly public sector jobs, from the 11 trillion tax dollars allocated for stimulus and bailouts which were passed at the end of Bushes term and at the beginning of Obama’s, and under a Democratic controlled House and Senate.

    it is not unimportant that the public sector has grown to account for most of that ‘good economic news’ while the private sector required to pay for it has shrunk significantly.

    Think of the green and yellow graphs together. Not good.

    Realize we are broke, and this is borrowed and printed money.

    Remember as well that those who are sliding off rolls, and thus are not counted officially in the Unemployment figures, are not finding jobs. They are sliding onto the welfare rolls. Participation in the food stamp program was 7.3 million in 2006 and was 46.5 million at the end of 2011. {http://frac.org}. That’s unprecedented in this country.
    Real Unemployment is recognized to be much higher than government figures show, particularly among young people. Many not eligible for unemployment benefits.

    Remember this our and childrens money.


  2. I don’t know where you got your 7.3 million number, but it is bogus and implies that the increase is all due to Omaba’s policies. The facts are that food stamp participation has increased by 14.2 million people under Obama’s administration, slightly less than the 14.6 million increase under George Bush and is due to the economic downturn that started under Bush.

  3. Bush was still in Office in 2006, Jerry. I am using the time frame from the video, which is 2006 to the end of 2011. My source is at the end of the sentence, frac.org. Their nicely laid out data is sourced to the usda. I used their site because they make it easy for you to click and see the data for each year. And they’re numbers are good. I’ve seen them before. Off the top of my head in 2008, the number of snap recipients is 31 million. I may be a bit off but not by much. You can check for yourself.


  4. Sorry, they’re should be their!! My apologies.

  5. Participation in the food stamp program at the end of 2006 was 31.4 million, not 7.3 million, according to your source.

  6. My apologies, Jerry. We’ve both written the wrong number.

    At the end of 2006, the number of snap recipients is 26,million . It was’ up’ 7.3 million.
    In 2008 , it is 31 million. At the end of 2011, it is 46.5.

    It is still unprecedented.

    Once again , my apologies. I am working as I type, which sometimes takes my attention away mid-sentence. That is’t an excuse, of course. I should pay more attention. But as I do source things ….when I typo , you’ll know.

  7. You’re right, 26 not 31 million. However, even though large, I wouldn’t say it is unprecedented since the increase is smaller than occurred under Bush and is a result of the economic colapses started under Bush. And the numbers have started to go down.

  8. It is unprecedented, Jerry. And it is not going down.

    But I am noting you seem to be having a problem with the economic argument due to the fact that you are irrationally concentrating on arguments *not* found in what I wrote.

    I did not suggest that the increase began under Obama. Perphaps you are thinking of Newt Gingrich’s comment that it is Obama who is the “food stamp” president. And that is true, to a certain extent. We’ve seen more advertising and open encouragement for people to sign up. But he isn’t **the** food stamp President. He is **a** food stamp president. One of the socialists we’ve had in office, not *the Socialist* .

    Some leftists have R’s behind their names.

    Bush himself never saw a social spending program in his life he didn’t like and wasn’t willing to sign. The Republicans, who under Clinton were happy to end welfare and balance the budget, were thrown out for becoming Clinton once he was gone.

    Legislatively, there was no real difference between Obama the lying, corrupt politician and Mccain the lying corrupt politician. Except McCain would have gone slower with the continued leftward slide.

    It would help to steer the country back on course if all sides remember to rationally form opinions based on the facts, instead of ignoring facts which don’t bolster their own opinions. Only with former will your opinions be valid. {And yes, your opinion can be invalid. }
    It also wouldn’t hurt if people were angrier about being lied to than they are being told a truth they don’t like.

  9. If I were to get a new credit card with a $50,000 limit, cash advance $25,000 into savings, redo my kitchen with all new applicances and buy everything with it, I could argue my personal “stimulus” worked. My economic activity was up, I had more in savings, greater spending in durable goods as well as consumer goods. I would also have a tremendous debt.

    The fallacy of this argument is exactly the scenario I posted above. Yes, the stimulus increased economic activity. But at what cost? We don’t also have a “non-stimulus” for comparison. Would the economy have recovered with out it? How much better could the economy be?

    In 2002 it was suggested we should replace the technology “bubble” with a housing “bubble”. Keynesian economics always lead to disaster.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *