Paul Ryan - Stimulus Cash Advocate

[knapplc]

One of my favorite things is how these politicians think that their activity is untraceable. The instant they forget it, we're supposed to forget it. But there are records everywhere. (Incidentally, this is one of the reasons I love The Daily Show - they are masters at dredging up videos of politicians acting other than they profess to believe)

 

Ahem.... Mr. Ryan:

 

Presented With Letters, Ryan Admits Requesting Stimulus Cash

 

After repeated denials, Paul Ryan has admitted he requested stimulus cash even after sharply criticizing the program.

 

As recently as Wednesday in Ohio, Mitt Romney's running mate told ABC's Cincinnati affiliate, WCPO, he did not.

 

"I never asked for stimulus," Ryan said. "I don't recall… so I really can't comment on it. I opposed the stimulus because it doesn't work, it didn't work."

 

Two years ago, during an interview on WBZ's NewsRadio he was asked by a caller if he "accepted any money" into his district. Ryan said he did not.

 

"I'm not one [of those] people who votes for something then writes to the government to ask them to send us money. I did not request any stimulus money," the congressman answered.

 

But as we've now learned, Ryan did write letters. He did request stimulus funds.

[krill]

I didn't take any stimulus money, well maybe I took some. The stimulus was a big fail that didn't create any jobs, besides the 7000 jobs in my district.

 

At least the scrutiny of the presidential politics circus sheds a little bit of light on these clowns that are incapable of going a single day without wading knee deep in hypocrisy and outright lies.

[zoogs]

Oops.

 

At the same time, as bad as he looks for making pretty much the opposite claim, it is hard to blame him. What is going to do, given that the stimulus is there and going through...not request some, to the detriment of his constituents?

[lo country]

What do you expect. He is a politician. He does what he can do to assure he keeps his constituents happy (gets re-elected). Basically, IIRC the govt has released approx 3 TRILLION dollars in spendulus monies between GW and BO.

 

That sad thing is it has failed under both do do anything to truly help the economy.

[sd'sker]

the fact that the stimulus was controversial is crazy. and it was successful. i do not know if people remember how many jobs we were hemorrhaging at that time, but it was biblical, apocalyptic. the stimulus reversed that trend (although slower, but recovering the economy from the catastrophe of 2008 is like making a u-turn in a tanker).

any president would have passed that stimulus, unless they wanted the nation to completely collapse.

[sd'sker]

Stimulus history lesson

 

oh, and even reagan passed a stimulus:

Midway through his first term, economic conditions did improve. Reagan's stimulus package resulted in decreased inflation and increased employment.

[Mavric]

Stimulus history lesson

 

oh, and even reagan passed a stimulus:

Midway through his first term, economic conditions did improve. Reagan's stimulus package resulted in decreased inflation and increased employment.

It was Carter's fault - Reagan inherited a bad economy.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Just in case

[Mavric]

the fact that the stimulus was controversial is crazy. and it was successful. i do not know if people remember how many jobs were were hemorrhaging at that time, but it was biblical, apocalyptic. the stimulus reversed that trend (although slower, but recovering the economy from the catastrophe of 2008 is like making a u-turn in a tanker).

 

any president would have passed that stimulus, unless they wanted the nation to completely collapse.

So the stimulus was the only variable in the economy?

[sd'sker]

Stimulus history lesson

 

oh, and even reagan passed a stimulus:

Midway through his first term, economic conditions did improve. Reagan's stimulus package resulted in decreased inflation and increased employment.

It was Carter's fault - Reagan inherited a bad economy.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Just in case

i lol'd. that was pretty awesome.

[sd'sker]

the fact that the stimulus was controversial is crazy. and it was successful. i do not know if people remember how many jobs were were hemorrhaging at that time, but it was biblical, apocalyptic. the stimulus reversed that trend (although slower, but recovering the economy from the catastrophe of 2008 is like making a u-turn in a tanker).

 

any president would have passed that stimulus, unless they wanted the nation to completely collapse.

So the stimulus was the only variable in the economy?

is it now?

[lo country]

Here is a list of where the monies went to.

 

http://www.propublica.org/special/the-stimulus-plan-a-detailed-list-of-spending

 

Here is a list of what companies still owe the US taxpayers

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/26/bailout-taxpayers_n_1233374.html

http://business.time.com/2012/01/30/the-neverending-bailout-the-u-s-is-still-owed-133-billion-from-crisis-fund/

http://projects.propublica.org/bailout/list

 

Here is how much we lost on GM

http://www.forbes.com/sites/louiswoodhill/2012/08/15/general-motors-is-headed-for-bankruptcy-again/

 

Solyndra loss

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444508504577591220910671702.html

 

I see no way that the stimulus was effective. Keep in mind the US spent 3 TRILLION dollars of US taxpayers money between GW and BO. Real unemployment is now at approximately 15% (to include previous full time now part time)

 

http://www.investorplace.com/2012/06/the-real-unemployment-rate-is-nearly-15/

 

53% of recent college grads under or unemployed

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/04/53-of-recent-college-grads-are-jobless-or-underemployed-how/256237/

 

Again, there are numerous factors that play into the economy, but for me, looking at the total expenditures vs the current unemployment rate, the amount still owed, businesses not paying back, banks still required to execute risky loans etc..... The spendulus accomplished nothing.

[lo country]

Stimulus history lesson

 

oh, and even reagan passed a stimulus:

Midway through his first term, economic conditions did improve. Reagan's stimulus package resulted in decreased inflation and increased employment.

 

What is going on now is in complete contrast to Reagans "Voodoo Economics".

 

RR

Lower taxes for Corporations

Increase defense Spending

Lower Social Programs spending

Deregulation of Domestic Markets

"Trickle down theory"

 

I hope you are not trying to compare his economic plan with that of Obama. Conjuring his name does not him Reagan make.

 

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/r/reaganomics.asp#axzz23rQnk7lf

1983 article about RR

http://www.nytimes.com/1983/07/01/business/achievements-but-failures-too-for-reaganomics-economic-analysis.html

Long, but good read on Reagans plans

http://www.ontheissues.org/celeb/Ronald_Reagan_Budget_+_Economy.htm

 

We, AMERICANS, IMO need more guys like RR to step up and run. I just don't know anyone close.

[Mavric]

the fact that the stimulus was controversial is crazy. and it was successful. i do not know if people remember how many jobs were were hemorrhaging at that time, but it was biblical, apocalyptic. the stimulus reversed that trend (although slower, but recovering the economy from the catastrophe of 2008 is like making a u-turn in a tanker).

 

any president would have passed that stimulus, unless they wanted the nation to completely collapse.

So the stimulus was the only variable in the economy?

is it now?

You're the one who made the claim that "Reagan's stimulus package resulted in decreased inflation and increased employment." That doesn't seem to leave any room for anything else to have caused decreased inflation and increased employment. I would argue to the contrary but I was just wondering if you could defend your assertion.

[sd'sker]

the fact that the stimulus was controversial is crazy. and it was successful. i do not know if people remember how many jobs were were hemorrhaging at that time, but it was biblical, apocalyptic. the stimulus reversed that trend (although slower, but recovering the economy from the catastrophe of 2008 is like making a u-turn in a tanker).

 

any president would have passed that stimulus, unless they wanted the nation to completely collapse.

So the stimulus was the only variable in the economy?

is it now?

You're the one who made the claim that "Reagan's stimulus package resulted in decreased inflation and increased employment." That doesn't seem to leave any room for anything else to have caused decreased inflation and increased employment. I would argue to the contrary but I was just wondering if you could defend your assertion.

the point i was trying to make was that using a stimulus to boost the economy should not be controversial as it is common practice to help a lagging economy. further more, i do not believe it to be a failure, but with so many variables in an economy (as you pointed out) it is hard to fairly judge its effect, but just to flat out say it is a failure is unfair. also, that was the title of the article, not my claim, although i see that was unclear now.

[strigori]

Stimulus history lesson

 

oh, and even reagan passed a stimulus:

Midway through his first term, economic conditions did improve. Reagan's stimulus package resulted in decreased inflation and increased employment.

 

What is going on now is in complete contrast to Reagans "Voodoo Economics".

 

RR

Lower taxes for Corporations

Increase defense Spending

Lower Social Programs spending

Deregulation of Domestic Markets

"Trickle down theory"

 

I hope you are not trying to compare his economic plan with that of Obama. Conjuring his name does not him Reagan make.

 

http://www.investope...p#axzz23rQnk7lf

1983 article about RR

http://www.nytimes.c...c-analysis.html

Long, but good read on Reagans plans

http://www.ontheissu...t_+_Economy.htm

 

We, AMERICANS, IMO need more guys like RR to step up and run. I just don't know anyone close.

Bailing out the auto industry was a different thing than the 'stimulus'

 

FYI, corporations paid higher taxes then than they do now. And Investment income was taxed at a much higher rate than it is now also. Neither of which have any effect on anything beyond the stock market. The stock market, and most of the business traded there are doing very well. Are they hiring? Nope. No demand for more products. But by layoffs, wage cutting and using more part time workers they make more money. So proposing doing more that feeds in to stock prices and investment will do absolutely nothing to create jobs. A case in point, HP recently posted better than expected earnings. Their next action? Law off thousands of workers. Which Romney then praised.

 

The economy will only grow when people are spending more money in local businesses. Only then will businesses need to order more inventory and hire more workers.