Our Sponsors
____________________
Note: Comments are moderated so be sure that your responses are expressed in a respectable and friendly way. We are here to express our thoughts toward controversial issues, not to scold or defame anyone. Watch what you say, and remember that by using this site, you agree to our Terms Of Use and Privacy Policy.
Yes. It would've tanked.
Completely unprovable. Liberals say yes. Conservatives say no. There is no evidence to back up one claim without finding evidence of the others. This is totally a throw of the dice.
Based on what?
Based on what?
In any case, the stimulus package is not TARP, which was supposedly targeted at fixing the financial system. This question is asking about something unrelated to the financial system, so the answer is no.
Actually many conservatives at the time said yes on TARP (keep in mind it was Bush-Paulson who did the thing) and have subsequently said no when it was politically useful to do so (ie, populist opposition emerged).
I happen to think they are wrong at both times. They should have said no initially, the economy would not have tanked (but some very large banks would have), and now their intransigence serves no purpose because the money was already distributed.
Wasnt it created to make shure our country wouldnt go into another depression?
The so-called stimulus package was nothing but a political payoff for the organizations that financially backed the Obama run for POTUS. It has stimulated nothing but his political cronies and their wallets.
How? GM is now owned by the unions (almost 60%), SEIU got all their huge retirement packages funded, and all those foreign banks got repaid for the money they loaned to finance his political ads and hollywood style gatherings.
If you believe anything else just means that you drank the coolaid along with all those sheeple who voted for him.
The way you recover from a recession or depression is for government to get out of the way and let businesses do what they do best . . . when one fails, another is always in the wings to take its place.
FDR's New Deal did nothing but prolong the "great depression" for almost ten years – and it would have lasted well into the Fifties hadn't WW2 come along. We would have faired much better without his new deal, and we would have done just fine without the Obama "Spendulous Package".
Supposition…. you cannot prove that the New Deal didn't ease what could have a worse economical situation. You cannot prove that the WPA programs didn't keep families from starving because they had jobs rather than not. Furthermore you cannot contest that the depression would have lasted into the 50's without WW2 because it didn't and you have no metrics to support your claim that it would have…..
This entire debate is subjective opinion.
There are reasonable economic studies that say FDR's various policies, particularly his monetary policies, extended it by a few years when most other Western economies were recovering (albeit sometimes slowly). Britain's economy had basically recovered well ahead of ours for example, though US policies on the gold standard and on free trade did not help them much either.
The fact that there was a second and separate serious depression in 1937-8 when FDR suddenly reversed many of his policies during a tepid, but positive, recovery in the mid-30s also says quite a bit.
But so far as WW2 ending it or it lasting another decade, or the utility of the WPA and other Keynesian projects (some worked, some did not), we're dealing with seriously wild counterfactuals and not science there.
So the stimulous package is there only to help obama? How selfish…..:@
Politically speaking, yes. Economically speaking, it was actually there to enrich favored interests, though only some of this is Obama's fault (Congress is fond of doing such things when it spends money).