The Failure of Obama's Stimulus

Big spending has only produced bigger government.

No one spends money like the federal government. This year alone, it will shovel out $3.7 trillion, which works out to $7 million a minute. So it may surprise you to find out the clearest lesson from the Obama administration's fiscal stimulus program: The government is not very good at spending money.

On the contrary, it's slow and clumsy. Nearly a third of the $787 billion package, signed into law in February 2009, was assigned to infrastructure projects—from fixing roads and building bridges to weatherizing buildings and upgrading electrical grids.

The idea was to simultaneously improve our physical facilities while putting people back to work, which in turn would provide a badly needed surge of adrenaline to the overall economy. But it hasn't quite worked out that way.

The Wall Street Journal reports that 19 months after the plan was approved, federal agencies have managed to use only one-third of the infrastructure money. Federal contracting rules and labor requirements are among the hurdles that have slowed the process down.

This is not entirely unexpected. The Congressional Budget Office said before the program was approved that less than half the infrastructure money would be spent in the first two years.

That's always been one of the big problems with using fiscal policy—changes in spending and taxes—to manage the level of activity in the economy. By the time a policy takes effect, it may be too late to serve the original purpose.

Supporters insist there's no such danger this time, since the economic recovery has been feeble and promises to remain that way. A Bloomberg survey of economists found that most expect the unemployment rate to stay above 9 percent until 2012.

But if that's true, it doesn't say much for the potency of fiscal policy in boosting short-term growth. Obama's program, after all, is the biggest stimulus package, as a share of the economy, in our history. Yet it has landed with the force of a damp sponge.

If the slow-arriving infrastructure spending were the only component, the weak comeback might be understandable. But the other components of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act were designed to get money out in a big hurry.

The program included $282 billion in tax cuts, which took effect immediately to boost the take-home pay of workers. It also furnished $140 billion in aid to state and local governments, so they could maintain programs and avoid mass layoffs of public employees.

What's wrong with those elements? For one thing, there is no compelling evidence that they function as intended. Tax cuts are supposed to induce consumers to spend more, but past experience indicates that people use most of the windfall to increase their savings or pay down debts—neither of which puts people back to work.

A recent study for the National Bureau of Economic Research, by Joel Slemrod and Matthew Shapiro of the University of Michigan and Claudia Sahm of the Federal Reserve Board, says that's exactly what happened with Obama's tax cut. The effect on spending, they concluded, was "modest at best."

Giving money to states and municipalities to spare them from firing teachers and slashing social programs undoubtedly achieves that simple purpose. But when it comes to generating economic activity, it's flying on a wing and a prayer.

Economists William Gale and Benjamin Harris of the Brookings Institution and Alan Auerbach of the University of California, Berkeley, note in a new paper that "while the argument for transfers to states being stimulative is plausible, there is surprisingly little evidence on the countercyclical effects of federal transfers to states."

It is safe to say, though, that they have a destructive impact on taxpayers. During good times, states and cities tend to enlarge their budgets, rather than put money away for a rainy day. Economic downturns serve as a corrective by forcing these governments to eliminate low-value programs to live within their new constraints.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Suki||


    The idea was to simultaneously improve our physical facilities while putting people union members back to work, which in turn would provide a badly needed surge of adrenaline to the overall economy. But it hasn't quite worked out that way.

    FTFY

    Good morning reason!

  • nupe||

    It also furnished $140 billion in aid to state and local governments, so they could maintain programs and avoid mass layoffs of unionized public employees.

    You missed that one Suki.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Remember, kids: Non-union employees are people, too!

  • Suki||

    nupe,
    I missed what? Obama and the congress preserving union jobs? You think I missed that?
    You funny!

  • ||

    They could have blown this cash on hookers, booze, and drugs and had a better economic impact than what we have seen so far.

  • Bill||

    What do you mean? They gave it to the teacher's unions. It will get spent on hookers, booze, and drugs soon enough.

  • ||

    Union Teachers. Hookers. You repeat yourself.

  • Almanian||

    So it may surprise you to find out the clearest lesson from the Obama administration's fiscal stimulus program: The government is not very good at spending money.

    No, that doesn't surprise me at all.

  • Sean Connery||

    HIS MISSUS SURE CAN STIMULATE MY PACKAGE

  • Draco||

    They stand exposed as the incompetents they are... The Democrats: The Party Who Could F*ck-Up an 800 Billion Dollar Stimulus.

    In other news (WSJ subscriber link) Irish GDP Drops Unexpectedly. Wow! Really? Austerity measures produced a drop in GDP? Go figure!

  • ||

    A talented H&R poster showed how to get around the WSJ paywall. Pretend you're a Canuck!

    Go to google.ca, put in the article title, click on the resulting WSJ link, and viola, no paywall!

    Try it here, hoser.

  • ||

    If people don't start paying for content that requires time and money to create, and the creation of which pays a lot of people's salaries, the future of quality content on the Internet won't be bright. What you're chuckling about here is theft, plain and simple.

  • pmains||

    Their "austerity" measures included 33 billion Euros for banks and "building societies." Another 7 billion is expected.

    Consider that their GDP in 2008 was roughly 200 billion Euros. That's equivalent to us ponying up $2 trillion for stimulus. Not terribly austere.

  • sr7||

    Draco is our rare right wing Keynesian 'tard. Honestly,there is no excuse.

  • Tim||

    The problem is we haven't spent enough! Yes you heard me! How can you say I'm mad? SPEND IT! SPEND IT ALL!

  • Paul Krugman||

    +1

  • Tim||

    Courtesy of that racist tool Glenn Beck:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pIkksi344cM

  • Troy||

    That video is funny, but sad. Some will say it is racist, but this one is really just reporting the news. I guess to balance it, you could show something similar with white people but that would be unbalanced in the sense that you could probably find many more African Americans both as a percent and possibly in total numbers that feel this way. And poor people will behave this way and not know (or care) that it comes from tax money more often than middle class. The middle class of all races will just take the cash for clunkers. This was Beck's point at the end. I rarely watch Beck and am often turned off by what or how he says things, but I actually thought this was an interesting piece, albeit infuriating.

  • Vermont Gun Owner||

    There is precisely 1 black person in that clip (unless you're going to include Obama himself in the count or make the racist assumption that the audio clips are from black people). Beck never mentions her race. How's this racist?

  • Kant feel Pietzsche||

    Well, duh. Name one thing they are good at.

    Big wars don't count, as they are generally fought by private citizens who know how to complete a task.

    Little wars are almost always towering monuments to stupidity.

  • ||

    obama never intended for the stimulus to work, if "work" means more jobs and wealth creation. He got what he wanted, larger government, more people dependent on it (he hopes) who will be indifferent to higher taxes or jobs, and who is too ignorant to know that the government money comes from taxpayers.

    Obama has deep hostility towards the US and all of the west and he is hurting the economy deliberately. In his eyes, we don't need to be rich and powerful and we don't deserve it.

  • Bill||

    No, Obama and most deeemo-crats are just wishful thinkers. Keynesian meddlers.

  • Wegie||

    Correct you are.

  • boomshanka||

    so $300 million in tax cuts show a deep hostility to the US and the west? or that is part okay, and it's just the rest of the legislation that is anti-american?

  • boomshanka||

    *billion

  • Wegie||

    You mean I should be thankful that this cocksucker is letting me keep some of MY money....fuck you!!!!!

  • Tony||

    I'm glad you acknowledge that tax cuts as stimulus are pretty inefficient.

    The rest of this is pretty fluffy. Like a good libertarian Chapman assumes the can opener known as the status quo over the past 19 months, sees that things haven't been perfect, and proclaims that the recovery act is a failure.

    Even though it's impossible to know what a counterfactual history sans stimulus would have been like, you can't just assume it would have been the same or better.

  • ||

    assumes the can opener known as the status quo

    Que?

  • mad libertarian guy||

    He's trying to have some rhetorical flare.

    It is a full FAIL, however.

  • Napa||

    Vageta, what does the scouter say about his fail level?

  • celtigirl||

    Damn, a DBZ reference and I am 2 days too late. Nice, btw!

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    Nearly $800 billion in interest-bearing debt as stimulus has been pretty ineffective as well. Your "counter-factual history" comment is lazy deflection to avoid the complete and utter failure the stimulus had in stopping the bleeding, propoganda from the administration, Mark Zandi, and Helicopter Ben notwithstanding.

    Unless you think 46 out of 50 states being under budget the next fiscal year, nearly half the reported unemployed workforce being out of work longer than 26 weeks, and a U3 of over 9.5% for over a year is a screaming success.

  • Tony||

    Well... apparently the recession ended last year. Either the problem wasn't actually as big as everyone was saying it was, and the economy started (modestly) growing IN SPITE of the stimulus, or the stimulus actually helped. Either way libertarians have nothing to add, as usual.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    If you honestly think the recession ended last year, you're dumber than we imagined. That GDP growth has been the result of massive government spending, not any real economic growth:

    http://www.market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=167089

    And for someone to actually say that the problem "wasn't that bad" with the unemployment rates we are seeing, with no end in sight--where are the jobs going to come from to put all those people back to work?--claiming that the stimulus "helped" is the height of ignorance.

    Considering you haven't added much in the way of facts, your own utility is questionable at best. Maybe if your head wasn't so firmly inserted up your backside you could see that.

  • ♥♥♥||

    The rest of this is pretty fluffy. Like a good libertarian Chapman assumes the can opener known as the status quo over the past 19 months, sees that things haven't been perfect, and proclaims that the recovery act is a failure.

    Did we read the same article?

    He didn't say things weren't perfect so the stimulus is a failure. He didn't imply that. Not once, not ever.

    He said past evidence indicates that these stimulus packages rarely, if ever, accomplish their goals of increasing spending, instead being used to increase savings or pay down debts.

  • Tony||

    That's what he's saying about tax rebates, which is something I agree with. Tax cuts aren't efficient stimulus.

    In the rest of the piece he's complaining that the stimulus didn't accomplish enough. I agree with that too. Too much of it was tax cuts.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    Um, no, it was a payroll tax credit, which is not the same as a tax cut. It's a reallocation of money from one part of the government ledger to another, and it was accomplished with bonded debt.

    A tax cut would have been an actual cut in the payroll tax rate, which even you know Obama never passed.

  • Tony||

    You're right, it was a one-time credit, not a cut in the rate. I'm just using language as loosely as Chapman, I guess. What's your point again?

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    What's yours? You're the one who erected the tax cut strawman, albeit unintentionally.

    If you had pointed out that giving a tax credit didn't fix the issue, there wouldn't have been any dispute--it wasn't that much different, after all, than Bush's one-shot so-called "stimulus" checks in 2001 and 2007, and had the same negligible effect.

  • Gilbert Martin||

    "Even though it's impossible to know what a counterfactual history sans stimulus would have been like, you can't just assume it would have been the same or better."

    We don't have to assume anything.

    The burden of proof is always on those claiming the affirmative condition.

    We don't have to prove a negative.

    Those claiming the stimulus improved the ecomony are required to prove that it did - and do so with absolute definitiveness.

    And if they can't do so (which they most certainly can't) then by default the stimulus didn't work at all.

  • Tony||

    That is some retarded logic 101 right there. It's just as positive a claim to say the stimulus didn't work.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    The administration claimed the U3 wouldn't go above 8%. That's a failure by any standard of actual logic, as opposed to the wishcasting you typically employ.

  • Gilbert Martin||

    "That is some retarded logic 101 right there. It's just as positive a claim to say the stimulus didn't work"

    Wrong as usual, dimwit.

    The default negative condition is that the stimulus did not work unless those who claim it did can prove so with absolute definitiveness.

    Which none of you can do.

  • Tony||

    That makes absolutely no sense. Of course we're not defining "working." Let's go with employment. Moody's estimated that the stimulus saved or created 1.8 million jobs and forecast 2.5 million jobs by the time the stimulus is completed. The CBO had slightly higher figures, though it did say it's impossible to know what the actual jobless picture would be in the absence of stimulus.

    At any rate it didn't make the problem worse, as there has indeed been modest growth since the stimulus bill passed.

    I don't know where you learned logic but you're seriously confused on the issue of burden of proof. The stimulus did A is a positive assertion, whether A is "worked" or "didn't work," of course recognizing we need to define "working."

  • Vermont Gun Owner||

    At any rate it didn't make the problem worse

    Compare the current unemployment rate to Obama's action-less prediction. By his own logic, the stimulus certainly did make it worse.

  • Chad||

    Tony, when an ideologue is confronted with a situation where a difficult-to-measure quantity is important to the debate, there is no reason to point them the best science or peer-reviewed evidence. They will simply assume whatever answer fits their ideology and ignore any evidence to the contrary.

    We see it again and again around here.

  • Soonerliberty||

    It's true, because if these numbers had been released when Bush was in power, you would immediately disregard them. Thanks for proving the point.

    "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics." - Mark Twain

  • DesigNate||

    Here's how burden of proof works:
    You say I fucked your wife and want to sue me for alienation of affection. That is an affirmative condition. I of course deny fucking your wife. This is a negative condition. The burden of proof is on you to provide some kind of evidence that I did, in fact, fuck your wife.

  • Gilbert Martin||

    Neither Moodys nor the CBO has proven anything.

    The CBO conducted an exercise in circular logic. The "stimulus" is predicated on the validity of Keynesean economic theory. The CBO plugged the government spending inputs into a model that ASSUMES Keynesean economic theory to be valid and applies a "multiplier effect" to that spending to create an estimate of jobs created and economic effect.

    The problem is that no one has ever proven Keynesean economic theory to be valid to begin with. And models that create estimates based on the premise that it is prove absolutely nothing.

  • Tony||

    Gilbert and nobody has ever proved libertarian bullshit either, though it's kind of impossible because your goalposts are so mobile. Massive tax cuts did fuck all for economic prosperity? Must be that nearest government program's fault...

  • Gilbert Martin||

    Translation:

    Tony surrenders.

  • pmains||

    The implementation of the Bush tax cuts were the inflection point for GDP growth. Look it up.

    I say, "if I let go of this rock, gravity will pull it to the ground." Tony says, "I don't believe you." I drop the rock. It falls. Tony continues to deny.

  • Gilbert Martin||

    "I don't know where you learned logic but you're seriously confused on the issue of burden of proof"

    Nope.

    I am crystal clear on the issue.

    You are the one who is full of shit about it.

  • sr7||

    Chad|9.23.10 @ 11:49AM|#

    Tony, when an ideologue is confronted with a situation where a difficult-to-measure quantity is important to the debate, there is no reason to point them the best science or peer-reviewed evidence. They will simply assume whatever answer fits their ideology and ignore any evidence to the contrary.

    We see it again and again around here.

    Nobody believes your boy genius of Science! shtick. Not even you, as your lackadaisical attempts at it demonstrate all too embarrassingly for everyone.

  • Captain WTF||

    Wasn't Moody's also the agency that gave gold stars to Lehman Brothers, etc?

    How much weight does an estimate carry if it's from an organization that's full of shit?

    And if another organization gives a similar estimate to the bullshit estimate, what does that say about it?

  • Kant feel Pietzsche||

    Geez, Tony. It's like someone built you from parts of various lesser lefty morons to create the Voltron of liberal moon-battery.

    Kind of an Über Wack-o, if you will.

    Impressive.

    Retarded... but impressive.

  • DesigNate||

    You do understand how the English language works, right? Right?

  • Soonerliberty||

    A woman gets raped, and Tony stands up. "You can't prove that she wouldn't have gotten raped if I hadn't done it myself. That's counterfactual history!!!"

    You can't prove that the market would correct itself because we won't let you. Then, because we won't let you, we'll use that against you.

  • Tony||

    There is scant to no evidence that the market would have corrected itself. Just because that is libertarian dogma doesn't make it the default assumption.

  • Soonerliberty||

    We'll never know, now will we? We do know what happened in the Great Depression of 1921, though. Wait a second! We didn't have a depression then. Wonder why? Oh, that's right, government reduced spending, and, voila, recovery. Isn't Japan still lost somewhere?

    You accuse us of dogma. Perhaps it's true, but your dogma is just as palpable. If there's a problem, just spend it into oblivion. You're a statist, Keynesian conservative.

  • Gilbert Martin||

    None of the recessions/depressions/panics or whatever the economic down cycle happens to have been called that occured before the 1930's era of government intervention began ever failed to end in a subsequent up cycle.

  • Tony||

    That is an amazing revelation Gilbert, truly, that no downturn has ever ended with a downturn.

  • Strawman||

    Gimme me a break, will ya, I'm tired of working overtime on account of you. Me and Red Herring are about ready to keel over.

    Great Flying Spaghetti Monster, open a history book. There were economic crises in 1819, 1837, 1857, 1873, 1893, 1907, 1920, and 1929.

    All of them except one were resolved in 2 to 6 years with minimal gov't intervention. Can you guess which one wasn't and why?

  • Vermont Gun Owner||

    That analogy is both disturbing and scarily accurate.

  • Max||

    The government isn't good at anything. The government is the Devil. Get rid of the government and everything will be fine. Can I hear an Amen?

  • Kant feel Pietzsche||

    Awww. You hurt me wittle feelings. OK, Max. Just this once, for you, I will retract my earlier statement.

    *ahem*

    The government is really, really good at theft.

  • Soonerliberty||

    You forgot murdering people on mass scales. Seems to me that leftist governments have perfected this: Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot, Ceaucescu, Castro, the Stasi, the Gestapo, the KGB, Auschwitz, Kolyma, or maybe even FDR's internment camps. Our own is pretty good at it, too. And for balance, let's throw in Pinochet.

    3...2...1...but Hitler was...

  • Strawman||

    Please stop invoking me. I'm tired and want to rest.

  • Kant feel Pietzsche||

    You look cold. Come closer to the fire.

  • Wegie||

    Obama is a failure in everything.

  • Liberal Douchebag||

    But... but... he saved us from certain economic doom! It just hasn't had enough time to work completely! You all just hate him because he's black!

  • Chad||

    Ok, guys: there is an obvious trade-off between spending money quickly and spending money wisely. You can claim the administration has leaned to far one way or the other, but it's just silly pettiness to complain about both at the same time. You can't wish the trade-off away.

    Chapman then babbles "By the time a policy takes effect, it may be too late to serve the original purpose". That MAY be true sometimes, but certainly not in this case. In case Chapman hasn't noticed, the economy still sucks.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    Pointing out the administration was full of hot air in claiming how effective the stimulus was going to be isn't petty in the slightest--it's holding the administration to the very standards they set themselves.

    Just because Obama and his crack economic team ended up with egg on their faces about this doesn't make the criticism any less valid.

  • ||

    So let's see...

    There are a few known facts.
    1. Politicians lie, and most often they lie to get what they want when they know the truth won't sell.
    2. Politicians like to give "free" stuff to constituencies in order to buy votes for themselves with our money.
    3. Politicians like to expand government, since it allows more of #2, and benefits them personally.
    4. Politicians, as long as they remain in politics, do not suffer directly from poor economic conditions. Congressmen haven't been getting laid off...

    So, why would any of us believe that the "stimulus" was intended to revive the economy?

    Politicians have no direct motivation to improve the economy. They are known to lie about their intentions, so they can do what they want to. They are known to distribute our tax dollars in return for votes.

    The ONLY reason the "stimulus" is called that is because that's the name poiticians attached to it. And they are known to LIE.

    It stands to reason that Obama's "stimulus" was intended to do EXACTLY WHAT IT DID, and that IT SUCCEEDED.

    How many times do you trust that known liars are telling the truth? Why would a known serial liar like Obama, but also like many others in DC, deserve the benefit of the doubt?

  • ||

    Actually, why is there any doubt? People expect politicians to lie, yet each time they do, we act as if maybe they're telling the truth.

    WHY? What kind of IDIOTS are we?

  • Kant feel Pietzsche||

    Who is this we you refer to?

  • ||

    TO THE WEAK-KNEED REPUBLICANS AND DEMOCRAT…..TO ALL THE COMMUNIST IN THE IG,FBI,CIA,AND U.S. Senators and the left wing media outlets////////07 Sept. 2008 11:48:04 EST, Televised “Meet the Press” THEN Senator //Mmslim Barack Hussein Obama, was asked about his stance on the
    American Flag.

    General Bill Ginn USAF (ret.) asked //Mmslim Barack Hussein Obama, to explain WHY he doesn’t follow protocol when the National Anthem is played. The General stated to Obama that according to the United States Code, Title 36, Chapter 10, Sec. 171 “…During rendition of the national anthem, when the flag is displayed, all present (except those in uniform) are expected to stand at attention facing the flag with the right hand over the heart. Or, at the very least, ‘Stand and Face It’.”

    NOW GET THIS!! – - – - -
    ‘Senator’ //Mmslim Barack Hussein Obama, replied:

    “As I’ve said about the flag pin, I don’t want to be perceived as taking sides”.
    “There are a lot of people in the world to whom the American flag is a symbol of oppression..”
    “The anthem itself conveys a war-like message. You know, the bombs bursting in air and all that sort of thing.”

    (ARE YOU READY FOR THIS???)

    //Mmslim Barack Hussein Obama, continued: “The National Anthem should be ‘swapped’ for something less parochial and less bellicose. I like the song ‘I’d Like To Teach the World To Sing’. If that were our anthem, then, I might salute it. In my opinion, we should consider reinventing our National Anthem as well as ‘redesign’ our Flag to better offer our enemies hope and love. It’s my intention, if elected, to disarm America to the level of acceptance to our Middle East Brethren. If we, as a Nation of warring people, conduct ourselves like the nations of Islam, where peace prevails – - – perhaps a state or period of mutual accord could exist between our governments.”

    “When I become President, I will seek a pact of agreement to end hostilities between those who have been at war or in a state of enmity, and a freedom from disquieting oppressive thoughts. We as a Nation, have placed upon the nations of Islam, an unfair injustice which is WHY my wife disrespects the Flag and she and I have attended several flag burning ceremonies in the past”.

    “Of course now, I have found myself about to become the President of the United States and I have put my hatred aside. I will use my power to bring CHANGE to this Nation, and offer the people a new path… My wife and I look forward to becoming our Country’s First black Family. Indeed, CHANGE is about to overwhelm the United States of America “INPEACH OBAMA THE COMMUNIST ,GOD OPEN YOUR EYES.//////For us there are only two possiblities: either we remain american or we come under the thumb of the communist Mmslim Barack Hussein OBAMA. This latter must not occur.the commander
    REPOST THIS IF YOU AGREE

  • ||

    Settle down, Beavis.

  • ||

    TO THE WEAK-KNEED REPUBLICANS AND DEMOCRAT…..TO ALL THE COMMUNIST IN THE IG,FBI,CIA,AND U.S. Senators and the left wing media outlets…..Wake up america!!!! This goverment is the most corrupt we have had in years. The good old boy network is very much in charge.Mr. obama and pelosi are the puppet masters.How many of their good friends benefited by the agreement ” what a farce. All of the u.sSenators voted for this. I am ashamed to say I voted for the these corupted self serving politicians.With good reason they picked an out of towner to be president.All u.s departments need an overhaul. We need to rid ourselves of the puppet masters and the dept heads that bow down to obama and pelosi.I am sick of the lip service I have been getting from these dummies over violations, their friends are getting away with.in the goverment . Barack Hussein Obama , threatens friends and bows to Mmslim.
    INPEACH OBAMA ,GOD OPEN YOUR EYES.///For us there are only two possiblities: either we remain american or we come under the thumb of the communist Mmslim Barack Hussein OBAMA. This latter must not occur.THE COMMANDER.
    OBAMA goes about his business by speaking the lie. II Thessalonians 2 says that he comes "with all deceivableness of unrighteousness." Revelation 13:12 says, "and he spoke as a dragon...." Revelation 17 tells us that he was a false prophet, a prophet being one whose calling it is to speak and to teach. The armies of the world may have guns and tanks and bombs to bring people into submission; but the power of speech and ideas is a mighty power. In his initial attempts to destroy the cause of God Obama used a serpent to deceive the woman with crooked speech: "You will be like God." Now he uses a "dragon" who speaks crafty, lying words. His speeches will be heard by millions who will hang on his persuasive rhetoric. The content as well as the form of his speech will attract. Like most false prophets, he will even be sincere and passionate. But he is a liar. He adds dashes of truth to the mix, so that his lie tastes like truth. He will use all the right catchwords, using the language of the church, even throwing in a Bible text or two. But he is the ultimate Liar, and will deceive many.
    OBAMA will use every tool available: school teachers, politicians, news broadcasters, artists, musicians, scientists and doctors, lawyers and businessmen. All will be pressed into the service of OBAMA to deceive men. But especially he will use those whose calling it is to persuade and to teach -- men who claim to be preachers of the gospel of Jesus Christ.
    THE COMMANDER,,, REPOST THIS IF YOU AGREE .. THE END OF AMERICA.If one asks what he should look for in the days to come, we say this: there will be political union all nations will be gathered together into one mighty empire. This is the first of obama. There will also be religious union, joining all the religions and religious empires of the world. The powerful ecumenical movement of today, led by the religions of Christianity, will in the end fully succeed, swallowing up all the other religions of the world. You may expect to see one man over it all. obama. The Commander

  • ||

    There is only one issue that trumps all others as we look to the future: Nearly 50% of our population (plus illegals) are fully supported by the taxes of the other 50%.

    It only takes a tiny 1% of the voting populace to keep the 50% who pay, enslaved forever.

    If our country could ever return to, "If you don't work, you don't eat" applied to everyone, we would have a chance.

    Do you think we will ever return to this philosophy? No, neither do I.

  • ||

    As far as Obama is concerned the stimulus worked. The intent was to stimulate the unions and it did. It was meant to enlarge the government and it did. It was meant to cripple business and it did. What failure? You
    are are attributing benign intentions.
    Marxists(Fascists) do not have benign intentions (see Lennin, Mao, Pol Pot, Castro).

  • Andrew_M_Garland||

    I feel a dull pain each time I hear that the government is providing more "stimulus" to the economy. "Stimulus" usually means you drink a cup of coffee so you can drive 200 miles farther. For the government, it means that you don't fall asleep until after you have drunk the coffee, delaying sleep for 5 minutes.

    The government says that its spending is "stimulus", but this is an excuse for confiscating money (higher taxes) from the people who organize the private sector (investment and jobs), then giving that money to (politically connected) people who will spend it (have a party) to supposedly save us from recession. The government is robbing the people who produce employment. That is the cause of our jobless, stagnant economy.

    Wealth does not come from money circulating around spreading fairy dust as it goes. It comes from putting people to productive work. The money comes from that production, it does not cause that production. Government spending on "stimulus" is merely a buying program for government. We get more paperwork or new sidewalks, not more industry and production. Every dollar of stimulus is taken from a productive person who would invest carefully in the future, and it is given to a government agency that wants to spend all of its budget each year so that it can get more allocation next year.

    You can feed a man forever by building fishing boats. Or, you can buy a vote right now by giving him a fish.

    Future News: Keynesian Bankrobbers Save Local Economy
    = = = = =
    [excerpt] The biggest bank robbery in Kennebrokeport history has left the people stunned. Criminals stole $12 million dollars in cash and government notes, 12% of the town's annual economic output.

    The robbers offered an interesting bargain. In exchange for a pardon, they will spend all of the cash within the town on restaurant meals and consumer goods, thus stimulating the local economy. Town leaders are hopeful, and some are even pleased.
    = = = = =

  • El Duderino||

    Each citizen shall be given a dildo. The size and shape of the dildo shall be significantly larger than the citizens anus so as to produce pain if it is pushed into the rectum.

    Each citizen shall be required to insert the govt. issued dildo no less than 3/4 up the anus, or in cases where the dildo has specific design features whereby the penetration shall become more intense at a certain future point of penetration, the citizen shall insert the specially shaped dildo to that point in its design where anal stretching and penetration are maximized.

    This shall be done daily to ensure proper anal penetration is achieved on a consistent basis.

  • El Duderino||

    oops wrong kind of "stimulus"?

  • Laughingtompaine||

    For another anatomy of the Obama stimulus failure (with references to Rush Limbaugh), please see my post:

    http://laughingtompaine.wordpr.....t-of-2009/

  • nike shoes UK||

    is good

  • UGG Boots Cheap||

    dd

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement