I don't believe that economic 'stimuli' really works, but I thought that by the time the Obamoids had pumped a couple of trillion dollars into the economy, unemployment and economic growth could not but HELP to improve. If they had spent the money on nothing but the manufacture of Hula-hoops, the economy should have been robust, in the short term, at least. One trillion borrowed dollars represents nearly 7% of the economy. My fear was that the economy would show marked growth, the media would proclaim Obama an economic genius, and four more years would be a slam dunk. But they are struggling to get, what, 1.5, maybe 2% out of their 7% 'investment'. Why? Because they devoted so much to restocking underfunded public pension plans that only serve to bail out politicians who had promised more than they could deliver. Or funding green energy. Or bailing out auto companies who had been rendered moribund by their labor unions (and the unions emerge unscathed). In short, Obama couldn't even do stimulus right. In the words of my former co-workers in the construction industry (who always had a colorful turn of a phrase), Obama could f*ck up a free lunch.
Obama's economic policies, apart from stimulus, are decidedly, anti-business, anti-capitalist, anti-profit, and anti-productivity. This really isn't opinion, it is fact. His policies virtually guarantee that the cost of doing business will be higher. Energy, taxes, labor costs, benefits costs, environmental considerations... on and on. How any serious comentator can say otherwise is just a mystery to me. And if business is so burdened, how they expect the economy to grow is beyond me. (And this growing 'from the bottom up'nonsense is so absurd that I would be stunned if the brain-dead among us really believed it), yet our loyal commentators in the media breathlessly comb through the economic new for signs of green shoots. I mean, who cares if first time claims for unemployment benefits drops from 360,000 to 358,000? Overall, the economy remains in the tank. The bottom line is this: you can't promote 'economic justice' and achieve economic growth at the same time. Just ask Greece.
Absolutely correct. But they didn't, they funneled the money through inefficient government bureaucracies, banks that didn't want it, bail-outs and green gambles-in short, the most inefficient allocations possible. The hope was for a "trickle-down" effect as teachers and police and social workers "spent" the money.
But the recipients all knew the prop-up was temporary, so spending is not what ensued. They'd have been idiots to spend it.
Isn't it ironic that the left therein embraced "trickle-down"?
You say that like those effects are unintentional. The motivating goal of leftism is to reduce painful feelings of envy, and Barky has delivered. As the election approaches look for the MSM to trumpet how Americans are now spending more time enjoying arts and culture, gardening, reading books, sightseeing, and visiting friends and family. Because envious statements draw shame it is unspoken, but more importantly Americans are producing less wealth and not making their neighbors so envious.
Leftists have correctly figured out that they are on the left side of the bell curve of their domain and can't compete. The nature of man is to want to win and not be a parasite, but they can't. Rather than flattening the bell curve, a better solution is to create insulated sub-economies, where trade is restricted between groups. That way left-siders can assume more respectable importance in their communities. In the past, nations have served this purpose, grouping like people of like culture and abilities together. This is a better way to address the problem of envy.
If he did it "right" it would interfere with his ultimate goal: the destruction of eeevil capitalism.