The thing is, if you doubled taxes on everybody making $75K or higher, you still don’t pay for Obama’s deficits.

The USA already has the second highest business taxes in the world. Obama wants them to be higher, at the same time he is crippling business with cap and trade regulations, micromanagement of the financial markets, and the threat of health care reform and card check.

Could one of you Democrats please explain to me how the economy is supposed to grow if it’s government policy to pile businesses with new taxes, regulations, restrictions, and mandates?

Oops. Turns out there weren’t many of them — or, as it seems, if there were, they were in areas that didn’t vote for Obama, so they weren’t getting anything.

And how are we going to pay for this, V? By raising taxes to crushing levels on individuals and businesses.

The problem with having people like torrentprime, bob, and Obama run the government is that people who have never paid taxes in their lives have no concept of what it does to the spending power of people who actually pay them. The priorities of the Bobs of the world are simple; they believe that businesses should make no profits and should instead be forced to pay for Bob’s free healthcare and fat welfare check so he doesn’t have to work.

The problem with the “stimulus” is that the money is directed at non-productive activities (ACORN?!

Oh come now. ACORN is productive. You cant stuff the ballot box if you don’t have phony voters registered to begin with.

How does a $3.4 million underpass (that much?!) for animals in Florida represent a better investment than, say, $3.4 million invested by a private company in a new product or service?

The government is pissing away the peoples’ money on things the people wouldn’t piss on.

And even more importantly than that, where’s the Constitutional authority to do so?

why don’t you actually address the words of the posts to which you attach your comments.

Because his DNC talking points don’t usually address the question, so he has to make do with what he can find.

We’re likely not facing a V recession (simple down, simple up), but an L: where it drops and then trails along for a long time at a low level.

Yes, until enough Republicans get elected to undo the devastating policies Democrats have enacted that caused the crisis and are preventing a recovery and stop the destructive uncertainty and fear that any day now, the federal government is going to reach in and seize everything they have.

The only place people are going to invest under the lawless environment Obama and Democrats have created is elsewhere.

In other words, when you say the stimulus “fail[ed] to work as advertised,” you’re simply lying: it was advertised that it would take time [to work].

Now who is lying? You just got done making excuses for why it WON’T work!…

“where it drops and then trails along for a long time at a low level”

In other words a recession that doesn’t recover!

Sorry, torrent, wrong again, I do link to data.

And do you know what I mean by “as advertised”? I mean that as the President promised. He forecast the unemployment level should the “stimulus” pass; we’ve now exceeded that.

And, no, my source material doesn’t prove me wrong. This was not a post about polls, but about promises and results. Krugman is irrelevant here because we’re not dealing with what he said, but with, let me repeat so you might actually pay attention, with what the Administration forecast, contrasting that with the actual results of its polices.

So you cake-baking analogy is ludicrous. I’ve linked a graph comparing the Administration’s predictions to the actual results. (How many times do I need repeat that?) If they had said, it would take time, well, then you’ve have a point. So, please instead of accusing me of dishonesty, go check the record. And don’t pretend that just because Obama and his team said something in February means that it doesn’t matter in July.

So, before rushing to criticize, please address the actual point of the post.

Thank you gentlemen.

Bob’s comment above is well-taken too.

But hey: let’s take it from a (or one of the) recent scandal-bearers, John Ensign, on how long it will take for the stimulus to be judged: “”I think you have to give it at least a year, things like this don’t happen overnight.”"

In other words, when you say the stimulus “fail[ed] to work as advertised,” you’re simply lying: it was advertised that it would take time. It’s like claiming a recipe is a failure when you only bake a cake for 5 minutes instead of the called-for time.

Also, in the real article (you know, the one you didn’t link to, because you never link to the data), there is this gem: “When asked how much the stimulus has helped the economy, 53% of respondents said it has provided somewhat of a boost but that the larger effect is still to come.”

Even your own source material proves you wrong. Rough day, huh?

money, when we’re talking about figures in the billions, takes time to spend. if they spent too quickly, they’d be accused of being wreckless (well you make this charge regardless). i’m not saying they couldn’t do a better job here, but logisitically speaking, injecting massive amounts of money into the system in a productive way takes some time.