• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

US home prices rise 12.2 percent, best in 6 years

This makes no sense.. 3 facts.

Obama's stimulus was passed and spent in a Democratic House and Senate.
Obama stimulus ended 2 years ago.
We are 8 months into austerity and the sky isn't falling.

This is Austrian agitprop.

1. Conservative obstructionists in the Senate made it clear that they wouldn't agree to a larger stimulus bill, which would have been better.

2. Yep, and it helped avoid a Second Great Depression.

3. I love how your definition of austerity is so pliable. But this makes my point not yours.

In any case, in the direct wake of the Bush Meltdown, we needed to loosen up credit. The Stimulus did that to an extent, thus avoided an even more serious economic freeze. The economy is slowly recovering, but would be recovering faster if we had more stimulus and the Tea Party Occupation forces weren't obstructing spending. I thought that was the very issue.
 
This is Austrian agitprop.

1. Conservative obstructionists in the Senate made it clear that they wouldn't agree to a larger stimulus bill, which would have been better.

2. Yep, and it helped avoid a Second Great Depression.

3. I love how your definition of austerity is so pliable. But this makes my point not yours.

In any case, in the direct wake of the Bush Meltdown, we needed to loosen up credit. The Stimulus did that to an extent, thus avoided an even more serious economic freeze. The economy is slowly recovering, but would be recovering faster if we had more stimulus and the Tea Party Occupation forces weren't obstructing spending. I thought that was the very issue.

LOL!

1. The difference between the House bill and the Senate bill was $33 billion. The proposed House bill was actually smaller by $7 billion then the proposed Senate bill. They agreed to $787 billion despite the fact the Democrats had 59 seats in the Senate. They need just one Republican.. so maybe Democrats couldn't agree either since it's in committees where changes are made and Democrats controlled the committees.

2. I am not disputing that here but rather pointing out Stimulus had nothing to do with the housing recovery TODAY.

3. No, you claim this is austerity. I don't. Thus it's your pliable definition of austerity as mine is slashing the budget by 10% and capping future growth of government spending to GDP.

Stimulus didn't loosen credit. Spending money for projects isn't where Banks get "free" capital from. It's going to Uncle Fred and asking for QE and getting it. Even then it didn't loosen credit that much.
 
So it is austerity or isn't it? Make up your mind.

This is not austerity. Spending is matching GDP growth which it should have been doing for the last 30 years. Cutting the budget by 10% this year would have been austerity.
 
Back
Top Bottom