Why are republicans so against the Obama Stimulus?

They don't wanna share no US working class tax coffer cash with their US richclass corporate laid off staff -- and instead they wanna apply that cash and more to US richclass military industrial congressional complex mass profits.

Simple. Ring-a-ding-ding.

You have been misinformed. The TARP bailout was a one time event to stabilize the banks that were in peril. Total cost was 400 billion and it has since been repaid. In fact, some banks, such as Wells Fargo, did not need or want the "loan" but all were forced to take it so as not to reveal which banks were in the most trouble. It was voted for by then Senator Obama, by the way. So it was a bipartisan emergency measure, not the doing of President Bush.

The Stimulus under Obama was more than twice the total TARP bailout. Unlike TARP, its stated purpose was to stimulate economic activity and create job growth. It didn't achieve either of these goals. It and subsequent deficit spending has served only to retard economic activity and damage our credit rating.

See what that looks like here:

http://blog.heritage.org/2010/02/05/past-deficits-...

As shown, TARP was in 2008, the last Bush era deficit. 2009 is the stimulus. 2010 and the rest of the projected deficits are caused by Obamacare. The chart represents the President's actual numbers and projected numbers as presented by his Administration to the Congressional Budget Office. The projections are understated; they will actually be much higher.

These two links show the net impact of the Stimulus:

http://forecast-chart.com/chart-unemployment-rate....

http://michellemalkin.cachefly.net/michellemalkin....

You may not like or agree with Republicans but on this matter they are correct. The facts do not lie.

*

*

i'm an independent and was against both so i have no double standard. bush didn't pass tarp cong. did. most of the tarp money has been paid back whereas we will never see a return on the stimulus money. you mean economists like romer and summers who have said they made a mistake? some economists, i guess anyone can be an economist. it's not your money you're spending and if you're wrong, oh well. you just leave the admin. and go back to your cushy day job in academia.

When President Bush passed TARP it was for a proposed $250 B, and it was as a result of the failure of Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac, which Barney Franks had mishandled and lied about the situation of it only months before it was discovered to be failed.

Mr. Obama's stimulus package was for $778 B, nearly three-quarters of a trillion dollars, with very vague purpose assigned to it. That alone was enough to make most people - who weren't just hypnotized by Obama - worry about the reasons for it and the amount of it.

That's a great simplification, of course. But to speak to your statement about the Nobel prize, even Mr. Obama said that he couldn't imagine why it was being awarded to him. And please know it wasn't for him being an economist, because he's not. He's an attorney who never practiced law. He taught for two years, as I recall, and then ran for the Illinois state senate before running for the U.S. Senate. During his scant service in the Senate he voted on less than 34% of the bills put before him. Of those he voted "present" rather than for or against numerous times. --- are you getting all this???

Any more questions?

True conservatives argued AGAINST TARP. There was no double standard. More republicans voted against it than Democrats. Bush was a fiscal liberal if you judge by his policies.

Fiscal stimulus does NOT create jobs. A recent survey of stimulus efforts in the western world from 1960-2000 for example showed that one average every 100 jobs created by stimulus program destroyed 150 jobs to do so (net loss of 50 jobs for the math majors). There are dozens of similar studies. Just because Obama can find some economic hacks from the Keynesian school to give his policies credibility doesn't change the fact the Keynesian economics was disproven in the 70s and only remains popular because politicians love it (it tells them that pork spending is good).

If the stimulus was so good, why, two years after its passage, is the economy still so poor? Can you not see the obvious evidence?

because it will give everybody the opportunity to have health insurance.if the poor cant afford it the gov will pay,if the middle class can barely afford it they will be able to find an affordable plan and all businesses will have to make sure their employees have insurance.everybody in Massachusetts has health insurance.they get fined if they don't that was senator kennedys idea for the people of mass.

oops that has to do with the healthcare plan

same idea though.he's looking out for not just the wealthy but middle and lower income folks.

republicans dont think about the fact that they could wind up living in a box starving someday cause they might wind up crap out of luck and need gov help of some sort.hell,thats one reason why we pay taxes.so if were hungry,in a box,and have no health ins we can count on it.

After the Health care bill passed I don't even bother to pay attention to Obama anymore. Cause I know if I do all I'll be is even more disappointed. I know which way I'm voting in 2012, the Right way

Because of things like this:

http://dailycaller.com/2011/09/01/bankrupt-solar-c...

Bush screwed up with TARP but he also did so through consultations with the President Elect.

They don't like spending but they seem to ignore the consequences of doing nothing in the middle of a recession. A lot of that money went to the people who lost their jobs and to businesses to prevent more people from losing jobs. I remember before the stimulus was passed how the economists were saying it wasn't big enough.

Because when Bush used the Stimulus he spent the money creating jobs. When Obama passed the stimulus he used it to bail out foreign countries and their banks

Maybe because there is a little bit of a difference between tarp an

$870,000,000,000.00

Yah think?