Obama has botched the recovery

1. The economic stimulus package was not a failure. Yes, indeed the Obama administration did say that if the stimulus package was passed that the unemployment rate would not surpass 8%, and obviously it was wrong. However, the only thing that proves is that the administration and the American public in general underestimated how bad the economic crisis was. Furthermore, the stated goal of the American Recovery and Investment Act was to stimulate the economy, not fund transportation projects. And no, the majority of the stimulus did not go to state governments, indeed when the stimulus is broken down on recovery.gov we see that sizeable amounts of the stimulus went to tax breaks for everyone, contracts, loans, grants, and spending on entitlements. However, we do know that some of the money did indeed go to state governments, which is good for the economy. When state governments face budget deficits, the only option they have is to balance it, which usually means massive cuts in spending which ultimately translates into more people being laid off. If the stimulus money had not gone to the state governments, many more people would have been looking for a job than are now. The governments website recovery.gov now states that the stimulus has created approximately 750,000 jobs. However, according to the CBO, when you look at the effect of the stimulus on the broader economy it increased the number of people employed by somewhere between 1.4 and 3.3 million, lowering the unemployment rate by somewhere between .7 and 1.8 percentage points, and lastly raising GDP by somewhere between 1.7 and 4.5%. http://voices.washingtonpost.com... Indeed, the methods that you propose to save the economy, tax cuts and grants, are far inferior in aiding the economy in downturns as opposed to increasing government activity. The reason being that when you hand someone a check many people will save some of it or pay off previous debts, both of which help the economy very little. By giving someone a job, you a creating a source of income for them which then in turn go towards buying necessities as well as saving and paying off previous debts. The problem with the stimulus was not the stimulus itself, it was more our collective misunderstanding of how bad the economy truly was. If we had known things were going to get this bad in the job market it would have been more appropriate to make the stimulus package even bigger to replace the missing demand within the economy. 2. You offer no reason for us to believe that businesses aren't investing because they are nervous. The real reason businesses are not investing is because there is no demand in the economy. a. Yes, it is true that the new Healthcare plan does have tax increases and spending cuts in order to remain hopefully deficit neutral. However, what you fail to mention is that these tax hikes and spending decreases happen over a period of ten years, and therefore have 1/10th the annual affect on the economy as you say they do. I'm not here to debate with you how the new healthcare bill will affect health care in the country, rather I'm here to debate how this particular bill will affect the economy. According to a Harvard study 60% of bankruptcies are caused by health problems. http://www.consumeraffairs.com... If we can increase the amount of people that are insured (which this bill does according to your source) then we already have a huge economic benefit right there, a nearly 60% reduction in bankruptcies. Furthermore, your argument about health care getting more expensive does not make sense. With an increase in demand for health care services the market will work its magic and provide more doctors. Ie. When people hear doctors are needed they will train to be doctors because of the guaranteed job. As for the required 1099 form for every transaction over $600, its hard to tell exactly whether or not this will be a plus or a minus for the business community. This article: http://money.cnn.com... states how the 600 dollar rule will be a pain for businesses, but also argues that this could be good for business particularly because: it provides a brightline for 1099 forms. No longer to businesses have to go over every transaction to see if it needs a 1099, its simpler over $600 and it needs one. b. I will say, that I'm not here to defend every policy that has come out of the Obama and Democratic Congress, just to prove that overall their decisions have been good for the economy. The affirmative action provision is not good for the economy, but the affirmative action provisions have been in law for over 30 years now. Businesses are used to them and have been dealing with them. This is not a new obstacle to business and will have little or no effect on business. Secondly, the Financial Reform bill is widely seen to have made Wall Street happy http://politics.usnews.com... Overall, the bill did not go nearly as far as it could have, and many pundits have described Wall St as breathing a sigh of relief. c. I'm not really interested in talking about the Cap and Trade bill. The resolution states that Obama and the Democratic Congress could have adopted, which clearly means that we are only discussing the policies that have been adopted. Which doesn't include Cap and Trade. Secondly, I want to point out that you obviously misread your own source. The source states that the "The impact of the Gulf of Mexico oil spill was thrown into sharp relief Tuesday, as US data showed rising unemployment in Louisiana and experts warned the disaster could cost up to 100,000 jobs." It does say at the end of the article that Obama's moratorium could end up costing more jobs, but that seems unlikely as your article points out that only 33 rigs have been put out of commission affecting maybe 12,000 people all of whom are being paid by BP for lost wages. d. This last section is a joke. Even if this happened, businesses would just increase the price of whatever they make and pass the cost onto the consumer, theres no evidence that businesses are up late at night worrying about the possibility of a dramatic expansion of unions, particularly at a time when only 7% of private employees are members of unions. 4. The increase in taxes would increase taxes on individual not corporations. The rich do not give jobs to the people, businesses do. In fact the rich do not do much for the economy, much of the money that they make does not flow back into the economy. Indeed I will also point out that this has not been decided yet, and democrats and Obama have differing opinions. 5. The real problem with our economy is not that businesses are shaking in their boots because of the news laws and how they are unsure as to the specific regulations that will be applied to them. The simple fact is that if businesses receive increased costs in the future they will simply pass those costs on to consumers. Businesses are not hiring and investing because there is no demand in the economy. http://247wallst.com... As the graph on the website I've attached a link to above notes, consumer spending is down by 1/3 since 2008. This is the fundamental problem in our economy. If people are not purchasing things, businesses have no incentive to create a new factory that will build products. When consumer spending increases, so will business investment. The other things you have proposed will do nothing to help the economy if consumer spending (demand) does not increase within our economy. This is exactly what Obama sought to do with the stimulus plan, along with fixing some of the problems within our economy such as fixing the financial markets and fixing