Previous administrations reveal why Obama's stimulus will not work.

The trouble with history is that we fail to learn from it.

As I've mentioned before, the stimulus is a Keynesian concept (not free market capitalism since it requires the intervention of the government to 'speed up' recovery) and even Keynes said himself that it doens't work with a trade deficit. Obama just spent $7 TRILLION DOLLARS which are only going to produce watered down results at best if he doesn't address macroeconomic conditions affecting our country.

American presidents have often made this mistake, the remedies are often confused with socialism vs. cash inflow. I'm not sure why, at this point the confusion may be done on purpose for the short term gains of a few.

If there is no cash inflow, then the spending will create a burden and weaken the dollars.
My first example will be Bill Clinton. The stimulus was the dawning of the dot com sector in the 90's, well really with a surplus of venture capital and that Gore Bill (Gore did help create the internet). Gore authored the The High Performance Computing and Communication Act of 1991 which led way to the development of the tech sector.
"The Act led to the development of the National Research and Education Network (NREN)[1][2][3] (which was referred to with the rhetoric of the Information Superhighway[2]). It also led to the development of the National Information Infrastructure (also discussed through the rhetoric of the Information Superhighway[4]), the High-Performance Computing and Communications Initiative (an off-shoot of the HPCA), the web browser Mosaic,[5] and the creation of a high-speed fiber optic network that, when utilized, would help stimulate the economy."

http://w2.eff.org/Infrastructure/Old/s1067_89_gore_hpc.bill

I myself will argue that the dot com sector produced real wealth and the bubble was only a bubble due to the outflow of cash from our country.

The dot com sector produces maybe $200 billion/year? I couldn't get the information whether or not it was a net or a gross revenue. That probably doesn't include the cost of outsourcing production and offshoring jobs which would eat away at that profit. It doesn't count the opportnity cost of counterfeiting. Since Clinton signed NAFTA with China, the US gave China often $100 billion/year in a surplus as they enacted protectionist policies against the U.S. The trade deficit grew to $400 billion plus interest payables (totalling the current account deficit) before he left office.

It's unrealistic to expect the dot com sector to compensate for the expenditure of money from our country. This was before Bush's war in Iraq.

The next stimulus that failed was the Bush tax cuts. His tax cuts led an increase in both prices in real estate and gas and the extensive use of credit. Bush at least tried to market steel to china and beef to Korea. The asian continent has followed in Japan's footsteps and have always been protective against US goods. Of course the WTO backed China's protectionist policies against the U.S. Again in 2003 before the War in Iraq. Of course Korea wanted to be status quo and rejected U.S. Beef through protests.

It's not a suprise that Bush's stimulus was a flop. He gave it a good go, the real estate bust was another failed stimulus. The derivative/credit markets were supposed to circulate and never run out; by plan. The real estate market was a deep, volatile bubble; the latter which is a more critical problem. Yet the real estate gains will always depend on the stability of the job market.
Which again points to the

Then the argument of the New Deal, or FDR's stimulus that hacks want to argue for political reasons only got us out of the Great Depression. Others want to argue that WWII got America out of the depression. The Smoot Hawley Act was America's protectionist trade policy that was not popular since Post WWI our leaders . It was written in 1930, after the Great Crash of 1929 and in response to a weakened job market post WWI. Exports from Europe declined 75% and factory jobs and international trade decreased 60%.

Again this wasn't popular, many economists subscribe to the school of monetary policy instead of addressing what's on the bottom line. I beg to differ, I believe that the trade deficits affect the bottom line and monetary policy is an exaggerated marginal policy.

I have yet to see any arguement based on reality depicting how the protectionist policy killed our economy, if the devil is in the details a status quo blanket should not be the basis of the arguement when status quo can't see the forest for the trees.

Especially when China's protectionist policies against the US (who gave them most of their surplus) and Japan's protectionist policies against the US have strengthened their economies.

European countries and Canada subscribe to the fair trade policies with the US and made good of their word. Unfortuantely, the World Trade Organization has not worked to help the U.S. who did not deserve protectionist policies placed against our goods.

If Obama was the president who is supposed to "reestablish America's reputation throughout the world", He would make a better president by addressing the problems the US suffered because of the World Trade Organization. Personally, if i were in his position I would take the U.S. out of the WTO on a breach of trust and stop spending. The more we spend, the more incentive we have to sell treasuries to China. China buys US treasuries to keep the value of the Yuan lower than the USD. If I were president right now, I would boycott any pork that Pelosi adds to these bills, there would be no pork, earmarks, no bailouts, no market manipulation (that costs us taxpayers money), the stimulus would go down 75% and every effort would be made to keep taxes low and to balance the budget.

The US is not new to global affairs, Asia is. We believe in a free trade (v.s. a "fair trade") policy, which only works with other free trade or fair trade countries. Implementing "free trade" vs. a country who has imposed a trade war against the U.S. is not free trade. Americans are too defenseless against this multinational abuse, thus this is not the result of a free market. It's the result of abuse. We can't reiterate enough that the protectionist policies against Americans should not it be confused for a free market.

I spoke against Obama's supporters. I'm a centrist republican and I totally adored my Hillary Clinton supporting cohorts during the election. I voted for the primaries in San Francisco. The guy at the voting booth showed me the list of voters and I was the only voter out of thousands that was registered as a Republican. On that note, Hillary Clinton won the California primaries by a landslide. If we got rid of the electoral college, she would have won the primaries. I think she was robbed. But I mentioned that to reiterate my point. Many democrat centrists, those that favor Clintonites are typically fiscally concious and yes, they care about the federal deficit.

Blaming Bush at this point is only a Red Herring. Bush is no longer president.
Again, Bush is no longer president.
Let's say it together. Bush is no longer president.
We're stuck at war. And Bush "only" spent $5 trillion dollars on the War in Iraq, in 5 years. Obama spent $7 trillion dollars on pork barrells, earmarks and Pelosi's pet projects in the last 3 months. I don't know how any fiscally conscious American can not be concerned about Obama's spending at this point.

Never in my life have I felt the approach of a panic attack when approached by flocks of Obama supporters, the severe wingnuts that incite wolfpack mentalities based on economic illiteracy, emotional blackmail, irrationality and fallacies that would put the Neocon pack to shame. Typically I'm that republican who avoids politics like the plague, I believe in a smaller government and reduced taxes. Never have I celebrated a president. Less is always better. I find doctors to be more valuable to our society.

I never once voted for Bush, nor can i defend him since he increased government.

Obama is at best a gesture, a symbol to America like the Queen of England is a symbol to the UK. obama represents to the world that Americans are a tolerant bunch. Not that being a melting pot with overrepresented minorities for over a century meant anything. However,

Obama is a gesture. A figure.

Ironically Obama implements spending that may bankrupt our country. As we all know racism is more rampant in bad economies.

Ironically Obama represents the "Beacon of Hope and Opportunity to the World". With the diminishing private sector, we are actually losing that "Beacon of Hope and Opportunity" under his presidency.

But never was I so incensed at any one politician than I am at Obama. For no other reason the spending and for the obnoxious melodrama making light of our economy during his campaign.
May his daughters pay the same taxes that our non-existant children will be forced to pay on behalf of his special interest, his campaign contributors and to bail out his criminal banker friends.