Paul Ryan Defending Bushs 2002 Stimulus

WASHINGTON - When Congressman Paul Ryan has been asked the past few years about the value of stimulus to the sagging economy and the nation's jobless, the Wisconsin Republican has dismissed it as meaningless, and dubbed it "sugar-high economics."

But that's when President Obama is pushing for the spending. When it was President George W. Bush arguing for more stimulus to boost a slow economy in the early 2000s, Ryan's economic analysis was entirely different.

"What we're trying to accomplish today with the passage of this third stimulus package is to create jobs and help the unemployed," Ryan said, in comments unearthed by MSNBC's "Up with Chris Hayes" and provided to HuffPost. "What we're trying to accomplish is to pass the kinds of legislation that when they've passed in the past have grown the economy and gotten people back to work."

Video of the comments will be aired at 8:00 a.m. Sunday on MSNBC.

"In recessions unemployment lags on well after a recovery has taken place," Ryan accurately noted in 2002.

Conservatives have routinely mocked Vice President Joe Biden for arguing that in order to reduce the deficit in the long run, the government needs to spend more now; that sentiment is lampooned in a recent pro-Republican campaign ad. But Biden's analysis -- that the government needs to juice the economy to promote growth, or else revenue will fall long term -- is one that Ryan himself articulated cogently back when the GOP was urging stimulus. Ryan called such stimulus a "constructive answer" worked out on "a bipartisan basis." Opponents of stimulus, Ryan said, ought to "drop the demagoguery."

"We've got to get the engine of economic growth growing again because we now know, because of recession, we don't have the revenues that we wanted to, we don't have the revenues we need, to fix Medicare, to fix Social Security, to fix these issues. We've got to get Americans back to work. Then the surpluses come back, then the jobs come back. That is the constructive answer we're trying to accomplish here on, yes, a bipartisan basis. I urge members to drop the demagoguery and to pass this bill to help us work together to get the American people back to work and help those people who've lost their jobs," Ryan said.

Bush's stimulus, which included an extension of jobless benefits and resulted in checks being mailed to millions of Americans, was signed in March 2002.



"We have a lot of laid off workers, and more layoffs are occurring," the congressman continued. "And we know, as a historical fact, that even if our economy begins to slowly recover, unemployment is going to linger on and on well after that recovery takes place. What we have been trying to do starting in October and into December and now is to try and get people back to work. The things we're trying to pass in this bill are the time-tested, proven, bipartisan solutions to get businesses to stop laying off people, to hire people back, and to help those people who have lost their jobs."

While Obama has been in office, Ryan has voted against extending unemployment benefits and against helping laid-off workers pay for health insurance by subsidizing COBRA payments.

Such actions are difficult to square with 2002's Paul Ryan.

"It's more than just giving someone an unemployment check," he said then. "It's also helping those people with their health insurance while they've lost their jobs and more important than just that unemployment check, it's to do what we can to give people a paycheck."

Ryan also made pro-stimulus arguments in a 2001 congressional hearing, as Jonathan Chait points out.

"I think we ought to have this income tax cut fast, deeper, retroactive to January 1st, to make sure we get a good punch into the economy, juice the economy to make sure that we can avoid a hard landing," he had said.







Sorry Farmer but these people are for hurting our own country and cutting programs that they know help people......because they will not work with or support anything Obama does.

Clearly you know there is a difference right?

Bush's Plan - http://money.cnn.com/2003/01/03/pf/taxes/q_taxchanges/
All about cutting taxes. Less taxes = more money for people and companies to spend. Companies can spend it on hiring more people.

Extending unemployment benefits.
People getting paid for doing nothing. People getting free health care for nothing. I have to pay for that. Get a job and stay taking my money.

Farmer1906 wrote:

Clearly you know there is a difference right?

Bush's Plan - http://money.cnn.com/2003/01/03/pf/taxes/q_taxchanges/
All about cutting taxes. Less taxes = more money for people and companies to spend. Companies can spend it on hiring more people.

Extending unemployment benefits.
People getting paid for doing nothing. People getting free health care for nothing. I have to pay for that. Get a job and stay taking my money.

how did all of that work out farmer, when Bush did it? LOL

Obama did it and the Dow is in the 13,000's, GM is saved, hosing market is recovering, economy is recovering. OOPS

you sound just like Sarah Palin, you were for it before you were against it, now your for it to justify something else, but of course, when Obama does it, your against it.

Birdofthad wrote:

Farmer1906 wrote:

Clearly you know there is a difference right?

Bush's Plan - http://money.cnn.com/2003/01/03/pf/taxes/q_taxchanges/
All about cutting taxes. Less taxes = more money for people and companies to spend. Companies can spend it on hiring more people.

Extending unemployment benefits.
People getting paid for doing nothing. People getting free health care for nothing. I have to pay for that. Get a job and stay taking my money.

how did all of that work out farmer, when Bush did it? LOL

Obama did it and the Dow is in the 13,000's, GM is saved, hosing market is recovering, economy is recovering. OOPS

Obama and Bush did nothing similar for what you are referencing.

Glad your happy about the Dow. True unemployment is in the double digits. GM is failing again. The housing market has been stagnent.

Birdofthad wrote:

you sound just like Sarah Palin, you were for it before you were against it, now your for it to justify something else, but of course, when Obama does it, your against it.

Obama extended the Bush tax cuts. Sounds like your boy was for it before he was against it.

Farmer1906 wrote:

Birdofthad wrote:

you sound just like Sarah Palin, you were for it before you were against it, now your for it to justify something else, but of course, when Obama does it, your against it.

Obama extended the Bush tax cuts. Sounds like your boy was for it before he was against it.

once again you don't understand how all of this works. He had to extend them because the way W. had them set up the only other option was making middle class americans pay 2,000 more in their taxes, while the economy was recovering.
Notice you don't mention what he is really doing now that he has a chance to patch up another one of Bush's failures.
He is extending the Bush tax cuts to people making under $200,000. Anyone above that will be paying some more taxes.