PDA

View Full Version : APP - Obama needs to shout his achievements out loud



cancel2 2022
01-23-2010, 06:28 PM
Obama’s plunging popularity comes despite the fact that he has achieved much of his promised agenda. He can claim a 96.7 per cent success rate in votes in Congress on legislation where he has taken a stand – the best record of any president in the past 50 years.

He signed legislation that expanded healthcare insurance for children, saw the Senate confirm his choice of a new Supreme Court judge and steered the $787billion stimulus package that has rescued the world's economy from the abyss. But the nation is judging Obama not on what he has accomplished but on the plethora of goals he has failed to achieve.

Americans had bought into Obama’s promise of change but with unemployment soaring, bank closures rife and consumer confidence in the gutter, Obama unfairly takes the blame for failing to bring Americans what their declaration of Independence promises: “The pursuit of happiness.”

It seems to me that many Americans have a very short attention span combined with collective amnesia, a fatal combination which will come back to haunt them in the future.

Epicurus
01-23-2010, 06:34 PM
It seems to me that Brits bear an unhealthy fascination with American politics and an insufferable arrogance that leads them to believe Americans care about their opinion of our political system.

Minister of Truth
01-23-2010, 06:42 PM
Obama’s plunging popularity comes despite the fact that he has achieved much of his promised agenda.

Seriously?

cancel2 2022
01-23-2010, 07:04 PM
It seems to me that Brits bear an unhealthy fascination with American politics and an insufferable arrogance that leads them to believe Americans care about their opinion of our political system.

Just because you feel that you can operate in a political vacuum doesn't mean that others share your view. Some Americans complain about a perceived anti-Americanism without realising that cuts both ways. Your comments have a distinct anti-Britannic isolationist quality which is strangely antiquated in today's world.

cancel2 2022
01-23-2010, 07:05 PM
Seriously?

I wouldn't say it otherwise.

Minister of Truth
01-23-2010, 07:19 PM
I wouldn't say it otherwise.

I was just wondering what could possibly lead people to think that... :cof1:

Remember to vote for Mott when you get a chance.

cancel2 2022
01-23-2010, 07:29 PM
I was just wondering what could possibly lead people to think that... :cof1:

Remember to vote for Mott when you get a chance.

I thought that I had already. :eek:

TuTu Monroe
01-23-2010, 07:33 PM
Obama already has a poor record. He promised things he knew he could never deliver just to get the votes.

Promise Broken rulings on the Obameter politifact.com
http://static.politifact.com.s3.amazonaws.com/rulings%2Fobameter_promiseBroken.gif (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/promise/24/end-income-tax-for-seniors-making-less-than/)
No. 24: End income tax for seniors making less than $50,000

"Will eliminate all income taxation of seniors making less than $50,000 per year. This will eliminate taxes for 7 million seniors -- saving them an average of $1,400 a year-- and will also mean that 27 million seniors will not need to file an income tax return at all."

>>More (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/promise/24/end-income-tax-for-seniors-making-less-than/)



http://static.politifact.com.s3.amazonaws.com/rulings%2Fobameter_promiseBroken.gif (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/promise/30/end-no-bid-contracts-above-25000/)
No. 30: End no-bid contracts above $25,000

"Will ensure that federal contracts over $25,000 are competitively bid."
>>More (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/promise/30/end-no-bid-contracts-above-25000/)



http://static.politifact.com.s3.amazonaws.com/rulings%2Fobameter_promiseBroken.gif (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/promise/86/direct-the-secretary-of-health-and-human-services-/)
No. 86: Direct the Secretary of Health and Human Services to conduct a comprehensive study of federal cancer initiatives

"As president, Barack Obama will immediately direct his Secretary of Health and Human Services, in collaboration with agency officials, academic researchers, cancer survivors and advocates for people with cancer, and state public health officials, to comprehensively examine the various cancer-related efforts of federal agencies, and provide recommendations to eliminate barriers to effective coordination across federal agencies and between the federal government and other stakeholders."

>>More (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/promise/86/direct-the-secretary-of-health-and-human-services-/)



http://static.politifact.com.s3.amazonaws.com/rulings%2Fobameter_promiseBroken.gif (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/promise/234/allow-five-days-of-public-comment-before-signing-b/)
No. 234: Allow five days of public comment before signing bills

To reduce bills rushed through Congress and to the president before the public has the opportunity to review them, Obama "will not sign any non-emergency bill without giving the American public an opportunity to review and comment on the White House website for five days."

>>More (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/promise/234/allow-five-days-of-public-comment-before-signing-b/)



http://static.politifact.com.s3.amazonaws.com/rulings%2Fobameter_promiseBroken.gif (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/promise/240/tougher-rules-against-revolving-door-for-lobbyists/)
No. 240: Tougher rules against revolving door for lobbyists and former officials

"No political appointees in an Obama-Biden administration will be permitted to work on regulations or contracts directly and substantially related to their prior employer for two years. And no political appointee will be able to lobby the executive branch after leaving government service during the remainder of the administration."

>>More (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/promise/240/tougher-rules-against-revolving-door-for-lobbyists/)



http://static.politifact.com.s3.amazonaws.com/rulings%2Fobameter_promiseBroken.gif (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/promise/249/double-funding-for-afterschool-programs/)
No. 249: Double funding for afterschool programs

"Will double funding for the main federal support for afterschool programs, the 21st Century Learning Centers program, to serve one million more children."

>>More (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/promise/249/double-funding-for-afterschool-programs/)



http://static.politifact.com.s3.amazonaws.com/rulings%2Fobameter_promiseBroken.gif (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/promise/292/urge-states-to-treat-same-sex-couples-with-full-eq/)
No. 292: Urge states to treat same-sex couples with full equality in their family and adoption laws

As president, "will use the bully pulpit to urge states to treat same-sex couples with full equality in their family and adoption laws."
>>More (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/promise/292/urge-states-to-treat-same-sex-couples-with-full-eq/)



http://static.politifact.com.s3.amazonaws.com/rulings%2Fobameter_promiseBroken.gif (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/promise/313/allow-bankruptcy-judges-to-modify-terms-of-a-home-/)
No. 313: Allow bankruptcy judges to modify terms of a home mortgage

Will repeal provisions of the Chapter 13 law that prohibit bankruptcy judges from modifying the original terms of home mortgages for ordinary families -- regardless of whether the loan was predatory or unfair or is otherwise unaffordable -- "so that ordinary families can also get relief that bankruptcy laws were intended to provide."

>>More (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/promise/313/allow-bankruptcy-judges-to-modify-terms-of-a-home-/)



http://static.politifact.com.s3.amazonaws.com/rulings%2Fobameter_promiseBroken.gif (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/promise/379/pay-for-the-national-service-plan-without-increasi/)
No. 379: Pay for the national service plan without increasing the deficit

"Will maintain fiscal responsibility and prevent any increase in the deficit by offsetting cuts and revenue sources in other parts of the government (to pay for a national service plan that will cost about $3.5 billion per year when it is fully implemented). This plan will be paid for in part by cancelling tax provisions that would otherwise help multinational corporations pay less in U.S. taxes starting in 2008 by reallocating tax deductions for interest expenses between income earned in the U.S. and income earned abroad. The rest of the plan will be funded using a small portion of the savings associated with ending the war in Iraq."
>>More (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/promise/379/pay-for-the-national-service-plan-without-increasi/)



http://static.politifact.com.s3.amazonaws.com/rulings%2Fobameter_promiseBroken.gif (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/promise/428/give-annual-state-of-the-world-address/)
No. 428: Give annual "State of the World" address

"I'll give an annual 'State of the World' address to the American people in which I lay out our national security policy."
>>More (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/promise/428/give-annual-state-of-the-world-address/)



http://static.politifact.com.s3.amazonaws.com/rulings%2Fobameter_promiseBroken.gif (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/promise/431/reduce-earmarks-to-1994-levels/)
No. 431: Reduce earmarks to 1994 levels

"Barack Obama is committed to returning earmarks to less than $7.8 billion a year, the level they were at before 1994."
>>More (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/promise/431/reduce-earmarks-to-1994-levels/)



http://static.politifact.com.s3.amazonaws.com/rulings%2Fobameter_promiseBroken.gif (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/promise/505/create-a-new-american-jobs-tax-credit-for-companie/)
No. 505: Create a $3,000 tax credit for companies that add jobs

"During 2009 and 2010, existing businesses will receive a $3,000 refundable tax credit for each additional full-time employee hired."

>>More (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/promise/505/create-a-new-american-jobs-tax-credit-for-companie/)



http://static.politifact.com.s3.amazonaws.com/rulings%2Fobameter_promiseBroken.gif (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/promise/508/allow-penalty-free-hardship-withdrawals-from-retir/)
No. 508: Allow penalty-free hardship withdrawals from retirement accounts in 2008 and 2009

"Obama and Biden are calling for legislation that would allow withdrawals of 15% up to $10,000 from retirement accounts without penalty (although subject to the normal taxes). This would apply to withdrawals in 2008 (including retroactively) and 2009."

>>More (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/promise/508/allow-penalty-free-hardship-withdrawals-from-retir/)



http://static.politifact.com.s3.amazonaws.com/rulings%2Fobameter_promiseBroken.gif (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/promise/511/recognize-armenian-genocide/)
No. 511: Recognize the Armenian genocide

"Two years ago, I criticized the Secretary of State for the firing of U.S. Ambassador to Armenia, John Evans, after he properly used the term 'genocide' to describe Turkey's slaughter of thousands of Armenians starting in 1915. … as President I will recognize the Armenian Genocide."

>>More (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/promise/511/recognize-armenian-genocide/)



http://static.politifact.com.s3.amazonaws.com/rulings%2Fobameter_promiseBroken.gif (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/promise/517/health-care-reform-public-sessions-C-SPAN/)
No. 517: Negotiate health care reform in public sessions televised on C-SPAN

To achieve health care reform, "I'm going to have all the negotiations around a big table. We'll have doctors and nurses and hospital administrators. Insurance companies, drug companies -- they'll get a seat at the table, they just won't be able to buy every chair. But what we will do is, we'll have the negotiations televised on C-SPAN, so that people can see who is making arguments on behalf of their constituents, and who are making arguments on behalf of the drug companies or the insurance companies. And so, that approach, I think is what is going to allow people to stay involved in this process."

>>More (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/promise/517/health-care-reform-public-sessions-C-SPAN/)



Page 1 of 1



:):):):):):)
Obama’s plunging popularity comes despite the fact that he has achieved much of his promised agenda. He can claim a 96.7 per cent success rate in votes in Congress on legislation where he has taken a stand – the best record of any president in the past 50 years.

He signed legislation that expanded healthcare insurance for children, saw the Senate confirm his choice of a new Supreme Court judge and steered the $787billion stimulus package that has rescued the world's economy from the abyss. But the nation is judging Obama not on what he has accomplished but on the plethora of goals he has failed to achieve.

Americans had bought into Obama’s promise of change but with unemployment soaring, bank closures rife and consumer confidence in the gutter, Obama unfairly takes the blame for failing to bring Americans what their declaration of Independence promises: “The pursuit of happiness.”

It seems to me that many Americans have a very short attention span combined with collective amnesia, a fatal combination which will come back to haunt them in the future.

cancel2 2022
01-23-2010, 07:37 PM
I was just wondering what could possibly lead people to think that... :cof1:

Remember to vote for Mott when you get a chance.

Obama has been in office for just one year, he was faced with the worst recession since the 1930s plus onging two wars, yet you expect miracles to happen overnight. What do you imagine that McCain would have done different apart from signing up for a third war in Iran?

cancel2 2022
01-23-2010, 07:42 PM
I was just wondering what could possibly lead people to think that... :cof1:

Remember to vote for Mott when you get a chance.

Obama has been in office for just one year, he was faced with the worst recession since the 1930s and two ongoing wars, yet you expect miracles to happen overnight. What do you imagine that McCain would have done different apart from signing up for a third war in Iran? Without the stimulus you wouldn't have had 10% unemployment but more like 20% plus a complete collapse of the banking system, I suspect that there are some that are disappointed because that never came to pass.

cancel2 2022
01-23-2010, 07:55 PM
[QUOTE=TuTu Monroe;589213]

Obama already has a poor record. He promised things he knew he could never deliver just to get the votes.
[QUOTE]

He never changed water in wine either but then again he's not Jesus Christ. I doubt there has been a president in history who hasn't promised things just to get elected, it's called politics.

Minister of Truth
01-23-2010, 08:01 PM
Obama has been in office for just one year, he was faced with the worst recession since the 1930s plus onging two wars, yet you expect miracles to happen overnight. What do you imagine that McCain would have done different apart from signing up for a third war in Iran?

1980s, actually... And who's to say Obama won't lead us to war in Pakistan?

cancel2 2022
01-23-2010, 08:13 PM
1980s, actually... And who's to say Obama won't lead us to war in Pakistan?

Well if you believe that then you will believe anything, how old were you in the 80s?

Minister of Truth
01-23-2010, 08:50 PM
Well if you believe that then you will believe anything, how old were you in the 80s?

Which year? O_o

cancel2 2022
01-23-2010, 08:52 PM
Which year? O_o

How about 1981.

cawacko
01-23-2010, 08:59 PM
Since we are getting an overseas opinion on this thread here's an opinion from the Financial Times. The writer offers a differing opinion than Tom. Interesting about Tim Geithner.


White House nightmare persists

At the end of Barack Obama’s worst week since taking power a year ago, the US president’s fortunes look set only to deteriorate over the coming days. Following the shock defeat of the Democratic candidate in Massachusetts on Tuesday, a move that deprived the president of his 60-seat super-majority in the Senate and left his legislative agenda in tatters, Mr Obama has just four days to reboot the system.

The US president had originally delayed next week’s State of the Union address to Congress in the hope he would get his signature healthcare reform bill enacted in time. That prospect, already waning, was killed dead by the voters in Massachusetts. A growing number of Democrats believe the nine-month effort could collapse altogether.

EDITOR’S CHOICE
Bernanke under pressure - Jan-23Editorial Comment: Obama erects a Maginot line - Jan-22Opinion: Obama’s bank plan is a start - Jan-22In depth: Obama and Wall Street - Jan-21Jousting on regulatory reform to become fiercer - Jan-22FT-dot-comment: State vs market solutions - Jan-22The death of the healthcare effort would rob Mr Obama of what he had hoped would be the centrepiece of his first State of the Union message. “It now looks extremely difficult, if not impossible, to get anything resembling a broad healthcare bill out of Congress,” said Scott Lilley, a senior fellow at the liberal Centre for American Progress, the think-tank that is closest to the White House. “In his State of the Union, Obama has to slim down his ambitions. It should be short and simple and focus on jobs.”

However, even a more modest agenda looks tough for Mr Obama now. Believing their strategy of total opposition was vindicated by the voters last Tuesday, Republicans are in even less of a mood to co-operate with Democrats than before. The difference is that with 41 seats in the Senate they are in a position to block almost anything Mr Obama proposes – including the Wall Street regulatory measures he announced on Thursday.

“Obama has to decide whether he wants to be a transformational president, which looks optimistic at this stage, or merely an effective president,” says Bruce Josten, head of government affairs at the US Chamber of Commerce, which has spent tens of millions of dollars opposing healthcare. “My advice would be that he pick up the phone and ask for Bill Clinton’s advice on how to recover from a situation like this.”

Nor can Mr Obama rely on unity within his own party, which has been in disarray, if not panic, since Tuesday. For example, Mr Obama’s more populist tack on Wall Street re-regulation failed to attract endorsement from Chris Dodd, chairman of the Senate banking committee, even though he was present when Mr Obama made the announcement.

Others, such as Tim Johnson, Democratic senator for South Dakota and a senior member of the banking committee, were already opposed to elements of Mr Obama’s regulatory proposals including the plan to establish a consumer financial protection agency.

Worse, most people do not think Mr Obama can even command unity within his own administration on the Wall Street proposals amid growing speculation about whether Tim Geithner, the Treasury secretary, can survive in his job. Mr Geithner was conspicuously sidelined during Thursday’s announcement by the presence of Paul Volcker, the former Federal Reserve chairman, who lent his name to the push to rein in Wall Street banks.

The speculation about Mr Geithner is only likely to grow. “The Obama proposals were clearly politically motivated and came from the White House not the Treasury,” says a Democratic adviser to the administration, who withheld his name.

Finally, there is increasingly open Democratic disaffection about the way Mr Obama is managing relations with Capitol Hill. Many believe that Rahm Emanuel, Mr Obama’s aggressive chief of staff, served Mr Obama badly by persuading the president that his election was a transformational moment in US politics that gave him the opportunity to push through long-cherished Democratic goals, such as healthcare reform.

In fact, exit polls from Mr Obama’s election showed that almost two-thirds of the voters cited the economy as their chief concern, with fewer than one in 10 mentioning healthcare. Mr Emanuel is also perceived to have mishandled the day-to-day logistics of getting healthcare through Congress.

By leaving the scripting of the details of the healthcare bill to Democratic leaders on Capitol Hill, the White House openly courted the risk of chaos. Tellingly, in his victory speech in Boston on Tuesday, Scott Brown, the new Republican senator, cited voter disdain for the sight of lots of “old men” on Capitol Hill bickering over healthcare reform at a time when their priority was jobs.

“I haven’t seen Rahm Emanuel except on television,” Jim Pascrell, a Democratic lawmaker from New Jersey, told Politico, the news website, on Friday. “We used to see him a lot; I’d like him to come out from behind his desk and meet with the common folk.”

In short, Mr Obama’s nightmare January could easily slip into a nightmare February. “Unless and until the president changes the way his White House, works, things are going to continue to go badly for him,” says the head of a Democratic think-tank. “Heads still have to roll.”

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/821dce96-0786-11df-915f-00144feabdc0.html

TuTu Monroe
01-23-2010, 09:18 PM
:gives:
[QUOTE=TuTu Monroe;589213]

Obama already has a poor record. He promised things he knew he could never deliver just to get the votes.
[QUOTE]

He never changed water in wine either but then again he's not Jesus Christ. I doubt there has been a president in history who hasn't promised things just to get elected, it's called politics.


You're about the only liberal I know who doesn't think he is Jesus Christ and I doubt any other presidential candidate made over 500 plus campaign promises. He's a weak president as his poll numbers are showing.

PostmodernProphet
01-23-2010, 09:38 PM
well, I have to admit, it would be good for Obama to talk about his achievements.....it would be even better if he had some to talk about....

Cancel 2018. 3
01-23-2010, 09:50 PM
this threads belongs in the fantasy fiction section

cancel2 2022
01-24-2010, 05:05 AM
Obama at his inauguration addressed more than one million Americans standing in Washington DC’s winter chill, warmed by hope of a better US. He specifically cautioned against quick fixes to the nation’s problems, saying: “They will not be met easily or in a short span of time.” Yet Americans, with their short attention spans and demand for instant gratification, have clearly forgotten his warning.

PostmodernProphet
01-24-2010, 06:11 AM
fuck his warning......why has he done everything conceivable to destroy this country over the last twelve months?......

Dixie - In Memoriam
01-24-2010, 06:20 AM
Let's take a look at what the pinhead offers up as "Obama achievements"

He signed legislation that expanded healthcare insurance for children

Legislation which he had nothing to do with, and was actually an initiative of the previous administration. He just happened to be in the Oval Office when it passed.

Saw the Senate confirm his choice of a new Supreme Court judge

Who is already on record as being on the wrong side in her first of many decisions.

Steered the $787billion stimulus package that has rescued the world's economy from the abyss.

Well I am happy Obama is going to take credit for that, I thought maybe since we haven't seen any actual recovery or jobs produced from it, he might try to blame THAT on the previous administration and Republicans who voted for it. Although, I really don't think the majority of American people think this was some great achievement from Mr. Hope and Change!

The nation is judging Obama not on what he has accomplished but on the plethora of goals he has failed to achieve.

Presidents are judged by what they accomplish, and as we can see, Obama has accomplished nothing. And as I recall, Bush was never judged by you on the things he accomplished, it was always an intense focus on what he failed to accomplish. Doesn't it strike you as odd, your personal behavior is contradictory to what you expect the behavior of others to be? They have a word for that, it's called hypocrisy.

cancel2 2022
01-24-2010, 06:24 AM
fuck his warning......why has he done everything conceivable to destroy this country over the last twelve months?......


I believe that Bush took out the patent on country destroying. Without the stimulus package you really would have had something to bellyache about, the ironic thing is if unemployment had reached above 20%, many of those on here moaning about healthcare would have been without cover.

PostmodernProphet
01-24-2010, 07:04 AM
I believe that Bush took out the patent on country destroying. Without the stimulus package you really would have had something to bellyache about, the ironic thing is if unemployment had reached above 20%, many of those on here moaning about healthcare would have been without cover.

and I believe that both you and Obama are full of it....shucks I saved ten million jobs just this morning by not doing anything....and I'm going to save another ten million this afternoon the same way.....before the week is out I will have saved every job in this country twice over....and do I get any respect for it?......

there is one thing that the stimulus bill did that is inarguable....F U C K E D U S O V E R........

cancel2 2022
01-24-2010, 08:20 AM
and I believe that both you and Obama are full of it....shucks I saved ten million jobs just this morning by not doing anything....and I'm going to save another ten million this afternoon the same way.....before the week is out I will have saved every job in this country twice over....and do I get any respect for it?......

there is one thing that the stimulus bill did that is inarguable....F U C K E D U S O V E R........

The fact of the matter is that you were fucked over, as you so charmingly put it, by the Wall St casinos. You've lived in a cloud cuckoo land for so long that you find it hard to face reality.

apple0154
01-24-2010, 09:32 AM
I see one of the greatest accomplishments of Obama as being able to turn on the TV and NOT seeing a war monger going on and on about terrorists hiding under every bed or adding the names of countries to the "Evil list" like one would collect sports cards. That, alone, is a paradigm shift and a very healthy one.

It is a dangerous game to be adding "enemies" to the collective psyche when citizens are going through tough times.

We have much more to be thankful for than meets the eye.

PostmodernProphet
01-24-2010, 12:31 PM
We have much more to be thankful for than meets the eye.

well, that's good.....because nothing meets the eye.....

Onceler
01-24-2010, 12:40 PM
What we see here are the two extreme points of view on Obama. On one hand, his first year has been chock-full of positive accomplishments; on the other, he has done literally "nothing."

As always, the reality falls somewhere in between. I don't think there is any doubt that he has made some rookie mistakes, and those on the left in particular are dismayed by his waffling & then capitulation on Afghanistan. The failure of healthcare has 2 different reasons, also, depending on who you talk to; if you talk to a rightie, he pushed way too hard to the left, and America didn't want anything resembling universal healthcare. If you talk to a leftie, universal healthcare has wide support in America, and Obama's mistake was trying to moderate too much and not ramming through a more extreme plan when he had the chance.

Obama got elected on the economy, mainly, and that, to me, is the lion's share of his litmus test for the first year. How you view his effectiveness depends in large part on what your expectations were in January of '09. I thought we could easily enter 1930's territory by this time, so I happen to fall on the side of those who think the bailouts & stimulus - at the very least - helped stem the bleeding & lay the foundation for recovery.

This year will tell us a lot about where both the economy & Obama's Presidency are heading...

Epicurus
01-24-2010, 01:04 PM
If you believe the bail-outs and the stimulus to have been effective, then you should probably rate Obama no lower than OK.

If, on the other hand, you believe as many of us do that the bailouts and stimulus were not only ineffective but harmful, you should rate Obama no higher than unsatisfactory.

Cancel 2018. 3
01-24-2010, 02:59 PM
I believe that Bush took out the patent on country destroying. Without the stimulus package you really would have had something to bellyache about, the ironic thing is if unemployment had reached above 20%, many of those on here moaning about healthcare would have been without cover.

this post is nothing but lies. the stimulus package hasn't done anything, it has barely been spent. if anything worked, it arguably is the bailout that bush started.

please educate yourself before spouting meadowmuffins.

cancel2 2022
01-24-2010, 04:27 PM
this post is nothing but lies. the stimulus package hasn't done anything, it has barely been spent. if anything worked, it arguably is the bailout that bush started.

please educate yourself before spouting meadowmuffins.

Meadowmuffins again?? :palm: Why are you such a condescending c**t

Cancel 2018. 3
01-24-2010, 04:58 PM
Meadowmuffins again?? :palm: Why are you such a condescending c**t

your hypocrisy is noted and so is your inability to actually debate the issue.

unfortunately you prove once again what a loser you are.

Minister of Truth
01-24-2010, 05:10 PM
How about 1981.

I was -5 in 1981. :cool:

cancel2 2022
01-25-2010, 09:11 AM
What we see here are the two extreme points of view on Obama. On one hand, his first year has been chock-full of positive accomplishments; on the other, he has done literally "nothing."

As always, the reality falls somewhere in between. I don't think there is any doubt that he has made some rookie mistakes, and those on the left in particular are dismayed by his waffling & then capitulation on Afghanistan. The failure of healthcare has 2 different reasons, also, depending on who you talk to; if you talk to a rightie, he pushed way too hard to the left, and America didn't want anything resembling universal healthcare. If you talk to a leftie, universal healthcare has wide support in America, and Obama's mistake was trying to moderate too much and not ramming through a more extreme plan when he had the chance.

Obama got elected on the economy, mainly, and that, to me, is the lion's share of his litmus test for the first year. How you view his effectiveness depends in large part on what your expectations were in January of '09. I thought we could easily enter 1930's territory by this time, so I happen to fall on the side of those who think the bailouts & stimulus - at the very least - helped stem the bleeding & lay the foundation for recovery.

This year will tell us a lot about where both the economy & Obama's Presidency are heading...

I wonder what these people would have been saying if their banks had failed and all the savings had just disappeared overnight?

cancel2 2022
01-25-2010, 09:39 AM
your hypocrisy is noted and so is your inability to actually debate the issue.

unfortunately you prove once again what a loser you are.

I just can't be bothered to engage such a pompous prick.

Mott the Hoople
01-25-2010, 11:32 AM
Obama’s plunging popularity comes despite the fact that he has achieved much of his promised agenda. He can claim a 96.7 per cent success rate in votes in Congress on legislation where he has taken a stand – the best record of any president in the past 50 years.

He signed legislation that expanded healthcare insurance for children, saw the Senate confirm his choice of a new Supreme Court judge and steered the $787billion stimulus package that has rescued the world's economy from the abyss. But the nation is judging Obama not on what he has accomplished but on the plethora of goals he has failed to achieve.

Americans had bought into Obama’s promise of change but with unemployment soaring, bank closures rife and consumer confidence in the gutter, Obama unfairly takes the blame for failing to bring Americans what their declaration of Independence promises: “The pursuit of happiness.”

It seems to me that many Americans have a very short attention span combined with collective amnesia, a fatal combination which will come back to haunt them in the future.
Yea! He needs to shout it all out that he's done....well... that he's done....uhhh....that he's accomplished....errrr

What was it he's done again?

Oh yea! Get elected! :clink:

Mott the Hoople
01-25-2010, 11:34 AM
I don't mean to be overly critical of Obama....I mean I did vote for him....but right now his list of accomplishments is about as thick as the book on Great Jewish Athletes.

It's only been a year though. :)

cancel2 2022
01-25-2010, 12:44 PM
I don't mean to be overly critical of Obama....I mean I did vote for him....but right now his list of accomplishments is about as thick as the book on Great Jewish Athletes.

It's only been a year though. :)

One of his achievements was stopping McCain and Palin getting into power.

PostmodernProphet
01-25-2010, 12:44 PM
I don't mean to be overly critical of Obama....I mean I did vote for him....but right now his list of accomplishments is about as thick as the book on Great Jewish Athletes.

It's only been a year though. :)

you're a bad, bad goyim.....

PostmodernProphet
01-25-2010, 12:45 PM
One of his achievements was stopping McCain and Palin getting into power.

you can hardly say he hasn't bragged about that enough this year.....

Cancel 2018. 3
01-25-2010, 01:31 PM
I just can't be bothered to engage such a pompous prick.

yet you made this post....

you're such an idiot :palm:

thanks for proving you can't actually debate or discuss issues....

Damocles
01-25-2010, 02:00 PM
One of his achievements was stopping McCain and Palin getting into power.
No it isn't. It wouldn't have mattered if the Ds put forward Dennis Kucinich the Rs were going to lose. It wasn't Obama that kept them out of office, that was Bush.

Onceler
01-25-2010, 02:02 PM
No it isn't. It wouldn't have mattered if the Ds put forward Dennis Kucinich the Rs were going to lose. It wasn't Obama that kept them out of office, that was Bush.

You're pushing it.

I love Dennis, but no way he wins a national election.

Mott the Hoople
01-25-2010, 02:14 PM
One of his achievements was stopping McCain and Palin getting into power.You're not exactly setting the bar very high there Tom.

Mott the Hoople
01-25-2010, 02:17 PM
I just can't be bothered to engage such a pompous prick.
That sir is an eggregious bit of slander. Why everyone knows that Yurt is an insufferable prick. Not a pompous one. ;-)

Mott the Hoople
01-25-2010, 02:19 PM
No it isn't. It wouldn't have mattered if the Ds put forward Dennis Kucinich the Rs were going to lose. It wasn't Obama that kept them out of office, that was Bush.
Uhhh...you do make a good point but me thinks you exagerate a bit. Kucinich? I mean granted he's got one of the hottest wives going but get elected President? Now there's one candidate I think Sarah could beat.

Damocles
01-25-2010, 02:26 PM
You're pushing it.

I love Dennis, but no way he wins a national election.
Against McOldguy and Sarah, yeah, he would have.

Onceler
01-25-2010, 02:29 PM
Against McOldguy and Sarah, yeah, he would have.

Wow - you're really standing by that?

You're putting too much on the "NotBush" thing. No way, no how does Kucinich get elected President, regardless of the circumstances.

Kucinich speaks his mind, and he's pretty radical. His ideas would have scared the crap out of mainstream America...

Mott the Hoople
01-25-2010, 02:32 PM
Against McOldguy and Sarah, yeah, he would have.Well know one knows that for certain....but it sure would have been a lot closer!

Mott the Hoople
01-25-2010, 02:33 PM
Wow - you're really standing by that?

You're putting too much on the "NotBush" thing. No way, no how does Kucinich get elected President, regardless of the circumstances.

Kucinich speaks his mind, and he's pretty radical. His ideas would have scared the crap out of mainstream America...Bush didnt....and he was a radical. The people should have been afraid....been very afraid. What Damo is saying is not outside the relm of possiblity.....it doesn't hurt that he's got a smokin hot red head for wife either.

Cancel 2018. 3
01-25-2010, 02:37 PM
That sir is an eggregious bit of slander. Why everyone knows that Yurt is an insufferable prick. Not a pompous one. ;-)

you may address me as sir royal prick thank you very much

PostmodernProphet
01-25-2010, 04:35 PM
Wow - you're really standing by that?

You're putting too much on the "NotBush" thing. No way, no how does Kucinich get elected President, regardless of the circumstances.

Kucinich speaks his mind, and he's pretty radical. His ideas would have scared the crap out of mainstream America...

so would Obama's if they had only paid attention to them.....

Good Luck
01-25-2010, 10:47 PM
He signed legislation that expanded healthcare insurance for children,
It was already in the works. He did nothing for it, not even cheer lead it significantly. If you want to give him kudos for not vetoing, it just shows how desperate you are for finding somethinng to give him credit for.


saw the Senate confirm his choice of a new Supreme Court judge and
A lousy choice based entirely on gender and race issues, having nothing at all to do with qualifications (at the time of her nomination, 5 of 6 major decisions were overturned) and confirmed by a pet senate. Big deal. Another example of desperation looking for plus marks.


steered the $787billion stimulus package that has rescued the world's economy from the abyss.
It hasn't even rescued out economy, let alone the world's. Billions spent, and the result is 10% unemployment with a maximum downtick of 0.2% during the height of the Christmas season. Meanwhile he's managed to increase spending in one year that Dubya managed in 8.


But the nation is judging Obama not on what he has accomplished but on the plethora of goals he has failed to achieve. .
Damned straight. That is the natural consequence when failures and lies on major issues vastly outnumber minimal "accomplishments". This isn't a liberal grade school where you're given a pass just for showing up.

Mott the Hoople
01-26-2010, 11:05 AM
you may address me as sir royal prick thank you very muchYee gads, he's right. You are a pompous prick! :pke:

cancel2 2022
01-26-2010, 12:49 PM
It was already in the works. He did nothing for it, not even cheer lead it significantly. If you want to give him kudos for not vetoing, it just shows how desperate you are for finding somethinng to give him credit for.


A lousy choice based entirely on gender and race issues, having nothing at all to do with qualifications (at the time of her nomination, 5 of 6 major decisions were overturned) and confirmed by a pet senate. Big deal. Another example of desperation looking for plus marks.


It hasn't even rescued out economy, let alone the world's. Billions spent, and the result is 10% unemployment with a maximum downtick of 0.2% during the height of the Christmas season. Meanwhile he's managed to increase spending in one year that Dubya managed in 8.


Damned straight. That is the natural consequence when failures and lies on major issues vastly outnumber minimal "accomplishments". This isn't a liberal grade school where you're given a pass just for showing up.

The US has pulled out of recession which would have never have happened without the bailouts and the stimulus plan which is still needed until at least 2012.

Instead, you would have been facing unemployment levels as high as the 1930s otherwise and a total collapse of the worldwide monetary system. It seems to me that many Americans suffer from collective amnesia about events that happened so recently.

Cancel 2018. 3
01-26-2010, 12:51 PM
Yee gads, he's right. You are a pompous prick! :pke:

eh hem, that is sir royal prick you common peasant

Cancel 2018. 3
01-26-2010, 12:52 PM
The US has pulled out of recession which would have never have happened without the bailouts and the stimulus plan which is still needed until at least 2012.

Instead, you would have been facing unemployment levels as high as the 1930s otherwise and a total collapse of the worldwide monetary system. It seems to me that many Americans suffer from collective amnesia about events that happened so recently.

pure speculation, not fact

and again, the stimulus has barely been touched, it hasn't done anything when you consider the overall economy and what has been spent. why you continue to ignore facts is beyond me.

cancel2 2022
01-26-2010, 12:53 PM
Yee gads, he's right. You are a pompous prick! :pke:

He also answers to the name Sir Cum Sized Prick.

Cancel 2018. 3
01-26-2010, 12:56 PM
He also answers to the name Sir Cum Sized Prick.

:palm:

i don't have do anything, you make an fool out yourself all your own :clink:

Bonestorm
01-26-2010, 01:04 PM
pure speculation, not fact

and again, the stimulus has barely been touched, it hasn't done anything when you consider the overall economy and what has been spent. why you continue to ignore facts is beyond me.


Facts? You're claiming the "stimulus hasn't done anything" and calling that a "fact?"

cancel2 2022
01-26-2010, 01:17 PM
Facts? You're claiming the "stimulus hasn't done anything" and calling that a "fact?"

I sometimes think that these clowns would have been happier if the world had fallen off a cliff, just so long as it didn't affect them. The analogy I like most is that the economies of the world have come off the critical list, are now in intensive care and on a drip feed, which if removed, would cause certain heart failure.

Cancel 2018. 3
01-26-2010, 01:21 PM
Facts? You're claiming the "stimulus hasn't done anything" and calling that a "fact?"

why do you continue to misrepresent what i say? why are you incapable of honesty?


it hasn't done anything when you consider the overall economy and what has been spent

tell me then, as to the overall economy and what has been spent, how much has stimulus really done?

cawacko
01-26-2010, 01:26 PM
I sometimes think that these clowns would have been happier if the world had fallen off a cliff, just so long as it didn't affect them. The analogy I like most is that the economies of the world have come off the critical list, are now in intensive care and on a drip feed, which if removed, would cause certain heart failure.

Tom I think one of the big questions about the stimulus was how effective was it for the money we spent? I believe only about 1/3 of the money has been spent so far and it can strongly argued we needed to spend a lot more of it quicker. Republicans and Democrats both agree infrastructure spending would not only stimulate the economy but give long term benefits to the U.S. in terms of much needed infrastructure upgrades. Yet my understanding is only 7% of the stimulus money went to infrasturcture projects.

Critics of Obama have spoke out against him for basically handing off the stimulus package to Pelosi and Reid to put together which in the hands of Congress became a package of pork and not necessarily the best use of the money.

cancel2 2022
01-26-2010, 01:39 PM
Tom I think one of the big questions about the stimulus was how effective was it for the money we spent? I believe only about 1/3 of the money has been spent so far and it can strongly argued we needed to spend a lot more of it quicker. Republicans and Democrats both agree infrastructure spending would not only stimulate the economy but give long term benefits to the U.S. in terms of much needed infrastructure upgrades. Yet my understanding is only 7% of the stimulus money went to infrasturcture projects.

Critics of Obama have spoke out against him for basically handing off the stimulus package to Pelosi and Reid to put together which in the hands of Congress became a package of pork and not necessarily the best use of the money.

Yes, I agree that it is not being spent fast enough but unfortunately the politics of pork always seem to get in the way. It would have been exactly the same whoever was in power, there are a lot of snouts trying to get into the trough.

The trouble with infrastructure projects is that they need to be planned well in advance, you can hardly design and build a road or a bridge overnight. The Hoover Dam took over four years to build.

Cancel 2018. 3
01-26-2010, 03:45 PM
Yes, I agree that it is not being spent fast enough but unfortunately the politics of pork always seem to get in the way. It would have been exactly the same whoever was in power, there are a lot of snouts trying to get into the trough.

The trouble with infrastructure projects is that they need to be planned well in advance, you can hardly design and build a road or a bridge overnight. The Hoover Dam took over four years to build.

you make a claim and yet cannot answer a simple question:

as to the overall economy and what has been spent, how much has stimulus really done

you call me a clown, yet you can't answer that simple question. seems i am right about you, you can't debate or discuss issues with me, all you have are solely insults. why are you afraid to debate me? whats the matter, can't have one single post without insulting me?

Bonestorm
01-26-2010, 03:48 PM
you make a claim and yet cannot answer a simple question:

as to the overall economy and what has been spent, how much has stimulus really done

you call me a clown, yet you can't answer that simple question. seems i am right about you, you can't debate or discuss issues with me, all you have are solely insults. why are you afraid to debate me? whats the matter, can't have one single post without insulting me?


Who do you trust for economic analysis? I can post the CBO studies if you want a non-partisan source. I can post the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities if you want a left-leaning source. And I can post an assessment from the American Enterprise Institute if you want a right-leaning source.

Take your pick.

Cancel 2018. 3
01-26-2010, 04:03 PM
Who do you trust for economic analysis? I can post the CBO studies if you want a non-partisan source. I can post the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities if you want a left-leaning source. And I can post an assessment from the American Enterprise Institute if you want a right-leaning source.

Take your pick.

post them all or just give me the links, because so far i haven't heard boo about how much the stimulus has done, rather, it has been the bailouts

Bonestorm
01-26-2010, 04:07 PM
post them all or just give me the links, because so far i haven't heard boo about how much the stimulus has done, rather, it has been the bailouts


Well, then you having been paying any attention. And I lied, I don't have anything from CBPP. They cite to the CBO. But here are the other two:

CBO:

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/106xx/doc10682/11-30-ARRA.pdf

AEI:

http://www.aei.org/outlook/100928

cancel2 2022
01-26-2010, 04:15 PM
Who do you trust for economic analysis? I can post the CBO studies if you want a non-partisan source. I can post the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities if you want a left-leaning source. And I can post an assessment from the American Enterprise Institute if you want a right-leaning source.

Take your pick.

I am reminded of the quote by Cecil Baxter.

You don’t get anything clean without getting something else dirty.

Cancel 2018. 3
01-26-2010, 04:36 PM
Well, then you having been paying any attention. And I lied, I don't have anything from CBPP. They cite to the CBO. But here are the other two:

CBO:

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/106xx/doc10682/11-30-ARRA.pdf

AEI:

http://www.aei.org/outlook/100928

just as i said, hardly any of the stimulus has been spent, and its "estimated" not actual, impact is likely only 1% to the overall economy....one of the biggest factor of its success was the cash for clunkers, which there is much debate about whether that actually helped or merely delayed economic growth. i find the report laughable as it claims saved or created. then it admits that unemployment actually rose....

at the time of the report approximately only 14% had been spent....yet you want to tell me that that that 14% had a big impact on the economy....and that this impact is lasting....

and since you want to cite CBO, let's see what CBO said about its lasting impact:

President Obama's economic recovery package will actually hurt the economy more in the long run than if he were to do nothing, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said Wednesday.

CBO, the official scorekeepers for legislation, said the House and Senate bills will help in the short term but result in so much government debt that within a few years they would crowd out private investment, actually leading to a lower Gross Domestic Product over the next 10 years than if the government had done nothing.

...

The agency projected the Senate bill would produce between 1.4 percent and 4.1 percent higher growth in 2009 than if there was no action. For 2010, the plan would boost growth by 1.2 percent to 3.6 percent.

CBO did project the bill would create jobs, though by 2011 the effects would be minuscule

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/feb/04/cbo-obama-stimulus-harmful-over-long-haul/

seems they were somewhat accurate on the growth, i wonder if you'll admit then that the stimulus actually hasn't done squat except give us a drunken buzz that will wear off in the morning....

cancel2 2022
01-26-2010, 05:35 PM
Well, then you having been paying any attention. And I lied, I don't have anything from CBPP. They cite to the CBO. But here are the other two:

CBO:

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/106xx/doc10682/11-30-ARRA.pdf

AEI:

http://www.aei.org/outlook/100928

Mervyn King, the Governor of the Bank of England, has welcomed President Obama in his bid to rein in the worst excesses of Wall Street and the City of London.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8480457.stm

cancel2 2022
01-26-2010, 05:44 PM
Mervyn King, the Governor of the Bank of England, has welcomed President Obama in his bid to rein in the worst excesses of Wall Street and the City of London.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8480457.stm


Obama takes Wall Street by the horns (Source (http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/finance/jeremywarner/100003195/at-last-the-process-of-serious-banking-reform-has-begun/))


Hurrah! The devil will be in the detail, but on the face of it the US Treasury has begun the long march back to Glass-Steagall in today’s “common sense” reforms to protect taxpayers from future financial crises.

The two key measures announced by President Barack Obama are first to stop banks from engaging in proprietary trading, private equity, or any other activity for their own profit unrelated to serving customers, and second to take further steps to limit the balance sheet size of banks so that they cannot in future acquire “too big to fail” status.

There’s precious little flesh on these bare bones yet, but it is no wonder that bank shares have been plunging on the back of them on both sides of the Atlantic. A key aspect of of the “universal banking model”, under which banks used their customers’ money to play the markets on their own behalf, is about to be outlawed.
This is not Glass-Steagall as such. That piece of legislation, dating back to the Great Depression, not only enforced a rigid separation between commercial and investment banks, but it also stopped commercial banks engaging in underwriting and other financial market activity that might legitimately be regarded as a service to clients.

But it is getting there and demonstrates that policy makers are finally beginning to get serious about the reform agenda. I always thought we would get there in the end, but it has happened sooner than I would have anticipated. Could the Obama Administration’s crushing electoral setback have had anything to do with the renewed sense of urgency? Or was it just the unconstrained chutzpah of the bankers in returning to their old ways so soon after the worst financial crisis in history?

Whatever the explanation, Obama is right to characterise his proposals as a victory for common sense. The relationship between Glass-Steagall and banking crises is self evident. Back in the 1920s, there was no Glass-Steagall resulting in unchecked credit growth and the abuse of ordinary deposits by the hot money men of Wall Street culminating in a banking crisis of monumental proportions and the Great Depression. Result: Glass Steagall and no banking crisis of anything like a similar magnitude until it was removed again in 1999. There followed another period of let rip capital market expansion followed inevitably by another almighty crash.

But it is not just a victory for common sense. It is also a victory for Paul Volcker, the grand old man of central banking who has been advising the Obama administration on banking reform. He’s long been in favour of what’s now proposed, but found himself shouted down by a cautious US Treasury and a powerful banking lobby. It might also be counted as a victory for Mervyn King, Governor of the Bank of England, who found himself dismissed as an irrelevance by the UK Treasury when he suggested something similar.

We are not there yet, but the process of serious reform has at least now finally begun.

Good Luck
01-26-2010, 10:35 PM
The US has pulled out of recession which would have never have happened without the bailouts and the stimulus plan which is still needed until at least 2012.
First, there is no way anyone can claim the "stimulus" package did shit. Bailouts restored minimal confidence in the banking system, but on the other hand billions of dollars went down a black hole while GM filed for the bankruptcy the bailouts were supposed to prevent.

Stimulus has had no demonstrable effect. The "It would have been worse" claim has no supporting data so it's so much cheer leading hubris.

And the real spending figures are even worse than the 1/3 that is shown by the federal figures. 1/3 represents money that has been distributed, not necessarily spent. Much of what has been distributed is still in state coffers, waiting for whatever project was approved to get the allotments. The state of Montana has received about 198 million out of 876 million allotted for Montana programs. Of that, less than 5 million has actually been spent.

Also, look at the stimulus spending in action:
http://stimuluswatch.org

How about this one:
http://stimuluswatch.org/2.0/awards/view/41106/small-turkey-deli-breasts

Jenny O has been contracted to produce and deliver small, cooked turkey breasts. (where they have not bothered to say....) Reported jobs: 286. Reality: The number 286 represents the full time work hours needed to produce the turkey breasts. No extra employees were hired at that plant, and since Jenny-O in Willmar, MN had no plans to lay anyone off prior to receiving the stimulus, it saved no jobs either.

There are literally thousands of other examples of how much good (NOT!) the stimulus package is doing our economy.


Second, as liberals pointed out correctly for 8 fucking years, the measure used to determine recession has no bearing to reality. Democrats stated (again, correctly) the economy was in poor shape, while the republicans kept pointing out the technical definition of recession, and lousy growth numbers showing no recession.

Democrats also pointed out correctly that UE figures of 5% or below did not reflect reality because the numbers did not account for people without jobs who were not, for various reasons, registered; nor did it account for underemployment. Now that the democrats are in charge, the same methods to determine UE are just fine, even though they report UE at twice the levels with NO appreciable indications of coming down anytime soon.

UE is still high, wages are stagnant, loan defaults still through the roof, numbers of people living below the poverty level growing. The reality is the economy still sucks worse than it did 5 years ago when liberals were saying the economy sucked, and is still getting worse. Meanwhile liberals are now using the same government lies that were used under Bush to tell us everything was fine - in order to tell us things are not as bad as the COULD be. What a fucking crock.

cancel2 2022
01-27-2010, 05:44 AM
First, there is no way anyone can claim the "stimulus" package did shit. Bailouts restored minimal confidence in the banking system, but on the other hand billions of dollars went down a black hole while GM filed for the bankruptcy the bailouts were supposed to prevent.

Stimulus has had no demonstrable effect. The "It would have been worse" claim has no supporting data so it's so much cheer leading hubris.

And the real spending figures are even worse than the 1/3 that is shown by the federal figures. 1/3 represents money that has been distributed, not necessarily spent. Much of what has been distributed is still in state coffers, waiting for whatever project was approved to get the allotments. The state of Montana has received about 198 million out of 876 million allotted for Montana programs. Of that, less than 5 million has actually been spent.

Also, look at the stimulus spending in action:
http://stimuluswatch.org

How about this one:
http://stimuluswatch.org/2.0/awards/view/41106/small-turkey-deli-breasts

Jenny O has been contracted to produce and deliver small, cooked turkey breasts. (where they have not bothered to say....) Reported jobs: 286. Reality: The number 286 represents the full time work hours needed to produce the turkey breasts. No extra employees were hired at that plant, and since Jenny-O in Willmar, MN had no plans to lay anyone off prior to receiving the stimulus, it saved no jobs either.

There are literally thousands of other examples of how much good (NOT!) the stimulus package is doing our economy.


Second, as liberals pointed out correctly for 8 fucking years, the measure used to determine recession has no bearing to reality. Democrats stated (again, correctly) the economy was in poor shape, while the republicans kept pointing out the technical definition of recession, and lousy growth numbers showing no recession.

Democrats also pointed out correctly that UE figures of 5% or below did not reflect reality because the numbers did not account for people without jobs who were not, for various reasons, registered; nor did it account for underemployment. Now that the democrats are in charge, the same methods to determine UE are just fine, even though they report UE at twice the levels with NO appreciable indications of coming down anytime soon.

UE is still high, wages are stagnant, loan defaults still through the roof, numbers of people living below the poverty level growing. The reality is the economy still sucks worse than it did 5 years ago when liberals were saying the economy sucked, and is still getting worse. Meanwhile liberals are now using the same government lies that were used under Bush to tell us everything was fine - in order to tell us things are not as bad as the COULD be. What a fucking crock.

How can you prove something that didn't happen? Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

cancel2 2022
01-27-2010, 05:47 AM
First, there is no way anyone can claim the "stimulus" package did shit. Bailouts restored minimal confidence in the banking system, but on the other hand billions of dollars went down a black hole while GM filed for the bankruptcy the bailouts were supposed to prevent.

Stimulus has had no demonstrable effect. The "It would have been worse" claim has no supporting data so it's so much cheer leading hubris.

And the real spending figures are even worse than the 1/3 that is shown by the federal figures. 1/3 represents money that has been distributed, not necessarily spent. Much of what has been distributed is still in state coffers, waiting for whatever project was approved to get the allotments. The state of Montana has received about 198 million out of 876 million allotted for Montana programs. Of that, less than 5 million has actually been spent.

Also, look at the stimulus spending in action:
http://stimuluswatch.org

How about this one:
http://stimuluswatch.org/2.0/awards/view/41106/small-turkey-deli-breasts

Jenny O has been contracted to produce and deliver small, cooked turkey breasts. (where they have not bothered to say....) Reported jobs: 286. Reality: The number 286 represents the full time work hours needed to produce the turkey breasts. No extra employees were hired at that plant, and since Jenny-O in Willmar, MN had no plans to lay anyone off prior to receiving the stimulus, it saved no jobs either.

There are literally thousands of other examples of how much good (NOT!) the stimulus package is doing our economy.


Second, as liberals pointed out correctly for 8 fucking years, the measure used to determine recession has no bearing to reality. Democrats stated (again, correctly) the economy was in poor shape, while the republicans kept pointing out the technical definition of recession, and lousy growth numbers showing no recession.

Democrats also pointed out correctly that UE figures of 5% or below did not reflect reality because the numbers did not account for people without jobs who were not, for various reasons, registered; nor did it account for underemployment. Now that the democrats are in charge, the same methods to determine UE are just fine, even though they report UE at twice the levels with NO appreciable indications of coming down anytime soon.

UE is still high, wages are stagnant, loan defaults still through the roof, numbers of people living below the poverty level growing. The reality is the economy still sucks worse than it did 5 years ago when liberals were saying the economy sucked, and is still getting worse. Meanwhile liberals are now using the same government lies that were used under Bush to tell us everything was fine - in order to tell us things are not as bad as the COULD be. What a fucking crock.

Montana, isn't that where they grow the best dental floss?

Cancel 2018. 3
01-27-2010, 04:30 PM
President Obama's economic recovery package will actually hurt the economy more in the long run than if he were to do nothing, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said Wednesday.

Minister of Truth
01-27-2010, 06:15 PM
LOL citing Desh's favorite source against her cause!!

Cancel 2016.2
01-27-2010, 06:19 PM
Yes, I agree that it is not being spent fast enough but unfortunately the politics of pork always seem to get in the way. It would have been exactly the same whoever was in power, there are a lot of snouts trying to get into the trough.

The trouble with infrastructure projects is that they need to be planned well in advance, you can hardly design and build a road or a bridge overnight. The Hoover Dam took over four years to build.

I agree that the politics of pork would have been similar regardless of who won.

That said, many of the infrastructure projects are shovel ready. They have been planned for years, but lacked the funding to proceed.

Good Luck
01-27-2010, 07:42 PM
How can you prove something that didn't happen?
You can't. Events which did not come about can be implied, but only if the data supports the implication. But since so little of the stimulus funds have actually entered the economy, any claims that it has avoided a worse situation have no data to back the claim.


Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Now you sound like you're defending your religion. (maybe from your POV, you are....)

There is data (EVIDENCE) available in analysis of the effects of the stimulus package. Just because the data available is not evidence supporting your claims does not mean data is not available.

Look at just a few of the thousands of instances where those funds actually spent have NOT had the effects on UE originally projected or claimed. Then look at the fact that less than 1/3 of the funds have been even allocated, and less than 1/4 of the funds allocated have actually been spent. That is data (evidence if you will) showing that the economy's "recovery" (to use the lie spread by the liberals) is in no way related to the U.S. government buying a half million dollars worth of turkey breasts and other useless, meaningless, but very expensive spending projects. Ditto the fact that the government spent billions of dollars on GM, yet it still took bankruptcy to allow GM to reorder their finances to get their feet back under them. But then, the bailouts did get the federal foot in the door of government takeover of a private company. NOT exactly a good thing in the Land of the Free.

Data IS available. But it points to a conclusion you do not like.

Bonestorm
01-27-2010, 07:55 PM
You can't. Events which did not come about can be implied, but only if the data supports the implication. But since so little of the stimulus funds have actually entered the economy, any claims that it has avoided a worse situation have no data to back the claim.


Now you sound like you're defending your religion. (maybe from your POV, you are....)

There is data (EVIDENCE) available in analysis of the effects of the stimulus package. Just because the data available is not evidence supporting your claims does not mean data is not available.

Look at just a few of the thousands of instances where those funds actually spent have NOT had the effects on UE originally projected or claimed. Then look at the fact that less than 1/3 of the funds have been even allocated, and less than 1/4 of the funds allocated have actually been spent. That is data (evidence if you will) showing that the economy's "recovery" (to use the lie spread by the liberals) is in no way related to the U.S. government buying a half million dollars worth of turkey breasts and other useless, meaningless, but very expensive spending projects. Ditto the fact that the government spent billions of dollars on GM, yet it still took bankruptcy to allow GM to reorder their finances to get their feet back under them. But then, the bailouts did get the federal foot in the door of government takeover of a private company. NOT exactly a good thing in the Land of the Free.

Data IS available. But it points to a conclusion you do not like.


Could you cite to some folks that actually support your conclusion, my friend? Christ. Pretty much every economist agrees that the stimulus package helped the economy. Here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/21/business/economy/21stimulus.html

Or here:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125964003843970851.html?mod=article-outset-box

Or here:

http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/2010-01-25-usa-today-economic-survey-obama-stimulus_N.htm

Or here:

http://www.aei.org/outlook/100928

Good Luck
01-27-2010, 08:43 PM
Could you cite to some folks that actually support your conclusion, my friend? Christ. Pretty much every economist agrees that the stimulus package helped the economy. Here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/21/business/economy/21stimulus.html

Or here:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125964003843970851.html?mod=article-outset-box

Or here:

http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/2010-01-25-usa-today-economic-survey-obama-stimulus_N.htm

Or here:

http://www.aei.org/outlook/100928
And I ask them the same I ask here: where is the data supporting these conclusions?

NYT article: mentions economists saying the stimulus was too small - hardly glowing report of success, is it? (May I suggest http://www.learnatest.com/shop/KitDetail.cfm?coreID=1111111063&type=V&seqNum=2&MBC=TEACH)

WSJ - CBO claims based on reports from stimulus funds recipients - already debunked. Example: Jenny-O CLAIMS 286 jobs, where the reality was they did not hire anyone, and previous financial reports had no plans for layoffs. Therefore, the claim of 286 jobs for that money is a lie based on the number of man hours used to produce the product over the period of time the contract was in effect. They took the money, produced the product using the SAME EMPLOYEES they already had. IF previous financial reports from Jenny-O had indicated plans to lay people off, then it could possibly be claimed their receipt of stimulus avoided those layoffs. But they did NOT plan on layoffs, so it saved no jobs, and they did NOT hire any new employees, so it did not create any new jobs. And there are thousands of other examples showing the jobs saved/created is a big fat lie.

USA & AEI: All I see is a bunch of claims, but no supporting data. "3% rise ... but would have been a 1% contraction" Proof? none. Just mention the word stimulus as the cause. And when some details are released, the "experts" are naming non-stimulus factors, like one who mentions the first time home buyer's credit, and worries about it expiring in April. Another mentions the fact often quoted by conservative economists: the deeper the recession, the faster the recovery - a pattern established over the last hundred years, WITHOUT "stimulus" coming from government, and therefore unattributable to the stimulus. And Swonk mentions the fact that jobs are more difficult to create (with a dumb assed excuse that ignores all the jobs exported between 1981 and now), pretty much admitting UE figures are NOT responding the way stimulus advocates predicted.

Good Luck
01-27-2010, 08:55 PM
Could you cite to some folks that actually support your conclusion, my friend?
I did (kind of). http://stimuluswatch.org But I didn't cite people's opinions who agree, I gave an access site to the raw data, where thinking people can come to their own conclusions without being spoon fed by liberal economists. (and before you scream bias, the description "liberal" comes from one of YOUR cites.)

Cancel 2018. 3
01-27-2010, 10:06 PM
Could you cite to some folks that actually support your conclusion, my friend? Christ. Pretty much every economist agrees that the stimulus package helped the economy. Here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/21/business/economy/21stimulus.html

Or here:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125964003843970851.html?mod=article-outset-box

Or here:

http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/2010-01-25-usa-today-economic-survey-obama-stimulus_N.htm

Or here:

http://www.aei.org/outlook/100928

why can't you address my post that responded to you, well.....here is a small part.....

from the same source your cited:


President Obama's economic recovery package will actually hurt the economy more in the long run than if he were to do nothing, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said Wednesday.

:pke:

Bonestorm
01-28-2010, 08:37 AM
why can't you address my post that responded to you, well.....here is a small part.....

from the same source your cited:



:pke:


If you took the time to actually read what the CBO said, you would know why this is such a mind-numbingly stupid criticism of the stimulus bill. In short, the near-term benefits of the stimulus bill more than outweigh the chance of a de minimis reduction in GDP ten years from now.

Bonestorm
01-28-2010, 08:39 AM
I did (kind of). http://stimuluswatch.org But I didn't cite people's opinions who agree, I gave an access site to the raw data, where thinking people can come to their own conclusions without being spoon fed by liberal economists. (and before you scream bias, the description "liberal" comes from one of YOUR cites.)


Liberal, conservative and centrist economists generally agree that the stimulus improved the economy. AEI is not a liberal group.

Bonestorm
01-28-2010, 08:44 AM
And I ask them the same I ask here: where is the data supporting these conclusions?

NYT article: mentions economists saying the stimulus was too small - hardly glowing report of success, is it? (May I suggest http://www.learnatest.com/shop/KitDetail.cfm?coreID=1111111063&type=V&seqNum=2&MBC=TEACH)

Seriously? From the NY Times article:


But with roughly a quarter of the stimulus money out the door after nine months, the accumulation of hard data and real-life experience has allowed more dispassionate analysts to reach a consensus that the stimulus package, messy as it is, is working.

The legislation, a variety of economists say, is helping an economy in free fall a year ago to grow again and shed fewer jobs than it otherwise would. Mr. Obama’s promise to “save or create” about 3.5 million jobs by the end of 2010 is roughly on track, though far more jobs are being saved than created, especially among states and cities using their money to avoid cutting teachers, police officers and other workers.

“It was worth doing — it’s made a difference,” said Nigel Gault, chief economist at IHS Global Insight, a financial forecasting and analysis group based in Lexington, Mass.

Mr. Gault added: “I don’t think it’s right to look at it by saying, ‘Well, the economy is still doing extremely badly, therefore the stimulus didn’t work.’ I’m afraid the answer is, yes, we did badly but we would have done even worse without the stimulus.”

In interviews, a broad range of economists said the White House and Congress were right to structure the package as a mix of tax cuts and spending, rather than just tax cuts as Republicans prefer or just spending as many Democrats do. And it is fortuitous, many say, that the money gets doled out over two years — longer for major construction — considering the probable length of the “jobless recovery” under way as wary employers hold off on new hiring.



WSJ - CBO claims based on reports from stimulus funds recipients - already debunked. Example: Jenny-O CLAIMS 286 jobs, where the reality was they did not hire anyone, and previous financial reports had no plans for layoffs. Therefore, the claim of 286 jobs for that money is a lie based on the number of man hours used to produce the product over the period of time the contract was in effect. They took the money, produced the product using the SAME EMPLOYEES they already had. IF previous financial reports from Jenny-O had indicated plans to lay people off, then it could possibly be claimed their receipt of stimulus avoided those layoffs. But they did NOT plan on layoffs, so it saved no jobs, and they did NOT hire any new employees, so it did not create any new jobs. And there are thousands of other examples showing the jobs saved/created is a big fat lie.


You're way off base here. The CBO did not base its claims on reports from stimulus fund recipients. Try again, hot shot.



USA & AEI: All I see is a bunch of claims, but no supporting data. "3% rise ... but would have been a 1% contraction" Proof? none. Just mention the word stimulus as the cause. And when some details are released, the "experts" are naming non-stimulus factors, like one who mentions the first time home buyer's credit, and worries about it expiring in April. Another mentions the fact often quoted by conservative economists: the deeper the recession, the faster the recovery - a pattern established over the last hundred years, WITHOUT "stimulus" coming from government, and therefore unattributable to the stimulus. And Swonk mentions the fact that jobs are more difficult to create (with a dumb assed excuse that ignores all the jobs exported between 1981 and now), pretty much admitting UE figures are NOT responding the way stimulus advocates predicted.


Oh, I see. We're not supposed to believe the analysis of the conservative AEI or the mix of economists in USA Today piece because you say so? Sorry, pal. I'm not buying your bullshit.

cancel2 2022
01-28-2010, 09:59 AM
Seriously? From the NY Times article:







You're way off base here. The CBO did not base its claims on reports from stimulus fund recipients. Try again, hot shot.





Oh, I see. We're not supposed to believe the analysis of the conservative AEI or the mix of economists in USA Today piece because you say so? Sorry, pal. I'm not buying your bullshit.

I believe that many of these people do not want the stimulus to work, they would rather the economy crashed than Obama be proved right. They are all neocons to a man or woman and have hated him from day one or even before.

Cancel 2018. 3
01-28-2010, 04:59 PM
If you took the time to actually read what the CBO said, you would know why this is such a mind-numbingly stupid criticism of the stimulus bill. In short, the near-term benefits of the stimulus bill more than outweigh the chance of a de minimis reduction in GDP ten years from now.

President Obama's economic recovery package will actually hurt the economy more in the long run than if he were to do nothing, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said Wednesday.

:pke:

Good Luck
01-28-2010, 07:18 PM
You're way off base here. The CBO did not base its claims on reports from stimulus fund recipients. Try again, hot shot.

CBO Director Douglas Elmendorf, in a blog post, said stimulus recipients have reported that about 640,000 jobs "were created or retained" with stimulus funding through Sept. 30.
I do not have to try again. It's right there, in the words of the director of CBO.

I really do suggest you give these guys a try:
http://www.learnatest.com/shop/KitDe...um=2&MBC=TEACH

Bonestorm
01-28-2010, 07:33 PM
I do not have to try again. It's right there, in the words of the director of CBO.

I really do suggest you give these guys a try:
http://www.learnatest.com/shop/KitDe...um=2&MBC=TEACH


Try again:


The CBO said the figures were estimates made "using evidence about how previous similar policies have affected the economy and various mathematical models that represent the workings of the economy."


And, if you actually went to the CBO report (or ever the Director's blog) you would find a discussion of the CBO findings and the fact that they did not rely on reported figures because such figures do not present a complete picture:


Under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA), also known as the economic stimulus package, certain recipients of funds appropriated in ARRA (most grant recipients, contractors, and subcontractors) are required to report the number of jobs they have created or retained with ARRA funding since the law’s enactment in February 2009. The law also requires CBO to comment on that reported number. Today CBO released a report to satisfy that requirement. The report also provides CBO’s estimates of ARRA’s overall impact on employment and economic output as of the third quarter of calendar year 2009. Those estimates—which CBO considers more comprehensive than the recipients’ reports—are based on evidence from similar policies enacted in the past and various economic models.

Limitations of Recipients’ Estimates

Recipients report that about 640,000 jobs were created or retained with ARRA funding through September 2009. However, such reports do not provide a comprehensive estimate of the law’s impact on employment in the United States. That impact may be higher or lower than the reported number for several reasons (in addition to any issues about the quality of the data in the reports). First, it is impossible to determine how many of the reported jobs would have existed in the absence of the stimulus package. Second, the reports filed by recipients measure only the jobs created by employers who received ARRA funding directly or by their immediate subcontractors (so-called primary and secondary recipients), not by lower-level subcontractors. Third, the reports do not attempt to measure the number of jobs that may have been created or retained indirectly as greater income for recipients and their employees boosted demand for products and services. Fourth, the recipients’ reports cover only certain appropriations made under ARRA, which encompass only about one-quarter of the total amount spent by the government or conveyed through tax reductions in ARRA through September 2009. The reports do not measure the effects of other provisions of the stimulus package, such as tax cuts and transfer payments to individuals.

CBO’s Estimates of ARRA’s Impact on Employment and Economic Output

Estimating the law’s overall effects on employment requires a more comprehensive analysis than the recipients’ reports provide. Therefore, looking at the actual amounts spent so far (where identifiable) and estimates of the other effects of ARRA on spending and revenues, CBO has estimated the law’s impact on employment and economic output using evidence about how previous similar policies have affected the economy and various mathematical models that represent the workings of the economy. On that basis, CBO estimates that in the third quarter of calendar year 2009, an additional 600,000 to 1.6 million people were employed in the United States, and real (inflation-adjusted) gross domestic product (GDP) was 1.2 percent to 3.2 percent higher, than would have been the case in the absence of ARRA. Those ranges are intended to encompass most economists’ views and to reflect the uncertainty involved in such estimates.

CBO’s current estimates differ only slightly from those CBO prepared in March 2009. At that time, CBO projected that in the third quarter of 2009, U.S. employment would be higher by 600,000 to 1.5 million people with ARRA than it would be without the law, and real GDP would be 1.1 percent to 3.0 percent higher. CBO’s new estimates reflect small revisions to earlier projections of the timing and magnitude of changes to spending and revenues under ARRA. On the one hand, tax cuts through September are now estimated to be roughly $10 billion larger than originally projected (mainly because certain tax changes were carried out more quickly than anticipated); on the other hand, the net change in federal spending as a result of the legislation has turned out to be slightly smaller than CBO initially estimated.

CBO’s current estimates do not reflect any change in the agency’s assessment of the effect that each dollar of spending increase or revenue decrease has on output and employment. Since March, CBO has continued to examine new research on the relationships between changes in government policy and changes in output and employment. To date, that examination has generated no significant change in CBO’s assessment of those relationships. CBO has also examined incoming data on output and employment during the period since ARRA’s enactment. However, those data are not as helpful in determining ARRA’s economic effects as might be supposed, because isolating the effects would require knowing what path the economy would have taken in the absence of the law. Because that path cannot be observed, the new data add only limited information about ARRA’s impact. Economic output and employment in the spring and summer of 2009 were lower than CBO had projected at the beginning of the year. But in CBO’s judgment, that outcome reflects greater-than-projected weakness in the underlying economy rather than lower-than-expected effects of ARRA.


http://cboblog.cbo.gov/?paged=3

Good Luck
01-28-2010, 07:37 PM
Oh, I see. We're not supposed to believe the analysis of the conservative AEI or the mix of economists in USA Today piece because you say so? Sorry, pal. I'm not buying your bullshit.
Of course not, you're full up to the hair folicles with DNC bullshit. Your head is up the ass of the donkey, getting your fresh. Can't possibly cram more.

Again, WHERE IS THEIR EVIDENCE? You give reference to all kinds of assholes making all kinds of conclusions, but not one of them gives a fucking dime's worth of actual data supporting their claims.

Yet the few cents worth of data given (CBO saying that recipients report 640,000 jobs gained or saved - God I have to admire the balls of the "saved jobs" bullshit) can be shown to be an outright lie on the part of the recipients, who did NOT add or save any jobs to complete the project or contract using stimulus funds.

The thing is, a conclusion based on false data is, well, FALSE. A lie. Bullshit. Pasture cookies. Federal smoke.

And do not think it isn't noticeable that CBO is worth citing when their report agrees with you, but full of shit when they do not. Can you say "cherry picking"?

Dixie - In Memoriam
01-28-2010, 07:41 PM
And, if you actually went to the CBO report (or ever the Director's blog) you would find a discussion of the CBO findings and the fact that they did not rely on reported figures because such figures do not present a complete picture:

They never do, unless of course, the figures support whatever bird-brained approach the Dems are recommending, THEN it's perfectly acceptable to assume the numbers represent the WHOLE picture! Funny how that shit works with you pinheads!

The bottom line on JOBS is this... Unless this Socialist Administration changes its stripes and starts to actually PROMOTE capitalism, instead of continuing their WAR on it... we will not see the return of jobs in America anytime soon! It just ain't gonna happen! You morons think he can create enough busy work with government programs to put America back to work again, but he can't, and even IF he could, it would only be temporary jobs, and when the money peters out, we're right back where we started.

Bonestorm
01-28-2010, 07:46 PM
Of course not, you're full up to the hair folicles with DNC bullshit. Your head is up the ass of the donkey, getting your fresh. Can't possibly cram more.

Again, WHERE IS THEIR EVIDENCE? You give reference to all kinds of assholes making all kinds of conclusions, but not one of them gives a fucking dime's worth of actual data supporting their claims.

Yet the few cents worth of data given (CBO saying that recipients report 640,000 jobs gained or saved - God I have to admire the balls of the "saved jobs" bullshit) can be shown to be an outright lie on the part of the recipients, who did NOT add or save any jobs to complete the project or contract using stimulus funds.

The thing is, a conclusion based on false data is, well, FALSE. A lie. Bullshit. Pasture cookies. Federal smoke.

And do not think it isn't noticeable that CBO is worth citing when their report agrees with you, but full of shit when they do not. Can you say "cherry picking"?


So the American Enterprise Institute is "DNC bullshit?" I'm sure that's news to them. Same with the CBO? Interesting as well. USA Today? Wall Street Jouurnal? All DNC bullshit, huh?

And I'm not saying that the CBO report is full of shit at all. I'm simply pointing out that their analysis was not based on stimulus fund recipient reports as you claimed. Indeed, the CBO pointed out quite explicitly why they did nor rely on recipient reports and instead performed their own analysis.

By the way, it seems that you disagree with economists from across the political spectrum but you haven't really given me any contrary analysis other than your personal bullshit reckonin'. Are there any actual economists that agree with your assessment?

Cancel 2018. 3
01-28-2010, 07:48 PM
President Obama's economic recovery package will actually hurt the economy more in the long run than if he were to do nothing, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said Wednesday.

Good Luck
01-28-2010, 07:52 PM
On that basis, CBO estimates that in the third quarter of calendar year 2009, an additional 600,000 to 1.6 million people were employed in the United States, and real (inflation-adjusted) gross domestic product (GDP) was 1.2 percent to 3.2 percent higher, than would have been the case in the absence of ARRA.
So, tell me, are these guys precogs? Clairvoyants? Writers for National Enquirer and Globe?

How the FUCK do they know what GNP would have been without ARRA? It's a fucking stupid assed bullshit lie. Oh, that's right, they have mathematical models based on the effects from other "similar" policies (the results of which are based on the same lies they acknowledge make estimating results directly impossible.)

The entire fucking thing is MADE UP. The only thing more stupid than their lies are the fucking twits eating it up and asking for more.

Bonestorm
01-28-2010, 07:53 PM
President Obama's economic recovery package will actually hurt the economy more in the long run than if he were to do nothing, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said Wednesday.


I've already responded to that nonsense. Do try to keep up. And are you ashamed to post the Washington Times link? Why hide it?

As I said previously, if you are unwilling to trade 3-4% GDP growth now due to concerns about a projection 0.1% reduction in GDP 10 years from now you need to be kept far, far, far away from a position of power. It's jackassery of the highest order.

Bonestorm
01-28-2010, 07:56 PM
So, tell me, are these guys precogs? Clairvoyants? Writers for National Enquirer and Globe?

How the FUCK do they know what GNP would have been without ARRA? It's a fucking stupid assed bullshit lie. Oh, that's right, they have mathematical models based on the effects from other "similar" policies (the results of which are based on the same lies they acknowledge make estimating results directly impossible.)

The entire fucking thing is MADE UP. The only thing more stupid than their lies are the fucking twits eating it up and asking for more.


Dude, when the defense of your position is that the entire field of macroeconomics is "a fucking stupid assed bullshit lie" and is "made up" you really ought to sit this one out. You're obviously out of your element.

You could have done us all a favor and saved us a lot of time by just saying that from the outset.

Cancel 2018. 3
01-28-2010, 07:56 PM
President Obama's economic recovery package will actually hurt the economy more in the long run than if he were to do nothing, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said Wednesday.

Bonestorm
01-28-2010, 08:00 PM
President Obama's economic recovery package will actually hurt the economy more in the long run than if he were to do nothing, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said Wednesday.


That's some good hackery, counselor. For those interested, here's the story he's citing:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/feb/04/cbo-obama-stimulus-harmful-over-long-haul/


Let's get you on record, counselor. Is 3-4% growth now during a recession worth a projected 0.1-0.3% decrease in GDP in 2019?

Cancel 2018. 3
01-28-2010, 08:08 PM
That's some good hackery, counselor. For those interested, here's the story he's citing:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/feb/04/cbo-obama-stimulus-harmful-over-long-haul/


Let's get you on record, counselor. Is 3-4% growth now during a recession worth a projected 0.1-0.3% decrease in GDP in 2019?

what do you do for a living coward....you never answer that, yet you constantly bring up my profession....why are so ashamed of what you do?

and moron, i'm the one that gave the link in the first place....the quote is entirely valid, the CBO clearly and unequivocally states that the stimulus will do more harm than good....deal with it

Onceler
01-28-2010, 08:10 PM
what do you do for a living coward....you never answer that, yet you constantly bring up my profession....why are so ashamed of what you do?

and moron, i'm the one that gave the link in the first place....the quote is entirely valid, the CBO clearly and unequivocally states that the stimulus will do more harm than good....deal with it

He asked a rather simple question.

Why can't you answer it?

Cancel 2018. 3
01-28-2010, 08:14 PM
He asked a rather simple question.

Why can't you answer it?

shut up board police, go nark to damo you whiney tattle tale

Bonestorm
01-28-2010, 09:25 PM
what do you do for a living coward....you never answer that, yet you constantly bring up my profession....why are so ashamed of what you do?

and moron, i'm the one that gave the link in the first place....the quote is entirely valid, the CBO clearly and unequivocally states that the stimulus will do more harm than good....deal with it


I'm in a rock band. Spinal Tap. Maybe you heard of us? I assumed my reputation preceded me. Apparently not. And I was unaware that calling an attorney "counselor" was some sort of slight or sign of disrespect. I assumed it was an honorific. Apologies.

What's your trouble with answering the question? I'll try it again: Is 3-4% growth now during a recession worth a projected 0.1-0.3% decrease in GDP in 2019?

Your turn.

Cancel 2018. 3
01-28-2010, 09:39 PM
I'm in a rock band. Spinal Tap. Maybe you heard of us? I assumed my reputation preceded me. Apparently not. And I was unaware that calling an attorney "counselor" was some sort of slight or sign of disrespect. I assumed it was an honorific. Apologies.

What's your trouble with answering the question? I'll try it again: Is 3-4% growth now during a recession worth a projected 0.1-0.3% decrease in GDP in 2019?

Your turn.

why are so dishonest dungheap? why are so scared to state what you do? you seem obsessed with my profession, frequently insulting my abilities etc....yet you're too much of a coward to say what you do.

the problem with the question is you are trying to spin your way out of what the CBO said....you're trying to make it out as if that is the only harm that will result from the stimulus. it is a dishonest question and you know it. the fact remains, according to the CBO, the stimulus will harm the economy and it would have been better had obama done nothing.

you're just pissy because you tried to use the CBO to say the stimulus is working....:)

Bonestorm
01-28-2010, 09:57 PM
why are so dishonest dungheap? why are so scared to state what you do? you seem obsessed with my profession, frequently insulting my abilities etc....yet you're too much of a coward to say what you do.

the problem with the question is you are trying to spin your way out of what the CBO said....you're trying to make it out as if that is the only harm that will result from the stimulus. it is a dishonest question and you know it. the fact remains, according to the CBO, the stimulus will harm the economy and it would have been better had obama done nothing.

you're just pissy because you tried to use the CBO to say the stimulus is working....:)


I'm in a rock band. Spinal Tap. Look it up.

And no, there is no spin involved in that question. Before the stimulus bill was passed, that was the question that lawmakers had to answer. Is 3-4% GDP growth now worth a 0.1-0.3% decline in growth in 2010? I say yes. What's your position.

And I'm not trying to use the CBO to say anything. The CBO is saying that the stimulus is working. That's not disputable.

Cancel 2018. 3
01-28-2010, 10:00 PM
poor cowardly dungheap is too ashamed to tell us what he does for a living....

you're trying your hardest to spin this away, but i'm not playing

President Obama's economic recovery package will actually hurt the economy more in the long run than if he were to do nothing, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said Wednesday.

Onceler
01-28-2010, 10:03 PM
poor cowardly dungheap is too ashamed to tell us what he does for a living....

you're trying your hardest to spin this away, but i'm not playing

President Obama's economic recovery package will actually hurt the economy more in the long run than if he were to do nothing, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said Wednesday.

You're using that one line as a gospel, and ignoring the rest. They actually debated this during the stimulus' passage, you know.

And they determined that yes - it's better to have higher growth now, and sacrifice a couple of quarters in 2019 at slightly negative growth. For anyone who cares about the economy, it's a no brainer of a trade-off.

Explain why you think it isn't, without relying on the one line you keep repeating as a crutch.

Bonestorm
01-28-2010, 10:09 PM
You're using that one line as a gospel, and ignoring the rest. They actually debated this during the stimulus' passage, you know.

And they determined that yes - it's better to have higher growth now, and sacrifice a couple of quarters in 2019 at slightly negative growth. For anyone who cares about the economy, it's a no brainer of a trade-off.

Explain why you think it isn't, without relying on the one line you keep repeating as a crutch.


It's not even that bad. The CBO didn't say that we would experience negative growth in GDP in 2019, only that growth will modestly lower by 0.1% - 0.3% than it otherwise would be.

It's about the stupidest criticism of the stimulus bill to date. And there's been a lot of stupid going around.

Cancel 2018. 3
01-28-2010, 10:11 PM
its funny watching the libs run away from the CBO comment because it doesn't fit their agenda

President Obama's economic recovery package will actually hurt the economy more in the long run than if he were to do nothing, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said Wednesday.

Onceler
01-28-2010, 10:12 PM
its funny watching the libs run away from the CBO comment because it doesn't fit their agenda

President Obama's economic recovery package will actually hurt the economy more in the long run than if he were to do nothing, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said Wednesday.

LOL

Cancel 2018. 3
01-28-2010, 10:26 PM
LOL

i fail to see why are you laughing that, according to the CBO, obama's stimulus will harm the economy

go back to playing board police and let the grown ups discuss this issue

Onceler
01-28-2010, 10:29 PM
i fail to see why are you laughing that, according to the CBO, obama's stimulus will harm the economy

go back to playing board police and let the grown ups discuss this issue

I was laughing because discussing the issue is exactly what you're not doing. You're just cutting & pasting the same line, and hoping the question will go away.

It's funny.

Bonestorm
01-28-2010, 10:29 PM
i fail to see why are you laughing that, according to the CBO, obama's stimulus will harm the economy

go back to playing board police and let the grown ups discuss this issue


Hilarious.

I guess we'll put you down for being against 3-4% growth now because of concern about a 0.1-0.3% reduction in GDP in 2019. Congratulations! You're really smart.

Cancel 2018. 3
01-28-2010, 10:35 PM
I was laughing because discussing the issue is exactly what you're not doing. You're just cutting & pasting the same line, and hoping the question will go away.

It's funny.

wrong you dishonest hack, the question is totally dishonest. that is not the only harm to the economy. you and nigel should get a room and masterbate each other in private, we don't need to see it on the board.

you're the one trying to make the the CBO's opinion go away. the fact remains, that their belief is that the stimulus will do more harm to the economy than if obama did nothing. nigel's dishonest question does not change that.

Onceler
01-28-2010, 10:41 PM
wrong you dishonest hack, the question is totally dishonest. that is not the only harm to the economy. you and nigel should get a room and masterbate each other in private, we don't need to see it on the board.

you're the one trying to make the the CBO's opinion go away. the fact remains, that their belief is that the stimulus will do more harm to the economy than if obama did nothing. nigel's dishonest question does not change that.

Ah - the ad homs come out.

It's not a dishonest question at all. It's what the CBO was referring to, and what Congress debated.

Fact is, it is MUCH better to have 3-4% growth now, for a miniscule trade-off in growth 10 years from now. No one in their right mind thinks otherwise.

It's good to see you're so "quick" to admit that you're wrong, though.

:cof1:

Cancel 2018. 3
01-28-2010, 10:50 PM
Ah - the ad homs come out.

It's not a dishonest question at all. It's what the CBO was referring to, and what Congress debated.

Fact is, it is MUCH better to have 3-4% growth now, for a miniscule trade-off in growth 10 years from now. No one in their right mind thinks otherwise.

It's good to see you're so "quick" to admit that you're wrong, though.

:cof1:

wrong...if that was solely their concern, then they wouldn't have said that the stimulus will harm the economy and the economy would be better off he did nothing...it is dishonest to claim a small contraction in the economy in 10 years is what they were talking about, they said in the long run, they did not say a small contraction in 10 years, they said overall....any honest person realizes that a small contraction for two quarters in 10 years is not harm in the long run, it is only harm for a brief period, not the long run

you're a dishonest hack, its not an ad hom, it is the truth

Onceler
01-28-2010, 10:53 PM
"they said overall"

They did?

Are you sure?

Bonestorm
01-28-2010, 10:58 PM
wrong...if that was solely their concern, then they wouldn't have said that the stimulus will harm the economy and the economy would be better off he did nothing...it is dishonest to claim a small contraction in the economy in 10 years is what they were talking about, they said in the long run, they did not say a small contraction in 10 years, they said overall....any honest person realizes that a small contraction for two quarters in 10 years is not harm in the long run, it is only harm for a brief period, not the long run

you're a dishonest hack, its not an ad hom, it is the truth


Uh, if you want to start parsing language of the CBO letter maybe you should read that actual CBO letter instead of what the Washington Time says the letter says. Maybe?

Here's are a few hints: (1) the word "harm" does not appear once in the letter; (2) the CBO doesn't say that "the stimulus will harm the economy;" (3) the CBO didn't say that "the economy would be better of he (sic) did nothing." And that's just for starters.

Cancel 2018. 3
01-28-2010, 11:00 PM
you truly are an idiot...i was paraphrasing, explaining to you what they really said....in the long run is similar to overall...i'll decrease my vocabulary and reasoning skills the next time i discuss something with you, that way it won't go over your head


President Obama's economic recovery package will actually hurt the economy more in the long run than if he were to do nothing, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said Wednesday.

CBO, the official scorekeepers for legislation, said the House and Senate bills will help in the short term but result in so much government debt that within a few years they would crowd out private investment, actually leading to a lower Gross Domestic Product over the next 10 years than if the government had done nothing.

you and dungheap keep trying to make it out as if they said only a limited time, they didn't, in the long, overall, next 10 years, overall

Onceler
01-28-2010, 11:02 PM
Ah - more ad homs.

The answer, of course, is no - that's not what the CBO said.

Why don't you do a little more research, and try to ditch that crutch you have. Frankly, this is getting embarassing...

Cancel 2018. 3
01-28-2010, 11:09 PM
Uh, if you want to start parsing language of the CBO letter maybe you should read that actual CBO letter instead of what the Washington Time says the letter says. Maybe?

Here's are a few hints: (1) the word "harm" does not appear once in the letter; (2) the CBO doesn't say that "the stimulus will harm the economy;" (3) the CBO didn't say that "the economy would be better of he (sic) did nothing." And that's just for starters.

yeah, thats it....the long run decrease in economic activity or gdp....is good for the economy

:rolleyes:

Onceler
01-28-2010, 11:12 PM
yeah, thats it....the long run decrease in economic activity or gdp....is good for the economy

:rolleyes:

That's weak. The question is whether it's better to have higher growth now - during a recession - than have growth a few tenths of a percent lower 10 years from now. It is.

You should read the letter. It's online, and says nothing about "overall" harm, or anything that could be paraphrased as "overall."

You realize the Washington Times is a conservative paper, correct? Honestly, the quotes you keep using represent very shoddy reporting. Read the letter (it isn't that long), and see if you come to the same conclusions.

Cancel 2018. 3
01-28-2010, 11:12 PM
In contrast to its positive near-term macroeconomic effects, the Senate legislation
would reduce output slightly in the long run, CBO estimates, as would other
similar proposals.


thus, i harms the economy in the long run or overall and we would be better off had obama done nothing

Onceler
01-28-2010, 11:14 PM
thus, i harms the economy in the long run or overall and we would be better off had obama done nothing

That's not a sound conclusion based on the verbiage you posted.

Why can't you just admit that the Times & your reliance on it is wrong? It would be far less embarassing at this point.

Cancel 2018. 3
01-28-2010, 11:23 PM
That's not a sound conclusion based on the verbiage you posted.

Why can't you just admit that the Times & your reliance on it is wrong? It would be far less embarassing at this point.

no, you're wrong....even the dems and obama went on the defensive after this letter came out, it was never accepted as a letter that was positive for the stimulus bill...

Onceler
01-28-2010, 11:28 PM
no, you're wrong....even the dems and obama went on the defensive after this letter came out, it was never accepted as a letter that was positive for the stimulus bill...

They were defensive, because a lot of outlets (particularly conservative ones) picked up on the writer's completely erroneous conclusions from the Times.

You haven't looked up the actual letter yet, have you?

It doesn't say what you think it says, or what the Times wrote that it says. Read it. In fact, it basically says that the stimulus is going to do exactly what it is designed to do - create millions of jobs and grow the economy 3-4% in the short-term.

The trade of is that - in 2019 - it's possible that growth could be .1 to .3 % less than what it would normally be, which is built on top of what is assumed will be a normally functioning economy at that point, which can absorb a tiny decline in GDP without much of an issue.

And that's it. The writer wanted to get some attention, so he went with an eye-catching headline & sensationalist, inaccurate conclusion.

Read the letter. Like I said - you're embarassing yourself.

Onceler
01-28-2010, 11:39 PM
I've gotta say, too - it's pretty shameful that you kept posting (like, over & over again) the same incorrect conclusion that the writer from the Times drew, and claiming it was "what the CBO said." It wasn't "what the CBO said." It was what the Times writer seemed to think they said, which was pretty wrong.

After reading the letter, I'm kind of amazed the guy still has a job. The Times is a big paper; they have a conservative bent, but they still have pretty high standards. His conclusion that things would be better had Obama done nothing is particularly egregious - there is nothing whatsoever in the CBO letter to support that.

Cancel 2018. 3
01-28-2010, 11:43 PM
They were defensive, because a lot of outlets (particularly conservative ones) picked up on the writer's completely erroneous conclusions from the Times.

You haven't looked up the actual letter yet, have you?

It doesn't say what you think it says, or what the Times wrote that it says. Read it. In fact, it basically says that the stimulus is going to do exactly what it is designed to do - create millions of jobs and grow the economy 3-4% in the short-term.

The trade of is that - in 2019 - it's possible that growth could be .1 to .3 % less than what it would normally be, which is built on top of what is assumed will be a normally functioning economy at that point, which can absorb a tiny decline in GDP without much of an issue.

And that's it. The writer wanted to get some attention, so he went with an eye-catching headline & sensationalist, inaccurate conclusion.

Read the letter. Like I said - you're embarassing yourself.

lmao....you obviously haven't read the letter, because i put the direct words from the letter in a quote box a few posts up (#123) and you even replied to it

:pke:

Onceler
01-28-2010, 11:46 PM
lmao....you obviously haven't read the letter, because i put the direct words from the letter in a quote box a few posts up (#123) and you even replied to it

:pke:

Um, no - I did recognize it as a cherrypicked portion of the letter, which is 9 pages. It's out of context, and still doesn't support the conclusion that you want it to support.

I'm really not trying to be patronizing here; have you read the entire letter? Do you agree with the writer from the Times & the conclusions drawn in that paper?

Why not address some of the other points I'm addressing here? You're really off your game tonight....

Cancel 2018. 3
01-28-2010, 11:55 PM
your desperation in trying to ignore that the CBO report was not positive in the long is humorous

Onceler
01-28-2010, 11:59 PM
your desperation in trying to ignore that the CBO report was not positive in the long is humorous

Really? That's it?

Yikes.

I read it, and I was actually quite encouraged by it. It doesn't fill me with dread that in 2019, we might have a growth rate of 3.6% instead of 3.8%. I'll take a few million jobs now for that.

Again, it's great to see you roll out the facts & citations when you're involved in a discussion like this; it is much, much appreciated. And I didn't really believe you before when you have said you would readily admit you are wrong when presented with facts that dispute your claim; I am pleasantly surprised at how willing you are to do that.

Kudos....

TuTu Monroe
01-29-2010, 12:11 AM
thus, i harms the economy in the long run or overall and we would be better off had obama done nothing

Tab from stimulus program jumps, CBO says
By Stephen Dinan (http://www.washingtontimes.com/staff/stephen-dinan/)
Washington Times
UPDATED:
The cost of President Obama's stimulus plan has jumped another $75 billion, the Congressional Budget Office said Tuesday, and part of the reason is more people are getting unemployment benefits because they've lost jobs the bill was supposed to preserve.

The nonpartisan CBO, in a new report looking at the country's financial outlook, also found that the country faces giant budget deficits for the foreseeable future and has the biggest debt problem it has seen since just after World War II. The report is designed to give Congress guidance as it prepares to receive President Obama's budget for fiscal year 2011.
The CBO now says the stimulus package, passed by Congress last February, will cost $862 billion over 10 years because of the added unemployment-related costs. The program had originally been estimated to cost $787 billion when Mr. Obama signed it in February.

Some $21 billion of that increase comes from higher unemployment compensation payments, CBO analysts said. The rest of the increase comes from higher food assistance payments and increased federal payments to help states and localities pay interest on taxable government bonds they issued.

cancel2 2022
01-29-2010, 05:23 PM
I agree that the politics of pork would have been similar regardless of who won.

That said, many of the infrastructure projects are shovel ready. They have been planned for years, but lacked the funding to proceed.

There has to be oversight but there needs to be a fast track process to get the funds out more speedily.

cancel2 2022
01-29-2010, 07:34 PM
Liberal, conservative and centrist economists generally agree that the stimulus improved the economy. AEI is not a liberal group.

It really makes you want to puke, these guys desperately want the stimulus to fail for their own narrow partisan viewpoint. You can say, until the cows come home, that unemployment is a lagging indicator yet they will still regurgitate the same old shit.. err.. yeh I know but what about unemployment?

WTF, haven't any of these clowns ever been on an economics course?

http://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/177.asp

Dixie - In Memoriam
01-29-2010, 09:45 PM
It really makes you want to puke, these guys desperately want the stimulus to fail for their own narrow partisan viewpoint. You can say, until the cows come home, that unemployment is a lagging indicator yet they will still regurgitate the same old shit.. err.. yeh I know but what about unemployment?

WTF, haven't any of these clowns ever been on an economics course?

http://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/177.asp

The problem is not US you dimwit! Take a goddamn look at the polls! The American people opposed the stimulus, just as they oppose nationalized health care, but you arrogantly just don't give a shit what the American people want!

I would love nothing more than for the "stimulus" to work! I would also love nothing more than for trees to sprout money and for it to rain beer, but I am realistic enough to understand none of that is going to happen, it's impossible! Whatever 'effect' the stimulus has, is going to be temporary. What part of that are you not comprehending in your tiny pinhead brain? We pour a bunch of taxpayer money into the system to do all kinds of little odd jobs, and put people back to work, and that is all well and good, but we can't sustain it... eventually, we run out of money, it's gone... then what? It's not like, we spend this money and suddenly, these temp jobs will just magically become permanent and the money will just start pouring in to fund them. That isn't going to happen, and it's a pipe dream to believe it will.

We have artificially stimulated the economy, and it will last as long as the money holds out, when it's gone, the people who are benefiting from the stimulus, will again be unemployed and looking for a job. We've created NO permanent jobs, created NO environment to encourage new jobs or even any corporate growth, because this administration is too busy waging war on corporate America!

This is NOT personal or partisan, it is a fundamental difference between conservatives and liberals! You think the government can fix this problem, just as you believe government can fix ANY problem, and we know for a fact, government CAN'T fix the economy... it just CAN'T! Think about it, I know that's asking a lot here, but really try hard.... IF Government COULD fix the economy, then politicians in power would DO SO every time the economy began declining, in order to remain in power! We would have never had a recession or depression, because Government would have fixed the problem... BUT, the reality is, they CAN'T!

At the very BEST, Government can get the hell out of the way, encourage business and growth by cutting taxes, and stop deficit spending so we have some credibility in the world financial sectors and stability with the dollar. The rest is up to capitalism and the free market.

Onceler
01-29-2010, 09:52 PM
"We have artificially stimulated the economy, and it will last as long as the money holds out, when it's gone, the people who are benefiting from the stimulus, will again be unemployed and looking for a job. We've created NO permanent jobs, created NO environment to encourage new jobs or even any corporate growth, because this administration is too busy waging war on corporate America! "

Dixie, you understand as much about the economy as you do about evolution.

At the time of the stimulus, no one was spending. Not consumers, not businesses. That's the idea - you stimulate, and then consumers & businesses follow.

By their very nature, many of the jobs created from the stimulus will be temporary. But they will get consumers spending again, and when consumers spend, businesses do better. When businesses do better, they hire. When people get hired, they spend more. And it keeps going like that.

And hey - how 'bout that 5.7% GDP, anyway?

But why am I explaining this to you? You won't hear anything as long as you have your hands over your ears and keep screaming "the stimulus isn't working!"

Dixie - In Memoriam
01-29-2010, 10:34 PM
"We have artificially stimulated the economy, and it will last as long as the money holds out, when it's gone, the people who are benefiting from the stimulus, will again be unemployed and looking for a job. We've created NO permanent jobs, created NO environment to encourage new jobs or even any corporate growth, because this administration is too busy waging war on corporate America! "

Dixie, you understand as much about the economy as you do about evolution.

At the time of the stimulus, no one was spending. Not consumers, not businesses. That's the idea - you stimulate, and then consumers & businesses follow.

By their very nature, many of the jobs created from the stimulus will be temporary. But they will get consumers spending again, and when consumers spend, businesses do better. When businesses do better, they hire. When people get hired, they spend more. And it keeps going like that.

And hey - how 'bout that 5.7% GDP, anyway?

But why am I explaining this to you? You won't hear anything as long as you have your hands over your ears and keep screaming "the stimulus isn't working!"

Where the hell in your convoluted mind, do you presume government spending is going to cause consumers to start spending? Were not talking about masturbating in a room full of sex addicts, where that theory might apply!

Consumers start spending when they are confident in the economy turning around. Like, when their town gets a new auto plant and hires 1,500 new workers! Like when their company hands out bonus checks because profits were so good this year! THEN consumers "feel" like they can spend, and they do! What you have tried to do, is throw some money out there to fund a few temp jobs, which helps those who are unemployed and struggling for sure, but does little to nothing to foster consumer confidence, because the consumer knows the programs are temporary!

Congrats... the record-setting $2 trillion this Congress has spent in the past year, has raised the GDP by 5.7% All that money HAD to create some effect! The problem is... what now????? THAT has always been the problem with this! WHAT NOW????

We have created NO encouragement for commercial growth, in fact, Obama's policies discourage growth. We haven't established any kind of measure to ensure long-term jobs in America, or economic prosperity in any way, and the out of control spending and debt has dramatically reduced the value of the dollar! The unemployment rate is still above 10%, in some places as high as 20% and among blacks 18-31, it is around 50% in some areas. This problem is not solved, and you trumpeting the increased GDP as if it is some indicator of a rebounding economy, illustrates how little YOU know about economics.

Onceler
01-29-2010, 10:38 PM
"Where the hell in your convoluted mind, do you presume government spending is going to cause consumers to start spending? "

It already has.

Nyah nyah.

PostmodernProphet
01-29-2010, 10:52 PM
I see we got to ten pages...did any liberal come up with an accomplishment of Obama yet?

apple0154
01-30-2010, 09:16 AM
The problem is not US you dimwit! Take a goddamn look at the polls! The American people opposed the stimulus, just as they oppose nationalized health care, but you arrogantly just don't give a shit what the American people want!

I would love nothing more than for the "stimulus" to work! I would also love nothing more than for trees to sprout money and for it to rain beer, but I am realistic enough to understand none of that is going to happen, it's impossible! Whatever 'effect' the stimulus has, is going to be temporary. What part of that are you not comprehending in your tiny pinhead brain? We pour a bunch of taxpayer money into the system to do all kinds of little odd jobs, and put people back to work, and that is all well and good, but we can't sustain it... eventually, we run out of money, it's gone... then what? It's not like, we spend this money and suddenly, these temp jobs will just magically become permanent and the money will just start pouring in to fund them. That isn't going to happen, and it's a pipe dream to believe it will.

We have artificially stimulated the economy, and it will last as long as the money holds out, when it's gone, the people who are benefiting from the stimulus, will again be unemployed and looking for a job. We've created NO permanent jobs, created NO environment to encourage new jobs or even any corporate growth, because this administration is too busy waging war on corporate America!

This is NOT personal or partisan, it is a fundamental difference between conservatives and liberals! You think the government can fix this problem, just as you believe government can fix ANY problem, and we know for a fact, government CAN'T fix the economy... it just CAN'T! Think about it, I know that's asking a lot here, but really try hard.... IF Government COULD fix the economy, then politicians in power would DO SO every time the economy began declining, in order to remain in power! We would have never had a recession or depression, because Government would have fixed the problem... BUT, the reality is, they CAN'T!

At the very BEST, Government can get the hell out of the way, encourage business and growth by cutting taxes, and stop deficit spending so we have some credibility in the world financial sectors and stability with the dollar. The rest is up to capitalism and the free market.

The stimulus is being used, in some cases, to improve infrastructure and renovate/insulate old government buildings. When there is high unemployment the government has a larger pool from which to choose employees plus it means less unemployment is being paid out. The best time for governments to spend (hire employees, buy materials, etc) is when the economy is slow.

The purpose of the stimulus is to help now, not necessarily to create jobs for the future. The economy will take care of that as it always has.

For example, let's say a guy gets laid off. He can sit at home and do nothing while collecting unemployment or he can start a project. Maybe building a deck and doing some landscaping or finishing the basement. Normally, he wouldn't have the time/energy to do that when working at a full time job.

So, what is the best use of his time? Sit at home and lament his position or buy some building materials and do a project? He doesn't have to pay cash for his materials. He can spread the payments out knowing that when he returns to work in six months or a year he'll have the funds to pay the entire loan. Meanwhile, he has increased the value of his home. He has kept busy which is good for morale and when he does return to work he can enjoy what he built during the time he was out of work.

The same "philosophy" applies to the stimulus package along with the bonus the people who have temporary jobs having money to spend now. As the economy picks up and full time jobs are created the government collects taxes and pays off the money it spent during the slow time.

The government has a choice. Either pay unemployment/welfare/food stamps and watch the people lose their homes and other possessions due to being unable to meet their payments and all the while accomplishing absolutely nothing or put those people to work doing something constructive.

A bigger pool of employees, lower wage costs as the government is not competing with the private sector for the same individuals, providing jobs for individuals so they can keep their homes and, finally, ending up having accomplished necessary and beneficial improvements. It's a win-win situation all around.

Dixie - In Memoriam
01-30-2010, 10:19 AM
For example, let's say a guy gets laid off. He can sit at home and do nothing while collecting unemployment or he can start a project. Maybe building a deck and doing some landscaping or finishing the basement. Normally, he wouldn't have the time/energy to do that when working at a full time job.

Why wouldn't the guy be doing something like, oh I don't know, LOOKING FOR A JOB? Seems like that might be the LOGICAL thing for the guy to do, but you claim it is a time for home improvement projects?



So, what is the best use of his time? Sit at home and lament his position or buy some building materials and do a project?

The best use of his time would be to LOOK FOR A JOB! The NEXT best use, would be to prepare a resume, or shave and get a hair cut maybe... anything that would be preparation for finding a JOB! The most illogical and absurd use of his time, would be to start a home improvement project he simply can't afford!


He doesn't have to pay cash for his materials. He can spread the payments out knowing that when he returns to work in six months or a year he'll have the funds to pay the entire loan.

How is he going to return to work if he is not looking for work? If he is busy renovating his home, he isn't going to have the time and energy to look for a JOB! And why would he need to? I mean, you are perfectly willing to fund his home improvement projects, give him unending weeks of unemployment, and take care of his every need!

He doesn't have to pay cash for the materials.... WE PAY FOR IT! This is coming from OUR tax dollars! WE will be the ones on the hook for a "loan" made to a man who doesn't have a JOB! That's just fucking BRILLIANT!


Meanwhile, he has increased the value of his home. He has kept busy which is good for morale and when he does return to work he can enjoy what he built during the time he was out of work.

This is supposing the magic job fairy visits him while he's putting on his cedar shake roof, and drops a JOB in his lap... it further supposes that the magic finance fairy has kept all of his bills paid during his layoff, and he isn't in debt up to his eyeballs when he goes back to work. But we can all "feel good" about helping his morale, right???

You are about the stupidest person on this site... I don't even think Onzies comes close to this level of stupid! It's beyond pathetic, it's downright sad! To think, you actually represent a considerable chunk of the American electorate... no fucking wonder we are in the mess we're in!

Good Luck
01-30-2010, 10:29 AM
The stimulus is being used, in some cases, to improve infrastructure and renovate/insulate old government buildings. When there is high unemployment the government has a larger pool from which to choose employees plus it means less unemployment is being paid out. The best time for governments to spend (hire employees, buy materials, etc) is when the economy is slow.

The purpose of the stimulus is to help now, not necessarily to create jobs for the future. The economy will take care of that as it always has.

For example, let's say a guy gets laid off. He can sit at home and do nothing while collecting unemployment or he can start a project. Maybe building a deck and doing some landscaping or finishing the basement. Normally, he wouldn't have the time/energy to do that when working at a full time job.

So, what is the best use of his time? Sit at home and lament his position or buy some building materials and do a project? He doesn't have to pay cash for his materials. He can spread the payments out knowing that when he returns to work in six months or a year he'll have the funds to pay the entire loan. Meanwhile, he has increased the value of his home. He has kept busy which is good for morale and when he does return to work he can enjoy what he built during the time he was out of work.
Right. A person out of work is going to haul out the credit cards and start doing home improvement to keep busy. (Keep their minds off of how fucked the federal government is under current leadership.) A person with a mortgage and other expenses is supposed to ADD to his debt burden at a time his income is cut in half, or worse. The what happens if it takes them 18 months to get a new job at 3/4 the pay of his previous one?

And in case you have not noticed, the stimulus has NOT resulted in greater available credit, nor have the bank bailouts. Credit is still tight and getting tighter. To top off the situation, revolving credit companies pulled back on extending credit as much as possible, AND raised their base interest charges even as the fed dropped prime rates to near zerro, before the Dem's "credit fairness" bill kicked in. Not exactly an economic environment that encourages displaced workers to use their time spending money on credit.

So much for THAT part of the plan.

Are you COMPLETELY ignorant of the fact that over extended private credit is what LED to the current crisis in the first place? And your plan is to have people WITHOUT MEANS to continue to borrow money in order to "stimulate" the economy. What you describe is the basis for another major crisis of private over extended credit in order to bring us out of a crisis generated by private overextended credit. Talk about your definition of insanity.

Dixie - In Memoriam
01-30-2010, 10:44 AM
What you describe is the basis for another major crisis of private over extended credit in order to bring us out of a crisis generated by private overextended credit. Talk about your definition of insanity.

You have to wonder how these people make it through life without getting hit by a bus or something... that must be where they coined the phrase "dumb luck."

Good Luck
01-30-2010, 10:46 AM
I read it, and I was actually quite encouraged by it. It doesn't fill me with dread that in 2019, we might have a growth rate of 3.6% instead of 3.8%. I'll take a few million jobs now for that.
So, you're now claiming that the entire premise for CBO's statement of greater long term harm comes from that one statistic. Must be since it is the only one you're willing to discuss. The analysts at CBO must be really stupid as to think a couple tenths lower in the future is not worth a few full points now. I guess they're completely full of shit. (except when they agree with you, of course, then they are gods of prognostication.)

Are you really that ignorant, or are you simply that big a liar?

apple0154
01-30-2010, 11:12 AM
Why wouldn't the guy be doing something like, oh I don't know, LOOKING FOR A JOB? Seems like that might be the LOGICAL thing for the guy to do, but you claim it is a time for home improvement projects?

Do you have a learning disability?

Obviously, the guy would be looking for a job. You wrote,
The most illogical and absurd use of his time, would be to start a home improvement project he simply can't afford!

The majority of any improvement project is the labor. The value of his labor would add to the compensation he was receiving while unemployed. In other words his income would be less but the value of his home would increase due to the improvement so he would be making money/adding to his net worth in the long run.

Further, the guy/job was an analogy meaning not everything is equal. The government has the money because the citizens have the money. Why do you think credit card companies and other places that loan money ask for the total household income? While others living in your home may not be responsible for your CC debt the total household income is a good indicator of your ability to repay.

One of the things the value/assets of a country is based on is what the population has which is why when I hear people say the government can not afford something it sounds so silly. The government can afford many things because it gets it's money from the citizens and if the citizens can afford it then the government can afford it.

So, if spending money now will ultimately be beneficial then the argument the government can not afford it doesn't hold water. An example is the infrastructure. New water and sewer lines in a community raises the value of an individual's home so everyone benefits. The homeowner, the previously unemployed individual and the government by looking after the people who elected it.

Why do you have such a difficult time extrapolating the benefits of family to the community as a whole? Let's say you owned a business and had an adult son/daughter who lost their job. Wouldn't you try to find something they could do while seeking another job? Be it helping in the office or painting the outside of the building you could pay them less than a contractor while supplementing their income.

Why does everything have to be a competition? Why do you have the attitude, "To hell with the other guy?" What happened in your life to make you so bitter? Do you ever find peace?

///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////


Why wouldn't the guy be doing something like, oh I don't know, LOOKING FOR A JOB? Seems like that might be the LOGICAL thing for the guy to do, but you claim it is a time for home improvement projects?



The best use of his time would be to LOOK FOR A JOB! The NEXT best use, would be to prepare a resume, or shave and get a hair cut maybe... anything that would be preparation for finding a JOB! The most illogical and absurd use of his time, would be to start a home improvement project he simply can't afford!



How is he going to return to work if he is not looking for work? If he is busy renovating his home, he isn't going to have the time and energy to look for a JOB! And why would he need to? I mean, you are perfectly willing to fund his home improvement projects, give him unending weeks of unemployment, and take care of his every need!

He doesn't have to pay cash for the materials.... WE PAY FOR IT! This is coming from OUR tax dollars! WE will be the ones on the hook for a "loan" made to a man who doesn't have a JOB! That's just fucking BRILLIANT!



This is supposing the magic job fairy visits him while he's putting on his cedar shake roof, and drops a JOB in his lap... it further supposes that the magic finance fairy has kept all of his bills paid during his layoff, and he isn't in debt up to his eyeballs when he goes back to work. But we can all "feel good" about helping his morale, right???

You are about the stupidest person on this site... I don't even think Onzies comes close to this level of stupid! It's beyond pathetic, it's downright sad! To think, you actually represent a considerable chunk of the American electorate... no fucking wonder we are in the mess we're in!

Dixie - In Memoriam
01-30-2010, 12:01 PM
Do you have a learning disability?

Obviously, the guy would be looking for a job. You wrote,

How will the guy be looking for a job while he is working on his house?


The majority of any improvement project is the labor. The value of his labor would add to the compensation he was receiving while unemployed. In other words his income would be less but the value of his home would increase due to the improvement so he would be making money/adding to his net worth in the long run.

Oh, I don't doubt that he would add to his net worth if WE pay for his home improvements!


Further, the guy/job was an analogy meaning not everything is equal. The government has the money because the citizens have the money.

Who has the money to pay for this stupid shit? I DON'T! Our government is currently $12 trillion in the RED, they are borrowing money from China as fast as they can, just to make the interest payments on the debt they owe! You are out of you mind if you think we have money to blow on stupid shit like this! It's a good example of how absolutely out of touch with reality you are!


Why do you think credit card companies and other places that loan money ask for the total household income? While others living in your home may not be responsible for your CC debt the total household income is a good indicator of your ability to repay.

Total income for a guy with no job is $0.00! Most banks and financial institutions would say that disqualifies you for ANY loan!


One of the things the value/assets of a country is based on is what the population has which is why when I hear people say the government can not afford something it sounds so silly. The government can afford many things because it gets it's money from the citizens and if the citizens can afford it then the government can afford it.

*sigh* You need to grow up and understand, the government is not your Rich Uncle, who has all the money in the universe at their disposal, and available for whatever WHIM you come up with next! I am sorry, but we simply aren't Paris Hilton! The problem is, the citizens CAN'T afford it! We've already spent more than the citizens will be able to ever repay, or their kids, or their grandkids! And you just keep piling on stupid things to spend MORE on! It's as if you simply don't believe there is a bottom to the pile of money in Washington! It's there because the citizens have plenty, and it's up to your 'do-good' ass to determine how to blow it on stupid meaningless shit!


So, if spending money now will ultimately be beneficial then the argument the government can not afford it doesn't hold water.

Well, it DOES hold water, because the FACT is, we are $12 trillion in debt and RISING! We are BROKE! Do you NOT understand that FACT? We DON'T have all this endless supply of wealth and money to spend on superfluous bullshit!


An example is the infrastructure. New water and sewer lines in a community raises the value of an individual's home so everyone benefits. The homeowner, the previously unemployed individual and the government by looking after the people who elected it.


If a community elects to spend local funds on water systems and such, that should be up to the community, and they should collectively decide it, NOT the US Government! How in the fuck does increasing another individual's home value help ME? Where do you get that "everyone benefits?" MY tax dollars go to pay for someones home improvement, if there is any benefit, it sure isn't going to be realized by ME!


Why do you have such a difficult time extrapolating the benefits of family to the community as a whole? Let's say you owned a business and had an adult son/daughter who lost their job. Wouldn't you try to find something they could do while seeking another job? Be it helping in the office or painting the outside of the building you could pay them less than a contractor while supplementing their income.

Perhaps I would, if my business could afford it. I would be an idiot to go borrowing money to pay for unnecessary improvement projects I couldn't afford, just so my son/daughter had something to do instead of looking for a job! Why is it so hard for you to extrapolate that it's not MY family's responsibility and first priority to take care of YOUR family?


Why does everything have to be a competition? Why do you have the attitude, "To hell with the other guy?" What happened in your life to make you so bitter? Do you ever find peace?

Where have I said "to hell with the other guy?" Is that based on the fact that I don't think it should be my responsibility to provide for the other guy? I don't mind helping someone who is down, I have no problem with using a little of my tax money to pay for the unemployed guy to get retrained in something, or anything to help him in his search for employment. I don't even mind using some of my tax money to keep a roof over his head and food on the table for a few months, while he looks for work. I have to draw the line when it comes to using MY money to pay for his home renovation projects! That's just asking a little too much, I think! And for you to try and turn that back around on me, as if I am some greedy SOB who doesn't "care" enough, is insulting and offensive.

Dixie - In Memoriam
01-30-2010, 12:10 PM
What happened in your life to make you so bitter? Do you ever find peace?

What happened in your life that made you feel so empowered to speak for me and spend my money? How much of MY money will it take to satisfy your conscience that you've done all you can to help others? Will you ever be satisfied? If everyone who pays taxes just donated ALL their money to the government, would it satisfy you enough? OR would you demand that we work harder, maybe extend the work week another day, so we can make more money to give to whomever you feel deserves it more than me?

apple0154
01-30-2010, 03:53 PM
How will the guy be looking for a job while he is working on his house?

He isn't going to be looking for a job 8 hours a day, every day. He may start out that way but after a while there are limited places to look. He is not going to knock on the same company door every day.


Oh, I don't doubt that he would add to his net worth if WE pay for his home improvements!

No one is being asked to pay for his home improvement. He is buying the material and doing the job himself.


Who has the money to pay for this stupid shit? I DON'T! Our government is currently $12 trillion in the RED, they are borrowing money from China as fast as they can, just to make the interest payments on the debt they owe! You are out of you mind if you think we have money to blow on stupid shit like this! It's a good example of how absolutely out of touch with reality you are!

So what do you suggest? We just waste the manpower of millions of citizens? Tell them to stay home and rest instead of taking advantage of the available labor?


*sigh* You need to grow up and understand, the government is not your Rich Uncle, who has all the money in the universe at their disposal, and available for whatever WHIM you come up with next! I am sorry, but we simply aren't Paris Hilton! The problem is, the citizens CAN'T afford it! We've already spent more than the citizens will be able to ever repay, or their kids, or their grandkids! And you just keep piling on stupid things to spend MORE on! It's as if you simply don't believe there is a bottom to the pile of money in Washington! It's there because the citizens have plenty, and it's up to your 'do-good' ass to determine how to blow it on stupid meaningless shit!

Let's cut to the chase. (I like that expression. The first time I "heard" it was on a dating site used as a double entendre. :) )

So what, in your mind, is the "worst case scenario"? Your grandchildren will go hungry because they owe so much money? The Chinese will foreclose on the White House? What would justify not taking advantage of the millions of available manpower?


Well, it DOES hold water, because the FACT is, we are $12 trillion in debt and RISING! We are BROKE! Do you NOT understand that FACT? We DON'T have all this endless supply of wealth and money to spend on superfluous bullshit!

Again, what is the worst case scenario? We'll all be driving a Caramba? http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/ay-chinese-caramba-cheap-cars-invade-mexico/


Perhaps I would, if my business could afford it. I would be an idiot to go borrowing money to pay for unnecessary improvement projects I couldn't afford, just so my son/daughter had something to do instead of looking for a job! Why is it so hard for you to extrapolate that it's not MY family's responsibility and first priority to take care of YOUR family?

I never said "unnecessary" projects. If your adult son or daughter was unemployed and you could use their labor to help you and them why would you not do it?


Where have I said "to hell with the other guy?" Is that based on the fact that I don't think it should be my responsibility to provide for the other guy? I don't mind helping someone who is down, I have no problem with using a little of my tax money to pay for the unemployed guy to get retrained in something, or anything to help him in his search for employment. I don't even mind using some of my tax money to keep a roof over his head and food on the table for a few months, while he looks for work. I have to draw the line when it comes to using MY money to pay for his home renovation projects! That's just asking a little too much, I think! And for you to try and turn that back around on me, as if I am some greedy SOB who doesn't "care" enough, is insulting and offensive.

Let's be clear here. You would not be paying for his renovation.

The only reason you feel insulted and offended is because you don't understand. Let me take another try at explaining it.

Your country is an extension of your family. If you had an adult son or daughter who was unemployed and living with you wouldn't you want them to help around the house? Wouldn't you be wise to buy building materials and have them fix up the basement? The same principal applies to an unemployed neighbor. Would you not want him to do something around the community rather than just pay him benefits to stay home?

Our economy, our way of life is intertwined. It's the same thing with medical care. Most people agree we'll have to do a bit of belt tightening over the coming years to pay back our loans. What belt does the guy who can't afford medical insurance right now tighten?

It's time to look at the big picture and work towards a common goal. The neighbor's foreclosed house falls into disrepair and that affects the value of our home. How much more evident can it be that we all have to work together?

apple0154
01-30-2010, 04:04 PM
What happened in your life that made you feel so empowered to speak for me and spend my money? How much of MY money will it take to satisfy your conscience that you've done all you can to help others? Will you ever be satisfied? If everyone who pays taxes just donated ALL their money to the government, would it satisfy you enough? OR would you demand that we work harder, maybe extend the work week another day, so we can make more money to give to whomever you feel deserves it more than me?

Contrary to your belief it's not all about you. Everyone is contributing. That's why we have taxes. That's why the people with less income pay less income tax. That's why people have deductions for dependents.

Try to expand your mind to understand we are all in this together. When it is dinner time do you fill your plate first and then let other family members help themselves? If not, why not? What about Dixie? Why doesn't Dixie come first at the dinner table?

Can you take that thought and expand on it. Try. You just may like it.

Cancel 2018. 3
01-30-2010, 05:07 PM
So, you're now claiming that the entire premise for CBO's statement of greater long term harm comes from that one statistic. Must be since it is the only one you're willing to discuss. The analysts at CBO must be really stupid as to think a couple tenths lower in the future is not worth a few full points now. I guess they're completely full of shit. (except when they agree with you, of course, then they are gods of prognostication.)

Are you really that ignorant, or are you simply that big a liar?

he is both ignorant and dishonest. i have tried to get him and nigel to admit the stupidity and dishonesty of claiming that the CBO said it was negative based solely on that small factor, but they continue to run away, only to come back and make the point again.

'good luck' getting them to be honest this

Onceler
01-30-2010, 05:20 PM
he is both ignorant and dishonest. i have tried to get him and nigel to admit the stupidity and dishonesty of claiming that the CBO said it was negative based solely on that small factor, but they continue to run away, only to come back and make the point again.

'good luck' getting them to be honest this

When have I "run away?"

Talk about dishonesty.

Why not own up to the fact that the verbiage you posted again & again & again was NOT what the CBO said, as you claimed, but was what the Times said they said, which has been roundly criticized by media watch organizations?

The CBO NEVER said, "we'd be better off if Obama had done nothing." They NEVER said, "the overall effect in the long-run will be negative."

You are hopelessly dishonest. Good Luck tried to throw you a life raft, but you've still been badly humiliated on this thread. Frankly, I'm surprised you had the shamelessness to post here again.

Onceler
01-30-2010, 05:26 PM
and since you want to cite CBO, let's see what CBO said about its lasting impact:

President Obama's economic recovery package will actually hurt the economy more in the long run than if he were to do nothing, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said Wednesday.
....

See this quote?

It's a lie. The CBO did not say that, or imply it.\

If they did - show me the exact verbiage.

Cancel 2018. 3
01-30-2010, 07:55 PM
if obama had not enacted the stimulus, the economy would not suffer in the long run, thus it would be better off....any 5th grader realizes this....perhaps you should read the report again

and good luck called you a liar moron

Good Luck
01-30-2010, 10:31 PM
See this quote?

It's a lie. The CBO did not say that, or imply it.\

If they did - show me the exact verbiage.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/feb/04/cbo-obama-stimulus-harmful-over-long-haul/


CBO, the official scorekeepers for legislation, said the House and Senate bills will help in the short term but result in so much government debt that within a few years they would crowd out private investment, actually leading to a lower Gross Domestic Product over the next 10 years than if the government had done nothing.

There is the phrase you keep ignoring. Lower GDP over the next ten years... That does NOT say "lower GDP per year over the next 10 years" So, over the next 10 years, the stimulus is likely to result in a lower GDP over all, INCLUDING any short term gains. So any short term growth will be eaten up and we'll end up worse off in the long run, with associated higher over-all unemployment, with associated higher expenses trying to support the higher unemployment, adding more to the already ballooned-beyond-all-comprehension national debt, etc. etc. etc.

That's what government (and it does not matter the flavor) and their idiot lemming servants cannot seem to grasp. Quick throw-some-more-money-at-it fixes invariably lead to more long term problems. But, since the focus of government pukes is always the next election cycle, that is how far out they give a shit about the crap they pull on us.

Cancel 2018. 3
01-30-2010, 11:14 PM
When have I "run away?"

Talk about dishonesty.

Why not own up to the fact that the verbiage you posted again & again & again was NOT what the CBO said, as you claimed, but was what the Times said they said, which has been roundly criticized by media watch organizations?

The CBO NEVER said, "we'd be better off if Obama had done nothing." They NEVER said, "the overall effect in the long-run will be negative."

You are hopelessly dishonest. Good Luck tried to throw you a life raft, but you've still been badly humiliated on this thread. Frankly, I'm surprised you had the shamelessness to post here again.

lol....he just threw you an anchor, why can't you be honest just once onceler

Onceler
01-31-2010, 09:21 AM
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/feb/04/cbo-obama-stimulus-harmful-over-long-haul/



There is the phrase you keep ignoring. Lower GDP over the next ten years... That does NOT say "lower GDP per year over the next 10 years" So, over the next 10 years, the stimulus is likely to result in a lower GDP over all, INCLUDING any short term gains. So any short term growth will be eaten up and we'll end up worse off in the long run, with associated higher over-all unemployment, with associated higher expenses trying to support the higher unemployment, adding more to the already ballooned-beyond-all-comprehension national debt, etc. etc. etc.

That's what government (and it does not matter the flavor) and their idiot lemming servants cannot seem to grasp. Quick throw-some-more-money-at-it fixes invariably lead to more long term problems. But, since the focus of government pukes is always the next election cycle, that is how far out they give a shit about the crap they pull on us.

Um, no, Good Luck. You're going w/ the Washington Times article, as well.

Now, why not look up the actual letter from the CBO, and see if you think the Times interprets it correctly.

What a couple of fools.

Onceler
01-31-2010, 09:25 AM
if obama had not enacted the stimulus, the economy would not suffer in the long run, thus it would be better off....any 5th grader realizes this....perhaps you should read the report again

and good luck called you a liar moron

Um, no - it said that it would knock a few tenths of a percent off of GROWTH in 10 years time.

You're still not really reading the CBO letter, or reading it correctly.

As I said - I'm embarassed for you. But you seem to be a glutton for punishment on this issue.

One more time, for the slow righties - the CBO never made a determination that it is worse to trade stronger growth now for a miniscule loss of growth 10 years from now. In fact, anyone with any intelligence at all realizes that exactly the opposite is true; it's a no brainer to promote higher growth now, in a recession, and trade it for a loss of a couple tenths of a percent in growth in 2019.

Onceler
01-31-2010, 09:39 AM
Here's my request of the gdp-challenged righties: link the CBO letter, and stop linking the erroneous Times article (which, again, media watchdog groups have criticized as flat-out bad reporting).

Once you link the CBO letter, cut & paste the exact verbiage - in context - which shows that the CBO states conclusively that the stimulus will be more MORE detrimental in the long run, and that America & the economy would have been better off had Obama done nothing.

"Good luck," as they say...

Dixie - In Memoriam
01-31-2010, 11:07 AM
Here's my request of the gdp-challenged righties: link the CBO letter, and stop linking the erroneous Times article (which, again, media watchdog groups have criticized as flat-out bad reporting).

Once you link the CBO letter, cut & paste the exact verbiage - in context - which shows that the CBO states conclusively that the stimulus will be more MORE detrimental in the long run, and that America & the economy would have been better off had Obama done nothing.

"Good luck," as they say...

I got a better idea, let's do nothing and continue to watch the high unemployment through the Summer of 2010, and the anemic growth, and the declining dollar, while this DEMOCRAT congress continues to spend us into oblivion and raise taxes! That's what I want to see, because by November, I seriously doubt more than 15% of the country will want to vote for your party, and we can say goodbye to your goofy asses forever.

Onceler
01-31-2010, 11:10 AM
I got a better idea, let's do nothing and continue to watch the high unemployment through the Summer of 2010, and the anemic growth, and the declining dollar, while this DEMOCRAT congress continues to spend us into oblivion and raise taxes! That's what I want to see, because by November, I seriously doubt more than 15% of the country will want to vote for your party, and we can say goodbye to your goofy asses forever.

But that would be bad news for you, wouldn't it?

Haven't you argued that Republicans "work better in the minority?"

Why would you want them in a position where they work more poorly?

Dixie - In Memoriam
01-31-2010, 11:15 AM
But that would be bad news for you, wouldn't it?

Haven't you argued that Republicans "work better in the minority?"

Why would you want them in a position where they work more poorly?

I've never said Republicans work better in the minority, that sounds like something McCain might say, or maybe Damo, but not ME!

Onceler
01-31-2010, 11:20 AM
http://www.justplainpolitics.com/showthread.php?p=36943&highlight=minority#post36943

"Republicans tend to do better when they're in the minority role"

That was easy....

Dixie - In Memoriam
01-31-2010, 11:38 AM
http://www.justplainpolitics.com/showthread.php?p=36943&highlight=minority#post36943

"Republicans tend to do better when they're in the minority role"

That was easy....

Yeah, problem is, I didn't say what you claimed I said.

Onceler
01-31-2010, 11:43 AM
Yeah, problem is, I didn't say what you claimed I said.

And, in Dixieland, there is a fundamental difference between "do better" and "work better"?

I guess it depends on the definition of "is"...

Mott the Hoople
01-31-2010, 11:56 AM
I got a better idea, let's do nothing and continue to watch the high unemployment through the Summer of 2010, and the anemic growth, and the declining dollar, while this DEMOCRAT congress continues to spend us into oblivion and raise taxes! That's what I want to see, because by November, I seriously doubt more than 15% of the country will want to vote for your party, and we can say goodbye to your goofy asses forever.That could be but if by this time next year we see more stabilization of the banking industry, significant consumer protections due to health care and banking reforms, unemployment at less then 7%, inflation at 5% or less, sustained job growth over four quarters, measurable reductions in the budget deficit and a withdrawl from Iraq and Afghanistan then Obama will be viewed as having fixed or repaired the majority of Bush's major fuck ups he inherited in two short years, a remarkable achievement that the voting public will recognize despite what a handful of teabagging reactionaries have to say. In which case the shoe will be on the other foot and most Americans aren't going to have the time of day to listen the the rants of the wingnuts.

Dixie - In Memoriam
01-31-2010, 12:11 PM
And, in Dixieland, there is a fundamental difference between "do better" and "work better"?

I guess it depends on the definition of "is"...

No, "is" doesn't even appear in either statement. "Tend to do better" doesn't mean "works better", they both contain the word "better" but the two phrases have entirely different meaning. I understand, it's not your fault, you are a simple minded retard who can't comprehend the most basic nuances in language, so I don't hold it against you, but you were just plain wrong. As usual!

Onceler
01-31-2010, 12:15 PM
No, "is" doesn't even appear in either statement. "Tend to do better" doesn't mean "works better", they both contain the word "better" but the two phrases have entirely different meaning. I understand, it's not your fault, you are a simple minded retard who can't comprehend the most basic nuances in language, so I don't hold it against you, but you were just plain wrong. As usual!

So, in your view, they "tend to do better" when in the minority, but they "work better" in the majority?

Dixie - In Memoriam
01-31-2010, 12:15 PM
That could be but if by this time next year we see more stabilization of the banking industry, significant consumer protections due to health care and banking reforms, unemployment at less then 7%, inflation at 5% or less, sustained job growth over four quarters, measurable reductions in the budget deficit and a withdrawl from Iraq and Afghanistan then Obama will be viewed as having fixed or repaired the majority of Bush's major fuck ups he inherited in two short years, a remarkable achievement that the voting public will recognize despite what a handful of teabagging reactionaries have to say. In which case the shoe will be on the other foot and most Americans aren't going to have the time of day to listen the the rants of the wingnuts.

Mott, the problem is, "this time next year" we will have elected Republicans to Congress, and they will be taking the seats formerly held by the Democrats, who have already cleaned out their desks and gone home. You better hope this impossibly miraculous turnaround happens within the next 6 months or so, otherwise it will simply be too late for Democrats.

Dixie - In Memoriam
01-31-2010, 12:19 PM
So, in your view, they "tend to do better" when in the minority, but they "work better" in the majority?

Correct!

They "tend to do better" ....they TEND to stay focused on core conservative values and articulate them to the American people BETTER if they are on the outside looking in. They WORK BETTER in the majority, passing legislation based on core conservative values. Sorry you were confused, I hope that clears it up for ya!

Mott the Hoople
01-31-2010, 12:23 PM
Mott, the problem is, "this time next year" we will have elected Republicans to Congress, and they will be taking the seats formerly held by the Democrats, who have already cleaned out their desks and gone home. You better hope this impossibly miraculous turnaround happens within the next 6 months or so, otherwise it will simply be too late for Democrats.We all are Dixie, we all are. Most of us recognize that Obama is only human and that it will require many, many years to undo the harm Bush and his administration has done to this nation.

Dixie - In Memoriam
01-31-2010, 12:39 PM
We all are Dixie, we all are. Most of us recognize that Obama is only human and that it will require many, many years to undo the harm Bush and his administration has done to this nation.

Well that's too bad then, because the American people have shown no signs of patience with Obama and the Socialists. He ran on the promise to FIX the problems, not to moan and whine about how bad things were because of Bush! I know you pinhead morons love to hear that, but it's just not SOLVING the problems you were elected to SOLVE!

Onceler
01-31-2010, 12:40 PM
Correct!

They "tend to do better" ....they TEND to stay focused on core conservative values and articulate them to the American people BETTER if they are on the outside looking in. They WORK BETTER in the majority, passing legislation based on core conservative values. Sorry you were confused, I hope that clears it up for ya!

I didn't really need you to "clear up" that your essentially insane, and capable of parsing any word in the dictionary to the nth degree.

I have always said that, if anyone had the time, they could create a thread of robust debate on just about every issue, using only quotes from you.

Dixie - In Memoriam
01-31-2010, 12:43 PM
I didn't really need you to "clear up" that your essentially insane, and capable of parsing any word in the dictionary to the nth degree.

I have always said that, if anyone had the time, they could create a thread of robust debate on just about every issue, using only quotes from you.

Well, I just schooled you on the actual context and definition of words I used, and illustrated the difference between what you thought I said, and what I actually said. There is no "parsing" of words, they meant what they meant. You just misunderstood them, which is a common problem retarded people have, I understand!

Mott the Hoople
01-31-2010, 12:44 PM
Well that's too bad then, because the American people have shown no signs of patience with Obama and the Socialists. He ran on the promise to FIX the problems, not to moan and whine about how bad things were because of Bush! I know you pinhead morons love to hear that, but it's just not SOLVING the problems you were elected to SOLVE!Maybe and I'm sure that line of rhetoric sells in Alabama and rural South Dakota. Memories aren't so short that mainstream Americans are going to vote for reactionary wingnuts cause Obama hasn't accomplished much. If Republican still continue to attempt to govern from the far right....then the American public will take their chances with a mainstream centrist like Obama. Keep in mind that this year with the Democrats in charge of both the executive branch and congress, that they will get to gerrymander congressional voting districts to their advantage making gains in congress for Republicans that much more difficult. It's going to take a lot more then dissatisfaction in HC reform to change that. A poor rate of job growth between now and November will play a much larger role. If that occurs Democrats will have to make an argument that the current situation is a result of 8 years of Republican reactionary extremism then it is from 2 years of Obama which is the truth. The best Republicans can hope for is to gain a few seats in the house and a few in the Senate. They will not regain either house in 2010. The American publics memory aint that short.

Onceler
01-31-2010, 12:46 PM
Well, I just schooled you on the actual context and definition of words I used, and illustrated the difference between what you thought I said, and what I actually said. There is no "parsing" of words, they meant what they meant. You just misunderstood them, which is a common problem retarded people have, I understand!

Is that what happened? Really?

The idea that saying Republicans "work better" and "do better" constitutes 2 entirely different concepts is certifiable.

Dixie - In Memoriam
01-31-2010, 12:57 PM
Is that what happened? Really?

The idea that saying Republicans "work better" and "do better" constitutes 2 entirely different concepts is certifiable.

Again, you are misquoting what I said and using the context you want instead of the one intended. Anyone can do that... I can take what you say out of context and have you supposedly saying all sorts of shit! It's called "intellectual dishonesty" in case you didn't know, which I am sure you didn't, since you have no clue what "intellectual" is to begin with.

Here is a prime example, where I went to the trouble of breaking it down into simple terms to explain it to your dumb ass, and you STILL want to run back to the misquoting and taking things out of context. It's one thing to be ignorant, but to be stubborn and ignorant... that's a hopeless combination! I do hope you get help!

Dixie - In Memoriam
01-31-2010, 12:59 PM
Maybe and I'm sure that line of rhetoric sells in Alabama and rural South Dakota.

Apparently it's been selling pretty damn good in Virginia, New Jersey, and Massachusetts too!

Onceler
01-31-2010, 01:06 PM
"I do hope you get help! "

Do you hope I "get" help, or do you hope I "go get" help? See, they are two entirely different things...

TuTu Monroe
01-31-2010, 01:22 PM
Man, you are a stubborn old mule.


"I do hope you get help! "

Do you hope I "get" help, or do you hope I "go get" help? See, they are two entirely different things...

Onceler
01-31-2010, 01:27 PM
Man, you are a stubborn old mule.

So, you agree with Dixie when he claims that, when he said Republicans 'tend to do better' in the minority, he didn't mean that they 'work better' in the minority?

Mott the Hoople
01-31-2010, 02:16 PM
Apparently it's been selling pretty damn good in Virginia, New Jersey, and Massachusetts too!Maybe, we will see. I wouldn't read to much into that though. You're bound to be dissapointed.

Cancel 2018. 3
01-31-2010, 02:26 PM
We all are Dixie, we all are. Most of us recognize that Obama is only human and that it will require many, many years to undo the harm Bush and his administration has done to this nation.

pott the poople, you're such a hack at times

Onceler
01-31-2010, 02:51 PM
Here's my request of the gdp-challenged righties: link the CBO letter, and stop linking the erroneous Times article (which, again, media watchdog groups have criticized as flat-out bad reporting).

Once you link the CBO letter, cut & paste the exact verbiage - in context - which shows that the CBO states conclusively that the stimulus will be more MORE detrimental in the long run, and that America & the economy would have been better off had Obama done nothing.

"Good luck," as they say...

Worth a bump? Sure...

TuTu Monroe
01-31-2010, 04:47 PM
Um, no, Good Luck. You're going w/ the Washington Times article, as well.

Now, why not look up the actual letter from the CBO, and see if you think the Times interprets it correctly.

What a couple of fools.

Simple. Do the math.

Onceler
01-31-2010, 04:50 PM
Simple. Do the math.

Show me where the CBO says it.

Cancel 2018. 3
01-31-2010, 05:02 PM
onceler is having a melt down

Onceler
01-31-2010, 05:28 PM
onceler is having a melt down

Heehee.

Nah - I'm thoroughly enjoying this. How many times do I have to ask for in-context verbiage from the actual CBO letter? Why can't anyone satisfy this simple request?

I realize you'd prefer to cut & paste an erroneous opinion from the Times over & over again, and keep dishonestly saying "this is exactly what the CBO said," but it's been exposed....
:pke:

Cancel 2018. 3
01-31-2010, 05:31 PM
onceler's meltdown is worse than i feared :(

Onceler
01-31-2010, 05:37 PM
onceler's meltdown is worse than i feared :(

Well, it certainly took awhile, but it's nice to hear you admit you were wrong, and that you were lying.

Thanks...

:clink:

Cancel 2018. 3
01-31-2010, 05:43 PM
we need to do an intervention for onceler, he is rapidly descending into paranoia delusional behavior and its clear he is unable to discern reality from his delusional made up world that his meltdown forced him to hide in.

Onceler
01-31-2010, 05:47 PM
Hey, man. I am sorry - I was wrong, no doubt about it. I actually thought the Times article was the CBO, but - having read the CBO letter - I realize how dumb that was.

Nice - 'bout time...

:)

Cancel 2018. 3
01-31-2010, 06:15 PM
see, in his delusional world i said something that i never said, is mind his so frail he sees only delusions and lies. he cannot accept reality, only the reality of his delusional world.

Onceler
01-31-2010, 06:20 PM
see, in his delusional world i said something that i never said, is mind his so frail he sees only delusions and lies. he cannot accept reality, only the reality of his delusional world.

Eh - you're just stalling, hoping Good Luck will ride to the rescue again.

He won't, though; the verbiage just isn't there.

What a shame...

:cof1:

Cancel 2018. 3
01-31-2010, 06:33 PM
i've already quoted the report you delusional fool and i laught at you because you once claimed good luck said i was wrong, when in fact he said you lied....lmao, you are truly delusional

just because you don't like the answer i gave doesn't mean your delusions are true. seek help before you kill yourself.

NOVA
01-31-2010, 06:35 PM
Here is the document in question.....spin away....

CBO estimates that this Senate legislation would
raise output and lower unemployment for several years, with effects broadly
similar to those of H.R. 1 as introduced. In the longer run, the legislation would
result in a slight decrease in gross domestic product (GDP) compared with CBO’s
baseline economic forecast.
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/96xx/doc9619/Gregg.pdf

Onceler
01-31-2010, 07:04 PM
i've already quoted the report you delusional fool and i laught at you because you once claimed good luck said i was wrong, when in fact he said you lied....lmao, you are truly delusional

just because you don't like the answer i gave doesn't mean your delusions are true. seek help before you kill yourself.

The snippet you posted said neither that the overall economy would be worse in the long run as a result of the stimulus, nor that it would be better had Obama done nothing.

Want to have another go at it?

Cancel 2018. 3
01-31-2010, 07:16 PM
onceler needs a padded cell, now

Onceler
01-31-2010, 07:18 PM
"Want to have another go at it? "

Apparently not.

Can I say I'm surprised? Nope.

Cancel 2018. 3
01-31-2010, 07:22 PM
those that need padded cells can't handle an earlier defeat and must continually request this nebulous repeat of some silly argument that never worked for them in the first place....that is the definition of insanity folks and onceler can't accept the true reality of it.

Onceler
01-31-2010, 07:29 PM
those that need padded cells can't handle an earlier defeat and must continually request this nebulous repeat of some silly argument that never worked for them in the first place....that is the definition of insanity folks and onceler can't accept the true reality of it.

I'm not asking you to repeat anything; I think you realized that your argument failed when you realized that the Washington Times article was bogus, and also realized that the sentence you kept posting was actually a Times sentence, and not one from the CBO. But, you can't admit it (at least, not directly - your recent posts are pretty much an admission, though).

As for insanity, you might want to look at the use of "folks" in the post above. Do we have an audience?

Now, that's a little nuts!

:good4u:

Cancel 2018. 3
01-31-2010, 07:41 PM
:palm:

onceler, as your buddy, i can't continue this, it is too embarrassing to watch this train wreck you've become.

how can we reach you? do you need to alter my posts and lie about what i said? will this help? i just want to help.

Onceler
01-31-2010, 07:57 PM
:palm:

onceler, as your buddy, i can't continue this, it is too embarrassing to watch this train wreck you've become.

how can we reach you? do you need to alter my posts and lie about what i said? will this help? i just want to help.

Nah; just post the exact language from the CBO letter, which a reasonable, intelligent person could read & conclude that it says that the overall economy will be worse off because of the stimulus, and that it would be better off had Obama done nothing.

That'll do nicely....

:clink:

Cancel 2018. 3
01-31-2010, 08:13 PM
since onceler always has to have the last word; especially in his delusional state, which i hope is temporary so i can get back to regular debates and discussions with him..........

the last word is yours onceler, you have the floor, i only hope this helps you through your recovery.

your buddy always,

yurt

Onceler
01-31-2010, 08:23 PM
The human projector.

Really? That's it?

No CBO verbiage?

I'll accept that as an admission of your epic wrongness on this issue. Try to think before posting next time, and try not to let your Obama-hate drive everything you voice here. Really, it seems to be a debilitating factor for you, and clouds any objectivity you could hope to have in a massive, massive way.....

Cancel 2018. 3
01-31-2010, 08:28 PM
my dear friends:

onceler once again had to have the last word, we let him have it. now, we must take him away. to a safe place. far, far away.

yours truly,

yurt

Onceler
01-31-2010, 08:29 PM
LOL

Knew you couldn't commit to the "last word" thing.

Like I said - human projector...

Cancel 2018. 3
01-31-2010, 08:39 PM
LOL

Knew you couldn't commit to the "last word" thing.

Like I said - human projector...

yet you continue to give the last word. i had hoped with your most recent therapy you wouldn't lash out like this.

again, the last word is yours, no need to lash out onceler. i like you, i respect you, and you are a good person.

Onceler
01-31-2010, 08:42 PM
yet you continue to give the last word. i had hoped with your most recent therapy you wouldn't lash out like this.

again, the last word is yours, no need to lash out onceler. i like you, i respect you, and you are a good person.

Little difference there, Yurtie. I never posted "the last word is yours" - you did. And you've posted twice since.

More Yurt lies. You really are the most dishonest poster here; I don't think you're a good person at all.

:clink:

Cancel 2018. 3
01-31-2010, 08:46 PM
yet you had to give the last word....once again

:palm:

Onceler
01-31-2010, 08:52 PM
yet you had to give the last word....once again

:palm:

I like having the last word. I kind of strive for it; I wouldn't say something like "I'm going to let Yurt have the last word," and then continue to post.

I mean - that's just dumb....

:cof1:

Cancel 2018. 3
01-31-2010, 09:53 PM
:facepalm:

christiefan915
02-01-2010, 08:31 AM
I see we got to ten pages...did any liberal come up with an accomplishment of Obama yet?

And there are plenty more where these came from.

-Signed Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act.

-Signed an executive order allowing the federal fundingfor embryonic stem cell research.

-Established a credit card bill of rights

-Expanded eligibility for State Children's Health Insurance Fund (SCHIP)

-Sign the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities

-Directed military leaders to end war in Iraq

-No permanent bases in Iraq

-Allocated Homeland Security funding according to risk

-Initiated a grant and training program for law enforcement to deter cyber crime

-Granted Americans unrestricted rights to visit family and send money to Cuba

-Established an Energy Partnership for the Americas

-Release of presidential records

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/rulings/promise-kept/

christiefan915
02-01-2010, 08:52 AM
And, in Dixieland, there is a fundamental difference between "do better" and "work better"?

I guess it depends on the definition of "is"...

Zing!

And the CBO didn't say what he claimed they said, either.