Jobless Figures Pose Social, Political Threat for Obama, Dems

Dungheap said:
The bold is hilarious, particularly because you think you are being insightful. Here's a newsflash for you: the Republicans will say whatever kind of crazy shit they want to say notwithstanding what the facts are.

You are proof positive of that.
Click to expand...
This silly post simply degrades the idea that we will ever be able to have a conversation about political strategy without inane ad homs ending it. However this does show that you understand what I am saying. Whether or not they did what I think they have done, even the appearance of it would be bad for your party. It may be that in trying desperately to help they have opened an unexpected door, but I don't believe so. I don't believe that they are that naive.
 
Dungheap said:
Damo, I'm still waiting for a response to this:



Preferably something that rebuts this from the CBO at the time the bill was passed:




So you see, the stimulus bill was actually front-loaded to have its largest impact by the 4th quarter of 2009, slightly less of an impact in 2010 (an election year), even less of an impact in 2011 and declining from there.
Click to expand...
I never claimed that the heaviest stimulus takes place in 2012, I said that the largest spending takes place in time for 2010 and that it again picks up in time for the 2012 election cycles, both Onceler and I agree to have max benefit that spending would need to take place about 1 year to 1 1/2 years beforehand. Reading the CBOs numbers just about exactly matches with what I have said. Beginning just in time to effect elections in 2010 the spending (according to Onceler) will begin in October of 2009... Amazing.

Your CBO report says that the increases will end and start tapering off about a year before the 2012 election cycle... Things that make you go, "Hmmmm...."
 
Damocles said:
This silly post simply degrades the idea that we will ever be able to have a conversation about political strategy without inane ad homs ending it. This does show that you understand what I am saying. Whether or not they did what I think they have done, even the appearance of it would be bad for your party. It may be that in trying desperately to help they have opened an unexpected door, but I don't believe so. I don't believe that they are that naive.
Click to expand...


I understand what you are saying, but you've got no basis in fact for saying what you are saying. As I said, it doesn't matter what the Democrats do, the Republicans will always make shit up to criticize it regardless of the basis in fact, just like this little theory of yours.
 
Damocles said:
I never claimed that the heaviest stimulus takes place in 2012, I said that the largest spending takes place in time for 2010 and that it again picks up in time for the 2012 election cycles, both Onceler and I agree to have max benefit that spending would need to take place about 1 year to 1 1/2 years beforehand. Reading the CBOs numbers just about exactly matches with what I have said. Beginning just in time to effect elections in 2010 the spending (according to Onceler) will begin in October of 2009... Amazing.

Your CBO says that the increases will end and start tapering off about a year before the 2012 election cycle... Hmmm...
Click to expand...

You're so full of shit:

I believe that the stimulus shouldn't have been set to stimulate mostly during election years. I have pointed it out several times before it was passed, after it was passed, and now here. It would make more sense to call it "dynamics of stimulus" if it was spread out more evenly, however the heaviest of "stimulus" takes place in 2010 and 2012 and gives at least the appearance of playing with people's lives, if not direct evidence.
Click to expand...

No, the heaviest of the stimulus takes place by October of 2009, an non-election year, not 2010. And by 2012 the effect of the stimulus is negligible. There is little to no spending at all in 2011. Reading the CBO numbers show that you are completely full of shit.

And do you realize how fucking stupid it is to claim that the Congress in 2009 for crass political purposes spent a lot of money in 2009 to help their re-election prospects in 2010 while at the same time saying that it takes about a a year to a year and a half for spending to have any impact? And to top it off you are at the same time criticizing the government for not spending enough money right now, roughly one and a half years before the election.
 
Dungheap said:
You're so full of shit:



No, the heaviest of the stimulus takes place by October of 2009, an non-election year, not 2010. And by 2012 the effect of the stimulus is negligible. There is little to no spending at all in 2011. Reading the CBO numbers show that you are completely full of shit.

And do you realize how fucking stupid it is to claim that the Congress in 2009 for crass political purposes spent a lot of money in 2009 to help their re-election prospects in 2010 while at the same time saying that it takes about a a year to a year and a half for spending to have any impact? And to top it off you are at the same time criticizing the government for not spending enough money right now, roughly one and a half years before the election.
Click to expand...
Again, as the conversation progressed (please note that there is more than that post) we got more into this and talked about the fact in order to make the stimulus work in 2010 the spending would need to begin about 1 year before the 2010 election, I noted how that is exactly what is happening, as did Onceler.

Either stop pretending that the post is in a vacuum and participate in the conversation, or actually read my answer. It's silly to pretend that conversations don't take place exactly like this or that every post is a piece of perfection that should never be expanded upon or added to by later posts in a conversation.

If a good amount of the stimulus was already out it would have happened before the 1 1/2 timeframe, no? The impetus of the stimulus begins during the election cycle year (October to October is the election cycle year).

Your CBO report only strengthens my argument. Thank you.
 
Damo, you're talking about the measurements of time like you're baking a cake.

The more you argue it, the more ridiculous is sounds; maybe it would actually behoove Democrats to put it out there for discussion, because the arguments that it's "timed" sound so lame.

I can't see lawmakers sitting behind closed doors saying, "Okay, it takes 1 to 1.5 years, so we should wait a little bit, because it does us no good to have the economy rebound in June of 2010; we need it to rebound exactly in October....good plan!"
 
Damocles said:
Again, as the conversation progressed (please note that there is more than that post) we got more into this and talked about the fact in order to make the stimulus work in 2010 the spending would need to begin about 1 year before the 2010 election, I noted how that is exactly what is happening, as did Onceler.

Either stop pretending that the post is in a vacuum and participate in the conversation, or actually listen to my answer.

If a good amount of the stimulus was already out it would have happened before the 1 1/2 timeframe, no? The impetus of the stimulus begins during the election cycle year (October to October is the election cycle year).

Your CBO report only strengthens my argument.
Click to expand...


Your argument is nonsense. You just shift your opinion around to fit the facts instead of adjusting your opinion to newly revealed information. It's quite convenient for you but it grows tiresome.

I'm still trying to figure out the 2012 piece. It's no wonder you conveniently dropped that bit from your ever-shifting opinion.


Edit: And the CBO report shoots your original argument out of the water. Originally, the "heaviest stimulus" was in 2010. When I show you that the heaviest in actually by (not falling precisely on) October 2009 you just adjust your argument to fit the facts - "well it would have to occur a year to a year and a half . . . " - it's nonsense.
 
Last edited:
Onceler said:
Damo, you're talking about the measurements of time like you're baking a cake.

The more you argue it, the more ridiculous is sounds; maybe it would actually behoove Democrats to put it out there for discussion, because the arguments that it's "timed" sound so lame.

I can't see lawmakers sitting behind closed doors saying, "Okay, it takes 1 to 1.5 years, so we should wait a little bit, because it does us no good to have the economy rebound in June of 2010; we need it to rebound exactly in October....good plan!"
Click to expand...
Rubbish.

I have pointed out what I see. The more I talk about it, and the more reports etc. that I have seen the more I am sure that what I am saying has merit and that it would be effective, especially as they begin to talk about a second stimulus, to begin the conversation on the public stage. I think the Rs would be foolish to wait until nearer the election cycle to bring it up (although I think they just might do that, sometimes the Rs are their own enemy more so lately than in the past).
 
Dungheap said:
Your argument is nonsense. You just shift your opinion around to fit the facts instead of adjusting your opinion to newly revealed information. It's quite convenient for you but it grows tiresome.

I'm still trying to figure out the 2012 piece. It's no wonder you conveniently dropped that bit from your ever-shifting opinion.


Edit: And the CBO report shoots your original argument out of the water. Originally, the "heaviest stimulus" was in 2010. When I show you that the heaviest in actually by (not falling precisely on) October 2009 you just adjust your argument to fit the facts - "well it would have to occur a year to a year and a half . . . " - it's nonsense.
Click to expand...
Rubbish again. The CBO numbers fit into my argument nearly perfectly by themselves without having to shift to new facts. You again pretend that further conversation didn't take place and go into inane "this post was in a vacuum" arguments that attempt to make what I have said fit into some box that doesn't exist. It's silly to try this when the rest of the posts exist right here in this thread for everybody to see. I even quoted and parceled the post where Onceler and I agree it would take about a year to a year and a half for that to have the greatest effect... Only you are running around taking one statement of a huge contextual conversation and attempting to make it the whole of the meaning within a conversation.
 
Damocles said:
Rubbish again. The CBO numbers fit into my argument nearly perfectly by themselves without having to shift to new facts. You again pretend that further conversation didn't take place and go into inane "this post was in a vacuum" arguments that attempt to make what I have said fit into some box that doesn't exist.
Click to expand...


Right . . .

Now, about 2012 . . .
 
Ah, the ol' "rubbish."

Seriously, you sound silly. There is no conspiracy here. Lawmakers want to be running for re-election by next summer, and talking to their constituents about the humming economy over summer vacations. They're not trying to nail the timing so it comes back in the fall instead of earlier.

Silly, desperate hackery...
 
Dungheap said:
Right . . .

Now, about 2012 . . .
Click to expand...
Yeah, about it. It is notable that the spending is scheduled to increase again that year just at the election cycle then begin to drop out, ending almost exactly at the election year, dropping thereafter.

I will also note that an increase in the GDP projected by the CBO does not equate to spending of the stimulus money on any 1:1 basis, only how it will effect the GDP. In each year it increases the GDP, it shows that the stimulus ends its expansion and begins to contract during that election year (the 2012 election cycle). Again, the numbers fit almost perfectly with what I have stated throughout the thread. It appears to me to be designed to stimulate in a way that benefits incumbents during election cycles.

Of course to be effective all the Rs have to show is that Stimulus begins just in time for the election cycle of 2010... (Again, I think they may just be dumb enough to wait to point this out until 'closer to election time' and will be too late).
 
Onceler said:
Ah, the ol' "rubbish."

Seriously, you sound silly. There is no conspiracy here. Lawmakers want to be running for re-election by next summer, and talking to their constituents about the humming economy over summer vacations. They're not trying to nail the timing so it comes back in the fall instead of earlier.

Silly, desperate hackery...
Click to expand...

i'm guessing that you're totally ignoring the 'october surprise' factor on purpose?
 
SmarterThanYou said:
i'm guessing that you're totally ignoring the 'october surprise' factor on purpose?
Click to expand...

Oh...you mean that they can so precisely time a recovery, and a stimulus' effect on that recovery, that they can set it to explode exactly in October?

Good call; you guys don't sound too paranoid...
 
SmarterThanYou said:
:rolleyes:

i didn't waste my money on a bullshit degree, like you apparently did because it certainly didn't teach you anything I didn't already know.
Click to expand...

wow I was fishing for a retarded coment, but never dreamed I'd get a gem like that one. Swallowed hook line and sinker ged boy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top