You dont belive he is trying to back up that talk, but did not expect (nievly) to encounter the obstruction he is facing?
stimulus worked so well, we need another one
- Thread starter Cancel 2018. 3
- Start date
You dont belive he is trying to back up that talk, but did not expect (nievly) to encounter the obstruction he is facing?
Are you really contending that the 1st stimulus had NO substance?
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
No, I was referring to Dungs post. That Obama's prediction was all talk... no substance.... to spell it out for you... he didn't have a fucking clue. He chirped some numbers that sounded good, but had no idea what he was talking about. There was no substance to his predictions.
Predictions are just that, guesses, who cares what someone predicts!
For those interested, here's all the talk and no substance:
http://otrans.3cdn.net/45593e8ecbd339d074_l3m6bt1te.pdf
And, for the record, SF has yet to cite to any authority whatsoever for any of the criticism he raises. Not one economist anywhere agrees with SF whereas economists from across the political spectrum agree with the obvious: the stimulus bill improved the economy and had a positive impact on employment.
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
appeal to authority
and they're never wrong, they are always right, all the time
Which is more valid?
1) An assertion with no backup.
2) An assertion with some backup.
Take your time.
appeal to authority
and they're never wrong, they are always right, all the time
So, counselor, in your law practice do you cite to authority for propositions you assert? If so, for what purpose? Do courts of law generally accept an unsupported assertion over an assertion with significant supporting authority?
Jackass.
Heh:
Teh CBO is full of shit [/wingnuts]
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalp...1-million-jobs-in-fourth-quarter-of-2009.html
Teh CBO is full of shit [/wingnuts]
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalp...1-million-jobs-in-fourth-quarter-of-2009.html
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
LMAO... so the governments council states it... thus it must be true?
The measures thus far have been stop gaps... they have not been long term solutions. Yet you continue to base your idiocy on the 'calculations' of the governments council of economic advisers who essentially calculated their '2 million jobs saved' based on the amount of money spent. There was no jobs survey, no actual facts behind it.... just a calculation based on an assumption.
The REAL data shows how fast unemployment went up. The REAL data shows what truly matters. Predictions are just that.... predictions.... and our government has a crappy track record with their predictions.
Again... go back and look at recovery.gov....
http://www.recovery.gov/Pages/TextView.aspx?data=jobSummaryAgency&topnumber=200&qtr=2009Q4
That is a breakdown of their jobs.... they say on the site 600k jobs saved... 400k of which were in the Dept of Education.
Add in the union bailout on the private side and the other government jobs and what I said stands.
Now.... why don't you show us some PRIVATE sector jobs that were saved.
I posted that piece in response to your assertion that Obama was spouting bullshit without any substance. Well, there was the substance.
And when provided with the substance you just ignore it because it doesn't conform to your beliefs, just like you ignore everything coming out of the CBO (and from every single other economist in the world that has opined on the matter) regarding how accurate those projections really were in terms of impact on GDP and employment.
And when provided with the substance you just ignore it because it doesn't conform to your beliefs, just like you ignore everything coming out of the CBO (and from every single other economist in the world that has opined on the matter) regarding how accurate those projections really were in terms of impact on GDP and employment.
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
that report is full of hocus pocus
I don't suppose you'd care to elaborate on that?
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
your obsession with my profession is weird. you're too cowardly to say what you do, yet you have no problem babbling about mine.
you also have no fucking clue the difference between legal authority and expert witness testimony. your economic advisers are merely expert witnesses, it would be up the trier of fact to determine their validity. your ignorance is amusing and you sad attempt to analogize the two almost makes feel pity for you. no wonder you're too much of a coward to tell us what you do, but you're all big and tough hiding anonymously behind your monitor knocking other people's work.
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
Someone came in late to the conversation.
You tend to respond in knee-jerk fashion. It's not the smartest move...
Tell me, in your experience what would happen if you had a trial and one side put up a bunch of expert witnesses from a variety of backgrounds and the other side put up not a single expert?
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
You responded to my post without reading through the thread (it's that weird obsession you have), and you stepped in it, yet again.
You look dumb.
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
what do you do for a living and don't give us the tired routine that you're a musician....
i'm still laughing you thought legal authority and your economic opinions are the same thing
what do you do for a living and don't give us the tired routine that you're a musician....
i'm still laughing you thought legal authority and your economic opinions are the same thing
Care to answer the question, my friend?
Edit: I'm an independently wealthy self-hating shepherd.