Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
why are you so obsessed with what i do for a living? you're not from maine are you?
stimulus worked so well, we need another one
- Thread starter Cancel 2018. 3
- Start date
why are you so obsessed with what i do for a living? you're not from maine are you?
Go to another nation and check out the price... I am not talking about the price paid on the world wide market, I am talking about the price paid by the consumer.
The Exxon disaster did not loose enough oil to bump the price of gas anything signifigant... yet they used it as an excuse.
I'm not really all that obsessed. For some reason it seems to annoy you so I keep doing it. Pretty childish on my part. I'll leave it alone.
In any event, do you have a response to the hypothetical?
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
its highly unusual for one side not to put up experts, i've known instances where it has been done, and usually because the case is so good you don't need an expert and the other side's expert can be shown to be nothing more than a paid shilling....
i've never had a case without an expert on both sides, so i couldn't tell you in "my experience" what the trier of fact would conclude
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
Translation: No, I wouldn't care to answer the question. I rarely do.
Translation: I saw you posted on the thread, so responded immediately to that, without reading the rest of the thread. Now, that I realize I might sound stupid, I'd like you to do my homework for me, and explain what I missed.
As I mentioned, you really wear it on your sleeve when something gets under your skin. It's cool; we all get bugged once in awhile. Sort of undermines your contention that you were enjoying yourself the other day, though.
Anyone watch "The Office"? Very Michael Scott-like...
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
I would imagine this is because you're (apparently) looking at a page which shows the amount of government jobs saved. That's probably why you don't get anyone showing you jobs in the private sector saved.
Last edited:
You are making the thread boring. You too Yurt.
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
what, posting his words back to him so he can see his hypocrisy...
alright, i doubt he would learn his lesson anyway
Eh - the thread was sort of played out, anyway. The pro-stimulus group won, fairly convincingly (and with another well-timed report from the CBO upping the stimulus job count to 2.1 million, and stating that it lowered the jobless rate by up to 2.1% in the 4th quarter...)
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
for my dear friend nigel, found this on another board:
The 'Stimulus' Actually Raised Unemployment
President Obama seized on the one-year anniversary of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) as an opportunity to take credit for the belated and tenuous economic recovery.
But the economy always recovered from recessions, long before anyone imagined that government borrowing could "create jobs." And we didn't used to have to wait nearly two years for signs of recovery, as we did this time.
A famous 1999 study by Christina Romer, who now heads the Council of Economic Advisers, found the average length of recessions from 1887 to 1929 was only 10.3 months, with the longest lasting 16 months.
Recessions lasted longer during the supposedly enlightened postwar era, with three of them lasting 16 to 21 months.
Keynesian countercyclical schemes have never worked in this country, just as they never worked in Japan.
The issue of "fiscal stimulus" must not be confused with TARP or with the Federal Reserve slashing interest rates and pumping up bank reserves.
...
Since federal spending accounted for exactly zero of the only significant increase GDP, how could such spending possibly have "created or saved" 2 million jobs?
...
In reality, as the CBO explains, "five programs accounted for more than 80% of the outlays from ARRA in 2009: Medicaid, unemployment compensation, Social Security ... grants to state and local governments ... and student aid."
In other words, what was labeled a "stimulus" bill was actually a stimulus to government transfer payments — cash and benefits that are primarily rewards for not working, or at least not working too hard.
http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=521658
and before you whine that i cut something, i merely cut some stuff so as to not violate the rules about posting the entire article
The 'Stimulus' Actually Raised Unemployment
President Obama seized on the one-year anniversary of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) as an opportunity to take credit for the belated and tenuous economic recovery.
But the economy always recovered from recessions, long before anyone imagined that government borrowing could "create jobs." And we didn't used to have to wait nearly two years for signs of recovery, as we did this time.
A famous 1999 study by Christina Romer, who now heads the Council of Economic Advisers, found the average length of recessions from 1887 to 1929 was only 10.3 months, with the longest lasting 16 months.
Recessions lasted longer during the supposedly enlightened postwar era, with three of them lasting 16 to 21 months.
Keynesian countercyclical schemes have never worked in this country, just as they never worked in Japan.
The issue of "fiscal stimulus" must not be confused with TARP or with the Federal Reserve slashing interest rates and pumping up bank reserves.
...
Since federal spending accounted for exactly zero of the only significant increase GDP, how could such spending possibly have "created or saved" 2 million jobs?
...
In reality, as the CBO explains, "five programs accounted for more than 80% of the outlays from ARRA in 2009: Medicaid, unemployment compensation, Social Security ... grants to state and local governments ... and student aid."
In other words, what was labeled a "stimulus" bill was actually a stimulus to government transfer payments — cash and benefits that are primarily rewards for not working, or at least not working too hard.
http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=521658
and before you whine that i cut something, i merely cut some stuff so as to not violate the rules about posting the entire article
So, it only took 2 hours to find an opinion piece that throws out generalizations and tries to apply a cookie-cutter approach to every recession the U.S. has had, and offers easily debunkable claims like "Keynesian countercyclical schemes have never worked in this country".
Yeah - that's convincing.
Yeah - that's convincing.
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
yeah, i was looking the whole time you ignorant shat, in fact i never looked once, i just happen to read a post at another forum, but we are treated to more onceler lies
does anyone else see the irony of onceler whining about generalizations when he in fact doesn't specifically dispute any thing from that source...
yeah, i was looking the whole time you ignorant shat, in fact i never looked once, i just happen to read a post at another forum, but we are treated to more onceler lies
does anyone else see the irony of onceler whining about generalizations when he in fact doesn't specifically dispute any thing from that source...
There isn't much to dispute. It's an opinion piece, and it relies on the idea that every recession is basically the same. Every recession is not the same.
The CBO is an organization that is cited by politicians and pundits on both the right & left; it's as credible a monitor of economic issues as we have (though it is by no means infallible). The CBO said today that the stimulus created 2.1 million jobs, and lowered the unemployment rate in Q4 by up to 2.1%.
At least that's something to go by. All I see from the detractors is "that can't really be true." I don't see any facts.
Do you believe the stimulus has failed, or do you simply want to believe it has failed?
I'm pro tax cuts. If the republicans fight the tax cut portions of any bill they are shooting themselves in the foot. They need to seize those portions and make them theirs, that the D's are finally seeing sense in tax incentives shouldn't change the idea that cutting the taxes for corporations is a good idea....
Seize the initiative, don't miss this opportunity to address such a solid conservative idea.
Seize the initiative, don't miss this opportunity to address such a solid conservative idea.
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
lmao....the CBO said so, so it must be true, it is cited by politicians and pundits, so it must be very true
the cbo report is nothing but projections and estimates. it is not heavy on facts. it derives its "data" from what the government gives it.
list out the bare minimum of jobs the cbo says was created onceler. list out the jobs, i'll take lowest estimate, just list out the jobs that were created....
you won't be able to, so you'll make up some excuse or begin another "you came late" whiney rant instead of actually debating tough questions.
the cbo report is nothing but projections and estimates. it is not heavy on facts. it derives its "data" from what the government gives it.
list out the bare minimum of jobs the cbo says was created onceler. list out the jobs, i'll take lowest estimate, just list out the jobs that were created....
you won't be able to, so you'll make up some excuse or begin another "you came late" whiney rant instead of actually debating tough questions.
Yurt, I'm not going to argue with you about the source. I'll remind you that you have cited the CBO when it's convenient for your argument; would you dispute that? I would also add that the CBO didn't say anything at all in their latest report to indicate that "the economy would have been better had Obama done nothing."
Now, your only option is to discredit the CBO & its conclusions. That's fine. But like I said, it's something, and something a lot of people give credence to. If we're debating on points, and I have a CBO report, and you have an opinion piece filled with generalizations from investor.com....who do you think wins?
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
you're falling for the scam damo....there doesn't need to be another bill, take the original stimulus and do this. this new bill is nothing but political showman ship. if the dems are truly serious about tax cuts, why the need for this bill, that in reality does next to nothing?
Usually we cite the CBO because you think it is the end all be all. So, when speaking with a liberal, if you want them to hear you then you use the sources they prize so highly.