U
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
This thread is like whack-a-mole where the moles are all conservative dipshits who don't know how to debate a point.
Vetteman pops up with a Heritage blog that he wants to say is an objective source - WHACK! Down he goes. And that's about the best argument conservatives are making here. I miss Firespin. He was the one rightie that respected objective data. These chuckleheads he left behind are pure bush league. (pun intended)
Uhmm, Merc, has it ever occured to you to just sit back, take a look around, and figure out for yourself what the fuck is going on???
Ahahahahaha.....the blindest of the three blind mice has spoken.
What makes you think it's objective? I'll wait.
You dish out the personal attacks on a grand scale and cry when they are returned. Big baby,
What makes you think it's objective? I'll wait.
"The fiscal stimulus was quite successful in helping to end the Great Recession and to accelerate the recovery." Page 14.
What is it I'm claiming it says that's not accurate?
So wait a minute let me know if I'm hearing you right. You're saying that the Heritage Foundation is NOT biased. Despite their mission statment saying their whole reason for existing is to promote right-wing ideology... And they're entirely funded by conservatives....
And that Moody's IS biased despite a sterling reputation and no accusations of such by people from either side of the spectrum? Moody's does business analysis. They're independent and have no funding or idealogical ties to either party. Also they's an analytical firm (Moody's Analytics is their full name), and do not exist to advise on policy.
You're having a bad day again Vette. Go to bed.
Listen up and listen good
Your inaccurate portrayal of what is in the report
(that is not only outdated, written BEFORE the extent of the STIM PAK was know, based on inaccurate CONJECTURE, that you didn't read in its entirety, that is contradicted by CURRENT data)
Will work well with the unthinking on LIT, like LOOKATDICK and LAWNJOCKEY et al
But it doesnt work with those that are reality based in fact
So sell your crap to crap buyers
The bottom line, which is obvious to all and has been said by all, including as I linked, by FAT BITCH and HO! as well
IT DIDNT WORK
So now your song changes from "the independent analysis says that the stimulus didn't work" to "there never was independent analysis in the first place".
Gawd you're bad at this.
Conservative critics have long alleged that the Obama administration is systematically hampering our economy through excessive regulation and by creating needless uncertainty.
The lying spinster strikes again! How come you edited out the parts of your article you didn't like? Such as this:
Princeton economist Alan Blinder and Moody's Analytics chief economist Mark Zandi studied the relative contribution of Obama's $830 billion stimulus compared with TARP and the Fed's "financial-market policies." While the economists credit Obama's stimulus for helping end the recession when it did and keeping unemployment [1.5%!!!!] lower than it would have been, they concluded that TARP and the Fed's actions were "substantially more effective" at saving the economy from ruin.
Except when you read the actual report which I posted here yesterday, Moody's said the opposite - that the stimulus was a much larger factor than TARP. So not only are you a liar, your source is a liar as well. Seriously, go back and click my link to the report and read it yourself.
So now your song changes from "the independent analysis says that the stimulus didn't work" to "there never was independent analysis in the first place".
Gawd you're bad at this.
Your entire response is goalpost moving. The fact is that the vast majority, if not all significant independent economic analysis says that the stimulus created or saved millions of jobs and was very effective in preventing a second Great Depression.
All you have to counter objectivity is partisan spin. But as I pointed out, you're a religious thinker. You abhor rational thought because it threatens what you so badly want to believe.
Conservative critics have long alleged that the Obama administration is systematically hampering our economy through excessive regulation and by creating needless uncertainty. The administration's sorry record is circumstantial support for this critique, but the Heritage Foundation supplies hard evidence via Presidents of the Federal Reserve Banks. For example, Dennis Lockhart, President of the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta, said:
We've frequently heard strong comments to the effect of "my company won't hire a single additional worker until we know what health insurance costs are going to be."
And Richard Fisher, President of the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, said:
Before the recent mid-term election, most all of my business contacts claimed that taxes, regulatory burdens and the lack of understanding in Washington of what incentivizes private-sector job creation were inhibiting the expansion of their payrolls. They felt stymied by a Congress and an executive branch that have appeared to them to be unaware of, if not outright opposed to, what fires the entrepreneurial spirit. Many felt that opportunities for earning a better and more secure return on investment are larger elsewhere than here at home.
It is a sad day when investors have more confidence in China and Brazil than in the United States, but that is the climate that Barack Obama's startling economic ignorance has created.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conjecture. You cannot prove it because it did not happen the same way you cannot prove that if we had done nothing, the world would have come to a standstill.
No, you are wrong. You cannot say that no jobs were created because capital was introduced into the system and then turn around and resume shouting about how adding borrowed money to the system did create jobs.
That is more the hallmark of "religious" thinking.
If that money was used to light cigars only, then those cigars had to be replaced, and if I followed the logic of Obamanomics, then there are at least some jobs "saved" in that act. But since the money was not burned or stuffed into a mattress, one has to assume that it was put back into the pool of investment capital, thus at least "saving" jobs (a brand new metric for a faltering President) if not actually creating some jobs. In another way of looking at it, if that money, was not all that important to the economy, why has this administration put the strong-arm on Switzerland to help us find cash hidden from putative tax law?
The repeated claim that he created millions of jobs has the logical flaw of ignoring the fact that those jobs might have been created quite outside of any of his actions if we return to your demand theory and revisit the idea that the population is continuing to grow and then we can also wonder and posit, had he done nothing and not interfered with the markets, would he have not retarded the natural job growth that has followed every other recession save this one and FDRs...
The repeated claim that he created millions of jobs has the logical flaw of ignoring the fact that those jobs might have been created quite outside of any of his actions if we return to your demand theory and revisit the idea that the population is continuing to grow and then we can also wonder and posit, had he done nothing and not interfered with the markets, would he have not retarded the natural job growth that has followed every other recession save this one and FDRs...
The report agrees with you accounts for that. And it STILL concludes that we were +2.7 million jobs over where we'd be without the stimulus.
Try reading the report dumbass. It's clear you have not, otherwise you wouldn't say shit like this.