What happened to all of the doom and gloom economic threads?

[unregistered]

 

[unregistered]

 

[busybody..]

Of course you didn't read it.

It's about ten-and-a-half months old - what's your cutoff? Since the report the Dow has climbed and the economy has stopped losing jobs and started adding them, and the Dow has climbed. How do you think Moody's would differ in their assessment if they did it today? Would they change their mind that the stimulus made a huge difference because the recovery has proceeded?

It is obsolete

BUT

I will read it

Im sure it doesnt say what YOU say its says

STIMP PAK DIDNT WORK!

NIGGER said so FAT BITCH SAID SO

I will read it

 

[busybody..]

It is obsolete

BUT

I will read it

Im sure it doesnt say what YOU say its says

STIMP PAK DIDNT WORK!

NIGGER said so FAT BITCH SAID SO

I will read it

Hey NP!, Yes, YOU, Mo CURRY

Clearly YOU didnt read it, did you?

Just the first 3-4 sentences clearly indicate you didnt read it

Nor do they say what you pretend it says!

 

[IrezumiKiss]

There are a lot of benighted people on the left but not enough to see you through that one. Consider it part of your education, and admit you never heard it before.

Methuselah, I've been reading the printed word in all forms since the age of four and probably even earlier than that. Trust me when I say that nothing in your spotty anachronistic vocabulary is a surprise to me. If anyone's benighted around here, it's definitely your jackwagon ass!

 

[Luk]

You know luke, your perception of reality is so flawed I'm amazed it hasn't killed you long before you reached your present age. You have a very delusional, and totally inflated understanding of your effect on people.

I don't get angry like you must, I spend most of my time here laughing at pompous asses, such as yourself, who really think their selective outrage, or their imaginary superior morality really matters to anyone other than themselves.

You've had to iggy me several times. That says a lot about how my posts affect your time here.

Luke, the one on page 203 works. You're looking at my repost of it which, you're right, was broken.

And Vette is unable to address my questions again.

Of course I'm right about the broken link. Why vettebigot is too much of a coward to admit that, only he knows.

Quick, Vette, call him a "jackwagon" again! That'll really show him who's wearing the longer gabardine slacks in this house!

Or "cum bubble."

Vette was able to understand your link worked and led to a PDF file. Luke on the other hand can't get by his own benightedness, which you so buttfuckingly continue to endorse.

What's with all the homoerotic posts? This thread is about the economy, chubs. Well, it's about the economy and everyone laughing at you for being a child and not admitting you're flat-out wrong.

 

[koalabear]

Okay so you're backpedaling on there being no independent economic analysis of the efficacy of the stimulus, to "this report was accurate ten months ago but it's not accurate today". Lol, this report was done within the last year.

It's possible that Moody's will repeat this annually. In that case we'll get another one of these in a couple months. Are you really suggesting that their analysis ill be different, given the progress the economy has made this past year?

You used an old link, moron

 

[mercury14]

I've already told you what I think of your source, it's motivations, and it's conclusions.

All you said was that you prefer to get your information from a Heritage Foundation blog.

 

[mercury14]

You used an old link, moron

It's not a "link", it's the actual report. It's from within one calendar year. How many times within a year do you want the same exact economic assessment to be run?

 

[koalabear]

It's not a "link", it's the actual report. It's from within one calendar year. How many times within a year do you want the same exact economic assessment to be run?

This is not 2010, although you may not realize it. Moron.

 

[mercury14]

This is not 2010, although you may not realize it. Moron.

The report was from 10-11 months ago, less than one year. Doesn't matter what year it is. Shit doesn't become "old" when Jan 1st rolls around.

Was it inaccurate at the time it was published?

Did something happen since then that made it inaccurate? Nope.

You don't know, don't care. And you have no idea what the report says because you didn't read it.

 

[Luk]

The report was from 10-11 months ago, less than one year. Doesn't matter what year it is. Shit doesn't become "old" when Jan 1st rolls around.

Was it inaccurate at the time it was published?

Did something happen since then that made it inaccurate? Nope.

You don't know, don't care. And you have no idea what the report says because you didn't read it.

The racist little troll only types to up his post count so the Playgrounders think he's cool.

 

[koalabear]

The report was from 10-11 months ago, less than one year. Doesn't matter what year it is. Shit doesn't become "old" when Jan 1st rolls around.

Was it inaccurate at the time it was published?

Did something happen since then that made it inaccurate? Nope.

You don't know, don't care. And you have no idea what the report says because you didn't read it.

Moron.

 

[mercury14]

Moron.

This post is pretty much the pinnacle of your contribution to the discussion.

 

[koalabear]

This post is pretty much the pinnacle of your contribution to the discussion.

Seek counseling with UD, maybe you two can get a discount.

 

[busybody..]

The report was from 10-11 months ago, less than one year. Doesn't matter what year it is. Shit doesn't become "old" when Jan 1st rolls around.

Was it inaccurate at the time it was published?

Did something happen since then that made it inaccurate? Nope.

You don't know, don't care. And you have no idea what the report says because you didn't read it.

1-You clearly DIDNT read it at all

2-It doesnt say anything what you purport it says

3-And its OLD, in economics, one year is an eternity

4-Plus, had you bothered to read it, its based on flawed premises and its conjecture

YOU DIDNT READ IT, I DID!

 

[mercury14]

1-You clearly DIDNT read it at all

2-It doesnt say anything what you purport it says

3-And its OLD, in economics, one year is an eternity

4-Plus, had you bothered to read it, its based on flawed premises and its conjecture

YOU DIDNT READ IT, I DID!

1 - I read every word

2 - It says exactly what I said. I even quoted it. It also says a lot more stuff, like how the taxpayer would have paid a lot more in the end without government intervention. But let's not go there (yet).

3 - Even if it was old, which it's really not, you're not providing any evidence that it was inaccurate at the time. Were 2.7 million jobs saved as of 10 months ago? And then lost? Even though we've been putting on jobs and the economy has improved? Regardless, these independent assessments will be repeated. Let's see what the next big one says, shall we? [bookmaked]

4 - Flawless premises? Such as?


Oh wait I get it, only the NRO has the facts.

 

[busybody..]

1 - I read every word

2 - It says exactly what I said. I even quoted it. It also says a lot more stuff, like how the taxpayer would have paid a lot more in the end without government intervention. But let's not go there (yet).

3 - Even if it was old, which it's really not, you're not providing any evidence that it was inaccurate at the time. Were 2.7 million jobs saved as of 10 months ago? And then lost? Even though we've been putting on jobs and the economy has improved? Regardless, these independent assessments will be repeated. Let's see what the next big one says, shall we? [bookmaked]

4 - Flawless premises? Such as?


Oh wait I get it, only the NRO has the facts.

if you "read" it

and claim it says what you say it does

you are a DUMB FUCK

 

[mercury14]

if you "read" it

and claim it says what you say it does

you are a DUMB FUCK

"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?

 

[unregistered]

 

[cebalrai]

"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?

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)

 

[cebalrai]

Ahahahahaha.....the blindest of the three blind mice has spoken.

Shrug. I haven't read it. But I don't see him making up that quote. Perhaps you're reading a different document?

 

[garbage can]

1 - I read every word

2 - It says exactly what I said. I even quoted it. It also says a lot more stuff, like how the taxpayer would have paid a lot more in the end without government intervention. But let's not go there (yet).

3 - Even if it was old, which it's really not, you're not providing any evidence that it was inaccurate at the time. Were 2.7 million jobs saved as of 10 months ago? And then lost? Even though we've been putting on jobs and the economy has improved? Regardless, these independent assessments will be repeated. Let's see what the next big one says, shall we? [bookmaked]

4 - Flawless premises? Such as?


Oh wait I get it, only the NRO has the facts.

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???

 

[unregistered]

 

[mercury14]

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???

Please tell me how one person can just "take a look around" and come up with any sort of macroeconomic assessment? I'll bet your answer will be as absurd as your question.

No, we have to rely on the best tools we have - independent economic assessment that isn't associated with any political agenda. Or you can say fuck it, and go believe to the narrative Fox News wants you to hear. Your choice.