Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Wow.....I'm shocked to see this! Who'd of thunk it?
Liberal/Obama Supporter Auto Response Protocolâ„¢
1. The source isn't valid
2. That's racist
3. GOP obstruction
4. But...but...but George W. Bush
5. Haters gonna hate
6. Repeat 1,2,3,4 and/or 5 as needed then insult the opposition for failing to support this great man, declare victory, and move on
Can you refute any of the points made in the article?
No, they cannot. That's why they attack the source.
So what you're saying is its ok to make projections that are completely wrong, and/or lie about outcome of policies that are failures, provided of course you put a footnote saying that you might be wrong?
If you characterize the stimulus as a failure, you are completely off-base. It was a success, as it created millions of jobs.
However, when trying to predict an exact outcome in the future, it is impossible. Thus, 'promising' something that is not 100% known can never be accomplished. What we do know is that Chrisy Romer argued that a $1.8 trillion stimulus would be needed to fill in the anticipated output gap. Larry Summers rejected that on political grounds and lowered it to around $800 billion, over two years. Then, in an attempt to appease Republicans, Obama converted a sizable portion to tax-cuts. At the time, the world didn't know that GDP fell by 6-8% and the stimulus was woefully too small, although some economists said just that at the time.
In Dr. Romer's New York Times op-ed, she explains the difficulty of economic predictions:
Quote:
After listening to Representative Paul Ryan in the vice-presidential debate, you might think that careful evaluation isn’t needed. In his view, we spent $800 billion on the stimulus, yet unemployment still rose to 10 percent — so obviously it wasn’t helpful.
To understand what’s wrong with that reasoning, think of someone who’s been in a terrible accident and has massive internal bleeding. After lifesaving surgery, the patient still feels rotten. But we shouldn’t conclude from this lingering pain that the surgery was useless — because without it, the patient would have died.
Without knowing where the economy was headed in the absence of the stimulus, it’s impossible to judge what it contributed just from what happened afterward. That’s why empirical economists rely on other approaches.
...
When the Congressional Budget Office or leading private forecasters assess what the Recovery Act contributed, they use these estimates from history. They multiply the amounts of different types of stimulus in the act by their usual historical effects. This method suggests that at its peak, the act raised employment by about 1 million to 3 1/2 million jobs, compared with what would have happened without it.
If you characterize the stimulus as a failure, you are completely off-base. It was a success, as it created millions of jobs.
I stopped here laughing so hard, especially you just justified unemployment not falling below 5%..
Tell me MTA, MILLIONS of jobs, would cause the unemployment rate to go to what exactly?
You dont ever stop flip flopping from posting to posting, and wonder why people laugh at you constantly..
p.s. I dont give a rats ass about some other projections which say we needed to double the amount of money taken out of the economy to pump it back in.. $1 taken out of the economy to pump it back in is the same regardless of the total..
pghquest, we all need to first recognize that you are not a objective party and are immuned to facts that show an Obama initiative helped and have no other interest than to marginalize the benefits of the stimulus.
However, according to Michael Grunwald in his book, "The New New Deal," the bill helped stop that free fall. After the stimulus passed, jobs numbers that spring, while grim, marked the biggest quarterly improvement in almost 30 years. The Recovery Act launched a weak recovery, but even a weak recovery beats a depression.
If the economy is improving, and people are finding jobs, then wouldnt the food stamps and poverty be going down?
It should yes, but as you will note, incomes have been going down since '99 and requirements have been eased multiple times. In addition, the birth rate for the poorest Americans is 3X the rate than the non poor, but I doubt anything can be done about that until certain states address their education systems.
Poverty itself has been the same for 40+ years though.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
Congress is supposed to be gridlocked,
but I do note how its histerical that the same left wing tools stand here and shout about how successful Obamas policies are on positive threads, and then switch to, Obamas policies havent been implimented and everything is gridlocked on negative threads.
A bunch of tools. Worse part is, you guys arent even embarassed over it.
I'm not left wing, democrat, liberal, or conservative. I'm just not going to blame Obama for my car not starting, snow, cold weather, or for baby boomers.
To your point, Congress isn't supposed to be dysfunctional. Congressional politicians won't vote for anything unless they benefit or they are declaring Pizza to be a vegetable.
It should yes, but as you will note, incomes have been going down since '99 and requirements have been eased multiple times. In addition, the birth rate for the poorest Americans is 3X the rate than the non poor, but I doubt anything can be done about that until certain states address their education systems..
Birth rates of the poorest americans have always been higher than the non poor.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lycos679
Poverty itself has been the same for 40+ years though..
We have the highest number of people living in poverty than the last 50 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by lycos679
I'm not left wing, democrat, liberal, or conservative. I'm just not going to blame Obama for my car not starting, snow, cold weather, or for baby boomers.
No one did any of that, but nice troll comment
Quote:
Originally Posted by lycos679
To your point, Congress isn't supposed to be dysfunctional. Congressional politicians won't vote for anything unless they benefit or they are declaring Pizza to be a vegetable.
yes, Congress was indeed designed to be dysfunction, it was to limit the size of the federal government. Thats why Senate members were innitially assigned by the state, and not voted for by the people.
pghquest, we all need to first recognize that you are not a objective party and are immuned to facts that show an Obama initiative helped and have no other interest than to marginalize the benefits of the stimulus.
However, according to Michael Grunwald in his book, "The New New Deal," the bill helped stop that free fall. After the stimulus passed, jobs numbers that spring, while grim, marked the biggest quarterly improvement in almost 30 years. The Recovery Act launched a weak recovery, but even a weak recovery beats a depression.
I note you didnt answer the question.
If millions of people found jobs, then tell me what the unemployment rate would be?
Dont quote for me some book citing facts which take place during every economic recovery cycle, going back thousands of years, and pretend it holds relevance, especially since job losses stopped BEFORE the stimulus bill even started to be implimented.
I don't wonder why you've come into the thread and tried to deflect from the topic. It's funny you mention this though since the Dems took over Congress in 2007......
Yes, an election where the House and Senate flipped to Democratic control, with the Democrats having a 51 to 49 seat majority, instantly triggered a three year decline in personal wealth totaling in the trillions.
You might believe that if you're a member of the conservative alternative reality.
Birth rates of the poorest americans have always been higher than the non poor.
Maybe, maybe not. The Census has only been collecting the birth rate & income data for a few years and we haven't always provided incentives to the poor to have kids.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
We have the highest number of people living in poverty than the last 50 years
Highest number, but the rate is hasn't really changed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
No one did any of that, but nice troll comment
Multiple people have. Not in this thread mind you, not yet anyway, but they have.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
yes, Congress was indeed designed to be dysfunction, it was to limit the size of the federal government. Thats why Senate members were innitially assigned by the state, and not voted for by the people.
If the intent behind Congress is to make sure nothing gets done then we don't need a Congress, nor do we need to pay them anything.
How the Obamabots possibly can say he's done well and the economy is booming when it was released today that Americans in poverty has risen from 6 million when he took office to 46 million is completely beyond comprehension.
Posted with TapaTalk
Last edited by Bludy-L; 09-18-2013 at 01:56 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.