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.
Here's where the lie comes in. That number was never used publicly by Obama or any of his staffers. It wans't, ever. Obama didn't mention it in any speech, neither did the VP, nor any senior aids. The number was mentioned in one report which also noted the following:
"It should be understood that all of the estimates presented in this memo are subject to significant margins of error"
"There is the more fundamental uncertainty that comes with any estimate of the effects of a program. Our estimates of economic relationships and rules of thumb are derived from historical experience and so will not apply exactly in any given episode. Furthermore, the uncertainty is surely higher than normal now because the current recession is unusual both in its fundamental causes and its severity."
"Forecasts of the unemployment rate without the recovery plan vary substantially. Some private forecasters anticipate unemployment rates as high as 11% in the absence of action."
In other words, it's a lie that's quoted by right wing morons and a lot of emotional, partisan whiners latch on as they want some kind of data to justify their opinions.
That's basically why the OP COULDN'T provide any data to justify this horrible thread. There isn't any.
ok, so when Obama said this in his 1/10/09 weekly address---
"Today, I am releasing a report of their findings so that the American people can see exactly what this plan will mean for their families, their communities, and our economy." ...
he did Not say publicly that Congress, the public, the media should use and rely on the report. ok.
I won't bother with your preposterous comment that Obama's staff never publicly used the report's stats.
Wrong question, when was the last time TAKING MONEY OUT OF THE ECONOMY, actually stimulated it?
Because when you take $800B out of the economy in order to pump it back in, (or more precisely the $500B which was the "spendng part", you end up with ZERO NET STIMULATIONS..
How does one take money out of economy, and put this money where?
But, as usual, your response had nothing to do with my question: When was the last time it happened without any government intervention?
Quote:
I gave you a chart, you cant read it?
I did, but I didn't see job recovery with the first stimulus. Why? It is logical to assume that economic recovery leads to job recovery. Why was there a lag time? After all, the argument you make can also be made as is for 2009 stimulus, except that in this case I will add that economy started to add jobs in six months after the recession and without the need for an additional stimulus.
Quote:
So now you're back to blaming world wide economies for what we're seeing now...
Just informing you that your school delivered some crazy ideas, that global economies in fact work in isolation and have no impact on each other. Isn't that something you "know" from your schooling? Or, do you agree that major economic turmoil elsewhere (as in Europe) has an effect here?
And while at it, allow me to also address the rest of the non-sense you spewed on the previous page:
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
Hey gomexico, if we're now discussing the worlds economic effects upon our economy, wouldnt this mean that the stimulus did SQUAT because $800B, (of which only $500B was cash) is NOTHING in a worldwide economy.
Who here has claimed that $500B was large enough for even US economy, much less as a safeguard against global economic issues?
ok, so when Obama said this in his 1/10/09 weekly address---
"Today, I am releasing a report of their findings so that the American people can see exactly what this plan will mean for their families, their communities, and our economy." ...
he did Not say publicly that Congress, the public, the media should use and rely on the report. ok.
I won't bother with your preposterous comment that Obama's staff never publicly used the report's stats.
Yes, that report that said
"Forecasts of the unemployment rate without the recovery plan vary substantially. Some private forecasters anticipate unemployment rates as high as 11% in the absence of action."
"It should be understood that all of the estimates presented in this memo are subject to significant margins of error"
"There is the more fundamental uncertainty that comes with any estimate of the effects of a program......the uncertainty is surely higher than normal now because the current recession is unusual both in its fundamental causes and its severity."
Yeah, that report. The one that the guy mentioned once. The number of times Obama mentioned 8%? Yeah that'd be zero.
Who predicted it right? And who predicted that this country will lose an unprecedented 6.5 million private sector jobs in only one year (FY2009). Clearly, you have absolutely NO idea of the scale of the debacle he inherited. Either that, or a serious memory problem. But then, political hacks do so naturally to promote denial.
If you want to whine about something, find something that is honest and not pure political bickering.
I guess he didn't really promise that with his Stimulus unemployment wouldn't go over 8% and without it that would happen. I still remember him making that promise and you have forgotten all of it other than blaming Bush as he does at every opportunity.
As one "political hack" to another, yes you are one too, nice try.
The fact that we are basically holding steady now is maybe a miracle in and of it self given the circumstances in 2008 and early 2009. One can only speculate what it would be like now if McCain had won the election but right wingers are certainly of the opinion that it would be a lot better than it is now.
Never mind that it could be a lot worse than it is right now.
I think there is a chance that our national debt would be close to $1 trillion less that he borrowed for his stimulus bill. We are still finding out some of the places that money went and it doesn't get a lot more savory, either.
I think there is a chance that our national debt would be close to $1 trillion less that he borrowed for his stimulus bill. We are still finding out some of the places that money went and it doesn't get a lot more savory, either.
And what do you base that chance on? Your whim or something you were schooled on, via TV/radio/blogs?
Quote:
Originally Posted by roysoldboy
I guess he didn't really promise that with his Stimulus unemployment wouldn't go over 8% and without it that would happen. I still remember him making that promise and you have forgotten all of it other than blaming Bush as he does at every opportunity.
Reminding people like you, that the country wasn't better at the time Obama took the office isn't necessarily blaming Bush. It is the reality, facts you would rather bury deep with full help from lies and misinformation.
Really? Prove where he said that. Seriously, man up and show where Obama said that. You don't even provide a source for the graph to which you linked.
Total fail on your little thread.
I remember seeing that graph back in the day and wondering if it could possibly be true.
Here is a big speech he delivered to Democrat Congressmen working up to the passage of the "shovel ready jobs" he liked to talk about. He may not have said anything about 8% but was already talking about how all those shovel ready jobs would allow us to recover.
Listen to him talk and assess blame for the huge thing he inherited from Bush about 4:50 into the link. Really good is what I call that speech at about 8:50. Yep he did convince most Dems that this Stumulus would save the nation from what Bush had stacked on it. Who got most of that over $800 billion dollars, anyway?
"Forecasts of the unemployment rate without the recovery plan vary substantially. Some private forecasters anticipate unemployment rates as high as 11% in the absence of action."
"It should be understood that all of the estimates presented in this memo are subject to significant margins of error"
"There is the more fundamental uncertainty that comes with any estimate of the effects of a program......the uncertainty is surely higher than normal now because the current recession is unusual both in its fundamental causes and its severity."
Yeah, that report. The one that the guy mentioned once. The number of times Obama mentioned 8%? Yeah that'd be zero.
Can you at least make this difficult?
You moved from never to once. I can give more, but not worth the time. You'll move from one to more than one and it won't matter.
Yep, when Obama touted the report with these words ---
"Today, I am releasing a report of their findings so that the American people can see exactly what this plan will mean for their families, their communities, and our economy." ...
he really meant, check the report's margins of errors, uncertainty, and everything else that proves you should ignore it.
The "inheritance" argument is inherently flawed. The last President who didn't blame the previous administration was George Washington.
What has Obama SIGNIFICANTLY done to "clean up the mess". Why do you believe in him more than any other President? I've only seen you compare him to Bush and done so with some really, REALLY trivial statistics. The national unemployment rate is 8.5% and that's horrible.
Can you imagine after Romeny wins what he will blame on Obama, and sure there will be plenty.
Or just maybe he will be mature about it, and not play the blame game.
It does get so trivial, so tiresome, so boring, so unoriginal, and so inmature.
I don't believe in Obama never did, nor do i now, after seeing him in action. He hasn't done a damn thing to get this Nation on the right track, truly don't think he knows how!
He can take credit, even if not deserving of it. But boy oh boy, have something to say about him he does not agree with and watch out!
That temper does come out, and so does his trash talk.
You moved from never to once. I can give more, but not worth the time. You'll move from one to more than one and it won't matter.
Yep, when Obama touted the report with these words ---
"Today, I am releasing a report of their findings so that the American people can see exactly what this plan will mean for their families, their communities, and our economy." ...
he really meant, check the report's margins of errors, uncertainty, and everything else that proves you should ignore it.
Let us take a look at the report itself then. Got Report?
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.
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.
