Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 11-29-2009, 09:00 AM
 
69,368 posts, read 63,992,474 times
Reputation: 9383

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluefly View Post
Well, I guess I didn't understand your point. Still not sure I understand, but, no, I don't think liberals listen to some unknown voice on a web forum any more than anyone else.
Then why does it bother you that ONE individual on a webforum says something stupid, most likely not even meaning it?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-29-2009, 09:02 AM
 
69,368 posts, read 63,992,474 times
Reputation: 9383
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluefly View Post
What don't you understand about a 400% increase in threats against our president's life over the Bush era?

We can't just stick our heads in the sand and pretend that any awareness of threats against our president and armed racist militias don't exist. I'm sorry your side isn't the shining beacon on the hill of upstanding righteousness, but that's just the reality in which we live.
What dont you understand that you are assuming these increases are from the "religious right wing finatical" without any such evidence. Wait, I forgot to say "racist religious right wing finanticals".. The left is just equally upset with Obama, so why do you blame the right for all of these?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cougar31 View Post
Stop watching Faux news...they excel in distorting NEWS. Shawn has admitted to that.
Um, the quotes on this forum isnt from Fox, its from city-data, you dont know the difference?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-29-2009, 09:58 AM
 
19,198 posts, read 31,425,821 times
Reputation: 4013
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanrene View Post
And what by gosh is that "figure above"?
Yes, that would again be the figure showing that unemployment would peak earlier and at a lower level with a stimulus plan in effect than without. That was the only point or promise of the projection, but some low-grade commentators have displayed their ignorance of the subject by assuming that the Y-axis scale on that graph (which was dependent in its derivation upon then-current unemployment rates) was in itself not a mere yardstick, but instead some sort of numerical promise or other. These folks earn bonus points for their creative imaginations, but none at all for their conformance to reality.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sanrene View Post
Complete speculation on your part and you have no evidence to back it up, do you?
Only the projections and models of a broad consensus of public and private sector economic analysts that you have been pointed to before but choose to ignore with a childlike wave of your Magic Wand of Peremptory Exclusion. If there are masses of evidence that completely undercut your arguments, you persist by simply deciding to ignore them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sanrene View Post
Mind pointing the above out for me?
Yet again, the vaunted GDP expert knows not where to find even the basic presentation of it. How but through sheer unbridled ego can utter neophytes spout off with the unwarranted presumption that some do?

NIPA Table 1.1.1 -- Percent Change in Real GDP

See the third bolded line.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sanrene View Post
Exactly my point. All the rosy estimates are coming from the WH to cover their a**es on the stimulus failure.
Odd then that their numbers should fall smack dab into the broad consensus defined by the work of such other reputable analysts as CBO, Moody's, IHS Global Insight, James Grossman, Goldman Sachs, and Macroeconomic Advisers. You think all of these are somehow in cahoots with the administration?

Quote:
Originally Posted by sanrene View Post
They have no credibility when it comes to the numbers, they shot it all with the promises from the stimulus that have not come to fruition.
All the promises they actually made are in some stage of being delivered upon. All the rest of the promises you simply made up.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sanrene View Post
I'm still waiting for the repport, from the CBO, that says 1.5 million jobs were created.
You've been pointed to that several times as well. Those data and all of the private sector data mentioned above are fully sourced, documented, acknowledged, and footnoted in the First Quarter ARRA Report. Your problem here is the same as with the basic GDP numbers -- you are too inexperienced in these matters to know how to get from simple Point-A to simple Point-B.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sanrene View Post
klugman is none too happy with these numbers;
Krugman's point from the beginning has been that the stimulus package was too small. Quite possibly true, but with dingleberry Senate Republicans to get past, it was the largest bill that could have been gotten under the circumstances. And we see that despite not having been signed into law until halfway through te first quarter, ARRA added about 2.5 percentage points to GDP growth in the second quarter and about 3.0 percentage points in the third quarter. More would have been better, but those are not numbers to sneeze at.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sanrene View Post
"...the stimulus has already had its peak effect on growth and will turn into a net drag in the second half..."

Something many of us have been telling you about for a while. The stimulus failed to do as promises and will not have an effect in the future.
You don't understand what your hero Krugman is saying any more than you did when it was Romer who was saying it. At the risk of further befuddling, growth is already the first derivative making effect on growth the second derivative. The front-loaded fiscal stimulus contained in ARRA drives the second derivative into positive territory. As those fiscal elements expire or are not extended, the second derivative effect will go to zero, or as Krugman fears, could go negative. The first derivative flattens in that event or could start to head down, but in either case, it and the associated levels of GDP and employment remain higher than what they would have been in the absence of the stimulus to begin with.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-29-2009, 10:11 AM
 
19,198 posts, read 31,425,821 times
Reputation: 4013
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest View Post
By nearly everyones estimation, 1,000,000 more jobs? Not even Obama is projecting those numbers. Where do you get your made up data from?
Another neophyte. Look up the First Quarter ARRA Report. See pages 25 and 26.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest View Post
So without the stimulus, we still would have had a growth in GDP due to a natural economic business cycle (.3%)...
Again, there is no such thing as a natural business cycle, but I suppose that to those whose heads are still stuck in 1850 with Bastiat's parable of the broken window, all of this will come as something new and revolutionary.

Meanwhile, GDP growth in the second quater was -0.7%. Without the stimulus, it would have been in the neighborhood of -3.2%. GDP growth in the third quarter was +2.8%. Without the stimulus, it would have been in the neighborhood of -0.2%.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest View Post
...while not increasing the national debt by nearly $1TRILLION. You can pretend thats good but we all know better..
You all don't actually know very much. Not yet half of the stimulus funds have been expended, and your estimate does not account for the increases in taxes and other revenues that are being produced through the expansionary effects of the stimulus referred to above.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-29-2009, 10:18 AM
 
Location: Tampa Florida
22,229 posts, read 17,823,173 times
Reputation: 4585
Quote:
Originally Posted by saganista View Post
Another neophyte. Look up the First Quarter ARRA Report. See pages 25 and 26.


Again, there is no such thing as a natural business cycle, but I suppose that to those whose heads are still stuck in 1850 with Bastiat's parable of the broken window, all of this will come as something new and revolutionary.

Meanwhile, GDP growth in the second quater was -0.7%. Without the stimulus, it would have been in the neighborhood of -3.2%. GDP growth in the third quarter was +2.8%. Without the stimulus, it would have been in the neighborhood of -0.2%.


You all don't actually know very much. Not yet half of the stimulus funds have been expended, and your estimate does not account for the increases in taxes and other revenues that are being produced through the expansionary effects of the stimulus referred to above.
I admire your tenacity in trying to impart some sense to this person. But he/she is simply saying the same things over and over again. No new thought, actually no thoughts at all that I can discern. But, I guess that shows tenacity as well.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-29-2009, 10:19 AM
 
19,198 posts, read 31,425,821 times
Reputation: 4013
Quote:
Originally Posted by Haakon View Post
Wrong. Bush inherited a recession from Clinton, the dot com bust started under Clintons reign. Under Bush we had record low unemployment and tax cuts that gave money back to everyone, not just the banks.
No, the First Bush Recession did not start until March 2001 and was just another down in a years-long series of ups and downs until Bush himself started talking about upsetting the apple cart so many had worked so long to build by blunderbussing the balanced budget with his pointless tax cuts fro the rich and mega-corporations. Some degree of uncertainty and apprehension is normal concurrent with the arrival of a new adminstration, but Bush managed to turn that into an actual recession.

The unemployment rate meanwhile was never lower at any point during the Bush administration than what it was on the day he was first sworn into office. The Bushie tax cuts went overwhelmingly to the rich and in little tiny bits to everyone else. Not much solace for those folks as median real household income proceeded to fall between 2000 and 2006 for everyone not safely ensconced in the upper income brackets.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-29-2009, 10:26 AM
 
69,368 posts, read 63,992,474 times
Reputation: 9383
Quote:
Originally Posted by saganista View Post
Another neophyte. Look up the First Quarter ARRA Report. See pages 25 and 26.
What quarter are we in? And you want me to go back to the First Quarter to read about 1,000,000 new jobs? Are you claiming Obamas policies were so fabulous to result in 1,000,000 new jobs in the first quarter alone? Ohh please, stop with your humor, the stimulus bill wasnt even funded and passed until after this period.
Quote:
Originally Posted by saganista View Post
Again, there is no such thing as a natural business cycle, but I suppose that to those whose heads are still stuck in 1850 with Bastiat's parable of the broken window, all of this will come as something new and revolutionary.
I guess there is no such thing as a business cycle to those who have their heads stuck in the 1850's, or anyone who knows ANYTHING about BASIC business. Even the National Bureau of Economic Research acknowledges cycles exist.. Warren Buffet calls it recession, but ...
And the CBO http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/102xx/doc...inessCycle.pdf

I seriously wonder what college you went to, please let me know so I make sure I dont make the mistake of sending my children there..
Quote:
Originally Posted by saganista View Post
Meanwhile, GDP growth in the second quater was -0.7%. Without the stimulus, it would have been in the neighborhood of -3.2%. GDP growth in the third quarter was +2.8%. Without the stimulus, it would have been in the neighborhood of -0.2%.
My figures were from the THIRD quarter, not the second, try to keep up because you yourself has jumped from the third, to the first, and now the second, all in the SAME thread. This humor is more compounded by the fact that you just acknowledged NEGATIVE GDP growth without government spending, meaning we have nothing to be thankful for, unless of course you work for the government..
Quote:
Originally Posted by saganista View Post
You all don't actually know very much. Not yet half of the stimulus funds have been expended, and your estimate does not account for the increases in taxes and other revenues that are being produced through the expansionary effects of the stimulus referred to above.
How does the fact that funds havent been "expended" yet, change the fact that $787Billion is ALMOST $1 Trillion?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-29-2009, 10:30 AM
 
11,155 posts, read 15,681,234 times
Reputation: 4209
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest View Post
Then why does it bother you that ONE individual on a webforum says something stupid, most likely not even meaning it?
Who said anything about one person on forum? In the anonymity from repercussion is where wingnuts thrive, but my assessment is certainly not limited to chat forums.

I've seen this hate speech in everything from the presidential campaign to news outlets. Obviously not everybody who disagrees with Obama's policies is guilty. A lot of people just don't like Democratic values, but enough do to cause concern.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-29-2009, 10:31 AM
 
Location: Chicagoland
41,325 posts, read 44,874,903 times
Reputation: 7118
Quote:
Yes, that would again be the figure showing that unemployment would peak earlier and at a lower level with a stimulus plan in effect than without.
And the reality; UE is even worse with the stimulus than obama predicted it would be without the stimulus. Only rabid obama supporters can deny the truth - the stimulus was a complete failure.

Why do you think obama is talking about this ridiculous "jobs summit"? They know, even though you don't, that the stimulus has failed to do what intended, namely, create jobs.

Here's pelosi; we blew billions and have nothing to show for it;

Pelosi: Americans Would Accept More Red Ink in Exchange for Jobs - FOXNews.com

Quote:
“The American people have an anger about the growth of the deficit because they’re not getting anything for it.”
Quote:
Only the projections and models of a broad consensus of public and private sector economic analysts that you have been pointed to before but choose to ignore with a childlike wave of your Magic Wand of Peremptory Exclusion. If there are masses of evidence that completely undercut your arguments, you persist by simply deciding to ignore them.
We're not talking "projections" and "models", even though they were/are wrong. Talking reality now. Where are the jobs, the spending, the investment that the stimulus was supposed to stimulate? NOWHERE to be found.

Quote:
Yet again, the vaunted GDP expert knows not where to find even the basic presentation of it. How but through sheer unbridled ego can utter neophytes spout off with the unwarranted presumption that some do?
All of it in residential. Business investment is in the crapper. Can't have growth without investment in the private sector - that is what creates jobs.

Quote:
Odd then that their numbers should fall smack dab into the broad consensus defined by the work of such other reputable analysts as CBO, Moody's, IHS Global Insight, James Grossman, Goldman Sachs, and Macroeconomic Advisers. You think all of these are somehow in cahoots with the administration?
I haven't seen these analyses, independent of the incredible WH "uniquely qualified" team. Post the links.

Quote:
All the promises they actually made are in some stage of being delivered upon. All the rest of the promises you simply made up.
Oh, I don't think so. We have a record of the comments, claims, numbers and statistical tools used to sell the stimulus. They can't even verify the bogus jobs numbers they've reported....and they admit that. You should listen and stop arguing against obama's people in charge of "calculating" these things, using their own brand of fuzzy math.

Quote:
You've been pointed to that several times as well. Those data and all of the private sector data mentioned above are fully sourced, documented, acknowledged, and footnoted in the First Quarter ARRA Report. Your problem here is the same as with the basic GDP numbers -- you are too inexperienced in these matters to know how to get from simple Point-A to simple Point-B.
No. I've seen your link to Romer's report (any claim coming from obama and his team would need corroboration to be deemed credible). Put up the CBO report, like I've asked you.

Quote:
You don't understand what your hero Krugman is saying any more than you did when it was Romer who was saying it. At the risk of further befuddling, growth is already the first derivative making effect on growth the second derivative. The front-loaded fiscal stimulus contained in ARRA drives the second derivative into positive territory. As those fiscal elements expire or are not extended, the second derivative effect will go to zero, or as Krugman fears, could go negative. The first derivative flattens in that event or could start to head down, but in either case, it and the associated levels of GDP and employment remain higher than what they would have been in the absence of the stimulus to begin with.
More spin from the spinmaster. You see, it's very easy to just listen to those like Romer, as she said the stimulus had its greatest impact in 2nd and 3rd of 2009 and will not have any more impact in 2010, at least none that we can see, feel and touch.

Quote:
By mid-2010, according to her testimony submitted to the committee, the “fiscal stimulus will likely be contributing little to growth.” What does that mean? Growth in the economy will be dependent on the private sector.
And guess what saggy; business and individuals will not invest and spend as long as obama's huge taxes are coming down the pike (for cap&tax, HC).

Even your hero klugman disagrees with you and exactly what was promised and the effects of the failed stimulus. In this case, since HE is a nobel on the subject, I'll stick with his interpretation.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-29-2009, 11:06 AM
 
69,368 posts, read 63,992,474 times
Reputation: 9383
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanrene View Post
More spin from the spinmaster.
Did you see this spin?
Quote:
Originally Posted by saganista View Post
I'd say it's nothing more than a heap of your usual made-up hokem. By nearly everyone's estimation, there were about a million more jobs out there in the third quarter than what there would have been without the stimulus. Did public sector employment rise by a million in eight months?
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest View Post
By nearly everyones estimation, 1,000,000 more jobs? Not even Obama is projecting those numbers. Where do you get your made up data from?
Quote:
Originally Posted by saganista View Post
Another neophyte. Look up the First Quarter ARRA Report. See pages 25 and 26.
Sags evidence that there was 1,000,000 MORE jobs in the THIRD Quarter, was an ARRA Report which came out SIX months before the third quarter, and before the stimulus package was even funded.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:40 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top