Democrats in Disarray

[Antitrust32]

First off, you cant take anything that slate article said seriously when they were wrong in just that little snippit you put out.. The Spendulous was supposed to save the country from 8% unemployment, not 10%. And it was a total failure.

Also, one of the 3-4 best presidents since WWII??? And you wanted to spin that into one of the best first years ever? LMAO

So according to that writers, OPINION, Obama is in the top 1/3rd of the 12 presidents we have had since WWII.

Basically, according the Liberals, Obama is the Best Prez Evah cause he isnt G W Bush.

[Riot]

First off, you cant take anything that slate article said seriously when they were wrong in just that little snippit you put out.. The Spendulous was supposed to save the country from 8% unemployment, not 10%. And it was a total failure.

Plenty of economists - including McCain's chief campaign economist - think the stimulus worked just fine, doing exactly what it was supposed to, and causing us to stay out of a depression.

Far from "a total failure" in the opinion of many. Thinking of it, I've never seen any economist publically call it a "total failure" - do you know of one? Or is that just your personal opinion?

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Riot

Plenty of economists - including McCain's chief campaign economist - think the stimulus worked just fine, doing exactly what it was supposed to, and causing us to stay out of a depression.

Far from "a total failure" in the opinion of many. Thinking of it, I've never seen any economist publically call it a "total failure" - do you know of one? Or is that just your personal opinion?

prove it. prove we'd have been in a depression had that not been passed. my recollection of that bill being pushed was it was to keep unemployment from going past 10%, which it did anyway...in other words, it DIDN'T accomplish what they said it would. and why would adding mccains chief campaign economist somehow give that remark credence? because he's from 'the other side'? i bet i could find other economists who would disagree...but then, I'D be cherry picking....god knows no one else pulls bits out of articles to back their points.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Danzig

prove it. prove we'd have been in a depression had that not been passed. my recollection of that bill being pushed was it was to keep unemployment from going past 10%, which it did anyway...in other words, it DIDN'T accomplish what they said it would. and why would adding mccains chief campaign economist somehow give that remark credence? because he's from 'the other side'? i bet i could find other economists who would disagree...but then, I'D be cherry picking....god knows no one else pulls bits out of articles to back their points.

Not to mention the requirements that accompanied the stimlus money for the states that will begin to further bankrupt many of them starting next year. Or the fact that despite the idea that his foreign policy has been so swell there are still guys climbing on airplanes with bombs, Iran is getting closer to having nukes and seems to have sped up the process this year, The Palestinian issue is no better than it was a year ago, Somolia is still a disaster, Putin's tentacles have stretched further, Chavez is still doing his best to destabilize Central and South America and has been hosting Iran dignitaries, China has also cut some troubling deals for oil with Iran and along with Russia serve as their defender in the UN, Pakistan and India are still mortal enemies with nukes, Yemen has emerged as a new terror hotspot, North Korea is still nuclear and old Kim Jung-il is as wild and crazy as ever...

So what exactly was so good again?

[Cannon Shell]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...655183416.html

Only partially ontopic but interesting nonetheless

[Riot]

You Obama-haters act like you're queezing your eyes shut, stomping your feet, placing your hands over your ears, and yelling, "Nananaaaaa ... I can't heaaar that plenty of people think Obama is doing great! I refuse to see that he's measurably accomplished a heck of a lot this first year. No, no, it's not true, because I don't want to believe it! He sucks, dammit!"

You guys are hilarious

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Riot

You Obama-haters act like you're queezing your eyes shut, stomping your feet, placing your hands over your ears, and yelling, "Nananaaaaa ... I can't heaaar that plenty of people think Obama is doing great! I refuse to see that he's measurably accomplished a heck of a lot this first year. No, no, it's not true, because I don't want to believe it! He sucks, dammit!"

You guys are hilarious

There are far more people who remain skeptical than those like you who are such ardent fans that they fail to understand why Obama's 1st year hasnt been so great when 70% of the population feels the country is heading in the wrong direction.

http://www.pollingreport.com/right.htm

You would think if the leader of the country was doing such a bang up job the citizens would be a little more optimistic.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

There are far more people who remain skeptical than those like you who are such ardent fans that they fail to understand why Obama's 1st year hasnt been so great when 70% of the population feels the country is heading in the wrong direction.

http://www.pollingreport.com/right.htm

You would think if the leader of the country was doing such a bang up job the citizens would be a little more optimistic.

you're just cherry picking....if you're going to post pro-admin stuff, that's fine...but con is not allowed.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

There are far more people who remain skeptical than those like you who are such ardent fans that they fail to understand why Obama's 1st year hasnt been so great when 70% of the population feels the country is heading in the wrong direction.
http://www.pollingreport.com/right.htm

You would think if the leader of the country was doing such a bang up job the citizens would be a little more optimistic.

they don't realize he nominated a justice? they need to pay attention.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Danzig

i bet i could find other economists who would disagree...but then, I'D be cherry picking....god knows no one else pulls bits out of articles to back their points.

Please do. Post some other economists you can find that disagree, and say the stimulus has been a failure. Especially post any you know of that say the economy would not have been worse without the stimulus - that the stimulus did nothing for the economy.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Riot

Please do. Post some other economists you can find that disagree, and say the stimulus has been a failure. Especially post any you know of that say the economy would not have been worse without the stimulus - that the stimulus did nothing for the economy.

Post 94 contains a link to an article by an economist who disagrees

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Post 94 contains a link to an article by an economist who disagrees

??? That economist doesn't say the economic stimulus was a failure. He's complaining about how the job numbers are calculated. Post it if I missed it.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Riot

??? That economist doesn't say the economic stimulus was a failure. He's complaining about how the job numbers are calculated. Post it if I missed it.

The Obama administration claims a dubious "Keynesian" multiplier of 1.5 to feed the Democrats' thirst for big spending. The administration's idea is that virtually all their spending creates jobs for unemployed people and that additional rounds of spending create still more—raising income by $1.50 for each dollar of government spending. Economists differ on such multipliers, with many leading figures pegging them at well under 1.0 as the government spending in part replaces private spending and jobs. But all agree that every dollar of spending requires a present value of a dollar of future taxes, which distorts decisions to work, save, and invest and raises the cost of the dollar of spending to well over a dollar. Thus, only spending with large societal benefits is justified, a criterion unlikely to be met by much current spending (perusing the projects on recovery.gov doesn't inspire confidence}

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Riot

Please do. Post some other economists you can find that disagree, and say the stimulus has been a failure. Especially post any you know of that say the economy would not have been worse without the stimulus - that the stimulus did nothing for the economy.

it did fail at what they were attempting to stop-the rise of unemployment past 10 %. i didn't say it was a complete and utter, abject failure, but it did fail to keep unemployment below this admins magic number-didn't it? that's what i wrote, if failed at that. you need to try harder to read and comprehend what i'm actually writing, not what you think i'm saying.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Danzig

it did fail at what they were attempting to stop-the rise of unemployment past 10 %. i didn't say it was a complete and utter, abject failure, but it did fail to keep unemployment below this admins magic number-didn't it? that's what i wrote, if failed at that. you need to try harder to read and comprehend what i'm actually writing, not what you think i'm saying.

But keeping unemployment at less than 10% wasn't the only reason for the stimulus. Yet it's the only thing you are using to judge it's effectiveness.

Unemployment numbers have peaked and have been dropping markedly the past few months, and are continuing to drop. They are the lowest they've been in a long time.

The stimulus is still a long way from being completely disbursed, too.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Riot

But keeping unemployment at less than 10% wasn't the only reason for the stimulus. Yet it's the only thing you are using to judge it's effectiveness.

Unemployment numbers have peaked and have been dropping markedly the past few months, and are continuing to drop. They are the lowest they've been in a long time.

The stimulus is still a long way from being completely disbursed, too.

http://forecasts.org/unemploy.htm


Nonfarm payroll employment edged down (-85,000) in December, and the unemployment rate was unchanged at 10.0 percent.



In the week ending Jan. 9, the advance figure for seasonally adjusted initial claims was 444,000, an increase of 11,000 from the previous week's revised figure of 433,000


http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/...te-steady.html


'Lack of confidence in the economic recovery led employers to shed a more-than-expected 85,000 jobs in December even as the unemployment rate held at 10 percent. The rate would have been higher if more people had been looking for work instead of leaving the labor force because they can't find jobs.'