Was the stimulus a success?

[loveisdead]

The CBO seems to think so (http://www.cnbc.com/id/37343761).
The massive U.S. stimulus package put up to 3.4 million people to work and boosted GDP by up to 4.6 percent in the first three months of 2010, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said on Tuesday.

[spiffa0]

I wish I was one of those 3.4 million people

[loveisdead]

And that's really where the debate will ensue. Those statistics looks great. Today's unemployment number does not.

[Jake Gyllenhaal]

I'm too lazy to do any research. What exactly did the stimulus plan that George W. Bush signed into law do? Most conservatives believe every stimulus package was created by Obama.

[Sean Rizzo]

I'm too lazy to do any research. What exactly did the stimulus plan that George W. Bush signed into law do? Most conservatives believe every stimulus package was created by Obama.
Let's see you back up that generalization with some fact. Rest assured you won't be able to.

[saysmydoctor]

Wasn't supposed to solve unemployment. It was supposed to curb its rise. In that aspect, it has been a complete success.

[Sean Rizzo]

Wasn't supposed to solve unemployment. It was supposed to curb its rise. In that aspect, it has been a complete success.
So it's actually only 8%? Oh wait...

[saysmydoctor]

Let's see you back up that generalization with some fact. Rest assured you won't be able to.
Not really a generalization if you READ and follow that up with COMPREHENSION.

"MOST conservatives" is what he said. Not 'all' or 'every' or 'any.' "Most."

Therefore, not a generalization.

[Sean Rizzo]

Not really a generalization if you READ and follow that up with COMPREHENSION.

"MOST conservatives" is what he said. Not 'all' or 'every' or 'any.' "Most."

Therefore, not a generalization.
So what definition of 'most' are we going by? 50.01% or 99.99%? Either way it's still BS, because all the conservative talk show hosts you never listen to frequently admit that Bush started the stimulus packages.

[loveisdead]

So what definition of 'most' are we going by? 50.01% or 99.99%?
Most implies more than half. That's the definition.

[Sean Rizzo]

Most implies more than half. That's the definition.
My point is that people are using the word to mask their true views on the situation, which are probably closer to "near all" than "just over half". Use something like one half or three quarters or something, don't hide your real opinion.

[loveisdead]

My point is that people are using the word to mask their true views on the situation, which are probably closer to "near all" than "just over half". Use something like one half or three quarters or something, don't hide your real opinion.

I doubt there's a real study on it, like you suggested. What we've seen from the media and general public suggests that most people do believe that.

[saysmydoctor]

So it's actually only 8%? Oh wait...
I get that you aren't learned on economics and stuff, so I'll forgive this attempt at sarcasm that really underlines how little you know about economics.

[saysmydoctor]

So what definition of 'most' are we going by? 50.01% or 99.99%? Either way it's still BS, because all the conservative talk show hosts you never listen to frequently admit that Bush started the stimulus packages.
I don't pay attention too talk shows, but I do read several more conservative leaning blogs and I know what they admit.

They are still are a pretty rare minority, however.

[Sean Rizzo]

I doubt there's a real study on it, like you suggested. What we've seen from the media and general public suggests that most people do believe that.
"The general public", like an independent friend of mine, are completely politically apathetic and simply don't know their facts. And that goes across the board, conservative, liberal, whatever. I'm positive that THIS can be backed with polls.

Secondly, you can't trust any of what the media says on its face unless there's a poll or some kind of numerical analysis attached to it. That goes for Fox too. Even then, the questions on the polls are often skewed and misleading, and again, we're dealing with the apathetic "general public", so any polls saying <insert definition of "most" here> conservatives believe all the stimulus bills were formed under Obama probably don't hold any weight, either. saysmydoctor hasn't even tried backing it up with a poll yet.

I get that you aren't learned on economics and stuff, so I'll forgive this attempt at sarcasm that really underlines how little you know about economics.
Last time I checked, the President promised unemployment wouldn't rise above 8% if we passed the stimulus. I fail to see how his numerically and bureaucratically challenged assertion is in any way related to the study of economics. Perhaps if the money was actually spent quickly, it wouldn't have risen above 8%. But the point of my post was regardless of whether or not the stimulus could have backed Obama's promise, it still didn't, an abject failure most likely due to administrative foot-dragging. For a more recent example, try explaining why it took 9 days to mobilize federally controlled experts, funds, and utilities to deal with our lovely oil spill.

They are still are a pretty rare minority, however.

Back it up.

[Machu505]

Oh hey, most of this thread has been an argument over the meaning of the word "most". It's not a surprise that the conservative chooses to argue over semantics rather than the success of their opposition's programs.

[caveBEAR]

Oh hey, most of this thread has been an argument over the meaning of the word "most". It's not a surprise that the conservative chooses to argue over semantics rather than the success of their opposition's programs.

Why don't you try to prove they argue over semantics? I bet you can't.

BACK IT UP!!

[saysmydoctor]

Last time I checked, the President promised unemployment wouldn't rise above 8% if we passed the stimulus. I fail to see how his numerically and bureaucratically challenged assertion is in any way related to the study of economics. Perhaps if the money was actually spent quickly, it wouldn't have risen above 8%. But the point of my post was regardless of whether or not the stimulus could have backed Obama's promise, it still didn't, an abject failure most likely due to administrative foot-dragging. For a more recent example, try explaining why it took 9 days to mobilize federally controlled experts, funds, and utilities to deal with our lovely oil spill.



Back it up.
It's a two year program.

I like how you ignored the larger part of my point.

[loveisdead]

There was a poll a few months ago that said something along the lines of under 10% of the population thought the stimulus created any jobs.

[Sean Rizzo]

Oh hey, most of this thread has been an argument over the meaning of the word "most". It's not a surprise that the conservative chooses to argue over semantics rather than the success of their opposition's programs.
Oh hey, you missed my last post, even though you posted after it.

Why don't you try to prove they argue over semantics? I bet you can't.

BACK IT UP!!
Oh hey, quit being a troll and read my last post too.

It's a two year program.

I like how you ignored the larger part of my point.
You ignored the larger part of my point that the stimulus should have "curbed its rise" prior to rising above 8%.

There was a poll a few months ago that said something along the lines of under 10% of the population thought the stimulus created any jobs.
Thank you.

[saysmydoctor]

How could it have curbed the rise before it rose to 8%? When Obama passed his, it was already at that point.

What, did you want ARRA to come with some sort of fucking time machine? What, are you fucking retarded?

[Smash Adams]

How could it have curbed the rise before it rose to 8%? When Obama passed his, it was already at that point.

What, did you want ARRA to come with some sort of fucking time machine? What, are you fucking retarded?
most Americans would like time machines to exist

[Sean Rizzo]

How could it have curbed the rise before it rose to 8%? When Obama passed his, it was already at that point.

What, did you want ARRA to come with some sort of fucking time machine? What, are you fucking retarded?
No, but apparently our President did.

[caveBEAR]

Oh hey, quit being a troll and read my last post too.

You're trying to argue that 'stimulus' (and 'bailout') hasn't become one of the buzz words attributed to liberals, and more specifically recently, to Obama. Are you uniformed or just stupid?

[bridgeofeldin]

http://www.slate.com/id/2243797/

i think this article from slate nails it on the head. since the recession, americans have been very finicky and inconsistent about their responses in polls. the one thing Weisberg leaves out, however, is that polls are naturally biased simply from what news/media outlet conducts them. that explains why the success of the stimulus is so debatable.

all i can say is that gov chris christie cut the budget in nj and now my town is going insane because of furloughs, cutbacks, etc. so i dont think nj is feeling the success of the stimulus

[Sean Rizzo]

You're trying to argue that 'stimulus' hasn't become one of the buzz words attributed to liberals, and more specifically recently, to Obama. Are you uniformed or just stupid?
It might be a buzz word, and a few conservatives liberals like to exemplify as the common conservative might be uninformed as I stated earlier, but my entire point was the allegation that "most conservatives believe all stimulus bills were passed under Obama" is wholly unprovable by what saysmydoctor posted. He hasn't backed it up.

No I'm not, but you're a flaming troll.

[saysmydoctor]

No, but apparently our President did.
WHAT?


Man, I really want the luxury of just making shit up.

[caveBEAR]

It might be a buzz word, and a few conservatives liberals like to exemplify as the common conservative might be uninformed as I stated earlier, but my entire point was the allegation that "most conservatives believe all stimulus bills were passed under Obama" is wholly unprovable.

No I'm not, but you're a flaming troll.

:rolleyes:

Sorry for derailing your grand point.

[kemppettyjohn]

i have absolutely no idea

[Machu505]

Oh hey, you missed my last post, even though you posted after it.

Considering that when I pressed "Submit Reply", your still useless post appeared along with my new one, I didn't get much of a chance to read it. My most sincere apologies.

Reading this post didn't change much though. Most of it was still about "most" and the other part was you complaining that there was a two percent difference in the president's promise and what happened in reality. If only it were like every other piece of legislation ever and worked exactly according to plan.

And please, don't go talking about the oil spill. Being that your ideology is, in your words, "very conservative", the policies you advocate caused it to happen in the first place.

[Sean Rizzo]

:rolleyes:

Sorry for derailing your grand point.
Numbers, sir, numbers. Is that so much to ask?

WHAT?


Man, I really want the luxury of just making &%$#@ up.
You did, earlier.

[Sean Rizzo]

Considering that when I pressed "Submit Reply", your still useless post appeared along with my new one, I didn't get much of a chance to read it. My most sincere apologies.

Reading this post didn't change much though. Most of it was still about "most" and the other part was you complaining that there was a two percent difference in the president's promise and what happened in reality. If only it were like every other piece of legislation ever and worked exactly according to plan.

And please, don't go talking about the oil spill. Being that your ideology is, in your words, "very conservative", the policies you advocate caused it to happen in the first place.
Problem is, 2% in this country means 7 million people. And oh yes, the fact that I'm pro-drilling caused the rig to blow. I'm responsible. Take me to jail now. By the way, the "most" statement was the reason why I posted in this thread to begin with. I don't like seeing people spread around statistically unproven BS. Why we're drilling in the ocean is beyond me anyway, when we have all this oil shale to tap.

[caveBEAR]

Numbers, sir, numbers. Is that so much to ask?

Yes, especially seeing as the original comment was not meant to be taken as a direct, specific statistic, yes, that is too much to ask.

As a matter of fact, I'd like you to post some numbers proving that Republicans don't feel that way. I'm not much of a fan of you using a blanket statement about Republicans knowing what they're talking about when it comes to the stimulus package.

[Praetor]

This thread consists of:

1. People arguing over worthless semantics.
2. People being amazed that an administration's own projections painted a rosy picture of the future of their own program.

Goddamn.

[Praetor]

Why we're drilling in the ocean is beyond me anyway, when we have all this oil shale to tap.
Don't even get me started on this bullshit.

[Machu505]

Problem is, 2% in this country means 7 million people. And oh yes, the fact that I'm pro-drilling caused the rig to blow. I'm responsible. Take me to jail now. Why we're drilling in the ocean is beyond me anyway, when we have all this oil shale to tap.

I never said anything about being pro-drilling. I was referring to laissez-faire economics and not forcing oil companies to install important safety devices on their rigs.

[bridgeofeldin]

This thread consists of:

1. People arguing over worthless semantics.
2. People being amazed that an administration's own projections painted a rosy picture of the future of their own program.

Goddamn.

i lol'd really hard at that

[Sean Rizzo]

Yes, especially seeing as the original comment was not meant to be taken as a direct, specific statistic, yes, that is too much to ask.

As a matter of fact, I'd like you to post some numbers proving that Republicans don't feel that way. I'm not much of a fan of you using a blanket statement about Republicans knowing what they're talking about when it comes to the stimulus package.
My point was that it hasn't been proven with any sort of poll. The burden of proof rests on the liberals who assert "most conservatives believe all stimulus packages were signed under Bush". I don't need to prove they don't feel that way when I just set out to say you can't prove they do.

This thread consists of:

1. People arguing over worthless semantics.
2. People being amazed that an administration's own projections painted a rosy picture of the future of their own program.

Goddamn.
Thank you.

[Machu505]

This thread consists of:

1. People arguing over worthless semantics.
2. People being amazed that an administration's own projections painted a rosy picture of the future of their own program.

Goddamn.

You call 8% unemployment "rosy"? You fucking bastard.

[caveBEAR]

This thread consists of:

1. Prince of Light bitching over worthless semantics.
2. Prince of Light being amazed that an administration's own projections painted a rosy picture of the future of their own program.

Goddamn.

Fixed.

[caveBEAR]

My point was that it hasn't been proven with any sort of poll. The burden of proof rests on the liberals who assert "most conservatives believe all stimulus packages were signed under Bush". I don't need to prove they don't feel that way when you can't prove they do (which was my whole point, again, btw).

You've never spoken to a FoxNEWS faithful conservative, have you?

[Praetor]

You call 8% unemployment "rosy"? You fucking bastard.
hahahaha I laughed pretty hard at this. <3 you Machu Matt
My point was that it hasn't been proven with any sort of poll. The burden of proof rests on the liberals who assert "most conservatives believe all stimulus packages were signed under Bush". I don't need to prove they don't feel that way when you can't prove they do (which was my whole point, again, btw).


Thank you.
Hey, I was talking about you too. It's a non-issue.
Fixed.
Well. I was trying to be subtle. haha

[Sean Rizzo]

You've never spoken to a FoxNEWS faithful conservative, have you?
I'm not questioning whether they exist, I question the ONCE AGAIN UNPROVABLE AND UNPROVEN allegation that "most conservatives" are Fox News faithful.

[caveBEAR]

Well. I was trying to be subtle. haha

I don't want subtlety, I want statistics and proof, damnit!

[caveBEAR]

I'm not questioning whether they exist, I question the ONCE AGAIN UNPROVABLE AND UNPROVEN allegation that "most conservatives" are Fox News faithful.

:lol:

[Sean Rizzo]

Hey, I was talking about you too. It's a non-issue.
I get that it's a non-issue, I just wanted to point out how it was an unproven and rather ignorant opinion.

[Sean Rizzo]

:lol:
How many times do I have to say "numbers" before you go get some? I'm not the one who made the allegation, so I don't have to prove anything.

[caveBEAR]

How many times do I have to say "numbers" before you go get some? I'm not the one who made the allegation, so I don't have to prove anything.

:lolatpost:

Keep going. I'm not going to get any numbers, and this just keeps entertaining me.

[Sean Rizzo]

:lolatpost:

Keep going. I'm not going to get any numbers, and this just keeps entertaining me.
1. No.

2. Then stop being a freaking troll and post something useful.

I didn't intend on taking my point this far, but apparently people don't want to acknowledge that "most conservatives believe all stimulus packages were passed under Obama" was an opinion in entirety, and a baseless one at that. That was all I was trying to say this whole time. I'm not saying that my thinking less than half of conservatives believe that is any less of an unproven opinion, but again, liberals fail to see the obvious subjectivity in their non-proven by evidence thoughts.

[<*)))><]

I am enjoying this thread.

On topic: I don't feel the stimulus was a success because it cost more then we got out of it.

[loveisdead]

I don't really mind this guy.

[saysmydoctor]

What did I make up again?

[loveisdead]

I am enjoying this thread.

On topic: I don't feel the stimulus was a success because it cost more then we got out of it.

You do realize how large the numbers the CBO scored are pretty convincing of it being successful, right?

[Sean Rizzo]

What did I make up again?

I don't pay attention too talk shows, but I do read several more conservative leaning blogs and I know what they admit.

They are still are a pretty rare minority, however.
That.

[<*)))><]

You do realize how large the numbers the CBO scored are pretty convincing of it being successful, right?
Well it stop the market from falling apart because it took to long for the money to get into affect and that is what it was made to do right? This thread also seems like it is an opinion thread and my opinion is that it was not a success.

[Sean Rizzo]

Well it stop the market from falling apart because it took to long for the money to get into affect and that is what it was made to do right?
Pretty much what I tried to say earlier, you won't get anywhere with that. Then again they are liberals...

[caveBEAR]

1. No.

2. Then stop being a freaking troll and post something useful.

I didn't intend on taking my point this far, but apparently people don't want to acknowledge that "most conservatives believe all stimulus packages were passed under Obama" was an opinion in entirety, and a baseless one at that. That was all I was trying to say this whole time. I'm not saying that my thinking less than half of conservatives believe that is any less of an unproven opinion, but again, liberals fail to see the obvious subjectivity in their non-proven by evidence thoughts.

Whatever. The whole thing was a goddamn non-issue from the get-go. You honestly believe that most conservatives don't feel like stimulus = Obama? I've heard a fair share of people blame the financial sector bail-out on Obama, when that was passed by Bush. If you can't get a feel what the left/right is mindlessly screaming, that's fine, but don't have a hissy fit about statistics when someone says 'most conservatives believe all stimulus packages were passed under Obama'. Of course the politically educated conservatives don't feel that way, but the politically educated are the minority on both sides of the political fence.

[loveisdead]

Well it stop the market from falling apart because it took to long for the money to get into affect and that is what it was made to do right? This thread also seems like it is an opinion thread and my opinion is that it was not a success.

Tell me why it wasn't a success? Economic growth shortly after the worst recession since the depression suggests to me that it was. I think it could have been handled better but it was still successful.

[caveBEAR]

Pretty much what I tried to say earlier, you won't get anywhere with that. Then again they are liberals...

Wow man. The pot is calling the kettle black, and the pot is also filled to the brim with bullshit. Get the fuck out of here.

[Sean Rizzo]

Whatever. The whole thing was a goddamn non-issue from the get-go. You honestly believe that most conservatives don't feel like stimulus = Obama? I've heard a fair share of people blame the financial sector bail-out on Obama, when that was passed by Bush. If you can't get a feel what the left/right is mindlessly screaming, that's fine, but don't have a hissy fit about statistics when someone says 'most conservatives believe all stimulus packages were passed under Obama'. Of course the politically educated conservatives don't feel that way, but the politically educated are the minority on both sides of the political fence.
They're just uninformed. My problem was with people posting such ridiculous assertions and not trying to back them up with something tangible.

[Praetor]

Pretty much what I tried to say earlier, you won't get anywhere with that. Then again they are liberals...
Just so you, that's an inaccurate description for a ton of people in this forum. Also, you and your condescending "poor misguided souls" bullshit can blow me. If you're gonna pull that shit then at least have the decency to be right.

[Sean Rizzo]

Just so you, that's an inaccurate description for a ton of people in this forum. Also, you and your condescending "poor misguided souls" shit can blow me. If you're gonna pull that shit then at least have the decency to be right.
No idea how "liberals not listening to conservative points" got translated into "poor misguided souls" here.

[Jake Gyllenhaal]

Let's see you back up that generalization with some fact. Rest assured you won't be able to.

Lately, I've been trying not to generalize populations but judge people on an individual basis. I guess I should explain myself. I'm a hardcore liberal. However, I've gotten into the habit of listening to conservative viewpoints. Particularly, conservative AM radio (Rush Limbaugh, Jim Vicevich, Sean Hannity). I listen to both them and the people that call into the show. Also, I tend to read comments left by individuals on news outlet's websites. From CNN and Yahoo! News to newspapers in Connecticut (my home state). The comments section is overwhelmingly conservatives, anti-Obama, anti-government people. Those are where I draw my conclusions.

[<*)))><]

Pretty much what I tried to say earlier, you won't get anywhere with that. Then again they are liberals...
What does being liberal have anything to do with this?

Tell me why it wasn't a success? Economic growth shortly after the worst recession since the depression suggests to me that it was. I think it could have been handled better but it was still successful.

The fact that it took about six months for anyone to receive any money. The market wouldn't of been able to go up so much if it didn't have such a big intitional drop, and it if was so successful then how come the Dow is still 4,000 down from the high?

[caveBEAR]

Most conservatives believe every stimulus package was created by Obama.

Blind generalization.

Then again they are liberals...

Not a blind generalization.





:explode:

Take that bullshit elsewhere.

[caveBEAR]

No idea how "liberals not listening to conservative points" got translated into "poor misguided souls" here.

You didn't say 'liberals {are} not listening to conservative points', you said 'then again, they are liberals...'

That's where he got the condescending tone. From your condescending tone.

[loveisdead]

What does being liberal have anything to do with this?



The fact that it took about six months for anyone to receive any money. The market wouldn't of been able to go up so much if it didn't have such a big intitional drop, and it if was so successful then how come the Dow is still 4,000 down from the high?

The implementation of it should have been quicker, I agree. The market is down because of extremely troublesome European problems. I'm not sure how you don't realize that.

[Sean Rizzo]

Lately, I've been trying not to generalize populations but judge people on an individual basis. I guess I should explain myself. I'm a hardcore liberal. However, I've gotten into the habit of listening to conservative viewpoints. Particularly, conservative AM radio (Rush Limbaugh, Jim Vicevich, Sean Hannity). I listen to both them and the people that call into the show. Also, I tend to read comments left by individuals on news outlet's websites. From CNN and Yahoo! News to newspapers in Connecticut (my home state). The comments section is overwhelmingly conservatives, anti-Obama, anti-government people. Those are where I draw my conclusions.
If conservatives don't believe their own talk show hosts when they say the first stimulus was passed under Bush, then they're making a stupid decision in doing so. But I can tell you right now that the talk show hosts do state that Bush did pass the first stimulus. Listen a little harder.

By the way, anti-government is a quite slanderous exaggeration. I'm a conservative, and I'm not pro-anarchy. Anti-bad policy =/= anti-government. Less government =/= no government

[Jake Gyllenhaal]

Blind generalization.

Please see my new post. I'm working on this tendency of generalization.

[Sean Rizzo]

What does being liberal have anything to do with this?
they're so liberal that they won't listen to conservative points no matter how hard we try, so the only times I ever come in here to post are when they say some ignorant and totally baseless comment, like the "most" bit we had earlier. I guess putting down raging liberal, instead of just liberal, would have made it less generalization-looking.

[caveBEAR]

Please see my new post. I'm working on this tendency of generalization.

That wasn't meant for you. It was meant for Prince of Light, who posted the bullshit 'but they are liberals...' after trying to tear you a new one for your post. He's either put me on ignore or ignoring my posts at this point, which is fine by me, seeing as he's full of shit.

[Sean Rizzo]

You didn't say 'liberals {are} not listening to conservative points', you said 'then again, they are liberals...'

That's where he got the condescending tone. From your condescending tone.
I missed your post between quotes, so this is just in case you missed it:

they're so liberal that they won't listen to conservative points no matter how hard we try, so the only times I ever come in here to post are when they say some ignorant and totally baseless comment, like the "most" bit we had earlier. I guess putting down raging liberal, instead of just liberal, would have made it less generalization-looking.

EDIT: looks like you did miss it and got upset. And I have a feeling if I added 'then again, they are liberals [and won't listen to conservative points]' plus the raging part would have been less generalizing.

[Theseventhson]

they're so liberal that they won't listen to conservative points no matter how hard we try, so the only times I ever come in here to post are when they say some ignorant and totally baseless comment, like the "most" bit we had earlier. I guess putting down raging liberal, instead of just liberal, would have made it less generalization-looking.

As was pointed out earlier

http://ganjataz.com/general-bollocks/images/by-GT/forum-shitz/pot-kettle-black.jpg

[caveBEAR]

I missed your post between quotes, so this is just in case you missed it:

What conservative point was missed here?

No one is right here. Some conservatives think Obama is responsible for the all bailouts, others know he wasn't.

[pennie]

This thread is ridiculous.

[caveBEAR]

EDIT: looks like you did miss it and got upset. And I have a feeling if I added 'then again, they are liberals [and won't listen to conservative points]' plus the raging part would have been less generalizing.

Nope. Still would have been generalizing. You don't see that, apparently, because it came from you this time, i.e., bullshit.

[<*)))><]

The implementation of it should have been quicker, I agree. The market is down because of extremely troublesome European problems. I'm not sure how you don't realize that.
I realize that they have an influence on our market but surely they aren't a third of our market.

they're so liberal that they won't listen to conservative points no matter how hard we try, so the only times I ever come in here to post are when they say some ignorant and totally baseless comment, like the "most" bit we had earlier. I guess putting down raging liberal, instead of just liberal, would have made it less generalization-looking.

Yes they guys are ignorant but that isn't because they are liberal it is because they ignorant.

[Sean Rizzo]

What conservative point was missed here?

No one is right here. Some conservatives think Obama is responsible for the all bailouts, others know he wasn't.
The point that the money was not spent as quickly or as completely as it should have been.

And that's not correct anymore?

[Theseventhson]

Fishbones calling someone else ignorant, lol.

[caveBEAR]

Yes they guys are ignorant but that isn't because they are liberal it is because they ignorant.

:lolatpost:

Oh, you can't even fathom how much I enjoyed reading that.

[Sean Rizzo]

I realize that they have an influence on our market but surely they aren't a third of our market.



Yes they guys are ignorant but that isn't because they are liberal it is because they ignorant.
like I said, shoulda put 'raging'. additional subjective adjectives are key, me and Jake would be well to note that.




So you can see. :wave: We both misworded on that, I'm thinking.

[Jake Gyllenhaal]

If conservatives don't believe their own talk show hosts when they say the first stimulus was passed under Bush, then they're making a stupid decision in doing so. But I can tell you right now that the talk show hosts do state that Bush did pass the first stimulus. Listen a little harder.

By the way, anti-government is a quite slanderous exaggeration. I'm a conservative, and I'm not pro-anarchy. Anti-bad policy =/= anti-government. Less government =/= no government

Fine... I should have said "limited government". But how limited? Who shouldn't receive government-assisted services/resources?

[caveBEAR]

The point that the money was not spent as quickly or as completely as it should have been.

How would the conservatives have done this differently? It's not like they've been on the fast track for unobtrusiveness recently.

And that's not correct anymore?

What?

[Sean Rizzo]

Fine... I should have said "limited government". But how limited? Who shouldn't receive government-assisted services/resources?
That's not the question conservatives beg. The question is whether the government should be providing them in the first place (determines whether certain programs are actually necessary, opinions on which programs are worthy differ with conservatives), and how much expansion should be allowed for the government to reach with. We think that privatized stuff consistently does better than if the government were to do it.

[Manicapathy]

http://icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress. com/2008/09/funny-pictures-your-cat-is-over-stimulated.jpg

Having said that, as far as I can tell, hasn't really accomplished much, but since things haven't gotten MUCH worse, people will call it a success.

EDIT: 888th post...MAKE A WISH.

[Sean Rizzo]

How would the conservatives have done this differently? It's not like they've been on the fast track for unobtrusiveness recently.



What?
Doesn't make it any less obtrusive when the liberals do it. Every conservative I know says Bush wasn't being conservative when he passed the bailouts and the Bush stimulus. So to say that conservatives wouldn't do it differently is incorrect. Liberal republicans might not, but conservatives will. It's not good to confuse party lines with ideology. There are conservative democrats (blue dogs) and liberal republicans (country clubbers).

You said "No one is right here.", so I assumed you thought that both thoughts in your following sentence were incorrect.

[Sean Rizzo]

http://icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress. com/2008/09/funny-pictures-your-cat-is-over-stimulated.jpg

Having said that, as far as I can tell, hasn't really accomplished much, but since things haven't gotten MUCH worse, people will call it a success.

EDIT: 888th post...MAKE A WISH.

I thought it was only for 1111? =P

[Manicapathy]

I thought it was only for 1111? =P

Maybe, I dunno. Any excuse for wishin' is a good excuse to me.

[birtcho]

Did the U.S get a stimulus package also. It definately worked in Australia. Probably a little too late for the U.S though...

[saysmydoctor]

It did work--or rather, it appears to working fairly well, it's just people are judging its effectiveness based on the press releases about it. John said it, of course the President painted a prettier picture of ARRA was going to do. However, concerning what it was crafted to do--curb unemployment--it did. Yes, unemployment is high. But it's not HIGHER. It could have been; the bill stopped that.

Secondly, it's a two year plan. We're not going to know the true effectiveness of this bill until all the money has been spent.

The bill itself is good legislation. If we were debating implementation, it could easily be argued that the money isn't being spent fast enough.

[saysmydoctor]

http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/PoliticalWire/~3/bQuNk4g4xxc/stimulus_package_worked_better_than _projected.html

IT'S A FAILURE.

[loveisdead]

http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/PoliticalWire/~3/bQuNk4g4xxc/stimulus_package_worked_better_than _projected.html

IT'S A FAILURE.

I don't understand how the estimates are so far apart.

[cscwell107]

Hell NO!!!!!!!! It SUCKS!!!

[caveBEAR]

:-|

[Zeran]

from what the cbo has said, it's a success. if anything, it wasn't big enough.

[Midget Pirates]

http://hbswk.hbs.edu/item/6420.html?wknews=052410

[caveBEAR]

http://hbswk.hbs.edu/item/6420.html?wknews=052410

Please, don't strain yourself by adding in a title or a description. We know you've had a rough day.

[Midget Pirates]

Please, don't strain yourself by adding in a title or a description. We know you've had a rough day.

shut up crybaby.

[caveBEAR]

shut up crybaby.

Ouch. You must be the bus driver, because I was just school'd.

:rolleyes:

[Midget Pirates]

Ouch. You must be the bus driver, because I was just school'd.

:rolleyes:

how about responding to the link?

[caveBEAR]

how about responding to the link?

When the government gets involved in the private sector, the private sector does less because more is being done by the government. As well, people with more power in the Senate and Congress have more earmarks. Also, water is wet.

You're going to have to lay out what your problem here is, because I can't infer it from a randomly posted link.

[Midget Pirates]

When the government gets involved in the private sector, the private sector does less because more is being done by the government. As well, people with more power in the Senate and Congress have more earmarks. Also, water is wet.

You're going to have to lay out what your problem here is, because I can't infer it from a randomly posted link.

this study seems to think more government spending will lead to less investment and higher unemployment rates. I don't see how that was hard to infer from my randomly posted Harvard Business School study.

[caveBEAR]

this study seems to think more government spending will lead to less investment and higher unemployment rates. I don't see how that was hard to infer from my randomly posted Harvard Business School study.

No, the article basically inferred that government jobs take the place of the private sector. As in, when the private sector has fucked up so badly that the government has to step in, the government ends up doing a lion's share of the work compared to the private sector, as people are now working for/with the government, and government interference is seen as a bad thing to private investors.

Again, you have to fuck up pretty bad to have the government step in, see; BP.

[Midget Pirates]

No, the article basically inferred that government jobs take the place of the private sector. As in, when the private sector has fucked up so badly that the government has to step in, the government ends up doing a lion's share of the work compared to the private sector, as people are now working for/with the government, and government interference is seen as a bad thing to private investors.

Again, you have to fuck up pretty bad to have the government step in, see; BP.

here's the full study:

http://www.people.hbs.edu/cmalloy/pdffiles/envaloy.pdf

find me the part where the government jobs take the place of the private sector.

[caveBEAR]

here's the full study:

http://www.people.hbs.edu/cmalloy/pdffiles/envaloy.pdf

find me the part where the government jobs take the place of the private sector.

Your link isn't working for me, but here's the part from your original link that led me to believe it;

Q: Although you didn't intend to answer this question with the research, what does your team suspect are some of the causes that could explain why companies retrench when federal dollars come into their neighborhoods?

A: Some of the dollars directly supplant private-sector activity—they literally undertake projects the private sector was planning to do on its own. The Tennessee Valley Authority of 1933 is perhaps the most famous example of this.

Other dollars appear to indirectly crowd out private firms by hiring away employees and the like. For instance, our effects are strongest when unemployment is low and capacity utilization is high. But we suspect that a third and potentially quite strong effect is the uncertainty that is created by government involvement.

[Midget Pirates]

the link works fine.

edit: I see your point in the last post.

hopefully the link works for you sometime. It is an interesting read.

[Scrandon]

The government is hiring the people that the private sector can't employ right now, they're not competing with each other.

[caveBEAR]

the link works fine.

Well the link isn't working for me. Could be because it's a .pdf, I don't know, my computer's not the best piece of equipment. As well;
The government is hiring the people that the private sector can't employ right now, they're not competing with each other.

Thank you, Scrandon.

[Jake Gyllenhaal]

speaking of the public sector, www.usajobs.com is a great resource for available government jobs. I've applied to a few jobs there, so far no word back on anything. :-(