Where reasonable people discuss reason using methods both reasonable and unreasonable...
From this post, are we to assume that you somehow think this fiscal disaster called "the stimulus" has been a success?Or are you just grasping at any straw you can find to keep you distracted from the fact that the first year of Obama's administration has been an unqualified nightmare?What is that criticism atheists commonly attribute to religious devotion... something like unbending belief despite all evidence and reason?
C'mon g, I am on your side with this thread and you had to bring up atheists(isn't that another thread?). With all the questions about the administration's methodology in creating these "assessments", you have to look at this as an act of desperation. But when the government tries to solve all of our problems, instead of using the wisdom of it's citizenry, you cannot expect anything but desperation.
What amazes me is the right wing vitriol that the truth can draw out. All I said was, and I quote "One year ago tomorrow, President Obama signed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act." -- and I put up a graphic of actual job data. Which resulted in a ridiculous comment attempting to ridicule the president. The right is almost as crazy about tearing apart the current president as they were in attacking President Clinton.
That might be all you said, but it was underneath a graphic that reads "Road to Recover" with a title to the post of "Visual Evidence."I began my response with a question. Do you think the "stimulus" has been a success? Well?On this graphic in particular, I think the unemployment rate (still in the 10% range) would be a better indicator. Keep in mind that if the unemployment rate were 100%, this "Job Loss" chart would look wonderful.
What amazes me(well, not really)is that you(csm) eat this up without any factfinding indigestion.First off the administration was going to measure "jobs created". When that either became too hard to measure or they didn't like the result, it became "jobs created or saved". This makes it even harder to measure accurately, especially with all the anecdotal accounts of double and triple counting. Using measures which we(the government) have had decades of experience in producing makes much more sense. And hey, the unemployment figures are looking better, just not good enough to save some Democratic asses in Congress in 2012.
The stimulus has been a huge disappointment and that in actuality is not debatable. Unemployment went well above 8%, our debt has continued to ascend at unprecedented levels and the fact is we would have recovered by simply leaving the economy alone and providing incentive for small business to create jobs.Recovery, contrary to Joe and Big O, would and will take place without borrowing more riches. The borrowing and debt only exacerbates matters.This is what happens when a group from the world of academia steps into the real world. No shot at academia, it has its place. But they have no faith in the American people or in the free-market.
You guys can sit around with your heads up your ass all you want... just saying something does NOT make it so. The stimulus is NOT a major disappointment. It FUCKING WORKED. Even the conservative American Enterprise Institute says that the stimulus boosted the economy by 4%.Hell, Obama has been a disappointment. But not because he is too liberal or socialist. Get your fucking heads out of your puckered shit-filled assholes! He was elected based on a liberal agenda that he has not stood up and fought for. That is why the president has been a disappointment!
And the Democrats in Congress are fucking wimps. Last time I checked 51 votes is a majority. Forget about bi-partisanship. True, lasting, worthwhile change does not come from bipartisanship - especially not with the Republican losers who only want to derail the president to grab power back. They have no agenda other than "NO"...
Deep breath in....Deep breath out. Calm down CSM you are entirely too emotional about the Big O one and his agenda. He is not a disappointment, he is precisely what I and many others in the DNC expected. Now if you bought into his grand campaign management, you of course would be disappointed. BTW, 60 votes required to prevent filibuster which is why 60 was the targeted number. We had 60 in the Senate and yet - He couldn’t sell it – literally.The Stimulus as a success comes down to opinion. If you ignore the intent and look at a few chosen numbers you might convince yourself success this is the case. (Oh look unemployment is 9.8 instead of 10.2!) Then again, no Stimulus infusion probably would have led to the same results. Paul Krugman is not even buying into triumph and neither is The Fly!
csm,You are correct that our saying that the "stimulus" has been a disaster doesn't make it so. Of course, your claiming it worked doesn't make it so either. Pounding your fist and throwing in f-bombs doesn't make your case any more persuasive.I'd like to understand how you've come to the conclusion that it "worked." The administration's claim was that the "stimulus" would keep unemployment below 8%, and that the rate would go to the 9-10% range without it. Well, we've had an unemployment rate hovering around 10% for 6 months. In fact, the unemployment rate hasn't even gone below 8% (as was promised) for a single month.Even in the chart you provided, we see continuing job losses. There has only been ONE month in the past year where there has been a net gain in jobs. Is that "success?"Even if we take the word of the administration's own website (~$200 billion spent, ~600k jobs), we're looking at a cost of more than $300k per job. And 2/3 of the money hasn't even gone out the door yet. Is that "success?"And even if we look at the current economy as good (which nobody really does), what is the objective evidence that it is a result of the "stimulus" (as opposed to the Federal Reserve's actions, normal economic cycles, etc.)?By the way, I'd like to see a link to where the AEI actually said that the "stimulus" boosted the economy by 4%.
http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-chait/aei-says-stimulus-boosted-economy-4And yes, saying "it worked" is every bit as disingenuous as saying it is a disaster. It is "working" is a better way of saying it (especially since much of the stimulus has yet to be spent).And I just love the f-bomb, so fucking get used to it.
Ok. Then I'll correct myself as well. It is a PENDING disaster. The increased debt load on the nation is something that isn't being felt right away. And with all the money spent, it is accomplishing nothing significantly beneficial.Thanks for providing the link. As I suspected, it doesn't say exactly what you claimed. Your claim was that the AEI said "the stimulus boosted the economy by 4%." But what they actually said was "Absent temporary fiscal stimulus AND INVENTORY REBUILDING, which TAKEN TOGETHER added about 4 percentage points to U.S. growth..."And if you read the actual AEI report, the very next paragraph mentions the effect of central bank policies. Another AEI article compares the "stimulus" to a box of chocolates, where you get a brief jolt from the caffeine and sugar but are left worse off than you were before and still needing real nutrition.Frankly, I don't really care what kind of language you use. There's actually an old saying about using profanity in one's arguments."When a man uses profanity to support an argument, it indicates that either the man or the argument is weak - probably both."
Mike, if the Dems weren't such pussies they'd have already started using reconciliation (just like the Reps did during GWB first 6 years) for contentious bills to get around the filibuster ridiculousness.And G, good on ya. Re: inventory rebuilding though, that is at least partly a due to the stimulus. Furthermore, the AEI economist says that the 4% boost is "an ominous fact because the fiscal stimulus will fade rapidly by mid-2010." So it is pretty clear that AEI sees the stimulus as having (at least thru today) a significant contribution to the 4% growth. I may be weak I s'pose, but not because of the words I choose to use. I always find the hypocrisy of feeble-minded idiots who say things like darn and heck and fudge when they mean damn and hell and fuck to be amusing. And almost everyone who says they don't cuss does that, damn it!
CSM, pardon the bluntness but you are slow and/or dense, unlike a dragonfly. A large number in the DNC do not support what Big O is selling. Do you see the problem? Not all of us are part of the socialist wing of the DNC. That battle continues. Has you even given any thought why many are quitting and needing to receive special deals? Have you considered how these ridiculous spending plans will be paid for in the future? DOn't buy the snake oil.Oh Fudge, I broke a wing!
Fuck your wing, Mike. You are arguing something I didn't say. What is the color of the sky in your world?
Here's a little video about using reconciliation that you might enjoy.Flashback
It's neopolitan, man. And all those swirls and cute little flowers with faces; it almost makes me think of a Beatles song, what was the name of that one......
Now c'mon G. You know good and well if the GOP could they would do it all over again. I think something this impacting on the entire nation should have the product of at least 60 but you can't blame the DNC for making a power grab. You didn't believe what was proclaimed when we were the minority did you G?Dragonfly checking out, looking to see why broken wing is so sexually enticing.
and so psychedelic, man...
Another Republican praising the stimulus: California Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger played Conan the Contrarian Sunday, pummeling his party for hypocrisy on jobs and health care.With the one-year anniversary of the $787 billion stimulus bill last week, Republicans chorused that it had failed, and created no jobs.But Schwarzenegger, who finishes his term this year, sang the Democrats' tune, claiming the recovery act was vital, and mocked members of his party who crow about the money they get in their own districts.
That is because he is the fucking Governor and this bullshit is happening on his watch. If he hadn't gotten the stimulus money the fucking state would have already filed for bankruptcy and wouldn't be able to sell more bonds to cover the debt coming due. And the reason they are in this problem is because they spend way too much money. This is a state with many high-wage people and they can't afford their fucking government.In Arizona we(the state government and the press) are running around with our heads cut off because we are one or two billions dollars in the hole. California, I believe, is 27 FUCKING BILLION IN THE HOLE!The liberals in their state government can blame their predicament on their property tax situation, but that doesn't explain the whole of their debt and it wasn't something that just came up and surprised them(wasn't that Prop voted on in the '80's?, help me out someone).You just happen to reside in a state with few budget problems. And Arizona ain't perfect. We can only blame our own state government, an organization that got fat when the going was good(real estate boom, anybody)and is now screaming bloody murder when it isn't. I have to agree with Mike on this. This is all part of the normal business cycle and if Bear Stearns had not been ushered into it's saving deal and had gone into bankruptcy, as would have been normal, maybe, just fucking maybe Lehman Bros.(and all the rest) might have tried to clean up it's act and this all would have been more orderly. Maybe not. But because of government meddling(this is under the Bush watch) we will never know the answer to that one.
You're grasping at straws if you have to use Arnold as your Republican source.
California's mess is actually quite complicated. That state is bigger than most countries (and with a budget to match). And it has inflated housing prices to the point where regular working class people cannot afford to live in many of the communities they must serve. And all of those stupid ballot initiatives allow people (many of whom are idiots) to shackle government officials. And yes, there has been too much government spending...And G, Arnold is far from the only governor who has embraced the stimulus (but not many of them can be as vocal as Arnold).
You're right that California's mess is complicated. But I would argue that many of the problems (like the high cost of housing) are symptoms, not causes. And while I would agree that the initiative process isn't perfect, I don't see restricting Sacramento's ability to rape the electorate as a bad thing. Politicians like to whine about the initiative process. But the fact is that if there had been only reasonable increases in annual spending over the last couple decades, California would still have a budget surplus.
Haven't many of the referendums dealt with dear-to-the-heart-of-progressives issues such as education?
Yes. As far as I can recall, every one of them that dealt with a the issuance of bonds (incurring debt for the state) has had to do with Dem priorities. There may have been a couple in there that slipped my mind, so I can't say 100%.The politicians' complaints have to do with limitations the initiatives have on their ability to freely spend however they like. When the voters passed the State Lottery initiative, it required that 50% of the income go to schools. Now Sacramento wants to raid those funds for other purposes, so they complain. There have also been things like tobacco taxes to fund early childhood education, etc. Politicians don't like those little stipulations.Their biggest pet peeve was Prop 13, which severely limited their ability to raise taxes (requiring 2/3 approval rather than just a majority). Sacramento complains a lot about that one but always fail to mention that California is the most heavily taxed state in the nation already.And they can't stand the fact that by law they have to pass a balanced budget each year or the entire government shuts down until they do.In a nutshell, they are elected to do a specific job and then complain when they are required by law to do exactly what the office requires.
Your recollection is quite poor, G.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_California_ballot_propositions
If you just focus on the ones that had to do with issuing bonds (just look for the word "bond" in the title) then it looks like what I said was pretty accurate. I'm not going to sift through 30 years of bond measures. But a quick glance through the past decade shows mostly a grab bag of liberal priorities.
Post a Comment