|
On December 21 2011 09:30 Kiarip wrote:Show nested quote +On December 21 2011 09:01 kwizach wrote:On December 21 2011 02:38 allecto wrote:
Getting back to the main point: in my opinion, none of these bailouts and stimulus packages worked, and I don't see any data backing up why they would've worked, especially in the long run. Your opinion is wrong. Countless non-partisan studies have shown the stimulus had a very positive impact on the economy - it simply wasn't big enough to suffice. right, and countless others have shown that it doesn't... In the end if you ask the people they'll tell you that their costs of living have been going up by significantly more than 5% a year lol.
Ever since the start of the current 'neo-liberal' era (starting with Reagan), income inequality has increased, average wages have stagnated, and in order to finance it all we are all borrowing like crazy. Markets aren't perfect and history is full of stories where actual governments controlled markets in such a way that they achieved things impossible under free market conditions (the country where the best SC2 in the world is played comes to mind).
I've never understood that 1) the solution to the current problem would be a more extreme version of a trend that has been in effect since the 1980's and 2) the complete disregard of neo-classical economy to disregard any empirical evidence, and that their theory is too simple to make accurate predictions on.
Achieving the highest possible welfare is not a worthy goal for a society, factor normalization simply isn't occuring and that alone should be cause for concern and a bigger one then the fact that a stimulus package had a questionable effect. This 'the stimulus worked' or 'no, it didn't' is at best a petty argument and candidates should be adressing a bigger picture then that. Free choice is wonderful, but meaningless if only a small class of people have the means to experience it.
|
On December 20 2011 08:16 Kiarip wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2011 22:08 kwizach wrote:On December 18 2011 19:10 Kiarip wrote:On December 18 2011 15:25 kwizach wrote:On December 18 2011 12:18 Kiarip wrote:paul krugman is a clown, I love reading his stuff when I want to read something that's stupid and wrong. Krugman's toenails have a better understanding of the economy than you do. if they do, then he doesn't listen to them too often, because he spits utter garbage. If you think his ideas are garbage I think it's as clear an indication as one could get that he's in the right. Ideas? Really? Come on you're giving him too much credit. http://www.slate.com/articles/business/the_dismal_science/1998/08/babysitting_the_economy.htmlLOL this is like the basis for all his "ideas" on economic policy and he doesn't even understand his own over-simplified example. Paul Krugman's "ideas" are an insult to the ideas that children have.
No, they're not. Calling you an idiot would, however, be an insult to idiots.
On December 21 2011 09:30 Kiarip wrote:Show nested quote +On December 21 2011 09:01 kwizach wrote:On December 21 2011 02:38 allecto wrote:
Getting back to the main point: in my opinion, none of these bailouts and stimulus packages worked, and I don't see any data backing up why they would've worked, especially in the long run. Your opinion is wrong. Countless non-partisan studies have shown the stimulus had a very positive impact on the economy - it simply wasn't big enough to suffice. right, and countless others have shown that it doesn't...
No, that claim is factually incorrect. But be my guest and provide me with several serious non-partisan studies showing the stimulus did not have a positive impact on the economy if you can.
User was temp banned for this post.
|
On December 21 2011 10:18 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On December 20 2011 08:16 Kiarip wrote:On December 19 2011 22:08 kwizach wrote:On December 18 2011 19:10 Kiarip wrote:On December 18 2011 15:25 kwizach wrote:On December 18 2011 12:18 Kiarip wrote:paul krugman is a clown, I love reading his stuff when I want to read something that's stupid and wrong. Krugman's toenails have a better understanding of the economy than you do. if they do, then he doesn't listen to them too often, because he spits utter garbage. If you think his ideas are garbage I think it's as clear an indication as one could get that he's in the right. Ideas? Really? Come on you're giving him too much credit. http://www.slate.com/articles/business/the_dismal_science/1998/08/babysitting_the_economy.htmlLOL this is like the basis for all his "ideas" on economic policy and he doesn't even understand his own over-simplified example. Paul Krugman's "ideas" are an insult to the ideas that children have. No, they're not. Calling you an idiot would, however, be an insult to idiots. Show nested quote +On December 21 2011 09:30 Kiarip wrote:On December 21 2011 09:01 kwizach wrote:On December 21 2011 02:38 allecto wrote:
Getting back to the main point: in my opinion, none of these bailouts and stimulus packages worked, and I don't see any data backing up why they would've worked, especially in the long run. Your opinion is wrong. Countless non-partisan studies have shown the stimulus had a very positive impact on the economy - it simply wasn't big enough to suffice. right, and countless others have shown that it doesn't... No, that claim is factually incorrect. But be my guest and provide me with several serious non-partisan studies showing the stimulus did not have a positive impact on the economy if you can. User was temp banned for this post.
Here I brought you some link-flowers for your ban-grave.
http://www.phoenix-center.org/PolicyBulletin/PCPB31Final.pdf
http://web.econ.ohio-state.edu/dupor/arra10_may11.pdf
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704471504574440723298786310.html
|
lol why was he banned but Kiarip is still allowed to troll?
|
On December 21 2011 10:50 Hekisui wrote:
lol why was he banned but Kiarip is still allowed to troll?
I'm not really trolling I brought links that he wanted.
|
On December 21 2011 10:38 Kiarip wrote:Show nested quote +On December 21 2011 10:18 kwizach wrote:On December 20 2011 08:16 Kiarip wrote:On December 19 2011 22:08 kwizach wrote:On December 18 2011 19:10 Kiarip wrote:On December 18 2011 15:25 kwizach wrote:On December 18 2011 12:18 Kiarip wrote:paul krugman is a clown, I love reading his stuff when I want to read something that's stupid and wrong. Krugman's toenails have a better understanding of the economy than you do. if they do, then he doesn't listen to them too often, because he spits utter garbage. If you think his ideas are garbage I think it's as clear an indication as one could get that he's in the right. Ideas? Really? Come on you're giving him too much credit. http://www.slate.com/articles/business/the_dismal_science/1998/08/babysitting_the_economy.htmlLOL this is like the basis for all his "ideas" on economic policy and he doesn't even understand his own over-simplified example. Paul Krugman's "ideas" are an insult to the ideas that children have. No, they're not. Calling you an idiot would, however, be an insult to idiots. On December 21 2011 09:30 Kiarip wrote:On December 21 2011 09:01 kwizach wrote:On December 21 2011 02:38 allecto wrote:
Getting back to the main point: in my opinion, none of these bailouts and stimulus packages worked, and I don't see any data backing up why they would've worked, especially in the long run. Your opinion is wrong. Countless non-partisan studies have shown the stimulus had a very positive impact on the economy - it simply wasn't big enough to suffice. right, and countless others have shown that it doesn't... No, that claim is factually incorrect. But be my guest and provide me with several serious non-partisan studies showing the stimulus did not have a positive impact on the economy if you can. User was temp banned for this post. Here I brought you some link-flowers for your ban-grave. http://www.phoenix-center.org/PolicyBulletin/PCPB31Final.pdfhttp://web.econ.ohio-state.edu/dupor/arra10_may11.pdfhttp://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704471504574440723298786310.html
I want to contribute, too!!
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/nov/22/cbo-stimulus-hurts-economy-long-run/?page=all
The Congressional Budget Office on Tuesday downgraded its estimate of the benefits of President Obama’s 2009 stimulus package, saying it may have sustained as few as 700,000 jobs at its peak last year and that over the long run it will actually be a net drag on the economy.
CBO said that while the Recovery Act boosted the economy in the short run, the extra debt that the stimulus piled up “crowds out” private investment and “will reduce output slightly in the long run — by between 0 and 0.2 percent after 2016.”
|
A so called "stimulus" which is financed with public debt is nothing more than a transfer of wealth and therefore a transfer of jobs from the future to the present. We are stealing jobs from our children and grandchildren to try and sustain economic stability today. What most people won't tell you, because they do not really understand, is that the losses in jobs today are simply the result of government financed over-investment in the past. In other words, we are paying the jobs that were delivered to the public a generation ago in the form of debt.
We keep trying to pass the buck down the line, like a reckless teenager trying to grab new credit cards to pay off the old ones. At some point, the debts will simply have to be paid. What's happening to Greece and other European nations is nothing more than the bill finally arriving at their door step. There is nothing wrong with a little debt financed spending to get over a hump in the short run, but the problem is we have no measures in place to force politicians to balance the budget and reduce the debt in times of economic growth. Each generation of politicians reach their elected offices by effectively bribing the public with goods at future citizen and taxpayers expense.
Meanwhile Ron Paul is labeled a nutjob. Goodbye, sweet America.
|
On December 21 2011 10:57 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On December 21 2011 10:38 Kiarip wrote:On December 21 2011 10:18 kwizach wrote:On December 20 2011 08:16 Kiarip wrote:On December 19 2011 22:08 kwizach wrote:On December 18 2011 19:10 Kiarip wrote:On December 18 2011 15:25 kwizach wrote:On December 18 2011 12:18 Kiarip wrote:paul krugman is a clown, I love reading his stuff when I want to read something that's stupid and wrong. Krugman's toenails have a better understanding of the economy than you do. if they do, then he doesn't listen to them too often, because he spits utter garbage. If you think his ideas are garbage I think it's as clear an indication as one could get that he's in the right. Ideas? Really? Come on you're giving him too much credit. http://www.slate.com/articles/business/the_dismal_science/1998/08/babysitting_the_economy.htmlLOL this is like the basis for all his "ideas" on economic policy and he doesn't even understand his own over-simplified example. Paul Krugman's "ideas" are an insult to the ideas that children have. No, they're not. Calling you an idiot would, however, be an insult to idiots. On December 21 2011 09:30 Kiarip wrote:On December 21 2011 09:01 kwizach wrote:On December 21 2011 02:38 allecto wrote:
Getting back to the main point: in my opinion, none of these bailouts and stimulus packages worked, and I don't see any data backing up why they would've worked, especially in the long run. Your opinion is wrong. Countless non-partisan studies have shown the stimulus had a very positive impact on the economy - it simply wasn't big enough to suffice. right, and countless others have shown that it doesn't... No, that claim is factually incorrect. But be my guest and provide me with several serious non-partisan studies showing the stimulus did not have a positive impact on the economy if you can. User was temp banned for this post. Here I brought you some link-flowers for your ban-grave. http://www.phoenix-center.org/PolicyBulletin/PCPB31Final.pdfhttp://web.econ.ohio-state.edu/dupor/arra10_may11.pdfhttp://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704471504574440723298786310.html I want to contribute, too!! http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/nov/22/cbo-stimulus-hurts-economy-long-run/?page=allShow nested quote +The Congressional Budget Office on Tuesday downgraded its estimate of the benefits of President Obama’s 2009 stimulus package, saying it may have sustained as few as 700,000 jobs at its peak last year and that over the long run it will actually be a net drag on the economy.
CBO said that while the Recovery Act boosted the economy in the short run, the extra debt that the stimulus piled up “crowds out” private investment and “will reduce output slightly in the long run — by between 0 and 0.2 percent after 2016.”
I love that all them sources either didn't qualify as non-partisan or simply sucked.
Regardless, you've got a handful of cute papers and articles. You can get those to prove that there is no global warming too.
|
On December 21 2011 11:44 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On December 21 2011 10:57 xDaunt wrote:On December 21 2011 10:38 Kiarip wrote:On December 21 2011 10:18 kwizach wrote:On December 20 2011 08:16 Kiarip wrote:On December 19 2011 22:08 kwizach wrote:On December 18 2011 19:10 Kiarip wrote:On December 18 2011 15:25 kwizach wrote:On December 18 2011 12:18 Kiarip wrote:paul krugman is a clown, I love reading his stuff when I want to read something that's stupid and wrong. Krugman's toenails have a better understanding of the economy than you do. if they do, then he doesn't listen to them too often, because he spits utter garbage. If you think his ideas are garbage I think it's as clear an indication as one could get that he's in the right. Ideas? Really? Come on you're giving him too much credit. http://www.slate.com/articles/business/the_dismal_science/1998/08/babysitting_the_economy.htmlLOL this is like the basis for all his "ideas" on economic policy and he doesn't even understand his own over-simplified example. Paul Krugman's "ideas" are an insult to the ideas that children have. No, they're not. Calling you an idiot would, however, be an insult to idiots. On December 21 2011 09:30 Kiarip wrote:On December 21 2011 09:01 kwizach wrote:On December 21 2011 02:38 allecto wrote:
Getting back to the main point: in my opinion, none of these bailouts and stimulus packages worked, and I don't see any data backing up why they would've worked, especially in the long run. Your opinion is wrong. Countless non-partisan studies have shown the stimulus had a very positive impact on the economy - it simply wasn't big enough to suffice. right, and countless others have shown that it doesn't... No, that claim is factually incorrect. But be my guest and provide me with several serious non-partisan studies showing the stimulus did not have a positive impact on the economy if you can. User was temp banned for this post. Here I brought you some link-flowers for your ban-grave. http://www.phoenix-center.org/PolicyBulletin/PCPB31Final.pdfhttp://web.econ.ohio-state.edu/dupor/arra10_may11.pdfhttp://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704471504574440723298786310.html I want to contribute, too!! http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/nov/22/cbo-stimulus-hurts-economy-long-run/?page=allThe Congressional Budget Office on Tuesday downgraded its estimate of the benefits of President Obama’s 2009 stimulus package, saying it may have sustained as few as 700,000 jobs at its peak last year and that over the long run it will actually be a net drag on the economy.
CBO said that while the Recovery Act boosted the economy in the short run, the extra debt that the stimulus piled up “crowds out” private investment and “will reduce output slightly in the long run — by between 0 and 0.2 percent after 2016.” I love that all them sources either didn't qualify as non-partisan or simply sucked. Regardless, you've got a handful of cute papers and articles. You can get those to prove that there is no global warming too.
and your sources for stimulus working? cool
I like your argument though... First ask for sources, then if they're brought just rebut with "they simply sucked" without reading them.
|
On December 21 2011 12:04 Kiarip wrote:Show nested quote +On December 21 2011 11:44 Djzapz wrote:On December 21 2011 10:57 xDaunt wrote:On December 21 2011 10:38 Kiarip wrote:On December 21 2011 10:18 kwizach wrote:On December 20 2011 08:16 Kiarip wrote:On December 19 2011 22:08 kwizach wrote:On December 18 2011 19:10 Kiarip wrote:On December 18 2011 15:25 kwizach wrote:On December 18 2011 12:18 Kiarip wrote:
[quote]
paul krugman is a clown, I love reading his stuff when I want to read something that's stupid and wrong. Krugman's toenails have a better understanding of the economy than you do. if they do, then he doesn't listen to them too often, because he spits utter garbage. If you think his ideas are garbage I think it's as clear an indication as one could get that he's in the right. Ideas? Really? Come on you're giving him too much credit. http://www.slate.com/articles/business/the_dismal_science/1998/08/babysitting_the_economy.htmlLOL this is like the basis for all his "ideas" on economic policy and he doesn't even understand his own over-simplified example. Paul Krugman's "ideas" are an insult to the ideas that children have. No, they're not. Calling you an idiot would, however, be an insult to idiots. On December 21 2011 09:30 Kiarip wrote:On December 21 2011 09:01 kwizach wrote:On December 21 2011 02:38 allecto wrote:
Getting back to the main point: in my opinion, none of these bailouts and stimulus packages worked, and I don't see any data backing up why they would've worked, especially in the long run. Your opinion is wrong. Countless non-partisan studies have shown the stimulus had a very positive impact on the economy - it simply wasn't big enough to suffice. right, and countless others have shown that it doesn't... No, that claim is factually incorrect. But be my guest and provide me with several serious non-partisan studies showing the stimulus did not have a positive impact on the economy if you can. User was temp banned for this post. Here I brought you some link-flowers for your ban-grave. http://www.phoenix-center.org/PolicyBulletin/PCPB31Final.pdfhttp://web.econ.ohio-state.edu/dupor/arra10_may11.pdfhttp://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704471504574440723298786310.html I want to contribute, too!! http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/nov/22/cbo-stimulus-hurts-economy-long-run/?page=allThe Congressional Budget Office on Tuesday downgraded its estimate of the benefits of President Obama’s 2009 stimulus package, saying it may have sustained as few as 700,000 jobs at its peak last year and that over the long run it will actually be a net drag on the economy.
CBO said that while the Recovery Act boosted the economy in the short run, the extra debt that the stimulus piled up “crowds out” private investment and “will reduce output slightly in the long run — by between 0 and 0.2 percent after 2016.” I love that all them sources either didn't qualify as non-partisan or simply sucked. Regardless, you've got a handful of cute papers and articles. You can get those to prove that there is no global warming too. and your sources for stimulus working? cool I like your argument though... First ask for sources, then if they're brought just rebut with "they simply sucked" without reading them.
I didn't ask for sources O_o... That's a pretty boring thing to do, I can look for myself. Retarded economists will defend any position, since there are many "schools" of economists, most of which have absolutely real world value.
But if you think there aren't sources suggesting that the stimulus is working, you might be drooling on yourself. You folks (well my folks too) have a pretty laughable tendency of researching only for their side. Shallow, shallow individuals no less. Maybe I should just give up and become a partisan.
Since republicans enjoy this... 9 studies, both sides. (OMG???)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/did-the-stimulus-work-a-review-of-the-nine-best-studies-on-the-subject/2011/08/16/gIQAThbibJ_blog.html
You can easily use any search engine to defend any position you want, like google scholar and whatever, my uni's library. PhD's in economics will support whatever BS you want to hear. If I had time to waste with you, I could probably find tens, perhaps hundreds of sources for both sides.
|
On December 21 2011 11:44 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On December 21 2011 10:57 xDaunt wrote:On December 21 2011 10:38 Kiarip wrote:On December 21 2011 10:18 kwizach wrote:On December 20 2011 08:16 Kiarip wrote:On December 19 2011 22:08 kwizach wrote:On December 18 2011 19:10 Kiarip wrote:On December 18 2011 15:25 kwizach wrote:On December 18 2011 12:18 Kiarip wrote:paul krugman is a clown, I love reading his stuff when I want to read something that's stupid and wrong. Krugman's toenails have a better understanding of the economy than you do. if they do, then he doesn't listen to them too often, because he spits utter garbage. If you think his ideas are garbage I think it's as clear an indication as one could get that he's in the right. Ideas? Really? Come on you're giving him too much credit. http://www.slate.com/articles/business/the_dismal_science/1998/08/babysitting_the_economy.htmlLOL this is like the basis for all his "ideas" on economic policy and he doesn't even understand his own over-simplified example. Paul Krugman's "ideas" are an insult to the ideas that children have. No, they're not. Calling you an idiot would, however, be an insult to idiots. On December 21 2011 09:30 Kiarip wrote:On December 21 2011 09:01 kwizach wrote:On December 21 2011 02:38 allecto wrote:
Getting back to the main point: in my opinion, none of these bailouts and stimulus packages worked, and I don't see any data backing up why they would've worked, especially in the long run. Your opinion is wrong. Countless non-partisan studies have shown the stimulus had a very positive impact on the economy - it simply wasn't big enough to suffice. right, and countless others have shown that it doesn't... No, that claim is factually incorrect. But be my guest and provide me with several serious non-partisan studies showing the stimulus did not have a positive impact on the economy if you can. User was temp banned for this post. Here I brought you some link-flowers for your ban-grave. http://www.phoenix-center.org/PolicyBulletin/PCPB31Final.pdfhttp://web.econ.ohio-state.edu/dupor/arra10_may11.pdfhttp://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704471504574440723298786310.html I want to contribute, too!! http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/nov/22/cbo-stimulus-hurts-economy-long-run/?page=allThe Congressional Budget Office on Tuesday downgraded its estimate of the benefits of President Obama’s 2009 stimulus package, saying it may have sustained as few as 700,000 jobs at its peak last year and that over the long run it will actually be a net drag on the economy.
CBO said that while the Recovery Act boosted the economy in the short run, the extra debt that the stimulus piled up “crowds out” private investment and “will reduce output slightly in the long run — by between 0 and 0.2 percent after 2016.” I love that all them sources either didn't qualify as non-partisan or simply sucked. Regardless, you've got a handful of cute papers and articles. You can get those to prove that there is no global warming too.
You realize that I'm basically citing to the CBO, right? In theory, it doesn't get any less partisan than that (I would argue that the CBO is liberal, if anything). It helps if you take a little time to understand what you're criticizing before you criticize it.
|
United States22883 Posts
On December 21 2011 09:04 Luckbox wrote:Show nested quote +On December 21 2011 05:20 Jibba wrote:
I want to point out that Gingrich's idiotic remarks are the result of his ghastly personality. No competent campaign manager would've allowed him to say that and damage their reputation but he chased the rest of his staff away and replaced them with yes men and friends. Not only is it a terrible position in general but it's one that would get him crushed in the general election against a constitutional scholar like Obama.
The man would be a despot. There's a difference between reforming the judicial review process and undermining the entire system because of popularity. The Court system is generally left alone because it swings both ways. Neither liberals or conservatives want to give up a safeguard for when they're the weaker party. Gringrich isn't acting on a level 1 thought process. He says something batshit insane, that is however lapped up by the base, gets media coverage he couldn't afford to buy, then if/when he secures the nomination it never happens. It's called politics.
There's different levels of insane. His is on the level of the McCarthy Army hearings and is going to cause a similar downfall. There's a lot of idiots out there but even most of them understand the separation of powers.
EDIT: Typing on phone problems. >.>
|
On December 21 2011 12:23 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On December 21 2011 11:44 Djzapz wrote:On December 21 2011 10:57 xDaunt wrote:On December 21 2011 10:38 Kiarip wrote:On December 21 2011 10:18 kwizach wrote:On December 20 2011 08:16 Kiarip wrote:On December 19 2011 22:08 kwizach wrote:On December 18 2011 19:10 Kiarip wrote:On December 18 2011 15:25 kwizach wrote:On December 18 2011 12:18 Kiarip wrote:
[quote]
paul krugman is a clown, I love reading his stuff when I want to read something that's stupid and wrong. Krugman's toenails have a better understanding of the economy than you do. if they do, then he doesn't listen to them too often, because he spits utter garbage. If you think his ideas are garbage I think it's as clear an indication as one could get that he's in the right. Ideas? Really? Come on you're giving him too much credit. http://www.slate.com/articles/business/the_dismal_science/1998/08/babysitting_the_economy.htmlLOL this is like the basis for all his "ideas" on economic policy and he doesn't even understand his own over-simplified example. Paul Krugman's "ideas" are an insult to the ideas that children have. No, they're not. Calling you an idiot would, however, be an insult to idiots. On December 21 2011 09:30 Kiarip wrote:On December 21 2011 09:01 kwizach wrote:On December 21 2011 02:38 allecto wrote:
Getting back to the main point: in my opinion, none of these bailouts and stimulus packages worked, and I don't see any data backing up why they would've worked, especially in the long run. Your opinion is wrong. Countless non-partisan studies have shown the stimulus had a very positive impact on the economy - it simply wasn't big enough to suffice. right, and countless others have shown that it doesn't... No, that claim is factually incorrect. But be my guest and provide me with several serious non-partisan studies showing the stimulus did not have a positive impact on the economy if you can. User was temp banned for this post. Here I brought you some link-flowers for your ban-grave. http://www.phoenix-center.org/PolicyBulletin/PCPB31Final.pdfhttp://web.econ.ohio-state.edu/dupor/arra10_may11.pdfhttp://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704471504574440723298786310.html I want to contribute, too!! http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/nov/22/cbo-stimulus-hurts-economy-long-run/?page=allThe Congressional Budget Office on Tuesday downgraded its estimate of the benefits of President Obama’s 2009 stimulus package, saying it may have sustained as few as 700,000 jobs at its peak last year and that over the long run it will actually be a net drag on the economy.
CBO said that while the Recovery Act boosted the economy in the short run, the extra debt that the stimulus piled up “crowds out” private investment and “will reduce output slightly in the long run — by between 0 and 0.2 percent after 2016.” I love that all them sources either didn't qualify as non-partisan or simply sucked. Regardless, you've got a handful of cute papers and articles. You can get those to prove that there is no global warming too. You realize that I'm basically citing to the CBO, right? In theory, it doesn't get any less partisan than that (I would argue that the CBO is liberal, if anything). It helps if you take a little time to understand what you're criticizing before you criticize it.
Why do I care about people being labeled "liberals" in a country where people think liberalism is means "left" =P. They're just as capable of incompetence as most of the GOP.
Think my last post explains how I think - still appreciate that you outright implied that I don't know what I'm talking about, which is probably just ironic =)
|
On December 21 2011 12:28 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On December 21 2011 12:23 xDaunt wrote:On December 21 2011 11:44 Djzapz wrote:On December 21 2011 10:57 xDaunt wrote:On December 21 2011 10:38 Kiarip wrote:On December 21 2011 10:18 kwizach wrote:On December 20 2011 08:16 Kiarip wrote:On December 19 2011 22:08 kwizach wrote:On December 18 2011 19:10 Kiarip wrote:On December 18 2011 15:25 kwizach wrote:
[quote]
Krugman's toenails have a better understanding of the economy than you do. if they do, then he doesn't listen to them too often, because he spits utter garbage. If you think his ideas are garbage I think it's as clear an indication as one could get that he's in the right. Ideas? Really? Come on you're giving him too much credit. http://www.slate.com/articles/business/the_dismal_science/1998/08/babysitting_the_economy.htmlLOL this is like the basis for all his "ideas" on economic policy and he doesn't even understand his own over-simplified example. Paul Krugman's "ideas" are an insult to the ideas that children have. No, they're not. Calling you an idiot would, however, be an insult to idiots. On December 21 2011 09:30 Kiarip wrote:On December 21 2011 09:01 kwizach wrote:On December 21 2011 02:38 allecto wrote:
Getting back to the main point: in my opinion, none of these bailouts and stimulus packages worked, and I don't see any data backing up why they would've worked, especially in the long run. Your opinion is wrong. Countless non-partisan studies have shown the stimulus had a very positive impact on the economy - it simply wasn't big enough to suffice. right, and countless others have shown that it doesn't... No, that claim is factually incorrect. But be my guest and provide me with several serious non-partisan studies showing the stimulus did not have a positive impact on the economy if you can. User was temp banned for this post. Here I brought you some link-flowers for your ban-grave. http://www.phoenix-center.org/PolicyBulletin/PCPB31Final.pdfhttp://web.econ.ohio-state.edu/dupor/arra10_may11.pdfhttp://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704471504574440723298786310.html I want to contribute, too!! http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/nov/22/cbo-stimulus-hurts-economy-long-run/?page=allThe Congressional Budget Office on Tuesday downgraded its estimate of the benefits of President Obama’s 2009 stimulus package, saying it may have sustained as few as 700,000 jobs at its peak last year and that over the long run it will actually be a net drag on the economy.
CBO said that while the Recovery Act boosted the economy in the short run, the extra debt that the stimulus piled up “crowds out” private investment and “will reduce output slightly in the long run — by between 0 and 0.2 percent after 2016.” I love that all them sources either didn't qualify as non-partisan or simply sucked. Regardless, you've got a handful of cute papers and articles. You can get those to prove that there is no global warming too. You realize that I'm basically citing to the CBO, right? In theory, it doesn't get any less partisan than that (I would argue that the CBO is liberal, if anything). It helps if you take a little time to understand what you're criticizing before you criticize it. Why do I care about people being labeled "liberals" in a country where people think liberalism is means "left" =P. They're just as capable of incompetence as most of the GOP. Think my last post explains how I think - still appreciate that you outright implied that I don't know what I'm talking about, which is probably just ironic =)
No, there's nothing ironic about it. You're just one more foreigner commenting on American politics with an inadequate base of knowledge to do so. Saying that the CBO is partisan is basically proof in the pudding.
|
On December 21 2011 12:48 xDaunt wrote:
No, there's nothing ironic about it. You're just one more foreigner commenting on American politics with an inadequate base of knowledge to do so. Saying that the CBO is partisan is basically proof in the pudding.
This is the CBO analysis that the Washington Times is reporting on.
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/125xx/doc12564/11-22-ARRA.pdf
If you do not have the time or energy to read it all, check pages 2, 3 and 8 for the short version.
|
On December 21 2011 12:48 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On December 21 2011 12:28 Djzapz wrote:On December 21 2011 12:23 xDaunt wrote:On December 21 2011 11:44 Djzapz wrote:On December 21 2011 10:57 xDaunt wrote:On December 21 2011 10:38 Kiarip wrote:On December 21 2011 10:18 kwizach wrote:On December 20 2011 08:16 Kiarip wrote:On December 19 2011 22:08 kwizach wrote:On December 18 2011 19:10 Kiarip wrote:
[quote]
if they do, then he doesn't listen to them too often, because he spits utter garbage. If you think his ideas are garbage I think it's as clear an indication as one could get that he's in the right. Ideas? Really? Come on you're giving him too much credit. http://www.slate.com/articles/business/the_dismal_science/1998/08/babysitting_the_economy.htmlLOL this is like the basis for all his "ideas" on economic policy and he doesn't even understand his own over-simplified example. Paul Krugman's "ideas" are an insult to the ideas that children have. No, they're not. Calling you an idiot would, however, be an insult to idiots. On December 21 2011 09:30 Kiarip wrote:On December 21 2011 09:01 kwizach wrote:On December 21 2011 02:38 allecto wrote:
Getting back to the main point: in my opinion, none of these bailouts and stimulus packages worked, and I don't see any data backing up why they would've worked, especially in the long run. Your opinion is wrong. Countless non-partisan studies have shown the stimulus had a very positive impact on the economy - it simply wasn't big enough to suffice. right, and countless others have shown that it doesn't... No, that claim is factually incorrect. But be my guest and provide me with several serious non-partisan studies showing the stimulus did not have a positive impact on the economy if you can. User was temp banned for this post. Here I brought you some link-flowers for your ban-grave. http://www.phoenix-center.org/PolicyBulletin/PCPB31Final.pdfhttp://web.econ.ohio-state.edu/dupor/arra10_may11.pdfhttp://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704471504574440723298786310.html I want to contribute, too!! http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/nov/22/cbo-stimulus-hurts-economy-long-run/?page=allThe Congressional Budget Office on Tuesday downgraded its estimate of the benefits of President Obama’s 2009 stimulus package, saying it may have sustained as few as 700,000 jobs at its peak last year and that over the long run it will actually be a net drag on the economy.
CBO said that while the Recovery Act boosted the economy in the short run, the extra debt that the stimulus piled up “crowds out” private investment and “will reduce output slightly in the long run — by between 0 and 0.2 percent after 2016.” I love that all them sources either didn't qualify as non-partisan or simply sucked. Regardless, you've got a handful of cute papers and articles. You can get those to prove that there is no global warming too. You realize that I'm basically citing to the CBO, right? In theory, it doesn't get any less partisan than that (I would argue that the CBO is liberal, if anything). It helps if you take a little time to understand what you're criticizing before you criticize it. Why do I care about people being labeled "liberals" in a country where people think liberalism is means "left" =P. They're just as capable of incompetence as most of the GOP. Think my last post explains how I think - still appreciate that you outright implied that I don't know what I'm talking about, which is probably just ironic =) No, there's nothing ironic about it. You're just one more foreigner commenting on American politics with an inadequate base of knowledge to do so. Saying that the CBO is partisan is basically proof in the pudding.
I lumped them all together, talking about the other guy's 3 sources + your one source basically saying they're either partisan or inadequate. I think yours inadequate, but mostly I meant that it's one source that says something in an ocean of sources that agree and more sources that disagree - all written by PhDs in economics. So how does xDaunt-mcgee make make a choice from the top of his probably-just-highschool-degree? Well dad was a republican (I figure).
As for the idea that me being a "foreigner" would change anything, well that's just cute, no less. A few years ago I would have been insulted by your very narrow and restricted view of "outsiders" (crazy barbarians appear to live out there). Now I just think it's laughable considering I'm most likely more qualified than you despite the fact that I don't live on top of a landmass called the United States. I mean think about it, you're the most powerful country economically and otherwise, and I live right up there a couple "miles" (rofl) from the border... The stimulus package is something that affected me - and not particularly indirectly.
The fact that you'd equate the fact that I live in Canada to somehow not being able to comment on US politics and economics (despite my bachelor in political science) is frankly astounding, maybe you should go open a book.
|
Also, this latest CBO report that's being referenced isn't the first time that the CBO has done an analysis of the stimulus package's impact upon the economy. If I remember correctly, this report may be second time that the CBO has revised downward its projections on how much the stimulus package would help the economy.
|
|
|
On December 21 2011 12:59 Djzapz wrote:
I lumped them all together, talking about the other guy's 3 sources + your one source basically saying they're either partisan or inadequate. I think yours inadequate, but mostly I meant that it's one source that says something in an ocean of sources that agree and more sources that disagree - all written by PhDs in economics.
So you still have no clue who the CBO is? Let me explain: The Congressional Budget Office (which is always reported as being the "NON-PARTISAN Congressional Budget Office" is the agency that scores the fiscal impact of all proposed legislation from Congress. Feel free to explain why you still believe that the CBO is still inadequate as a non-partisan source of information regarding the effectiveness of the stimulus package. It's been a long day, and I could use a good laugh.
On December 21 2011 12:59 Djzapz wrote:
So how does xDaunt-mcgee make make a choice from the top of his probably-just-highschool-degree? Well dad was a republican (I figure).
The truth would frighten you. I am probably more educated than you'll ever be, but that's besides the point. Degrees don't mean shit in terms of base of knowledge or even intelligence. Anyone who has been through any type of graduate school knows this. I'm guessing that you haven't gotten there yet given that you only have a bachelor's in political science.
On December 21 2011 12:59 Djzapz wrote:
As for the idea that me being a "foreigner" would change anything, well that's just cute, no less. A few years ago I would have been insulted by your very narrow and restricted view of "outsiders" (crazy barbarians appear to live out there). Now I just think it's laughable considering I'm most likely more qualified than you despite the fact that I don't live on top of a landmass called the United States. I mean think about it, you're the most powerful country economically and otherwise, and I live right up there a couple "miles" (rofl) from the border... The stimulus package is something that affected me - and not particularly indirectly.
The fact that you'd equate the fact that I live in Canada to somehow not being able to comment on US politics and economics (despite my bachelor in political science) is frankly astounding, maybe you should go open a book.
...and here is where you demonstrate that you have absolutely no idea what's going on and what my beef with your posts is. Do you really think that I care that you're a foreigner? Did you completely miss the second part of the sentence? It went something like this:
You're just one more foreigner commenting on American politics with an inadequate base of knowledge to do so.
Would it make you feel better if I said that "You're just one more person commenting on American politics with an inadequate base of knowledge to do so?"
|
Gary Johnson will quit the Republican primaries and seek the Libertarian Party nomination instead, POLITICO has learned.
The former two-term New Mexico governor, whose campaign for the GOP nomination never caught fire, will make the announcement at a press conference in Santa Fe on Dec. 28. Johnson state directors will be informed of his plans on a campaign conference call Tuesday night, a Johnson campaign source told POLITICO.
The move has been expected for weeks — Johnson had run a New Hampshire-centric effort that never got him past a blip in the polls. He appeared at only two nationally televised debates, and only one in which other major candidates took part.
Johnson expressed deep disillusionment with the process as his libertarian message failed to catch fire and he received almost no attention for his bid. He soon began flirting with the Libertarians when it became clear that he was gaining no traction in GOP primaries.
“I’m still in the race,” Johnson told POLITICO last month. “I’m registered in New Hampshire and the intention would be, hope against hope that I would be able to be heard. But there is not much hope.”
Johnson didn’t immediately return a phone call Tuesday.
Source
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
