Debt under Obama: money well spent (mostly)

[Billy000]

Nothing will change the fact that financial crisis happened under his watch and were losing the most jobs per month during his presidency and very early on into Obama's. Obama's stimulus package turned that all around.

Nobody will ever know if that is true or not.

We can't run a parallel experiment where we get to do it another way.

Making such a claim has to be a qualified claim at best.

To make an absolute claim is foolish and wrong.

Well if you read my OP, you would know the stimulus was directly involved with job growth. It isn't like I am saying "well the stimulus began around the same time". No, I am saying its policies directly grew the economy.

 

[The Rabbi]

Nothing will change the fact that financial crisis happened under his watch and were losing the most jobs per month during his presidency and very early on into Obama's. Obama's stimulus package turned that all around.

Nobody will ever know if that is true or not.

We can't run a parallel experiment where we get to do it another way.

Making such a claim has to be a qualified claim at best.

To make an absolute claim is foolish and wrong.

Well if you read my OP, you would know the stimulus was directly involved with job growth. It isn't like I am saying "well the stimulus began around the same time". No, I am saying its policies directly grew the economy.

And you are wrong, of course.

 

[RKMBrown]

He can't. He is incapable of such thought. Just like he can't wrap his mind around the idea the federal gov't is taking in more money now than ever before, and still running record deficits.
Or that Obama spent far more and achieved far less than Bush.

In short, he's a typical low IQ, low effort, low morals, bottom feeding liberal.

Doesn't it bother you to have such poor critical thinking skills? I mean I dont understand how you can generalize an entire group of people. How would you react if i said conservatives are nothing but a bunch of dumb, racist, and homophobic bigots?

No offense was given to liberals who are not like you. Perhaps you need to learn to read better. Or are you trying to say all or most liberals are just like you? Hmm... I do agree with you that saying all liberals are just like you would be one helluva generalized insult to them.

 

[The T]

One only has to look at the dumb asses in this administration and how they can not even get a web site running after spending 700 million dollars on it.
Obama is a lame duck hack now and 10 years from now the deficit will be over 30 trillion because of his incompetence.
We have become a nation of village idiots. Having the IRS doing the books on the ACA.

Yep and NONE of them elected by the people.

 

[Billy000]

In short, he's a typical low IQ, low effort, low morals, bottom feeding liberal.

Doesn't it bother you to have such poor critical thinking skills? I mean I dont understand how you can generalize an entire group of people. How would you react if i said conservatives are nothing but a bunch of dumb, racist, and homophobic bigots?

No offense was given to liberals who are not like you. Perhaps you need to learn to read better. Or are you trying to say all or most liberals are just like you? Hmm... I do agree with you that saying all liberals are just like you would be one helluva generalized insult to them.

Like me? Lol come on man. I have presented you with facts. You should love me. Don't you care about learning the truth about your president?

 

[Billy000]

Nobody will ever know if that is true or not.

We can't run a parallel experiment where we get to do it another way.

Making such a claim has to be a qualified claim at best.

To make an absolute claim is foolish and wrong.

Well if you read my OP, you would know the stimulus was directly involved with job growth. It isn't like I am saying "well the stimulus began around the same time". No, I am saying its policies directly grew the economy.

And you are wrong, of course.

Nope.

 

[The T]

Doesn't it bother you to have such poor critical thinking skills? I mean I dont understand how you can generalize an entire group of people. How would you react if i said conservatives are nothing but a bunch of dumb, racist, and homophobic bigots?

No offense was given to liberals who are not like you. Perhaps you need to learn to read better. Or are you trying to say all or most liberals are just like you? Hmm... I do agree with you that saying all liberals are just like you would be one helluva generalized insult to them.

Like me? Lol come on man. I have presented you with facts. You should love me. Don't you care about learning the truth about your president?

YOU have posted Statist propaganda that has been refuted.

 

[Billy000]

No offense was given to liberals who are not like you. Perhaps you need to learn to read better. Or are you trying to say all or most liberals are just like you? Hmm... I do agree with you that saying all liberals are just like you would be one helluva generalized insult to them.

Like me? Lol come on man. I have presented you with facts. You should love me. Don't you care about learning the truth about your president?

YOU have posted Statist propaganda that has been refuted.

No, it really hasn't.

 

[Listening]

Like me? Lol come on man. I have presented you with facts. You should love me. Don't you care about learning the truth about your president?

YOU have posted Statist propaganda that has been refuted.

No, it really hasn't.

I recall reading several articles on this before and I still hold that while you can make a semi-empirical case for this claim, that is the best it is.

And these studies don't take into account the effect of taking money from potential investment for "stimulus". When people try to do that, the arguments are over basic assumptions (imagine that..they become political in nature).

Additionlly, there are cases for recovery without stimulus. And if a portion of the so called recovery is due to that, then any claims about the effect of the stimulus are overstated.

I still contend we will never fully know (and I would think most economists would agree that this is more about statistical probability than anything).

 

[The T]

YOU have posted Statist propaganda that has been refuted.

No, it really hasn't.

I recall reading several articles on this before and I still hold that while you can make a semi-empirical case for this claim, that is the best it is.

And these studies don't take into account the effect of taking money from potential investment for "stimulus". When people try to do that, the arguments are over basic assumptions (imagine that..they become political in nature).

Additionlly, there are cases for recovery without stimulus. And if a portion of the so called recovery is due to that, then any claims about the effect of the stimulus are overstated.

I still contend we will never fully know (and I would think most economists would agree that this is more about statistical probability than anything).

Indeed. it makes Obama look good when there is no reason for it to seeing reality. And that's the point.

 

[Billy000]

YOU have posted Statist propaganda that has been refuted.

No, it really hasn't.

I recall reading several articles on this before and I still hold that while you can make a semi-empirical case for this claim, that is the best it is.

And these studies don't take into account the effect of taking money from potential investment for "stimulus". When people try to do that, the arguments are over basic assumptions (imagine that..they become political in nature).

Additionlly, there are cases for recovery without stimulus. And if a portion of the so called recovery is due to that, then any claims about the effect of the stimulus are overstated.

I still contend we will never fully know (and I would think most economists would agree that this is more about statistical probability than anything).

There is nothing semi about it. If you don't trust the research on this, what economical empiricism do you trust? It doesn't get better than unbiased research and government statistics.

The stimulus cost 787 billion and it created both jobs and economic growth. How is that not a good investment? The cost to the tax payers was compensated through economic growth.

I agree not all of millions of jobs created under Obama are because of him, but he is directly responsible for 2.5 million of them. It's just a shame the stimulus wasn't bigger.

 

[TemplarKormac]

I would suggest that RKM, Rabbi, Listening and Mr. T stop responding to Billy. He is simply obfuscating and dodging any queries and cogent points. He's already in a state of denial, let him stew in it.

 

[Billy000]

I would suggest that RKM, Rabbi and Mr. T stop responding to Billy. He is simply obfuscating and dodging any queries and cogent points. He's already in a state of denial, let him stew in it.

Lol you crack me up dude.

 

[TemplarKormac]

I would suggest that RKM, Rabbi and Mr. T stop responding to Billy. He is simply obfuscating and dodging any queries and cogent points. He's already in a state of denial, let him stew in it.

Lol you crack me up dude.

No, you crack yourself up, 'dude.'

 

[Listening]

No, it really hasn't.

I recall reading several articles on this before and I still hold that while you can make a semi-empirical case for this claim, that is the best it is.

And these studies don't take into account the effect of taking money from potential investment for "stimulus". When people try to do that, the arguments are over basic assumptions (imagine that..they become political in nature).

Additionlly, there are cases for recovery without stimulus. And if a portion of the so called recovery is due to that, then any claims about the effect of the stimulus are overstated.

I still contend we will never fully know (and I would think most economists would agree that this is more about statistical probability than anything).

There is nothing semi about it. If you don't trust the research on this, what economical empiricism do you trust? It doesn't get better than unbiased research and government statistics.

The stimulus cost 787 billion and it created both jobs and economic growth. How is that not a good investment? The cost to the tax payers was compensated through economic growth.

I agree not all of millions of jobs created under Obama are because of him, but he is directly responsible for 2.5 million of them. It's just a shame the stimulus wasn't bigger.

I have a real problem with that statement. Given the bulls&&t that has been flying around with regards to the ACA.

As to the rest, I only go so far with the numbers. As someone who has to deal with interactive physical systems (reactor kinetics), I am hard pressed to say you can isolate any one set of inputs and responses given all that goes on in an economy.

 

[Billy000]

I recall reading several articles on this before and I still hold that while you can make a semi-empirical case for this claim, that is the best it is.

And these studies don't take into account the effect of taking money from potential investment for "stimulus". When people try to do that, the arguments are over basic assumptions (imagine that..they become political in nature).

Additionlly, there are cases for recovery without stimulus. And if a portion of the so called recovery is due to that, then any claims about the effect of the stimulus are overstated.

I still contend we will never fully know (and I would think most economists would agree that this is more about statistical probability than anything).

There is nothing semi about it. If you don't trust the research on this, what economical empiricism do you trust? It doesn't get better than unbiased research and government statistics.

The stimulus cost 787 billion and it created both jobs and economic growth. How is that not a good investment? The cost to the tax payers was compensated through economic growth.

I agree not all of millions of jobs created under Obama are because of him, but he is directly responsible for 2.5 million of them. It's just a shame the stimulus wasn't bigger.

I have a real problem with that statement. Given the bulls&&t that has been flying around with regards to the ACA.

As to the rest, I only go so far with the numbers. As someone who has to deal with interactive physical systems (reactor kinetics), I am hard pressed to say you can isolate any one set of inputs and responses given all that goes on in an economy.

How have government statistics been dishonest about ObamaCare?

If we are talking about empirical research, what is better than numbers? Christ almighty people. Pop that Republican bubble of yours.

 

[The T]

I would suggest that RKM, Rabbi, Listening and Mr. T stop responding to Billy. He is simply obfuscating and dodging any queries and cogent points. He's already in a state of denial, let him stew in it.

Concur. The guy is a wasteland of Obama/Statist propaganda...that lacks any common sense.

 

[The T]

Like me? Lol come on man. I have presented you with facts. You should love me. Don't you care about learning the truth about your president?

YOU have posted Statist propaganda that has been refuted.

No, it really hasn't.

Against what I just got finished posting what "IT" is that exactly Billy? Seriously? YOU are losing IT.

 

[Billy000]

I would suggest that RKM, Rabbi, Listening and Mr. T stop responding to Billy. He is simply obfuscating and dodging any queries and cogent points. He's already in a state of denial, let him stew in it.

Concur. The guy is a wasteland of Obama/Statist propaganda...that lacks any common sense.

.
Your willful ignorance is pathetic.

 

[The T]

I would suggest that RKM, Rabbi, Listening and Mr. T stop responding to Billy. He is simply obfuscating and dodging any queries and cogent points. He's already in a state of denial, let him stew in it.

Concur. The guy is a wasteland of Obama/Statist propaganda...that lacks any common sense.

.
Your willful ignorance is pathetic.

Is it? Or is it YOUR denial of your history?

Pretty easy I think, NO? Just admit. Submit. You can't hold a candle son. You never will.