Millions out of work - a crumbling infrastructure - I have an idea!

[Rshermr]

Still can't show where "jobs saved" was used before the Obama stimulus fiasco...can you, "Tommy"?

So what do you do? You give us another cut and paste puff job from the liberal NY Times editorial page that tries it's best to cover for the Obama Administration's fiscal shortcomings. Go back and REALLY read that. Recognize that all Elmendorf REALLY says about the stimulus is that in the CBO's opinion spending all those billions of dollars improved the economy compared to not spending anything at all. He doesn't say how much it improved it...just that it was an improvement over not spending it at all.

GEE, WHAT AN AMAZING CONCEPT! THAT SPENDING 800 BILLION IN STIMULUS IMPROVED THE ECONOMIC NUMBERS!! HOW COULD IT NOT?

And then he trots out what the CBO has "guessed" is the number of jobs "created or saved". Why do I say "guessed"? Because neither the CBO...or any other economist...or any other politician...has ANY idea what that number really is. But that isn't his problem, is it? He's simply given a job to do and given the parameters of that job. In this case it's to estimate a number that can't REALLY be determined one way or the other.

Now if they asked him how many jobs did the Stimulus "create" then he would be able to give us a statistically verifiable number. That's what was used to measure the performance of all other Administrations prior to Barry's but this wasn't about getting an accurate appraisal of the effectiveness of the Obama Stimulus...this was ALWAYS about obscuring the awful "jobs created" number with one that was more politically acceptable.

Lets look at a couple posts back, when you said that the number of jobs created or saved was extimated to be only about 3 million at most. So how did you come up with that number, oldstyle. Because the numbers were NEVER that. They were over 11 million on the upper end.
So, Oldstyle, how did you get it that wrong? I can see only three possibilities:
1. Now, did you believe what you said?? Then you were just stupid. Because you were incapable of reading that those numbers were for a quarter. Right there in the paragraph stated by the CBO. Are you that incompetent, Oldstyle?
2. Did you get them from a bat shit crazy con web site?? Lots of them out there saying untrue crap, just like you.
3. Did you lie?? Well, obviously if you were not stupid and did not use bat shit crazy con web sites, then you lied. And, Oldstyle, I believe you lied. Pretty obvious, actually.

So, this time you attack the CBO and its director as being incompetent. They are unable to make assessments. You know, a group of highly respected economists. So, are we to believe you and the con webs sites, oldstyle. Because only you and the con tool websites say what you are saying in this post.

So here is the thing, Oldstyle You do not want to give any credit to obama for anything at all. Nothing. Everything he did is wrong, oldstyle. That is just the way it is with you. Because you are a con tool.
And in this post, you have fallen clear off of the edge of the con tool platform. You have actually done it again, misquoting the CBO. Saying they guessed at the number. All those independent economists just guessed. Because you can not believe their statements and believe that jobs saved is a true stat, and continue to believe what you want to believe. So, attack the CBO and the director of the CBO and the NY Times as a source. Recognize yourself yet, CON TOOL. You have absolutely no objectivity at all. You are going to argue dogma till you die. Which makes you, in my humble but correct opinion, just a con.

 

[Rshermr]

You must be a giant troll. First of all my numbers are % GDP which give far better picture of the actual effective tax percentage. Growing economy always mean nominally growing taxes so it looks like you have put the cart before the horse. But your numbers are dishonest anyway as they only include the federal portion of taxes. Because state taxes are not taxes! Yeah right... I think the only honest way to do this is use %GDP and all of the different government taxes. I guess your way would be to look at the year and use which ever methodology gives the "correct" results in that year.


Of course, so far you have actually missed my point entirely, which s that what you are trying to prove is completely impossible in either case. Tax% changing by 1 or 2% is simply IRRELEVANT. This would of course require you to have the view that tax rates do not solely dictate the direction of an economy in recession.


And further I agree that hiking taxes and increasing spending has a stimulus effect according to Keynes. But that's not the point. The point is that increasing spending AND cutting taxes has an even bigger stimulus effect.


I guess I will have to go look at the different US recessions and pick a year where GDP grew and taxes went down as % of gdp. Shouldn't be too hard and it will destroy your argument. However, I am too lazy to do that right now.

did you have a point, dipshit??

Here is an issue, dipshit. Tell me how you as a president would finance a stimulus. If you decrease taxes, as you suggest, then what is your revenue source for your stimulus. You just decreased revenue incoming to the gov. Or do you borrow? Reagan borrowed like crazy once the economy had reacted to the great tax decrease of 1981, And he raised taxes. So, for reagan, things did not improve until he had done both of those things and he used stimulus spending.

If you are unaware, we have decreased taxes over the past 12 years till it is now at its lowest since the 1950's. So, according to your theory, the economy should be souring. What happened??

What happened is that the Supply Side theory you are pushing did not, and has not ever, worked. Sorry, great economic mind, you are delusional.

 

[daveman]

Oldstyle, never try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time and annoys the pig.

 

[Rshermr]

Oldstyle, never try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time and annoys the pig.

Which is why Daveman is so annoyed, constantly.

 

[daveman]

Oldstyle, never try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time and annoys the pig.

Which is why Daveman is so annoyed, constantly.

You SUCK at reading minds, Skippy.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

So, for reagan, things did not improve until he had done both of those things and he used stimulus spending.

Reagan administration is most most well know for interest rates that were reduced from 22% to 4% by Federal Reserve. That is what boomed economy. Taxes increases and decreases were trivial by comparison. What kind of fool could ignore the monetary policy of the era?? A liberal fool of course

If you are unaware, we have decreased taxes over the past 12 years till it is now at its lowest since the 1950's. So, according to your theory, the economy should be souring. What happened??

a silly liberal lie of course!! as a % of GDP government spending is higher than ever. Budget went from $2-3 under Bush and now near $4trillion under Barry.

What happened is that the Supply Side theory you are pushing did not, and has not ever, worked. Sorry, great economic mind, you are delusional.

America is the richest country in human history because it has had the most supply side capitalism in human history!! Never worked??? What on earth could you be talking about??

When you encourage business to supply goods and services you get goods and services; when you hate business as liberal soviets do you get recession and depression. Got it now??

 

[Oldstyle]

Still can't show where "jobs saved" was used before the Obama stimulus fiasco...can you, "Tommy"?

So what do you do? You give us another cut and paste puff job from the liberal NY Times editorial page that tries it's best to cover for the Obama Administration's fiscal shortcomings. Go back and REALLY read that. Recognize that all Elmendorf REALLY says about the stimulus is that in the CBO's opinion spending all those billions of dollars improved the economy compared to not spending anything at all. He doesn't say how much it improved it...just that it was an improvement over not spending it at all.

GEE, WHAT AN AMAZING CONCEPT! THAT SPENDING 800 BILLION IN STIMULUS IMPROVED THE ECONOMIC NUMBERS!! HOW COULD IT NOT?

And then he trots out what the CBO has "guessed" is the number of jobs "created or saved". Why do I say "guessed"? Because neither the CBO...or any other economist...or any other politician...has ANY idea what that number really is. But that isn't his problem, is it? He's simply given a job to do and given the parameters of that job. In this case it's to estimate a number that can't REALLY be determined one way or the other.

Now if they asked him how many jobs did the Stimulus "create" then he would be able to give us a statistically verifiable number. That's what was used to measure the performance of all other Administrations prior to Barry's but this wasn't about getting an accurate appraisal of the effectiveness of the Obama Stimulus...this was ALWAYS about obscuring the awful "jobs created" number with one that was more politically acceptable.

Lets look at a couple posts back, when you said that the number of jobs created or saved was extimated to be only about 3 million at most. So how did you come up with that number, oldstyle. Because the numbers were NEVER that. They were over 11 million on the upper end.
So, Oldstyle, how did you get it that wrong? I can see only three possibilities:
1. Now, did you believe what you said?? Then you were just stupid. Because you were incapable of reading that those numbers were for a quarter. Right there in the paragraph stated by the CBO. Are you that incompetent, Oldstyle?
2. Did you get them from a bat shit crazy con web site?? Lots of them out there saying untrue crap, just like you.
3. Did you lie?? Well, obviously if you were not stupid and did not use bat shit crazy con web sites, then you lied. And, Oldstyle, I believe you lied. Pretty obvious, actually.

So, this time you attack the CBO and its director as being incompetent. They are unable to make assessments. You know, a group of highly respected economists. So, are we to believe you and the con webs sites, oldstyle. Because only you and the con tool websites say what you are saying in this post.

So here is the thing, Oldstyle You do not want to give any credit to obama for anything at all. Nothing. Everything he did is wrong, oldstyle. That is just the way it is with you. Because you are a con tool.
And in this post, you have fallen clear off of the edge of the con tool platform. You have actually done it again, misquoting the CBO. Saying they guessed at the number. All those independent economists just guessed. Because you can not believe their statements and believe that jobs saved is a true stat, and continue to believe what you want to believe. So, attack the CBO and the director of the CBO and the NY Times as a source. Recognize yourself yet, CON TOOL. You have absolutely no objectivity at all. You are going to argue dogma till you die. Which makes you, in my humble but correct opinion, just a con.

When did I "attack" the Director of the CBO? I simply pointed out that he was given a "fool's errand" when the Obama Administration asked him to estimate how many jobs the stimulus "saved" because it's something that's impossible to verify...hence the HUGE disparity between the high and low estimates.

I've fallen off the "edge" of the "con tool platform"? Why? Because I pointed out the obvious? That the reason that the "jobs saved" thing was so attractive to the Obama folks was BECAUSE it was completely unverifiable and therefore could be used to cover up the fact that they only created a fraction of the jobs they SAID they would?

Nor have I ever said EVERYTHING, Barry does is wrong. When he extended the Bush tax cuts he was acting in a rational fiscal manner. When he had the EPA hold up on implementing new green house gas standards because the added costs would hurt economic growth he was acting in a rational fiscal manner. When he stopped seeking Cap & Trade and Card Check legislation he was acting in a rational fiscal manner. What's sad however is I think he did those things to better his chances of being reelected than because he wanted to do them or believed in them as policy.

As for only "con web sites" taking the Obama Administration to task for the whole "jobs saved" thing? I hate to burst your "dogma" and "con tool" bubble there, "Tommy" but Obama and his people were ridiculed by a lot of liberals as well as conservatives for the sham that "jobs saved" was.

http://videos.mediaite.com/video/Jon-Stewart-Takes-On-Obamas-Rea

The fact of the matter is...you're the biggest "turd polisher" on this board.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

[

What happened is that the Supply Side theory you are pushing did not, and has not ever, worked.

WOW!! Now that's a new low in dumb; that's profoundly dumb or liberally dumb!!

For example, Apple, Intel and Microsoft supply tons of stuff and millions of jobs in a sustainable conservative/libertarian Republican way to grow the economy.

Imagine if the venture capital they needed to start up had been taxed away with Barry capital gains tax to spend on welfare, build liberal infrastructure, or to fund liberal Solyndra, A123, Fiskar, Range Fuels, Abound Solar?????

See why we are positve a liberal will have to have a very very low IQ??

 

[Rshermr]

So, oldstyle says:

When did I "attack" the Director of the CBO? I simply pointed out that he was given a "fool's errand" when the Obama Administration asked him to estimate how many jobs the stimulus "saved" because it's something that's impossible to verify...hence the HUGE disparity between the high and low estimates.

That would be one of the statements that is an attack on the Director of the CBO. He has never, ever, in his entire life said, nor has anyone else ever said, that he did what the Obama administration asked him to. I have given you the exact duties of the CBO. They do not include providing numbers that a politician asks for. And you know that, Oldstyle. Only con tools like you make that statement.

So, let me ask you, oldstyle, where is the link that would prove to all that the director was given the fool's errand, as you would like to say. You do not have one, oldstyle, because no rational source would say what you are saying.

So, you are simply lying again. Just as always.

 

[Rshermr]

Nor have I ever said EVERYTHING, Barry does is wrong. When he extended the Bush tax cuts he was acting in a rational fiscal manner. When he had the EPA hold up on implementing new green house gas standards because the added costs would hurt economic growth he was acting in a rational fiscal manner. When he stopped seeking Cap & Trade and Card Check legislation he was acting in a rational fiscal manner. What's sad however is I think he did those things to better his chances of being reelected than because he wanted to do them or believed in them as policy.

Uh, dipshit, the fact that you approve of two tings that he did that all con tools were in favor of does not constitute that you support what he does. Really, are you really that stupid. You are a simple con tool, who has no trouble at all critisizing everything that he did. By the way, should we go back a couple of posts and see what you said last time about card check. You are so disingenuous, it must hurt.

By the way, Oldstyle, I proved to you that cap and trade was a republican idea. I am just so surprised that you do not admit that was a mistake on your part. You have such integrity, dipshit.

As for only "con web sites" taking the Obama Administration to task for the whole "jobs saved" thing? I hate to burst your "dogma" and "con tool" bubble there, "Tommy" but Obama and his people were ridiculed by a lot of liberals as well as conservatives for the sham that "jobs saved" was.

http://videos.mediaite.com/video/Jon...-On-Obamas-Rea

I actually do not count comedians as sources, dipshit. Best you could find??

The fact of the matter is...you're the biggest "turd polisher" on this board.

I just like truth. It is you who is unable to address the lies that I showed you . No integrity again.

 

[Rshermr]

So, here is the question that I asked Oldstyle. Rational question, oldstyle. Right on the subject of this thread. So, here it is again. My guess is you will avoid it again:

Lets look at a couple posts back, when you said that the number of jobs created or saved was estimated to be only about 3 million at most. So how did you come up with that number, oldstyle. Because the numbers were NEVER that. They were over 11 million on the upper end.
So, Oldstyle, how did you get it that wrong? I can see only three possibilities:
1. Now, did you believe what you said?? Then you were just stupid. Because you were incapable of reading that those numbers were for a quarter. Right there in the paragraph stated by the CBO. Are you that incompetent, Oldstyle?
2. Did you get them from a bat shit crazy con web site?? Lots of them out there saying untrue crap, just like you.
3. Did you lie?? Well, obviously if you were not stupid and did not use bat shit crazy con web sites, then you lied. And, Oldstyle, I believe you lied. Pretty obvious, actually.

That was post number 441. Looks to me that you were wrong. Question is where did you get the numbers you were wrong with?? Pretty obvious lie, oldstyle. I can provide more, and we can do the same. When I am wrong I admit it. But I do not lie. You just lie, and lie, and lie, and lie. And move on. Because you do not have the integrity to address your lie, or whatever it is. But since this is really, really hard to explain, oldstyle, you are simply trying to ignore it.

 

[Rshermr]

[

What happened is that the Supply Side theory you are pushing did not, and has not ever, worked.

WOW!! Now that's a new low in dumb; that's profoundly dumb or liberally dumb!!

For example, Apple, Intel and Microsoft supply tons of stuff and millions of jobs in a sustainable conservative/libertarian Republican way to grow the economy.

Imagine if the venture capital they needed to start up had been taxed away with Barry capital gains tax to spend on welfare, build liberal infrastructure, or to fund liberal Solyndra, A123, Fiskar, Range Fuels, Abound Solar?????

See why we are positve a liberal will have to have a very very low IQ??

And poor Ed, proving again that he has no idea in the world about what he is posting. But it is ed, after all, and ed is mentally ill. Clinically mentally batshit. Really can not help himself. Not his fault. Just plain bad luck.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

[

What happened is that the Supply Side theory you are pushing did not, and has not ever, worked.

WOW!! Now that's a new low in dumb; that's profoundly dumb or liberally dumb!!

For example, Apple, Intel and Microsoft supply tons of stuff and millions of jobs in a sustainable conservative/libertarian Republican way to grow the economy.

Imagine if the venture capital they needed to start up had been taxed away with Barry's capital gains tax to spend on welfare, build liberal infrastructure, or to fund liberal Solyndra, A123, Fiskar, Range Fuels, Abound Solar?????

See why we are positve a liberal will have to have a very very low IQ??

And poor Ed, proving again that he has no idea in the world about what he is posting. But it is ed, after all, and ed is mentally ill. Clinically mentally batshit. Really can not help himself. Not his fault. Just plain bad luck.

typical violent liberal without IQ for substance reduced to personal attack.

Cant imagine why you the liberal is so afraid to explain to us how taxing the economy will help it grow!! Would you choke a man to help him breath?

 

[Rshermr]

WOW!! Now that's a new low in dumb; that's profoundly dumb or liberally dumb!!

For example, Apple, Intel and Microsoft supply tons of stuff and millions of jobs in a sustainable conservative/libertarian Republican way to grow the economy.

Imagine if the venture capital they needed to start up had been taxed away with Barry's capital gains tax to spend on welfare, build liberal infrastructure, or to fund liberal Solyndra, A123, Fiskar, Range Fuels, Abound Solar?????

See why we are positve a liberal will have to have a very very low IQ??

And poor Ed, proving again that he has no idea in the world about what he is posting. But it is ed, after all, and ed is mentally ill. Clinically mentally batshit. Really can not help himself. Not his fault. Just plain bad luck.

typical violent liberal without IQ for substance reduced to personal attack.

Cant imagine why you the liberal is so afraid to explain to us how taxing the economy will help it grow!! Would you choke a man to help him breath?

Ed. Poor ed. I answered that exact question for you previously. Look, we all know that mental illness is not your fault. Just bad luck, ed.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

And poor Ed, proving again that he has no idea in the world about what he is posting. But it is ed, after all, and ed is mentally ill. Clinically mentally batshit. Really can not help himself. Not his fault. Just plain bad luck.

typical violent liberal without IQ for substance reduced to personal attack.

Cant imagine why you the liberal is so afraid to explain to us how taxing the economy will help it grow!! Would you choke a man to help him breath?

Ed. Poor ed. I answered that exact question for you previously. Look, we all know that mental illness is not your fault. Just bad luck, ed.

typical violent liberal without IQ for substance reduced to personal attack.

Cant imagine why you the liberal is so afraid to explain to us how taxing the economy will help it grow!! Would you choke a man to help him breath?

 

[Rshermr]

typical violent liberal without IQ for substance reduced to personal attack.

Cant imagine why you the liberal is so afraid to explain to us how taxing the economy will help it grow!! Would you choke a man to help him breath?

Ed. Poor ed. I answered that exact question for you previously. Look, we all know that mental illness is not your fault. Just bad luck, ed.

typical violent liberal without IQ for substance reduced to personal attack.

Cant imagine why you the liberal is so afraid to explain to us how taxing the economy will help it grow!! Would you choke a man to help him breath?

Another cut and paste. Makes no sense, of course. But what would you expect from a moron.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Ed. Poor ed. I answered that exact question for you previously. Look, we all know that mental illness is not your fault. Just bad luck, ed.

typical violent liberal without IQ for substance reduced to personal attack.

Cant imagine why you the liberal is so afraid to explain to us how taxing the economy will help it grow!! Would you choke a man to help him breath?

Another cut and paste. Makes no sense, of course. But what would you expect from a moron.

so then tell how taxing the economy helps it grow and how tax and spend does not cause mal-investment and recession. How will you learn if you are afraid to try??
You were a college professor and now you're a violent brainless internet predator?

 

[Rshermr]

So Oldstyle, talking about the head of the CBO, says:

And then he trots out what the CBO has "guessed" is the number of jobs "created or saved". Why do I say "guessed"? Because neither the CBO...or any other economist...or any other politician...has ANY idea what that number really is. But that isn't his problem, is it?

And here Oldstyle, being an expert on economics, and sampling theory, tells us that the head of the cbo and his team of professional economists GUESSED at the number of jobs saved. No proof, of course. But that is what Oldstyle says happens. Absolutely no doubt in his mind.
So, we are forced again to take the word of the food services professional or a team of economists. Damn, Oldstyle, maybe you have some proof to back up your accusation. Na. Not Oldstyle. He just posts con dogma. No proof of anything needed.

Then, Oldstyle says:

He's simply given a job to do and given the parameters of that job. In this case it's to estimate a number that can't REALLY be determined one way or the other.

Which is, of course, more lies. And of course, Oldstyle has no proof of this sentense, either. Lies are hard to prove, eh, oldstyle. Lets see what the CBO is chartered to do.

CBO | our processes

This is the second time I have given you this link. It is obvious that you do not want the truth, Oldstyle, or if you did you would look at this before saying that someone is providing the CBO with a task and parameters. Anyone who reads this information would quickly see that you are lying again. Now, maybe you have a source that says you are correct??

Of course not, oldstyle. Caught lying again.

 

[Oldstyle]

So Oldstyle, talking about the head of the CBO, says:

And then he trots out what the CBO has "guessed" is the number of jobs "created or saved". Why do I say "guessed"? Because neither the CBO...or any other economist...or any other politician...has ANY idea what that number really is. But that isn't his problem, is it?

And here Oldstyle, being an expert on economics, and sampling theory, tells us that the head of the cbo and his team of professional economists GUESSED at the number of jobs saved. No proof, of course. But that is what Oldstyle says happens. Absolutely no doubt in his mind.
So, we are forced again to take the word of the food services professional or a team of economists. Damn, Oldstyle, maybe you have some proof to back up your accusation. Na. Not Oldstyle. He just posts con dogma. No proof of anything needed.

Then, Oldstyle says:

He's simply given a job to do and given the parameters of that job. In this case it's to estimate a number that can't REALLY be determined one way or the other.

Which is, of course, more lies. And of course, Oldstyle has no proof of this sentense, either. Lies are hard to prove, eh, oldstyle. Lets see what the CBO is chartered to do.

CBO | our processes

This is the second time I have given you this link. It is obvious that you do not want the truth, Oldstyle, or if you did you would look at this before saying that someone is providing the CBO with a task and parameters. Anyone who reads this information would quickly see that you are lying again. Now, maybe you have a source that says you are correct??

Of course not, oldstyle. Caught lying again.

What's amusing is that you think the "jobs created or saved" number represents the "truth". It doesn't...it never has...and it never will. The "saved" part of that equation was added for only one reason and that is to hide the poor results of the Stimulus when it came to job creation.

I ask you for about the fourth time to show me another Administration that used "jobs saved" as an economic number. When you fail to do so perhaps you'd like to explain why THIS Administration DID create that statistic if it wasn't to obscure the poor numbers on job creation?

 

[Rshermr]

You are really, really trying to avoid admitting that you are again caught in a lie. So, not at all sure what you are saying. Apparently that the CBO made this up. Is that it, Oldstyle. Is that how you are going to try to avoid admitting that you lied. Your statement about it being added, and why, is unsubstantiated. No proof of that at all, oldstyle. And you have the nerve to say that the CBO made this up???

Because, oldstyle, if that is what you are saying, then you are indeed calling the CBO liars. Because, you see, they indeed say that they can analyze the available numbers and come up with a range of high to low of jobs added by being created or saved. So, Oldstyle, let me remind you. You are a lowly food services employee. They are well respected economists. And you have absolutly NO proof of your accusations. NONE. Which makes you a liar. Plain and simple. Just a con trying to pass off a con accusation.

How you live with yourself is beyond me. You know exactly what you are doing. You are trying to say that the CBO numbers are wrong, and that it is this presidents fault that those numbers are wrong. Cmon, Oldstyle. Lets see the proof.

And we will see no proof. Because you can not prove a lie. Caught again, oldstyle.