It's Official: The Stimulus Isn't a Waste of Money

[007]

The "stimulus," was and is, the liberals long time awaited payback to all their liberal affiliates. It wasn't designed to "stimulate" anything. It's a monumental disaster. All it did was blow money the government didn't have to spend in the first place and pile on debt.

Obama Stimulus Scandal: Where Has All the Money Gone and Why Does the Media Not Report Blatant Mismanagement and Corruption? ? Florida Pundit

The Failure of the Stimulus in One Lesson | FreedomWorks

Video: The epic fail of 2009 Hot Air

 

[007]

It's Official: The Stimulus Isn't a Waste of Money

The only thing "OFFICIAL" about the OP is it's BULL SHIT.

 

[Dick Tuck]

What was the deadline on unemployment again? We know this administration can spend money, that's why they wanted a second stimulus........

You are aware that the job producing part of this isn't close to being in full force yet, don't you?

So what part have they finished? The money wasting part? They did a fine job with that.
ANd if the "job producing part" (I thought that was the whole point of this exercise??) isn't done, why did the Administration promise unemployment would be under 9% and it is nowhere near that?

Awarding contracts, for many important infrastructure investments.

 

[007]

You are aware that the job producing part of this isn't close to being in full force yet, don't you?

So what part have they finished? The money wasting part? They did a fine job with that.
ANd if the "job producing part" (I thought that was the whole point of this exercise??) isn't done, why did the Administration promise unemployment would be under 9% and it is nowhere near that?

Awarding contracts, for many important infrastructure investments.

Save it. No one is buying your bull shit.

 

[Dick Tuck]

So what part have they finished? The money wasting part? They did a fine job with that.
ANd if the "job producing part" (I thought that was the whole point of this exercise??) isn't done, why did the Administration promise unemployment would be under 9% and it is nowhere near that?

Awarding contracts, for many important infrastructure investments.

Save it. No one is buying your bull shit.

Wow, you speak for "everyone". You're one important dude.

But if you're interested in a non-partisan analysis, here's the CBO report:

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/117xx/doc11706/08-24-ARRA.pdf

 

[The Rabbi]

Awarding contracts, for many important infrastructure investments.

Save it. No one is buying your bull shit.

Wow, you speak for "everyone". You're one important dude.

But if you're interested in a non-partisan analysis, here's the CBO report:

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/117xx/doc11706/08-24-ARRA.pdf

Save it. No one is buying your bullshit.
The CBO's methodology has already been debunked.

 

[Trajan]

from the article...gee Time ..strawman much?
the "hard-nosed watchdog"...hwy yes of course....

Earl Devaney, the hard-nosed watchdog leading the independent Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board, recently testified to Congress that investigators "simply haven't seen the kind of fraud that we would have imagined as professional law enforcement." Before the stimulus passed, experts predicted the government would lose 5% to 7% of it to fraud; today, out of more than 190,000 contracts, grants and loans, fewer than 0.2% are under investigation.

Read more: Viewpoint: Stimulus Was a Fraud-Free Managerial Success - TIME

 

[Trajan]

Awarding contracts, for many important infrastructure investments.

Save it. No one is buying your bull shit.

Wow, you speak for "everyone". You're one important dude.

But if you're interested in a non-partisan analysis, here's the CBO report:

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/117xx/doc11706/08-24-ARRA.pdf

you already took a pass from the inconvenient answer I gave you based on the cbo's own report when we discussed this one of the other several threads on this ala, and the CBO verbiage and huuuuuuuge disparity in the numbers they themselves posted and they themselves said so, and the fact that the cost of the 1.4 to 3.3 million, I will say that again the 1.4 to 3.3 million jobs they say MAY have been created was not discussed at all, kind a like ...

"hey I gave you a job, well yea its kind of got a time limit, but hey it only cost the gov. $400,000..what? you could have paid off your house and taken a few years off on that , oh well...."


posting it again does not make it anymore true....

oh and for more counter factual horsehockey according to them the stimulus added between 1.7 percent and 4.5 percent to the GDP in Q2....( gee how much margin of error do they need to give themselves, that give you any pause?) in the second quarter,well q2 was revised down to 1.7....so, what they are saying is stimulus MAY have been responsible for the only net positive output? Bullshit, pure and simple. And if thats the case the economy is DOA....critical thinking dude.

Exit question there "Dick"...lets suppose for a moment that's true, what happens when the stimulus runs out over the next quarter?

 

[The Rabbi]

from the article...gee Time ..strawman much?
the "hard-nosed watchdog"...hwy yes of course....

Earl Devaney, the hard-nosed watchdog leading the independent Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board, recently testified to Congress that investigators "simply haven't seen the kind of fraud that we would have imagined as professional law enforcement." Before the stimulus passed, experts predicted the government would lose 5% to 7% of it to fraud; today, out of more than 190,000 contracts, grants and loans, fewer than 0.2% are under investigation.

Read more: Viewpoint: Stimulus Was a Fraud-Free Managerial Success - TIME

That only means that .2% are currently under investigation. That doesn't include things that aren't but should be or things that have already had the investigation concluded.
Sheesh.

 

[loosecannon]

from the article...gee Time ..strawman much?
the "hard-nosed watchdog"...hwy yes of course....

Earl Devaney, the hard-nosed watchdog leading the independent Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board, recently testified to Congress that investigators "simply haven't seen the kind of fraud that we would have imagined as professional law enforcement." Before the stimulus passed, experts predicted the government would lose 5% to 7% of it to fraud; today, out of more than 190,000 contracts, grants and loans, fewer than 0.2% are under investigation.

Read more: Viewpoint: Stimulus Was a Fraud-Free Managerial Success - TIME

Well maybe, but right here in my community a provision of the stimulus was terminated because a corporation grossed $60 million gaming it. Or abiding by it's mandates, choose your poison. The WH folks said that the law wasn't intended for corporate profiteering and closed down the whole funded program.

The stimulus was a pork barrel bonanza intended to funnel money to left leaning causes. Not a rescue for the economy.

Why would team Obama want to help rightards out of poverty and desperate straights?

 

[Trajan]

from the article...gee Time ..strawman much?
the "hard-nosed watchdog"...hwy yes of course....

Earl Devaney, the hard-nosed watchdog leading the independent Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board, recently testified to Congress that investigators "simply haven't seen the kind of fraud that we would have imagined as professional law enforcement." Before the stimulus passed, experts predicted the government would lose 5% to 7% of it to fraud; today, out of more than 190,000 contracts, grants and loans, fewer than 0.2% are under investigation.

Read more: Viewpoint: Stimulus Was a Fraud-Free Managerial Success - TIME

Well maybe, but right here in my community a provision of the stimulus was terminated because a corporation grossed $60 million gaming it. Or abiding by it's mandates, choose your poison. The WH folks said that the law wasn't intended for corporate profiteering and closed down the whole funded program.

The stimulus was a pork barrel bonanza intended to funnel money to left leaning causes. Not a rescue for the economy.

Why would team Obama want to help rightards out of poverty and desperate straights?

that article is just more dreck. I only made myself read it because I was gonna comment on it....Time needs to go the way of Newsweak.

 

[Dick Tuck]

What was the deadline on unemployment again? We know this administration can spend money, that's why they wanted a second stimulus........

You are aware that the job producing part of this isn't close to being in full force yet, don't you?

This post was neg repped by Diamond Dave.

 

[Dick Tuck]

Save it. No one is buying your bull shit.

Wow, you speak for "everyone". You're one important dude.

But if you're interested in a non-partisan analysis, here's the CBO report:

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/117xx/doc11706/08-24-ARRA.pdf

Save it. No one is buying your bullshit.
The CBO's methodology has already been debunked.

Who exactly debunked it? Did the CBO make corrections to their report?

 

[The Rabbi]

Wow, you speak for "everyone". You're one important dude.

But if you're interested in a non-partisan analysis, here's the CBO report:

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/117xx/doc11706/08-24-ARRA.pdf

Save it. No one is buying your bullshit.
The CBO's methodology has already been debunked.

Who exactly debunked it? Did the CBO make corrections to their report?

Heritage.org. Go look on their website.
Basically the CBO started with the assumption that if govt spends X dollars they create Y number of jobs and they just do the math. But the assumption is wrong.

 

[Dick Tuck]

Save it. No one is buying your bullshit.
The CBO's methodology has already been debunked.

Who exactly debunked it? Did the CBO make corrections to their report?

Heritage.org. Go look on their website.
Basically the CBO started with the assumption that if govt spends X dollars they create Y number of jobs and they just do the math. But the assumption is wrong.

Heritage presented half-assed right wing spin, and showed their stupidity. How can you measure effect and accuracy, until the job creation is in full force? This is not the Bush administration, where you can hand out no bid contracts to your cronies, like candy. This had an RFP process, proposal evaluation, and award. Those infrastructure jobs are are finally coming on-line, and those winning bidders are hiring up.

Heritage also showed its ignorance in understanding macro-economics. If you create one job for one person, there's a positive ripple effect as that money moves through the economy. If a winning bidder hires one person, and makes a capital investment into some big Deere piece of equipment, more than one job is being created. CBO is non partisan. Heritage are a bunch of Scaife funded hacks.

Heritage debunked nothing. All they did was give out a bunch of bogus talking points.

 

[The Rabbi]

Who exactly debunked it? Did the CBO make corrections to their report?

Heritage.org. Go look on their website.
Basically the CBO started with the assumption that if govt spends X dollars they create Y number of jobs and they just do the math. But the assumption is wrong.

Heritage presented half-assed right wing spin, and showed their stupidity. How can you measure effect and accuracy, until the job creation is in full force? This is not the Bush administration, where you can hand out no bid contracts to your cronies, like candy. This had an RFP process, proposal evaluation, and award. Those infrastructure jobs are are finally coming on-line, and those winning bidders are hiring up.

Heritage also showed its ignorance in understanding macro-economics. If you create one job for one person, there's a positive ripple effect as that money moves through the economy. If a winning bidder hires one person, and makes a capital investment into some big Deere piece of equipment, more than one job is being created. CBO is non partisan. Heritage are a bunch of Scaife funded hacks.

Heritage debunked nothing. All they did was give out a bunch of bogus talking points.

You haven't quite reached the level of RDean or Chris or Modbert in your ignorance, stupidity and unwillingness to learn.
But you're close. Very close.

 

[Dick Tuck]

Heritage.org. Go look on their website.
Basically the CBO started with the assumption that if govt spends X dollars they create Y number of jobs and they just do the math. But the assumption is wrong.

Heritage presented half-assed right wing spin, and showed their stupidity. How can you measure effect and accuracy, until the job creation is in full force? This is not the Bush administration, where you can hand out no bid contracts to your cronies, like candy. This had an RFP process, proposal evaluation, and award. Those infrastructure jobs are are finally coming on-line, and those winning bidders are hiring up.

Heritage also showed its ignorance in understanding macro-economics. If you create one job for one person, there's a positive ripple effect as that money moves through the economy. If a winning bidder hires one person, and makes a capital investment into some big Deere piece of equipment, more than one job is being created. CBO is non partisan. Heritage are a bunch of Scaife funded hacks.

Heritage debunked nothing. All they did was give out a bunch of bogus talking points.

You haven't quite reached the level of RDean or Chris or Modbert in your ignorance, stupidity and unwillingness to learn.
But you're close. Very close.

I'm not the one who points to some ignorant Heritage Foundation spin job, and claim it debunks the CBO report. Without looking through all the proposals, they have no idea how much goes to things like capital equipment or schedule. They're also boneheaded thinking that creating a job only affects one person's economic situation. They show a complete cluelessness of macroeconomics.

 

[The Rabbi]

Heritage presented half-assed right wing spin, and showed their stupidity. How can you measure effect and accuracy, until the job creation is in full force? This is not the Bush administration, where you can hand out no bid contracts to your cronies, like candy. This had an RFP process, proposal evaluation, and award. Those infrastructure jobs are are finally coming on-line, and those winning bidders are hiring up.

Heritage also showed its ignorance in understanding macro-economics. If you create one job for one person, there's a positive ripple effect as that money moves through the economy. If a winning bidder hires one person, and makes a capital investment into some big Deere piece of equipment, more than one job is being created. CBO is non partisan. Heritage are a bunch of Scaife funded hacks.

Heritage debunked nothing. All they did was give out a bunch of bogus talking points.

You haven't quite reached the level of RDean or Chris or Modbert in your ignorance, stupidity and unwillingness to learn.
But you're close. Very close.

I'm not the one who points to some ignorant Heritage Foundation spin job, and claim it debunks the CBO report. Without looking through all the proposals, they have no idea how much goes to things like capital equipment or schedule. They're also boneheaded thinking that creating a job only affects one person's economic situation. They show a complete cluelessness of macroeconomics.

No, that would be you. It looks like cluelessness to you because you are clueless about economics.

 

[California Girl]

I wonder if, instead of using cars, the left will try clicking their heels together three times, closing their eyes and repeating 'there's no place like home'.

It is about as valid as most of their talking points of late.

 

[Dick Tuck]

You haven't quite reached the level of RDean or Chris or Modbert in your ignorance, stupidity and unwillingness to learn.
But you're close. Very close.

I'm not the one who points to some ignorant Heritage Foundation spin job, and claim it debunks the CBO report. Without looking through all the proposals, they have no idea how much goes to things like capital equipment or schedule. They're also boneheaded thinking that creating a job only affects one person's economic situation. They show a complete cluelessness of macroeconomics.

No, that would be you. It looks like cluelessness to you because you are clueless about economics.

I didn't point to a set of Heritage Foundation talking points, and claim that it "debunked" the nonpartisan CBO report. You do know what happens to Richard Mellon Scaife supported foundations when they cross him, don't you? Remember him defunding the American Spectator when they mocked his star reporter, Chris Ruddy, on his tin foil theories about Vince Foster?