Obama Stimulus had zero impact

[The Rabbi]

It is nothing short of astonishing that the lefties here are perfectly OK posting their opinions about an article that they haven't read.

You go ahead and believe what makes you happy. Some people live in the real world where work and working for the nation matters.


"I cannot help fearing that men may reach a point where they look on every new theory as a danger, every innovation as a toilsome trouble, every social advance as a first step toward revolution, and that they may absolutely refuse to move at all for fear of being carried off their feet. The prospect really does frighten me that they may finally become so engrossed in a cowardly love of immediate pleasures that their interest in their own future and in that of their descendants may vanish, and that they will prefer tamely to follow the course of their destiny rather than make a sudden energetic effort necessary to set things right." Alexis De Tocqueville

I believe that reading the article before you actually post here in this thread will make you sound like someone worth debating. As it is, you sound like an ignorant jerk-off.

 

[Common Sense]

The Retarded Rabbi hasnt read the article either, since he fails to defend anything it. Still waiting jackass...

ive counted at least 3 people who want your opinion. seeing as how you have none. i can only assume you havent read it either.

 

[The Rabbi]

The Retarded Rabbi hasnt read the article either, since he fails to defend anything it. Still waiting jackass...

ive counted at least 3 people who want your opinion. seeing as how you have none. i can only assume you havent read it either.

Read the article.

 

[Common Sense]

Give your opinion




------------
The Rabbi - proving hes a retard and moron one post at a time

 

[The Rabbi]

Give your opinion

You're posting in a thread about an article you could easily (maybe) read and instead you spend post after post on things that are irrelevant. And I'm the moron???

Read the article.

 

[NYcarbineer]

did you read the article for god sakes?

It's a subscription article. How did you get it?

If you haven't read the article why are you posting here?

Why are you demanding that people who aren't subscribed to the WSJ read the article?

 

[Common Sense]

you still fail to answer my questions time and time again. quit stonewalling and answer the damn questions.

 

[Common Sense]

It's a subscription article. How did you get it?

If you haven't read the article why are you posting here?

Why are you demanding that people who aren't subscribed to the WSJ read the article?

he hasnt read the article either, because if he did he would be able to defend himself. since he cant i can only surmise that he is either a) retarded and cant comprehend english (my money is here) or b) he actually never read the article.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Obamanomics is an Epic Fail. His only success was that he pulled that stupid Keynesian Theory down with him

LOL, I know Frank didn't read the article, and he's woohooing it. lol

 

[NYcarbineer]

If you haven't read the article why are you posting here?

Why are you demanding that people who aren't subscribed to the WSJ read the article?

he hasnt read the article either, because if he did he would be able to defend himself. since he cant i can only surmise that he is either a) retarded and cant comprehend english (my money is here) or b) he actually never read the article.

The article has a comment section for readers/subscribers. I don't know why the fuck he didn't post there if he wants to argue with people who read it.

 

[The Rabbi]

It's a subscription article. How did you get it?

If you haven't read the article why are you posting here?

Why are you demanding that people who aren't subscribed to the WSJ read the article?

Because commenting on an article you haven't read makes you duuuummbb.

 

[Common Sense]

If you haven't read the article why are you posting here?

Why are you demanding that people who aren't subscribed to the WSJ read the article?

Because commenting on an article you haven't read makes you duuuummbb.

so where is your commentary on the article? oooohhhhhh that right you dont have any. so by youre own logic you just called yourself dumb

 

[rightwinger]

If you haven't read the article why are you posting here?

Why are you demanding that people who aren't subscribed to the WSJ read the article?

he hasnt read the article either, because if he did he would be able to defend himself. since he cant i can only surmise that he is either a) retarded and cant comprehend english (my money is here) or b) he actually never read the article.

Rabbi has read the article but is intentionally misrepresenting it to meet his twisted agenda

That is how the Rabbi operates...get used to it

 

[The Rabbi]

you still fail to answer my questions time and time again. quit stonewalling and answer the damn questions.

This isn't my answering your questions.
This is a discussion of an article that appeared this AM in teh WSJ by two prominent economists that kicked to the curb the notion that Obama's stimulus accomplished anything other than swelling the debt. If you'd like to discuss their specific reasons you'll need to:
Read the article.

 

[onecut39]

Column in the WSJ today by two prominent economists examined the Keynesian idea of gov't spending filling the gap in private demand in regards to the stimulus. What they found was government grants to states and localities merely substituted for local borrowing. IOW, there was no stimulus achieved at all. Aggregate demand was the same as before. The Obama stimulus was, again, proof that Keynesianism is simply wrong.
John F. Cogan and John B. Taylor: The Obama Stimulus Impact? Zero - WSJ.com

The stimulus was 40% tax cuts. What does that say about that policy?

 

[Common Sense]

you still fail to answer my questions time and time again. quit stonewalling and answer the damn questions.

This isn't my answering your questions.
This is a discussion of an article that appeared this AM in teh WSJ by two prominent economists that kicked to the curb the notion that Obama's stimulus accomplished anything other than swelling the debt. If you'd like to discuss their specific reasons you'll need to:
Read the article.

all day i have asked for your opinion on what makes their theory the right one?

response: read the article.

well seeing as how you havent mentioned or quoted one word from the article all day. i posted link after link refuting that the net job creation was 0. but somewhere in your retarded mind, that didnt process. so answer the criticism or

 

[The Rabbi]

Column in the WSJ today by two prominent economists examined the Keynesian idea of gov't spending filling the gap in private demand in regards to the stimulus. What they found was government grants to states and localities merely substituted for local borrowing. IOW, there was no stimulus achieved at all. Aggregate demand was the same as before. The Obama stimulus was, again, proof that Keynesianism is simply wrong.
John F. Cogan and John B. Taylor: The Obama Stimulus Impact? Zero - WSJ.com

The stimulus was 40% tax cuts. What does that say about that policy?

Read the article.

 

[The Rabbi]

you still fail to answer my questions time and time again. quit stonewalling and answer the damn questions.

This isn't my answering your questions.
This is a discussion of an article that appeared this AM in teh WSJ by two prominent economists that kicked to the curb the notion that Obama's stimulus accomplished anything other than swelling the debt. If you'd like to discuss their specific reasons you'll need to:
Read the article.

all day i have asked for your opinion on what makes their theory the right one?

response: read the article.

well seeing as how you havent mentioned or quoted one word from the article all day. i posted link after link refuting that the net job creation was 0. but somewhere in your retarded mind, that didnt process. so answer the criticism or

This isn't about who can post the most links.
It is about an article by two prominent economists on why the Obama stimulus was a disaster. To find out, you will have to read the article.

 

[Common Sense]

like i said, still no opinions or anything of substance. once again the retarded rabbi proves to the USMB his stupidity.

 

[Trajan]

Column in the WSJ today by two prominent economists examined the Keynesian idea of gov't spending filling the gap in private demand in regards to the stimulus. What they found was government grants to states and localities merely substituted for local borrowing. IOW, there was no stimulus achieved at all. Aggregate demand was the same as before. The Obama stimulus was, again, proof that Keynesianism is simply wrong.
John F. Cogan and John B. Taylor: The Obama Stimulus Impact? Zero - WSJ.com

Most of the stimulus to the states and local government was used to pay worker salaries. Without the stimulus there would have been massive layoffs of both both government employees and contractors. Borrowing money to pay workers is not an option in most states.

The stimulus saved jobs and created jobs, but it was not large enough to overcome the number jobs being lost. The stimulus would have had to be in the order of 1.5 trillion to have the impact that the Democrats projected. Congress would not have approved a stimulus of this size.

so, it appears you have a better look at this then krugman?

and the point of the piece was and is; the stimulus money did not do what he sold it as and for months used as a prop, till he found out there aren't shovel ready jobs, and as they attest, this is all harmful, so they stayed on the payroll okay so? where and when does that end, you cannot keep funding what one cannot afford on credit....just rearranging the deck chairs hoping he won't be ion the boat when it sinks, but that 9.8% caught him flatfooted. And its gonna get worse., all we did is blow money that we h now have to pay interest on and has not SOLVED a thing.