Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Nice strawman. I'm almost impressed. But the stimulus wasn't just about saving/creating jobs. So applying 100% of the full cost of it to jobs is somewhat misleading."Everyone except flacks for the White House knows that the 2009 stimulus package failed miserably to produce the promised results," Lindsey wrote. "But even if you buy the White House's argument that the $800 billion package created 3 million jobs, that works out to $266,000 per job. Taxing or borrowing $266,000 from the private sector to create a single job is simply not a cost effective way of putting America back to work. The long-term debt burden of that $266,000 swamps any benefit that the single job created might provide."
Obama s Stimulus A Documented Failure CNS News
So because the stimulus didn't provide all that was promised, the economy would have been better off without it? That is completely false, and it is so absurd that only a former economic advisor for George W. Bush, essentially one of the people responsible for the Great Recession, could say it with a straight face. Lindsey's old boss W, by the way, was not against increasing spending to counter the effects of economic downturn. He himself increased the deficit by several times in his final fiscal budget.
Kind of makes Lindsey's comments now seem pretty hypocritical.
Sorry, but you'll have a hard time arguing with $266,000 per job (or do you want to take a shot at it ?).
Would you have liked a check for that amount ?
The stimulus was costly with no results.
Nobody can argue the other path would have been worse because we have no way of knowing. Pure and simple.
I would have liked to see GM fail and the economy contract further.
Nice strawman. I'm almost impressed. But the stimulus wasn't just about saving/creating jobs. So applying 100% of the full cost of it to jobs is somewhat misleading."Everyone except flacks for the White House knows that the 2009 stimulus package failed miserably to produce the promised results," Lindsey wrote. "But even if you buy the White House's argument that the $800 billion package created 3 million jobs, that works out to $266,000 per job. Taxing or borrowing $266,000 from the private sector to create a single job is simply not a cost effective way of putting America back to work. The long-term debt burden of that $266,000 swamps any benefit that the single job created might provide."
Obama s Stimulus A Documented Failure CNS News
So because the stimulus didn't provide all that was promised, the economy would have been better off without it? That is completely false, and it is so absurd that only a former economic advisor for George W. Bush, essentially one of the people responsible for the Great Recession, could say it with a straight face. Lindsey's old boss W, by the way, was not against increasing spending to counter the effects of economic downturn. He himself increased the deficit by several times in his final fiscal budget.
Kind of makes Lindsey's comments now seem pretty hypocritical.
Sorry, but you'll have a hard time arguing with $266,000 per job (or do you want to take a shot at it ?).
Would you have liked a check for that amount ?
The stimulus was costly with no results.
Nobody can argue the other path would have been worse because we have no way of knowing. Pure and simple.
I would have liked to see GM fail and the economy contract further.
ARRA: An act making supplemental appropriations for job preservation and creation, infrastructure investment, energy efficiency and science, assistance to the unemployed, State, and local fiscal stabilization, for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2009, and for other purposes.
there’s much we don’t know.
dear half the economists are university liberals or Marxists so why does it matter if they say taking money and giving money is somehow stimulative?
We know liberals will be stupid. Does being an economist make them less liberal and Marxist?
Each individual of the society has a right to be protected by it in the enjoyment of his life, liberty, and property, according to standing laws. He is obliged, consequently, to contribute his share to the expense of this protection; and to give his personal service, or an equivalent, when necessary. But no part of the property of any individual can, with justice, be taken from him, or applied to public uses, without his own consent, or that of the representative body of the people. In fine, the people of this commonwealth are not controllable by any other laws than those to which their constitutional representative body have given their consent.
Ben Franklin
We're actually talking about a bigger issue than whether or not rich people deserve to be taxed more than others, but okay.
In a letter to James Madison in 1785, for instance, Thomas Jefferson suggested that taxes could be used to reduce “the enormous inequality” between rich and poor. He wrote that one way of “silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise.”
Madison later spoke in favor of using laws to “reduce extreme wealth towards a state of mediocrity (meaning the middle) and raise extreme indigence towards a state of comfort.”
“The rich alone use imported articles, and on these alone the whole taxes of the general government are levied,” Jefferson wrote in 1811. “The poor man, who uses nothing but what is made in his own farm or family, will pay nothing. (With) our revenues applied to canals, roads, schools, etc., the farmer will see his government supported, his children educated and the face of his country made a paradise by the contributions of the rich alone, without his being called on to spend a cent from his earnings.”
I've never argued with taxing the rich more.
I've always said: I'll vote for 1 dollar of tax increases for ever 4 dollars of real spending cuts.
Not an issue for me.
BTW:
Franklin said:
There is no country in the world where so many provisions are established for them; so many hospitals to receive them when they are sick or lame, founded and maintained by voluntary charities; so many alms-houses for the aged of both sexes, together with a solemn general law made by the rich to subject their estates to a heavy tax for the support of the poor. Under all these obligations, are our poor modest, humble, and thankful; and do they use their best endeavors to maintain themselves, and lighten our shoulders of this burthen? On the contrary, I affirm that there is no country in the world in which the poor are more idle, dissolute, drunken, and insolent. The day you passed that act, you took away from before their eyes the greatest of all inducements to industry, frugality, and sobriety, by giving them a dependence on somewhat else than a careful accumulation during youth and health, for support in age or sickness. In short, you offered a premium for the encouragement of idleness, and you should not now wonder that it has had its effect in the increase of poverty.
I shouldn't stand by what was in the bill??Nice strawman. I'm almost impressed. But the stimulus wasn't just about saving/creating jobs. So applying 100% of the full cost of it to jobs is somewhat misleading."Everyone except flacks for the White House knows that the 2009 stimulus package failed miserably to produce the promised results," Lindsey wrote. "But even if you buy the White House's argument that the $800 billion package created 3 million jobs, that works out to $266,000 per job. Taxing or borrowing $266,000 from the private sector to create a single job is simply not a cost effective way of putting America back to work. The long-term debt burden of that $266,000 swamps any benefit that the single job created might provide."
Obama s Stimulus A Documented Failure CNS News
So because the stimulus didn't provide all that was promised, the economy would have been better off without it? That is completely false, and it is so absurd that only a former economic advisor for George W. Bush, essentially one of the people responsible for the Great Recession, could say it with a straight face. Lindsey's old boss W, by the way, was not against increasing spending to counter the effects of economic downturn. He himself increased the deficit by several times in his final fiscal budget.
Kind of makes Lindsey's comments now seem pretty hypocritical.
Sorry, but you'll have a hard time arguing with $266,000 per job (or do you want to take a shot at it ?).
Would you have liked a check for that amount ?
The stimulus was costly with no results.
Nobody can argue the other path would have been worse because we have no way of knowing. Pure and simple.
I would have liked to see GM fail and the economy contract further.
ARRA: An act making supplemental appropriations for job preservation and creation, infrastructure investment, energy efficiency and science, assistance to the unemployed, State, and local fiscal stabilization, for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2009, and for other purposes.
You can't seriously stand behind that.
Really.
All you heard about was how it saved all these jobs.......
24/7 bleating and bullshit.
Each individual of the society has a right to be protected by it in the enjoyment of his life, liberty, and property, according to standing laws. He is obliged, consequently, to contribute his share to the expense of this protection; and to give his personal service, or an equivalent, when necessary. But no part of the property of any individual can, with justice, be taken from him, or applied to public uses, without his own consent, or that of the representative body of the people. In fine, the people of this commonwealth are not controllable by any other laws than those to which their constitutional representative body have given their consent.
Ben Franklin
We're actually talking about a bigger issue than whether or not rich people deserve to be taxed more than others, but okay.
In a letter to James Madison in 1785, for instance, Thomas Jefferson suggested that taxes could be used to reduce “the enormous inequality” between rich and poor. He wrote that one way of “silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise.”
Madison later spoke in favor of using laws to “reduce extreme wealth towards a state of mediocrity (meaning the middle) and raise extreme indigence towards a state of comfort.”
“The rich alone use imported articles, and on these alone the whole taxes of the general government are levied,” Jefferson wrote in 1811. “The poor man, who uses nothing but what is made in his own farm or family, will pay nothing. (With) our revenues applied to canals, roads, schools, etc., the farmer will see his government supported, his children educated and the face of his country made a paradise by the contributions of the rich alone, without his being called on to spend a cent from his earnings.”
I've never argued with taxing the rich more.
I've always said: I'll vote for 1 dollar of tax increases for ever 4 dollars of real spending cuts.
Not an issue for me.
BTW:
Franklin said:
There is no country in the world where so many provisions are established for them; so many hospitals to receive them when they are sick or lame, founded and maintained by voluntary charities; so many alms-houses for the aged of both sexes, together with a solemn general law made by the rich to subject their estates to a heavy tax for the support of the poor. Under all these obligations, are our poor modest, humble, and thankful; and do they use their best endeavors to maintain themselves, and lighten our shoulders of this burthen? On the contrary, I affirm that there is no country in the world in which the poor are more idle, dissolute, drunken, and insolent. The day you passed that act, you took away from before their eyes the greatest of all inducements to industry, frugality, and sobriety, by giving them a dependence on somewhat else than a careful accumulation during youth and health, for support in age or sickness. In short, you offered a premium for the encouragement of idleness, and you should not now wonder that it has had its effect in the increase of poverty.
Yes, AFTER Dubya gutted revenues by 25%+ , why not cut spending 25% then try to get 6% back in revenues, lol
I shouldn't stand by what was in the bill??Nice strawman. I'm almost impressed. But the stimulus wasn't just about saving/creating jobs. So applying 100% of the full cost of it to jobs is somewhat misleading."Everyone except flacks for the White House knows that the 2009 stimulus package failed miserably to produce the promised results," Lindsey wrote. "But even if you buy the White House's argument that the $800 billion package created 3 million jobs, that works out to $266,000 per job. Taxing or borrowing $266,000 from the private sector to create a single job is simply not a cost effective way of putting America back to work. The long-term debt burden of that $266,000 swamps any benefit that the single job created might provide."
Obama s Stimulus A Documented Failure CNS News
So because the stimulus didn't provide all that was promised, the economy would have been better off without it? That is completely false, and it is so absurd that only a former economic advisor for George W. Bush, essentially one of the people responsible for the Great Recession, could say it with a straight face. Lindsey's old boss W, by the way, was not against increasing spending to counter the effects of economic downturn. He himself increased the deficit by several times in his final fiscal budget.
Kind of makes Lindsey's comments now seem pretty hypocritical.
Sorry, but you'll have a hard time arguing with $266,000 per job (or do you want to take a shot at it ?).
Would you have liked a check for that amount ?
The stimulus was costly with no results.
Nobody can argue the other path would have been worse because we have no way of knowing. Pure and simple.
I would have liked to see GM fail and the economy contract further.
ARRA: An act making supplemental appropriations for job preservation and creation, infrastructure investment, energy efficiency and science, assistance to the unemployed, State, and local fiscal stabilization, for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2009, and for other purposes.
You can't seriously stand behind that.
Really.
All you heard about was how it saved all these jobs.......
24/7 bleating and bullshit.
You're suggesting I should take your word over the legislation itself?
Each individual of the society has a right to be protected by it in the enjoyment of his life, liberty, and property, according to standing laws. He is obliged, consequently, to contribute his share to the expense of this protection; and to give his personal service, or an equivalent, when necessary. But no part of the property of any individual can, with justice, be taken from him, or applied to public uses, without his own consent, or that of the representative body of the people. In fine, the people of this commonwealth are not controllable by any other laws than those to which their constitutional representative body have given their consent.
Ben Franklin
We're actually talking about a bigger issue than whether or not rich people deserve to be taxed more than others, but okay.
In a letter to James Madison in 1785, for instance, Thomas Jefferson suggested that taxes could be used to reduce “the enormous inequality” between rich and poor. He wrote that one way of “silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise.”
Madison later spoke in favor of using laws to “reduce extreme wealth towards a state of mediocrity (meaning the middle) and raise extreme indigence towards a state of comfort.”
“The rich alone use imported articles, and on these alone the whole taxes of the general government are levied,” Jefferson wrote in 1811. “The poor man, who uses nothing but what is made in his own farm or family, will pay nothing. (With) our revenues applied to canals, roads, schools, etc., the farmer will see his government supported, his children educated and the face of his country made a paradise by the contributions of the rich alone, without his being called on to spend a cent from his earnings.”
I've never argued with taxing the rich more.
I've always said: I'll vote for 1 dollar of tax increases for ever 4 dollars of real spending cuts.
Not an issue for me.
BTW:
Franklin said:
There is no country in the world where so many provisions are established for them; so many hospitals to receive them when they are sick or lame, founded and maintained by voluntary charities; so many alms-houses for the aged of both sexes, together with a solemn general law made by the rich to subject their estates to a heavy tax for the support of the poor. Under all these obligations, are our poor modest, humble, and thankful; and do they use their best endeavors to maintain themselves, and lighten our shoulders of this burthen? On the contrary, I affirm that there is no country in the world in which the poor are more idle, dissolute, drunken, and insolent. The day you passed that act, you took away from before their eyes the greatest of all inducements to industry, frugality, and sobriety, by giving them a dependence on somewhat else than a careful accumulation during youth and health, for support in age or sickness. In short, you offered a premium for the encouragement of idleness, and you should not now wonder that it has had its effect in the increase of poverty.
Yes, AFTER Dubya gutted revenues by 25%+ , why not cut spending 25% then try to get 6% back in revenues, lol
And you are arguing with who over what ?
You make a lot of shit up.
The stimulus was a gross failure. Yes, the economy would have been better off without it. I guess George Washington's doctors thought if they had put more leeches on the old general he would have survived."Everyone except flacks for the White House knows that the 2009 stimulus package failed miserably to produce the promised results," Lindsey wrote. "But even if you buy the White House's argument that the $800 billion package created 3 million jobs, that works out to $266,000 per job. Taxing or borrowing $266,000 from the private sector to create a single job is simply not a cost effective way of putting America back to work. The long-term debt burden of that $266,000 swamps any benefit that the single job created might provide."
Obama s Stimulus A Documented Failure CNS News
So because the stimulus didn't provide all that was promised, the economy would have been better off without it? That is completely false, and it is so absurd that only a former economic advisor for George W. Bush, essentially one of the people responsible for the Great Recession, could say it with a straight face. Lindsey's old boss W, by the way, was not against increasing spending to counter the effects of economic downturn. He himself increased the deficit by several times in his final fiscal budget.
Kind of makes Lindsey's comments now seem pretty hypocritical.
I shouldn't stand by what was in the bill??Nice strawman. I'm almost impressed. But the stimulus wasn't just about saving/creating jobs. So applying 100% of the full cost of it to jobs is somewhat misleading."Everyone except flacks for the White House knows that the 2009 stimulus package failed miserably to produce the promised results," Lindsey wrote. "But even if you buy the White House's argument that the $800 billion package created 3 million jobs, that works out to $266,000 per job. Taxing or borrowing $266,000 from the private sector to create a single job is simply not a cost effective way of putting America back to work. The long-term debt burden of that $266,000 swamps any benefit that the single job created might provide."
Obama s Stimulus A Documented Failure CNS News
So because the stimulus didn't provide all that was promised, the economy would have been better off without it? That is completely false, and it is so absurd that only a former economic advisor for George W. Bush, essentially one of the people responsible for the Great Recession, could say it with a straight face. Lindsey's old boss W, by the way, was not against increasing spending to counter the effects of economic downturn. He himself increased the deficit by several times in his final fiscal budget.
Kind of makes Lindsey's comments now seem pretty hypocritical.
Sorry, but you'll have a hard time arguing with $266,000 per job (or do you want to take a shot at it ?).
Would you have liked a check for that amount ?
The stimulus was costly with no results.
Nobody can argue the other path would have been worse because we have no way of knowing. Pure and simple.
I would have liked to see GM fail and the economy contract further.
ARRA: An act making supplemental appropriations for job preservation and creation, infrastructure investment, energy efficiency and science, assistance to the unemployed, State, and local fiscal stabilization, for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2009, and for other purposes.
You can't seriously stand behind that.
Really.
All you heard about was how it saved all these jobs.......
24/7 bleating and bullshit.
You're suggesting I should take your word over the legislation itself?
Each individual of the society has a right to be protected by it in the enjoyment of his life, liberty, and property, according to standing laws. He is obliged, consequently, to contribute his share to the expense of this protection; and to give his personal service, or an equivalent, when necessary. But no part of the property of any individual can, with justice, be taken from him, or applied to public uses, without his own consent, or that of the representative body of the people. In fine, the people of this commonwealth are not controllable by any other laws than those to which their constitutional representative body have given their consent.
Ben Franklin
We're actually talking about a bigger issue than whether or not rich people deserve to be taxed more than others, but okay.
In a letter to James Madison in 1785, for instance, Thomas Jefferson suggested that taxes could be used to reduce “the enormous inequality” between rich and poor. He wrote that one way of “silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise.”
Madison later spoke in favor of using laws to “reduce extreme wealth towards a state of mediocrity (meaning the middle) and raise extreme indigence towards a state of comfort.”
“The rich alone use imported articles, and on these alone the whole taxes of the general government are levied,” Jefferson wrote in 1811. “The poor man, who uses nothing but what is made in his own farm or family, will pay nothing. (With) our revenues applied to canals, roads, schools, etc., the farmer will see his government supported, his children educated and the face of his country made a paradise by the contributions of the rich alone, without his being called on to spend a cent from his earnings.”
I've never argued with taxing the rich more.
I've always said: I'll vote for 1 dollar of tax increases for ever 4 dollars of real spending cuts.
Not an issue for me.
BTW:
Franklin said:
There is no country in the world where so many provisions are established for them; so many hospitals to receive them when they are sick or lame, founded and maintained by voluntary charities; so many alms-houses for the aged of both sexes, together with a solemn general law made by the rich to subject their estates to a heavy tax for the support of the poor. Under all these obligations, are our poor modest, humble, and thankful; and do they use their best endeavors to maintain themselves, and lighten our shoulders of this burthen? On the contrary, I affirm that there is no country in the world in which the poor are more idle, dissolute, drunken, and insolent. The day you passed that act, you took away from before their eyes the greatest of all inducements to industry, frugality, and sobriety, by giving them a dependence on somewhat else than a careful accumulation during youth and health, for support in age or sickness. In short, you offered a premium for the encouragement of idleness, and you should not now wonder that it has had its effect in the increase of poverty.
Yes, AFTER Dubya gutted revenues by 25%+ , why not cut spending 25% then try to get 6% back in revenues, lol
And you are arguing with who over what ?
You make a lot of shit up.
Stop projecting Bubba
Most economists disagree with you.I shouldn't stand by what was in the bill??Nice strawman. I'm almost impressed. But the stimulus wasn't just about saving/creating jobs. So applying 100% of the full cost of it to jobs is somewhat misleading.So because the stimulus didn't provide all that was promised, the economy would have been better off without it? That is completely false, and it is so absurd that only a former economic advisor for George W. Bush, essentially one of the people responsible for the Great Recession, could say it with a straight face. Lindsey's old boss W, by the way, was not against increasing spending to counter the effects of economic downturn. He himself increased the deficit by several times in his final fiscal budget.
Kind of makes Lindsey's comments now seem pretty hypocritical.
Sorry, but you'll have a hard time arguing with $266,000 per job (or do you want to take a shot at it ?).
Would you have liked a check for that amount ?
The stimulus was costly with no results.
Nobody can argue the other path would have been worse because we have no way of knowing. Pure and simple.
I would have liked to see GM fail and the economy contract further.
ARRA: An act making supplemental appropriations for job preservation and creation, infrastructure investment, energy efficiency and science, assistance to the unemployed, State, and local fiscal stabilization, for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2009, and for other purposes.
You can't seriously stand behind that.
Really.
All you heard about was how it saved all these jobs.......
24/7 bleating and bullshit.
You're suggesting I should take your word over the legislation itself?
If you really need to stand by the bill...be my guest.
It did little of what it said....on all accounts.
But then you can explain how it stabalized anything and how it did it.
If you like...I, frankly, don't care.
You'd be talking to an empty house.
Most economists disagree with you.I shouldn't stand by what was in the bill??Nice strawman. I'm almost impressed. But the stimulus wasn't just about saving/creating jobs. So applying 100% of the full cost of it to jobs is somewhat misleading.Sorry, but you'll have a hard time arguing with $266,000 per job (or do you want to take a shot at it ?).
Would you have liked a check for that amount ?
The stimulus was costly with no results.
Nobody can argue the other path would have been worse because we have no way of knowing. Pure and simple.
I would have liked to see GM fail and the economy contract further.
ARRA: An act making supplemental appropriations for job preservation and creation, infrastructure investment, energy efficiency and science, assistance to the unemployed, State, and local fiscal stabilization, for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2009, and for other purposes.
You can't seriously stand behind that.
Really.
All you heard about was how it saved all these jobs.......
24/7 bleating and bullshit.
You're suggesting I should take your word over the legislation itself?
If you really need to stand by the bill...be my guest.
It did little of what it said....on all accounts.
But then you can explain how it stabalized anything and how it did it.
If you like...I, frankly, don't care.
You'd be talking to an empty house.
I shouldn't stand by what was in the bill??Nice strawman. I'm almost impressed. But the stimulus wasn't just about saving/creating jobs. So applying 100% of the full cost of it to jobs is somewhat misleading.So because the stimulus didn't provide all that was promised, the economy would have been better off without it? That is completely false, and it is so absurd that only a former economic advisor for George W. Bush, essentially one of the people responsible for the Great Recession, could say it with a straight face. Lindsey's old boss W, by the way, was not against increasing spending to counter the effects of economic downturn. He himself increased the deficit by several times in his final fiscal budget.
Kind of makes Lindsey's comments now seem pretty hypocritical.
Sorry, but you'll have a hard time arguing with $266,000 per job (or do you want to take a shot at it ?).
Would you have liked a check for that amount ?
The stimulus was costly with no results.
Nobody can argue the other path would have been worse because we have no way of knowing. Pure and simple.
I would have liked to see GM fail and the economy contract further.
ARRA: An act making supplemental appropriations for job preservation and creation, infrastructure investment, energy efficiency and science, assistance to the unemployed, State, and local fiscal stabilization, for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2009, and for other purposes.
You can't seriously stand behind that.
Really.
All you heard about was how it saved all these jobs.......
24/7 bleating and bullshit.
You're suggesting I should take your word over the legislation itself?
If you really need to stand by the bill...be my guest.
It did little of what it said....on all accounts.
But then you can explain how it stabalized anything and how it did it.
If you like...I, frankly, don't care.
You'd be talking to an empty house.
So post a link confirming your claim.....Most economists disagree with you.I shouldn't stand by what was in the bill??Nice strawman. I'm almost impressed. But the stimulus wasn't just about saving/creating jobs. So applying 100% of the full cost of it to jobs is somewhat misleading.
ARRA: An act making supplemental appropriations for job preservation and creation, infrastructure investment, energy efficiency and science, assistance to the unemployed, State, and local fiscal stabilization, for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2009, and for other purposes.
You can't seriously stand behind that.
Really.
All you heard about was how it saved all these jobs.......
24/7 bleating and bullshit.
You're suggesting I should take your word over the legislation itself?
If you really need to stand by the bill...be my guest.
It did little of what it said....on all accounts.
But then you can explain how it stabalized anything and how it did it.
If you like...I, frankly, don't care.
You'd be talking to an empty house.
Do you mean academics ?
The ones in industry I know all pretty much agree it was a total disaster. That, of course, is purely anecdotal.
I shouldn't stand by what was in the bill??Nice strawman. I'm almost impressed. But the stimulus wasn't just about saving/creating jobs. So applying 100% of the full cost of it to jobs is somewhat misleading.Sorry, but you'll have a hard time arguing with $266,000 per job (or do you want to take a shot at it ?).
Would you have liked a check for that amount ?
The stimulus was costly with no results.
Nobody can argue the other path would have been worse because we have no way of knowing. Pure and simple.
I would have liked to see GM fail and the economy contract further.
ARRA: An act making supplemental appropriations for job preservation and creation, infrastructure investment, energy efficiency and science, assistance to the unemployed, State, and local fiscal stabilization, for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2009, and for other purposes.
You can't seriously stand behind that.
Really.
All you heard about was how it saved all these jobs.......
24/7 bleating and bullshit.
You're suggesting I should take your word over the legislation itself?
If you really need to stand by the bill...be my guest.
It did little of what it said....on all accounts.
But then you can explain how it stabalized anything and how it did it.
If you like...I, frankly, don't care.
You'd be talking to an empty house.
You have presented nothing. You have no data, no facts. You just keep asserting that the stimulus was a very-bad-no-good stimulus with nothing to back it up. If you want to cling to that position, fine, but you can abandon all pretense that it's based on rationality.
So post a link confirming your claim.....Most economists disagree with you.I shouldn't stand by what was in the bill??You can't seriously stand behind that.
Really.
All you heard about was how it saved all these jobs.......
24/7 bleating and bullshit.
You're suggesting I should take your word over the legislation itself?
If you really need to stand by the bill...be my guest.
It did little of what it said....on all accounts.
But then you can explain how it stabalized anything and how it did it.
If you like...I, frankly, don't care.
You'd be talking to an empty house.
Do you mean academics ?
The ones in industry I know all pretty much agree it was a total disaster. That, of course, is purely anecdotal.
The $266,000 figure has been refuted. Your acceptance of such is not required. The fact of the matter, whether you accept it or not, is that 100% of ARRA was not for job creation.I shouldn't stand by what was in the bill??Nice strawman. I'm almost impressed. But the stimulus wasn't just about saving/creating jobs. So applying 100% of the full cost of it to jobs is somewhat misleading.
ARRA: An act making supplemental appropriations for job preservation and creation, infrastructure investment, energy efficiency and science, assistance to the unemployed, State, and local fiscal stabilization, for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2009, and for other purposes.
You can't seriously stand behind that.
Really.
All you heard about was how it saved all these jobs.......
24/7 bleating and bullshit.
You're suggesting I should take your word over the legislation itself?
If you really need to stand by the bill...be my guest.
It did little of what it said....on all accounts.
But then you can explain how it stabalized anything and how it did it.
If you like...I, frankly, don't care.
You'd be talking to an empty house.
You have presented nothing. You have no data, no facts. You just keep asserting that the stimulus was a very-bad-no-good stimulus with nothing to back it up. If you want to cling to that position, fine, but you can abandon all pretense that it's based on rationality.
Are you going to argue with the 266,000 per job or not.
Those are the assertions that your "enemy" is putting out there. If you have something to back it up...go ahead.
That or make the case the 266,000 per job was acceptable.
Either way, the numbers he quoted are your own. So if those are not facts, then you should have no problem.
Keep your fucking lectures for someone who cares.
Translation .... you can't prove your opinion.So post a link confirming your claim.....Most economists disagree with you.I shouldn't stand by what was in the bill??
You're suggesting I should take your word over the legislation itself?
If you really need to stand by the bill...be my guest.
It did little of what it said....on all accounts.
But then you can explain how it stabalized anything and how it did it.
If you like...I, frankly, don't care.
You'd be talking to an empty house.
Do you mean academics ?
The ones in industry I know all pretty much agree it was a total disaster. That, of course, is purely anecdotal.
Now just why do you think I said it was anecdotal ?
The $266,000 figure has been refuted. Your acceptance of such is not required. The fact of the matter, whether you accept it or not, is that 100% of ARRA was not for job creation.I shouldn't stand by what was in the bill??You can't seriously stand behind that.
Really.
All you heard about was how it saved all these jobs.......
24/7 bleating and bullshit.
You're suggesting I should take your word over the legislation itself?
If you really need to stand by the bill...be my guest.
It did little of what it said....on all accounts.
But then you can explain how it stabalized anything and how it did it.
If you like...I, frankly, don't care.
You'd be talking to an empty house.
You have presented nothing. You have no data, no facts. You just keep asserting that the stimulus was a very-bad-no-good stimulus with nothing to back it up. If you want to cling to that position, fine, but you can abandon all pretense that it's based on rationality.
Are you going to argue with the 266,000 per job or not.
Those are the assertions that your "enemy" is putting out there. If you have something to back it up...go ahead.
That or make the case the 266,000 per job was acceptable.
Either way, the numbers he quoted are your own. So if those are not facts, then you should have no problem.
Keep your fucking lectures for someone who cares.
