Why we want stimulus now and worry about deficits later

[saveliberty]

How could the stimulus do that?

Stimulus paid for the positions to keep going short term. The resources to pay for the jobs long term have not materialized. Therefore, job losses. Your big on fixing symptoms, not so much on underlying causes.

So stimulus caused the job loss by delaying it?

Thanks for proving my point.

 

[ilia25]

Do I? I asked you a simple question -- what was happening to the unemployment before it reached 7.8% in Jan. 2009. Do you, or do you not know the answer?

I should answer your question, but you should duck mine?

Because your question means you either don't know what was happening to the unemployment in the months before the stimulus was signed -- in which case you should learn that before it makes sense to continue this discussion. Or you know, but try to pretend otherwise.

So which is it?

 

[Uncensored2008]

Because your question means you either don't know what was happening to the unemployment in the months before the stimulus was signed -- in which case you should learn that before it makes sense to continue this discussion. Or you know, but try to pretend otherwise.

So which is it?

You're a simpleton and a partisan hack.

I assume you are part of the Obama Truthiness Squads? Nice, crisp brown shirt, with a King Shibazz billy club......

 

[ilia25]

Because your question means you either don't know what was happening to the unemployment in the months before the stimulus was signed -- in which case you should learn that before it makes sense to continue this discussion. Or you know, but try to pretend otherwise.

So which is it?

You're a simpleton and a partisan hack.

I assume you are part of the Obama Truthiness Squads? Nice, crisp brown shirt, with a King Shibazz billy club......

Thought so You deflate down the moment I ask you to reconcile your claims with all the facts, not just the ones you have cherry picked.

 

[saveliberty]

Because your question means you either don't know what was happening to the unemployment in the months before the stimulus was signed -- in which case you should learn that before it makes sense to continue this discussion. Or you know, but try to pretend otherwise.

So which is it?

You're a simpleton and a partisan hack.

I assume you are part of the Obama Truthiness Squads? Nice, crisp brown shirt, with a King Shibazz billy club......

Thought so You deflate down the moment I ask you to reconcile your claims with all the facts, not just the ones you have cherry picked.

All this, just to avoid answering a question. I can tell who's hiding and it isn't Uncensored.

 

[ilia25]

You're a simpleton and a partisan hack.

I assume you are part of the Obama Truthiness Squads? Nice, crisp brown shirt, with a King Shibazz billy club......

Thought so You deflate down the moment I ask you to reconcile your claims with all the facts, not just the ones you have cherry picked.

All this, just to avoid answering a question. I can tell who's hiding and it isn't Uncensored.

What question I did not answer?

 

[hortysir]

Japan never had high unemployment. So maybe their stimulus wasn't really a failure?

Quoting you:

The only reason for having a stimulus is reducing a high unemployment.



What was the reason for Japan's stimulus plan, then?

You should ask Japanese -- but my guess they wanted stimulus to prevent the unemployment from rising too high. And it didn't.

So Japanese stimuli could have helped -- and they sure didn't make it worse.

You didn't claim that stimulus is used to slow unemployment growth.
You claimed that it's used to lower already high unemployment.


Lemme guess: I'm nit-picking or grasping at straws, right?
nope
You made a bullshit claim and can't support it. Simple.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Thought so You deflate down the moment I ask you to reconcile your claims with all the facts, not just the ones you have cherry picked.

Listen up cocksucker, the way this works is that if you want civil debate, then you answer the questions posed instead of building your moronic straw man arguments.

That simple enough for a ThinkProgress troll to grasp?

 

[ilia25]

Quoting you:

The only reason for having a stimulus is reducing a high unemployment.



What was the reason for Japan's stimulus plan, then?

You should ask Japanese -- but my guess they wanted stimulus to prevent the unemployment from rising too high. And it didn't.

So Japanese stimuli could have helped -- and they sure didn't make it worse.

You didn't claim that stimulus is used to slow unemployment growth.
You claimed that it's used to lower already high unemployment.


Lemme guess: I'm nit-picking or grasping at straws, right?
nope
You made a bullshit claim and can't support it. Simple.

Of course you are nit-picking. If stimulus can lower the unemployment, then the same processes also can be used to make it rising slower.

 

[saveliberty]

Thought so You deflate down the moment I ask you to reconcile your claims with all the facts, not just the ones you have cherry picked.

All this, just to avoid answering a question. I can tell who's hiding and it isn't Uncensored.

What question I did not answer?

Evasion, deflection, misrepresentation and a whole host of other tools used by those who can't face the truth. Well, I can assure you, I'll be three times a day or more to correct all the crap you throw out. I am quite certain a few more of us will be here as well.

 

[starcraftzzz]

Thought so You deflate down the moment I ask you to reconcile your claims with all the facts, not just the ones you have cherry picked.

Listen up cocksucker, the way this works is that if you want civil debate, then you answer the questions posed instead of building your moronic straw man arguments.

That simple enough for a ThinkProgress troll to grasp?

Well considered reality is to complicated for you to grasp; perhaps you should go back to second grade and get an educaiton and then comeback

 

[saveliberty]

Thought so You deflate down the moment I ask you to reconcile your claims with all the facts, not just the ones you have cherry picked.

Listen up cocksucker, the way this works is that if you want civil debate, then you answer the questions posed instead of building your moronic straw man arguments.

That simple enough for a ThinkProgress troll to grasp?

Well considered reality is to complicated for you to grasp; perhaps you should go back to second grade and get an educaiton and then comeback

Speaking of grade school, is kindergarten where you picked up starcraftzzz?

 

[ilia25]

Thought so You deflate down the moment I ask you to reconcile your claims with all the facts, not just the ones you have cherry picked.

Listen up cocksucker, the way this works is that if you want civil debate, then you answer the questions posed instead of building your moronic straw man arguments.

That simple enough for a ThinkProgress troll to grasp?

What questions?

You are incapable of having a civil argument. I have answered all your questions 1000 times, that is the only reason you are having a meltdown.

By the time ARRA was signed by Obama the US economy had been losing jobs fast for 5 straight months. And just 3 months later the bleeding stopped. Those are the facts that make it impossible for you to have a civil debate.

 

[saveliberty]

What questions?

You are incapable of having a civil argument. I have answered all your questions 1000 times, that is the only reason you are having a meltdown.

By the time ARRA was signed by Obama the US economy had been losing jobs fast for 5 straight months. And just 3 months later the bleeding stopped. Those are the facts that make it impossible for you to have a civil debate.

More truth evasion.

Unemployment rate

2008 5.8
2009 9.3
2010 9.6

United States Unemployment Rate 1920–2010 — Infoplease.com

 

[editec]

Why? Keynes reasoning was the same -- deficit spending to reduce the high unemployment, then, after achieveing the full employment, work on reducing the debt to GDP ratio (if necessary).

The deficit spending of Porkulus INCREASED unemployment.

What part of that do you not grasp?

\

How about the part where what you said isn't true?

Run along troll.

 

[Uncensored2008]

What questions?

So, the unemployment rate did not rise from 7.8% before the Porkulus to 9.3% after?

Is that your claim?

You are deliberately misrepresenting the facts. You are saying you don't know what was happening to the unemployment before it reached 7.8%, is that your claim?

Instead of answering the question and dealing with the facts, you built a straw man. Did UE rise from 7.8% before the Porkulus to 9.3% after?

Yes or no?

You are incapable of having a civil argument. I have answered all your questions 1000 times, that is the only reason you are having a meltdown.

You have erected a straw man to obscure the established fact that the Porkulus did absolutely nothing to mitigate the rise in unemployment. We saw a greater increase AFTER than before.

Due to your partisanship, you refuse to acknowledge established fact.

By the time ARRA was signed by Obama the US economy had been losing jobs fast for 5 straight months. And just 3 months later the bleeding stopped.

Stopped? We were above 9% UE through November 2011. The ONLY reason it reduced at that time is that the BOLS purged millions of out of work people from the stats as "no longer looking for work."

We are in the worst employment situation in 30 years, and it isn't getting any better.

Those are the facts that make it impossible for you to have a civil debate.

Facts are exactly what you refuse to acknowledge.

 

[Uncensored2008]

More truth evasion.

Unemployment rate

2008 5.8
2009 9.3
2010 9.6

United States Unemployment Rate 1920–2010 — Infoplease.com

Hardly shows "the bleeding stopped after 3 months."

 

[Uncensored2008]

How about the part where what you said isn't true?

Well, Obama Akbar.

"Truth" is that which serves the party - mere facts have no meaning to you.

So Sparky, Unemployment DIDN'T rise after Porkulus, is that what you're lying? Seriously?

Run along troll.

ROFL

Irony.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Thought so You deflate down the moment I ask you to reconcile your claims with all the facts, not just the ones you have cherry picked.

Listen up cocksucker, the way this works is that if you want civil debate, then you answer the questions posed instead of building your moronic straw man arguments.

That simple enough for a ThinkProgress troll to grasp?

What questions?

You are incapable of having a civil argument. I have answered all your questions 1000 times, that is the only reason you are having a meltdown.

By the time ARRA was signed by Obama the US economy had been losing jobs fast for 5 straight months. And just 3 months later the bleeding stopped. Those are the facts that make it impossible for you to have a civil debate.

To date you have not posted a single link to a fact.
When the discussion does not go your way, you either attack with insults or produce a non-sequitur.
I asked you in another thread if you have noticed that 90% of the posters on here either disagree with you or just consider you free entertainment.
You failed to address that.
In keeping with the lib play book, when asked specific questions which require straight factual answers, you provide the pat liberal reply of "what questions".
Around here, it doesn't work that way. A question was put to you. In order for you to maintain any semblance of credibility it is recommended you answer the question(s).
Failing that, you provide nothing but idle banter.

 

[ilia25]

What questions?

So, the unemployment rate did not rise from 7.8% before the Porkulus to 9.3% after?

Is that your claim?

No, this was not my claim. You are putting words in my mouth.

You are deliberately misrepresenting the facts. You are saying you don't know what was happening to the unemployment before it reached 7.8%, is that your claim?

Instead of answering the question and dealing with the facts, you built a straw man. Did UE rise from 7.8% before the Porkulus to 9.3% after?

Yes or no?

Your numbers are bad, but the unemployment did rise after the stimulus was signed.

You have erected a straw man to obscure the established fact that the Porkulus did absolutely nothing to mitigate the rise in unemployment. We saw a greater increase AFTER than before.

Bullshit.

By the time ARRA was signed by Obama the US economy had been losing jobs fast for 5 straight months. And just 3 months later the bleeding stopped.

Stopped? We were above 9% UE through November 2011.

Yes, stopped. You are deliberately misrepresenting facts by ignoring how the unemployment rate was changing before ARRA was enacted and after.

The economy was losing around 800,000 jobs each month since May 2008. After ARRA was signed the bleeding slowed down dramatically, then stopped:

http://data.bls.gov/

You keep avoiding those facts because you are either a moron, or a liar.