Why we want stimulus now and worry about deficits later

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

How much of the spending had occured in those 3 months?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.



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



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:

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

We lost another 2.5 million jobs after ARRA. And we spent $800 billion.
And that's your example of an Obama success story?

 

[kaz]

We lost another 2.5 million jobs after ARRA. And we spent $800 billion.
And that's your example of an Obama success story?

W was responsible for a recession that started six months before he was sworn in. Obama's not responsible for a recession going on over three years under his administration. That is the stupidity that is liberalism. If they had any ideas that worked, they wouldn't need to argue that way.

 

[ilia25]

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.



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



Bullshit.

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:

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

We lost another 2.5 million jobs after ARRA. And we spent $800 billion.
And that's your example of an Obama success story?

We stopped losing 800,000 jobs each month soon after the stimulus was signed -- so yes, it was a success story.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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



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



Bullshit.



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:

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

We lost another 2.5 million jobs after ARRA. And we spent $800 billion.
And that's your example of an Obama success story?

We stopped losing 800,000 jobs each month soon after the stimulus was signed -- so yes, it was a success story.

How soon after it was signed?
How much had been spent by that time?

 

[ilia25]

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.

How much of the spending had occured in those 3 months?

The employers figured that the money are coming, so they stopped the layoffs.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

How much of the spending had occured in those 3 months?

The employers figured that the money are coming, so they stopped the layoffs.

Stopped? They got rid of another 2.5 million.
Funny definition of "stopped" you're using.

 

[ilia25]

How much of the spending had occured in those 3 months?

The employers figured that the money are coming, so they stopped the layoffs.

Stopped? They got rid of another 2.5 million.
Funny definition of "stopped" you're using.

Stop playing an idiot. When you are driving at 100 mph and start to brake, do you expect to stop instantly? Well you better not, 'cause you will be traveling another 1000 ft before the brakes can stop you.

Same with the economy -- the stimulus could not turn it around overnight. But it did it in just 3 months.

 

[Papageorgio]

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.

How much of the spending had occured in those 3 months?

The employers figured that the money are coming, so they stopped the layoffs.

Lol! That is a load of crap! If they had to layoff they had to layoff, they aren't waiting until the money shows up, what a partisan piece you are.

 

[saveliberty]

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:

Databases, Tables & Calculators by Subject

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

Stopped would show a level graph, not an ever increasing one. Your own chart shows you're lying. The chart does show that unemployment is still well above pre ARRA levels. Which indicates ARRA had little, no or actually made the situation worse.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The employers figured that the money are coming, so they stopped the layoffs.

Stopped? They got rid of another 2.5 million.
Funny definition of "stopped" you're using.

Stop playing an idiot. When you are driving at 100 mph and start to brake, do you expect to stop instantly? Well you better not, 'cause you will be traveling another 1000 ft before the brakes can stop you.

Same with the economy -- the stimulus could not turn it around overnight. But it did it in just 3 months.

You said stopped the layoffs, idiot.
You didn't say slowed the layoffs.
You know stopped has a different meaning than slowed, don't you?
So back to my original question, how much had been spent in those first 3 months?

 

[saveliberty]

That was my next point. Even though passed, the "shovel ready projects were nonexistent until well past three month post signing.

 

[ilia25]

Stopped? They got rid of another 2.5 million.
Funny definition of "stopped" you're using.

Stop playing an idiot. When you are driving at 100 mph and start to brake, do you expect to stop instantly? Well you better not, 'cause you will be traveling another 1000 ft before the brakes can stop you.

Same with the economy -- the stimulus could not turn it around overnight. But it did it in just 3 months.

You said stopped the layoffs, idiot.
You didn't say slowed the layoffs.

Human language is inherently imprecise, you moron, so stop nit-picking.

You know stopped has a different meaning than slowed, don't you?

What I meant that there has to be a few months lag between the moment the ink dried on Obama's signature and the moment the unemployment level started to level off. That is what supposed to happen and in no way this could be a signature of the stimulus failing.

So back to my original question, how much had been spent in those first 3 months?

Back to my original answer -- the employers saw the revenues picking up in the near future so they slowed down the layoffs even before a the bulk of the stimulus money were spent.

 

[Papageorgio]

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



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



Bullshit.



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:

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

We lost another 2.5 million jobs after ARRA. And we spent $800 billion.
And that's your example of an Obama success story?

We stopped losing 800,000 jobs each month soon after the stimulus was signed -- so yes, it was a success story.

You are changing. What you said and still claiming success, how many times do you need to be proved wrong and still come up with it being a success. We prolonged a recession, that is not a success, unless you are a partisan nut job.

 

[saveliberty]

No they slowed down the layoffs, because they matched their employment needs better. Nobody is stupid enough to measure their employment needs by POTENTIAL stimulus money.

 

[ilia25]

We lost another 2.5 million jobs after ARRA. And we spent $800 billion.
And that's your example of an Obama success story?

We stopped losing 800,000 jobs each month soon after the stimulus was signed -- so yes, it was a success story.

You are changing.

No, I'm not:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...d-worry-about-deficits-later.html#post4836324

We prolonged a recession, that is not a success

You have nothing to substantiate that.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Stop playing an idiot. When you are driving at 100 mph and start to brake, do you expect to stop instantly? Well you better not, 'cause you will be traveling another 1000 ft before the brakes can stop you.

Same with the economy -- the stimulus could not turn it around overnight. But it did it in just 3 months.

You said stopped the layoffs, idiot.
You didn't say slowed the layoffs.

Human language is inherently imprecise, you moron, so stop nit-picking.

You know stopped has a different meaning than slowed, don't you?

What I meant that there has to be a few months lag between the moment the ink dried on Obama's signature and the moment the unemployment level started to level off. That is what supposed to happen and in no way this could be a signature of the stimulus failing.

So back to my original question, how much had been spent in those first 3 months?

Back to my original answer -- the employers saw the revenues picking up in the near future so they slowed down the layoffs even before a the bulk of the stimulus money were spent.

Yeah. Stopped and slowed are such vague and confusing words.

Which employers saw revenue picking up from the "stimulus"?

 

[ilia25]

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:

Databases, Tables & Calculators by Subject

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

Stopped would show a level graph, not an ever increasing one. Your own chart shows you're lying.

Just if you are wondering why I'm leaving most of you comments w/o an answer -- most of the times I am simply at a loss. You are looking at a graph that clearly levels off at some point and you see an "ever increasing one". What should I do -- call you a moron, or suggest that you should talk to an eye doctor? I honestly don't know, but I'm pretty sure that neither would add to the discussion.

 

[ilia25]

Which employers saw revenue picking up from the "stimulus"?

Every single one of them could expect some improvement from the stimulus. Only some will get the government contracts, but the rest would benefit indirectly. For example, if a government contractor hire a worker, then a local restaurant can expect a new customer.

That is how the multiplier works -- each increase in the government spending results in the private sector spending more than it would otherwise.

 

[hortysir]

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

Red looks good on you.

You're welcome