Quantum Windbag
Gold Member
- May 9, 2010
- 58,308
- 5,106
- 245
Bike and hiking trails in the Appalachians.
Bike and hiking trails in the Appalachians.
As predictable as ever, "Tommy"! A bullshit claim to be an expert in a subject that you can't even hold an intelligent conversation about, followed up by a bullshit "challenge bet" for a ridiculous amount of money or a request to meet somewhere so you can kick someone's ass. Do you guys work from a script? Seriously...it's always the same thing with you internet posers. You're all incredibly intelligent...all have huge sums of money...all have super model girlfriends and all were in the Special Forces. Do you really think anyone buys that hogwash? Undergrads don't teach college courses...undergrads TAKE college courses and people that go to college understand that concept.
Do yourself a favor...if you're going to pose as something you're obviously NOT? Try to come up with a story that's at least somewhat plausible.
Rshermr
VIP Member
No bullshit claims. No threats. No I will meet you and kick your but. I am way too old for that type of crap. Actually, I find a couple of old guys like me fighting rather amusing. But Oldstyle, why don't you make it a bit honest. You made claims about me. I am offering you the opportunity to make some money. And, at your age, $10K should not be a big problem. But if you want make it less. So it will fit your budget. No problem at all.
Look, you are telling lies. Like the one about the CBO just taking data from politicians and processing it. I simply proved you are lying. You lied there, and now call me a liar. I never, under any circumstances, lie on any post I make. I may be wrong, and have been. But I do not lie. And you are saying I do. I am just giving you the opportunity to prove me a liar. And you are running from it. How about this. I get a yeah or neah from the colleges involved relative to my degrees. If I am unable to do so, you provide the email to which I can send their response. If I can not, I pay you the agreed upon bucks. But it has to be worth over $2500, to be worth the time and energy to get the information from the college and to you. And, I will make it available to anyone who wants to see it. If I can not get the college to get me the info, I will simply take my diplomas and have them photocopied and verified by a valid source. Or, you can just stop insulting my. And we can go on. Because, Oldstyle, every time you get shown to be a liar, you start with this personal attack. Because, oldstyle, you lack integrity. Look it up. Integrity. And then see if you can actually argue the issue at hand.
What is really humerous is that you actually tell me that you think I am posing. Really, Oldstyle, do you really believe that teaching part of a class is that impressive. Jesus, dipshit, it was back in 1969 and 1970. I hardly ever even think about it. It is a very small part of my life. Not a big deal at all. But, Oldstyle, it seems as though it is some very impressive thing to you. You must have a very insignificant life, and have accomplished very little. But you know all that. From back at the time when you said you would get off this subject if I gave you the info you wanted. And you have simply again proven that you have no integrity, and that you are a liar.
So, are you now admitting that you lied in your posts. Looks like you have given up on your posts for strictly personal attacks. Cmon, man, go find some dishes to wash or something important. Dipshit.
daveman
Diamond Member
Remember, folks, this is from the guy who posts links to leftist circle-jerk studies "proving" conservatives are dumb. And he thinks...(sorry -- wrong word)...feels they're correct because they reinforce what he already feels to be true.that would be your methodology, daveman. Not mine. I do not feel comfortable with the concept of believing what I want to believe. Just can not do it. That is your province. the province of the con world. Believing what you want to believe. Which is why you do not use unbiased sources in your attempts at getting people to believe what you want them to believe. Ever.You don't want the truth. You want what validates your beliefs.
And he has the temerity to lecture ME about biased sources.
What a pinhead.
All I did was point out how improbable it was that an undergraduate would ever be teaching a college course...especially when that person didn't even understand the basic principles of Keynesian economics, which supposedly you have your degree in. Your story isn't believable and your referring to me as a "dishwasher", when I think we both know that isn't the case, isn't going to make your story any MORE believable. Sorry, but it is what it is.
EdwardBaiamonte
Platinum Member
- Nov 23, 2011
- 34,612
- 2,171
- 1,100
if you are opposed to con dogma why not pick the most substantive example you can think of and explain why it is dogma rather than truth.
If you cant do this you must admit what is obvious:you lack the IQ for substance and so by default limit yourself to trival pursuit personal attacks.
Unkotare
Diamond Member
- Aug 16, 2011
- 145,991
- 32,854
- 2,180
All those years in college and you couldn't find time to take an English class or two?
Rshermr
VIP Member
No, sorry that is not all that you did. You called me a liar, questioned my degrees, and my word. You then ran away from a way to prove your statement, because you know you were simply attacking and had no way of coming out of that bet without loosing. Because you knew you had no basis to say what you said. And you did not have the balls to take the bet. Then you lied about the CBO, saying that it simply took politician numbers and crunched them. And that it was an obviously prejudiced source. And I proved to all who wanted to know that what you said was another lie.
Then you said that unemployment had not gone down in years. Another bald faced lie, which I proved you had made.
So, now having educated you on stimulus, which you either did not understand or lied about. Then you try the lie that I do not understand Keynsian economic theory. Which is stupid, Oldstyle, though I have not studied Keynsian economics for many, many years, I fully understand it. Saying that I do not is stupid. Keynsian theory is about as complex as basic arithmetic.
So, having lost those debates, all you seem to have left is personal attacks. Because you can not support your own statements.
So, Oldstyle, don't give me the bullshit about how you just can not believe what I say. You are a proven liar. And always have been. Nothing new at all.
And what I know about you is NOTHING. When all you do is lie, why should I believe anything that you say. You long ago lost the ability to be believed based on your own statements. I have no idea what you actually do, and really could care less. But, oldstyle, should I want to act like you, I could make a really good argument for dishwasher. Truth is, I will never know, and I simply choose to not discuss the subject. Because, oldstyle, it is a complete waste of time.
By making untrue statements and being unable to substantiate anything you say pretty much makes you irrelivent. If you know half of what you say you do, then learn how to back up your statements. Because, you see, your opinion is worth only as much as my own. Wjich is nothing. But the difference is, if I am questioned on issues I provide proof. You choose not to, because you have no proof. Bceause you post dogma. Agenda driven opinions.
Last edited:
Everyone who disagrees with you posts "dogma"? Does that pretty much sum up your argument?
Let's clear this up. I don't "question your degrees"...I question your story that you were allowed to teach a college level course as an undergraduate, something I've never heard of happening at ANY reputable college. When you claim that...I do indeed think you're lying. I only hope for your sake that you're also lying about getting a degree IN economics because if you DID and you're this ignorant about the subject...I find that really sad for you.
As for my point about the CBO's analysis only being as good as the numbers they are given? I'm not calling them "biased" because I don't think they are. The CBO does the best job they can in crunching the numbers that they are given but the truth of the matter is...those numbers that they are given are oft times a figment of some governmental worker's imagination, hence the CBO's rather pedestrian record for accurately predicting future fiscal outcomes.
What I pointed out about unemployment was that was a stretch to call the Obama Stimulus a "success" when unemployment went way up after it was passed and stayed at a higher rate for YEARS. The fact is unemployment is coming down more NOW, without much in the way of stimulus spending, than it was at the height of the stimulus spending which leads me to believe that the uncertainty that was epidemic during the first Obama term due to his fiscal policies, held back the recovery as much that 870 billion dollar stimulus helped it. How you turn that into a "lie" by me is one of life's great mysteries.
You've been accusing me of being a "liar" ever since I told you that I was having a hard time believing your whole story about teaching economics in college, Rshermr. I don't have the faintest idea what "lie" I've supposedly told. All I've done is point out how far fetched your claim is.
Let's clear this up. I don't "question your degrees"...I question your story that you were allowed to teach a college level course as an undergraduate, something I've never heard of happening at ANY reputable college. When you claim that...I do indeed think you're lying. I only hope for your sake that you're also lying about getting a degree IN economics because if you DID and you're this ignorant about the subject...I find that really sad for you.
As for my point about the CBO's analysis only being as good as the numbers they are given? I'm not calling them "biased" because I don't think they are. The CBO does the best job they can in crunching the numbers that they are given but the truth of the matter is...those numbers that they are given are oft times a figment of some governmental worker's imagination, hence the CBO's rather pedestrian record for accurately predicting future fiscal outcomes.
What I pointed out about unemployment was that was a stretch to call the Obama Stimulus a "success" when unemployment went way up after it was passed and stayed at a higher rate for YEARS. The fact is unemployment is coming down more NOW, without much in the way of stimulus spending, than it was at the height of the stimulus spending which leads me to believe that the uncertainty that was epidemic during the first Obama term due to his fiscal policies, held back the recovery as much that 870 billion dollar stimulus helped it. How you turn that into a "lie" by me is one of life's great mysteries.
You've been accusing me of being a "liar" ever since I told you that I was having a hard time believing your whole story about teaching economics in college, Rshermr. I don't have the faintest idea what "lie" I've supposedly told. All I've done is point out how far fetched your claim is.
Unkotare
Diamond Member
- Aug 16, 2011
- 145,991
- 32,854
- 2,180
Rshermr
VIP Member
So, Oldstyle says:
If I take some left wing argument from moveon, then you have an absolute right, in my mind, to tell me that I am posting left wing dogma. But I never do.
Now, one more time, oldstyle. I did not lie, and I never will. I told you what I did in college. So, let me say it one more time. Try to concentrate, please, because I do not feel that I have any reason at all to explain anything at all to you about what I did over 40 years ago:
1, I worked for Clair Lillard, a phd in economics who specialized in international economics, particularly as it related to South America.
2. Clair had econ 100 to teach. It was a course in econ for non majors. It was, in other words, not a class that provided credit toward an economics degree as far as the economics credits required.
3. It was a class taken by a lot of students. Each quarter it had between 130 and over 200 students registered. Because of its size, it was taught in an auditorium.
4. Clair did not enjoy teaching the class. It was pretty pedestrian, and a large number of the students had little interest in economics. In addition, he felt that the students needed more interaction with the teacher than this class allowed due to it's basic size.
5, Clair came up with the idea to have students with economics majors and the best possible grades in econ teach the class part of the time. Part of the time morfed to be 4 of 5 days per week, and he taught the full class on Fridays.
6. The class was divided up into 5 smaller class groups. Those classes were each assigned to an undergraduate econ major who taught the class the other four days each week.
7. We had to follow the course outline, which was provided by Prof. Lillard. We did not make up positions, or teach anything outside of the class plan.
8. though I do not remember specifically how, we made some amount of money or college credit in leu of money for teaching the class.
9. We also gave tests, graded tests, and did other things for the class.
10. Prof. Lillard had been following this process for some period of time before i became involved in it. And it went on after I graduated.
11. Prof. Lillard was not the only instructor to utilize this methodology to divide up very large classes. Others did the same thing for similar reasons.
12, It seemed to work well. Students liked the ability to work with us to get answers that they never would have in the original large class.
At the time Obama took office, we were seeing in the range of 600,000 new unemployed workers every month. Those numbers went down as soon as the stimulus money started to be spent. And it has not gone up since, to any major degree.
But what is really, really disingenuous is blaming Obama for the rate going up for the 8 months after he took office. And the CBO would say the same. They understand that the stimulus could not have accomplished much of anything for the first several months, then you would see a decrease in the monthly increase in ue, then finally a decrease in ue. Because, that is the way it ALWAYS works. There is no other way it can work. So, again, the cbo says the stimulus worked, you say it did not.
Historical Unemployment Rates in the United States
And again you lie. Read my responses to your lies. It has nothing at all to do with questioning my college experience. That is simply you trying to find something to say when you have been caught in untruths. Lies, or expressed opinions, or whatever you are arguing with no earthly basis in truth to justify it.
No, not at all. I am wrong often enough about things. What i consider dogma are statements that have no rational, unbiased source. But do have a source in sources with an agenda. In your case, that agenda is always that of the con web sites. Always. I can tell you what your post will say before I read it, simply by knowing what the subject is. If you say something that I disagree with, I will argue the point. If you can bring impartial evidence to support your argument, then you are not posting dogma. You now have information, and conversation and debate can occur.
If I take some left wing argument from moveon, then you have an absolute right, in my mind, to tell me that I am posting left wing dogma. But I never do.
Oldstyle. you just gave me whiplash. You said earlier today that I obviously do not have a degree in economics because I did not know what Keynsian economics was. And I am not sure what subject you are refering to above, but it looks like the subject is economics. So, Oldstyle, I can go get your exact quote and you can re read it, but I think you know better.
Now, one more time, oldstyle. I did not lie, and I never will. I told you what I did in college. So, let me say it one more time. Try to concentrate, please, because I do not feel that I have any reason at all to explain anything at all to you about what I did over 40 years ago:
1, I worked for Clair Lillard, a phd in economics who specialized in international economics, particularly as it related to South America.
2. Clair had econ 100 to teach. It was a course in econ for non majors. It was, in other words, not a class that provided credit toward an economics degree as far as the economics credits required.
3. It was a class taken by a lot of students. Each quarter it had between 130 and over 200 students registered. Because of its size, it was taught in an auditorium.
4. Clair did not enjoy teaching the class. It was pretty pedestrian, and a large number of the students had little interest in economics. In addition, he felt that the students needed more interaction with the teacher than this class allowed due to it's basic size.
5, Clair came up with the idea to have students with economics majors and the best possible grades in econ teach the class part of the time. Part of the time morfed to be 4 of 5 days per week, and he taught the full class on Fridays.
6. The class was divided up into 5 smaller class groups. Those classes were each assigned to an undergraduate econ major who taught the class the other four days each week.
7. We had to follow the course outline, which was provided by Prof. Lillard. We did not make up positions, or teach anything outside of the class plan.
8. though I do not remember specifically how, we made some amount of money or college credit in leu of money for teaching the class.
9. We also gave tests, graded tests, and did other things for the class.
10. Prof. Lillard had been following this process for some period of time before i became involved in it. And it went on after I graduated.
11. Prof. Lillard was not the only instructor to utilize this methodology to divide up very large classes. Others did the same thing for similar reasons.
12, It seemed to work well. Students liked the ability to work with us to get answers that they never would have in the original large class.
Sorry, if you read the sources that I provided you, you would see that what you just said has no basis in reality. It is not about opinion, they do what they are tasked to do. If you have evidence of anything else, lets see it. I believe that this is simply a lie, and truly conservative dogma, used when conservatives do not like the outcome of the CBO (Or other government or non government impartial sources). When they, or you in this case, do not like the cbo analysis, they simly attack it or the methods that they attribute to it. But it is simply a lie.
Sorry, no it did not go way up after the stimulus was passed. Again, you fail to read the sources I provided you. The rate went up, after the stimulus was passed, until the money could be spent. That was from about mid feb of 09 until Oct of 09. Not Years, as you said. Just a few months. And you blame what for that, Oldstyle. Did you really expect the UE rate to change based on a new plan???
At the time Obama took office, we were seeing in the range of 600,000 new unemployed workers every month. Those numbers went down as soon as the stimulus money started to be spent. And it has not gone up since, to any major degree.
But what is really, really disingenuous is blaming Obama for the rate going up for the 8 months after he took office. And the CBO would say the same. They understand that the stimulus could not have accomplished much of anything for the first several months, then you would see a decrease in the monthly increase in ue, then finally a decrease in ue. Because, that is the way it ALWAYS works. There is no other way it can work. So, again, the cbo says the stimulus worked, you say it did not.
Historical Unemployment Rates in the United States
So, that is your opinion. Because you do not want to understand what was happening. You could read what the CBO says, but apparently you want to keep your own counsel. That would be meaningless. Hell, everyone has an opinion. And yours is, as always, right in line with the bat shit crazy con tool web site dogma. How about that.
Ah, lying about lies. Jesus H Christ, apparently you just can not keep from lying. I did not say you were lying about your opinion. I said you lied about what actually happened during that period of time, in terms of how long the UE kept going up.
And again you lie. Read my responses to your lies. It has nothing at all to do with questioning my college experience. That is simply you trying to find something to say when you have been caught in untruths. Lies, or expressed opinions, or whatever you are arguing with no earthly basis in truth to justify it.
Rshermr
VIP Member
Actually, I have to thank you. Most of my past 40 years I had some poorly paid secretary (all worth far more than their pay suggested) to catch my typos. Now I have you, and you are free. I wondered what earthly value your posts had. Now I know. Oh, and so you understand process, I only typed it once. I would have thought even a congenital idiot would have known that.
Next.
Last edited:
Gee, since I don't GO to "con web sites" do you think they are copying what I post here? Who do they think they are...Joe Biden! Seriously, dude...the majority of what I post here is simply common sense. It's not something I have to go somewhere to "get". It's obvious. If you think I "am" pulling my ideas from these so called "con web sites" then feel free to "expose me" by showing where I've pilfered my material. You contention is a popular refrain among progressives here...everyone who's a conservative supposedly gets their marching orders from Rush Limbaugh (whose show I honestly haven't heard or seen in many years) or FOX News. I'm sorry to disappoint you but I'm more of a USAToday and C-Span kind of guy.
You keep restating your contention that you taught college level classes as an undergrad...going to great lengths to provide "details" about doing so but none of what you've posted makes the original story any more believable, Rshermr because undergrads don't teach...Professors and Grad Students do. I'm sorry but I just don't believe you. You don't exhibit enough understanding of the subject to hold up your end of a discussion HERE...how the hell would you be able to lecture on the subject in front of a class?
I did not make the CBO out to be biased...I didn't make them out to be incompetent, even though their estimates are historically more apt to be wrong then right. I simply pointed out that the CBO takes the data that someone ELSE provides them and crunches that data.
They don't make their predictions based on THEIR analysis of what THEY think is going really happen. They primarily take the data that government officials give them and give a result based on that data. If the data is flawed then chances are that their result will be as well. A perfect example of what I'm speaking of was the "analysis" of what ObamaCare would cost. The CBO was given a set number of years to do their study on by the Obama White House. The study only went out ten years because the Obama people KNEW that with money coming in for the first several years without benefits being paid out and the real cost increases exploding at about the ten year mark that limiting the cost analysis to those years would give them a favorable looking report. They set up the parameters that the CBO would be working under and then the CBO did their job of crunching the numbers that they were given. It's not something that JUST liberals do by the way...that's a game that both liberals AND conservative politicians like to play.
I read you synopsis for how the Obama Stimulus was rolled out with amusement, Rshermr. You seem to be under the impression that when that stimulus was rushed through in Feb. of 2009...just weeks after Barack Obama took office that the money then just sat there for the better part of a year before anyone spent it and that was the PLAN all along. The truth is both Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama were promising immediate jobs would be created. They both waxed eloquent about the hundreds of thousands of "shovel ready" jobs that the stimulus would immediately create and the millions of jobs that it would ultimately create. The truth is however that there WERE no immediate jobs. That was a pie in the sky fantasy put out by progressives to push the bill through without much in the way of debate. Anyone who spoke out against the makeup of the stimulus was immediately accused of being against putting people back to work and dissenting politicians on both sides of the aisle scattered like cockroaches when the spot light was shone on them. The REASON that the Obama stimulus failed isn't because it wasn't "big enough"...it failed because so much of it was filled with progressive "pork" and political "payola" to liberal supporters. The Obama stimulus was a progressive pork smorgasbord and everyone from the unions to Solyndra had their snouts buried.
As for you claim that I lied about unemployment levels? How so?
I simply stated that it was hard to portray the Obama Stimulus as a success if the unemployment rate went up substantially after it was passed and stayed up for YEARS afterwards.
So how is THAT a lie? The stimulus was passed in Feb. of 2009 and shortly after that unemployment went over 8%. It kept climbing for the the next year finally topping out in early 2010 at over 10%. It stayed above 8% for (I believe) the next forty something months before dipping below 8% (although those numbers were subsequently adjusted higher bring it right back to 8%). So where was it that I played fast and loose with the truth? I'm simply stating what happened. Somehow you've turned THAT into a "lie".
I simply stated that it was hard to portray the Obama Stimulus as a success if the unemployment rate went up substantially after it was passed and stayed up for YEARS afterwards.
So how is THAT a lie? The stimulus was passed in Feb. of 2009 and shortly after that unemployment went over 8%. It kept climbing for the the next year finally topping out in early 2010 at over 10%. It stayed above 8% for (I believe) the next forty something months before dipping below 8% (although those numbers were subsequently adjusted higher bring it right back to 8%). So where was it that I played fast and loose with the truth? I'm simply stating what happened. Somehow you've turned THAT into a "lie".
His "point" is that the stimulus didnt kick in for years later because the money hadn't been spent in that time. That's wrong for several reasons. First, businesses would staff up in anticipation of the contract, before the money was actually spent. Second, the only reason UE has declined is because workforce participation has also declined. If we had the same workforce as we did in 2009 the UE rate would be over 10%.
The stimulus was a failure. Virtually no economist not employed by the WHite House says otherwise.
Rshermr
VIP Member
So, oldstyle says:
Who provides them that data, oldstyle. You are making an unsubstantiated charge, and you have no proof of it. It may be true that they get, say, unemployment numbers or spending numbers from other agencies that are charged with keeping track of those numbers, and who publish them. But that is NOT what you inferred, and you know it. You said they get their numbers from politicians. So, now you have changed your tune, eh. Damn, whiplash again. I provided you with two impartial links about how the CBO does their work, and where they get their info. Apparently you prefer to make it up from whole cloth.
Look, the weak minded are amused easily. Read the information I provided you. It is the data provided by the government agency tasked with tracking the stimulus spending. Perhaps that will amuse you also, dipshit.
That nasty Nancy Pelosi. The truth is that weak minded people like you simply believe that without a commitment, a major project, say a new road, is engineered, equipment is brought in, right of ways are obtained, permits are completed, supplies are put in place, and people are hired within a week or two. You do not want to believe that it simply took time.
And, again, we rely on oldstyle, who has an obvious agenda and does not mind lying to get that agenda through, to provide accurate information. No links needed. Just believe Oldstyle.
Sounds like washington. Did you see something new? Or are you suggesting this was unique to the stimulus process.
Ah, but it failed only based on con analysis. And that analysis is from con sites. The independent sits say it did not fail. So, there you are again, oldstyle, saying things that line up perfectly with the con tool sites and fox tv. And of course, that would be just a coincidence. And it would be, without doubt, a statement that does not pass the giggle test.
Sorry, don't hang your hat on the con favorite, Solyndra. Of the clean fuel companies in the stimulus, very few failed. Many less than in the normal set of new companies starting up. Many less than were allowed for when that project was set up. So far, that project is quite successful, according to impartial sources. But, oldstyle, how surprising it is that you would just happen to land on Solyndra. The favorite target of the con tool bat shit crazy web sites, and fox. All of which you say you do not listen to. Sorry, oldstyle, while I can not prove it, it is really, really obvious that you are lying again.
And Unions. How about that. Who would have ever thought that Oldstyle would be saying unions were part of the problem. Well, me, for one. Because unions are a prime target for the bat shit crazy con tool web sites, and fox. Those sources that Oldstyle just happens never pay attention to. Like I said before, bring up a subject, and I can tell you what oldstyle will have to say. All you have to know is what the bat shit crazy con tool web sites and fox are saying, and there will be Oldstyle, in lock step. But he does not pay attention to them. He simply uses his own good sense. And I have a bridge in alaska I would like to sell you.
So, oldstyle, you tell me I know nothing of economics. Why don't you bring on a component of economics that you understand better than I. We can discuss it.
So, what you are saying is that it is just a coincidence that your statements ALWAYS line up perfectly with the bat shit crazy con tool web sites. But I do not believe in that much coincidence. Hundreds of posts is just simply too much coincidence. And a total lack of any references tells me that you do not want to let anyone see where you get your information. And, you say you just post based on "common sense". Sorry. Your pattern is too obvious. Your high fives and con tool bullshit sessions with other con tools too obvious. The continuous attack on democrats, too obvious. According to your posts, dems are bad, pubs are good. And you just "happen" to line up with the con tool web sites and fox, which you never see. Sorry, oldstyle, just does not pass the giggle test.
Right. So I really could care less. Just do not like being called a liar, by a liar. Check out the concept of double negatives, oh great economic mind. What you do believe is that when you can not argue a point, that you revert to personal attack.
That would be your opinion. The opinion of a "food services professional" who shows the knowledge of economics that come from con tool sites. So, bring forward something that I have said and we will debate it. You know, look for impartial support of your opinion, or mine. But then you will not, because you are simply making personal attacks that you can not back up.
Who provides them that data, oldstyle. You are making an unsubstantiated charge, and you have no proof of it. It may be true that they get, say, unemployment numbers or spending numbers from other agencies that are charged with keeping track of those numbers, and who publish them. But that is NOT what you inferred, and you know it. You said they get their numbers from politicians. So, now you have changed your tune, eh. Damn, whiplash again. I provided you with two impartial links about how the CBO does their work, and where they get their info. Apparently you prefer to make it up from whole cloth.
Like any analytical organization, their analysis is not based on what they "think' but rather the best analysis of what the data shows.
Again, you do not read analysis of what the CBO does. They do not take data given them by government officials, though you apparently want to believe that. Perhaps you hava a link? Of course not, back to the whole cloth thing. Oldstyle is making it up.
Sorry. Here is another example of how oldstyle lies. He just can not help himself. And this dogma is absolutely not, according to oldestyle, from a con web site. He either has an impartial source that he just does not want to share, or he made it up based on his version of "common sense". Nice try, oldstyle. I am still waiting for a link, but I am definately not holding my breath.
Look, the weak minded are amused easily. Read the information I provided you. It is the data provided by the government agency tasked with tracking the stimulus spending. Perhaps that will amuse you also, dipshit.
That nasty Nancy Pelosi. The truth is that weak minded people like you simply believe that without a commitment, a major project, say a new road, is engineered, equipment is brought in, right of ways are obtained, permits are completed, supplies are put in place, and people are hired within a week or two. You do not want to believe that it simply took time.
And, again, we rely on oldstyle, who has an obvious agenda and does not mind lying to get that agenda through, to provide accurate information. No links needed. Just believe Oldstyle.
Sounds like washington. Did you see something new? Or are you suggesting this was unique to the stimulus process.
Ah, but it failed only based on con analysis. And that analysis is from con sites. The independent sits say it did not fail. So, there you are again, oldstyle, saying things that line up perfectly with the con tool sites and fox tv. And of course, that would be just a coincidence. And it would be, without doubt, a statement that does not pass the giggle test.
Sorry, don't hang your hat on the con favorite, Solyndra. Of the clean fuel companies in the stimulus, very few failed. Many less than in the normal set of new companies starting up. Many less than were allowed for when that project was set up. So far, that project is quite successful, according to impartial sources. But, oldstyle, how surprising it is that you would just happen to land on Solyndra. The favorite target of the con tool bat shit crazy web sites, and fox. All of which you say you do not listen to. Sorry, oldstyle, while I can not prove it, it is really, really obvious that you are lying again.
And Unions. How about that. Who would have ever thought that Oldstyle would be saying unions were part of the problem. Well, me, for one. Because unions are a prime target for the bat shit crazy con tool web sites, and fox. Those sources that Oldstyle just happens never pay attention to. Like I said before, bring up a subject, and I can tell you what oldstyle will have to say. All you have to know is what the bat shit crazy con tool web sites and fox are saying, and there will be Oldstyle, in lock step. But he does not pay attention to them. He simply uses his own good sense. And I have a bridge in alaska I would like to sell you.
So, oldstyle, you tell me I know nothing of economics. Why don't you bring on a component of economics that you understand better than I. We can discuss it.
Last edited:
Oddball
Unobtanium Member
So gubmint has been in charge of this "infrastructure" thingy for decades now and y'all tell us that it's crumbling?
Excuse me if I ask if that's supposed to be any evidence that they're the ones best suited to fix it?
Excuse me if I ask if that's supposed to be any evidence that they're the ones best suited to fix it?
Rshermr
VIP Member
So, Oldstyle says:
So, you believe that once a new bill is passed, the unemployment rate should have reacted IMMEDIATELY? Is that correct. Before the stimulus even started to be spent?? Is there some logic in that which I am missing. Is that some new economic theory that I missed? And you are, of course, wrong about what the rate was. It was about 8.5%. And you will find NO economist that would support your ridiculous contention that the rate should have gone down immediately. Of course, maybe you can find a non partial link to prove me wrong.
So, lets look at the gov numbers.
March 2009 - 8.5%
April 2009 - 8.9%
May 2009 - 9.4%
June 2009 - 9.5%
July 2009 - 9.4%
August 2009 - 9.7%
September 2009 - 9.8%
October 2009 - 10.2%
November 2009 - 10%
December 2009 - 10%
Historical Unemployment Rates in the United States
So, the rate topped out in October of 09, about 7 months after the stimulus was passed. And, apparently, you would like everyone to believe that it should have gone down immediately. Based on the Oldstyle theory of economic stimulus, apparently. Because you will find, as I did, no source that believes it should have gone down sooner. That is, if you actually used google and looked, which you will not. Because, you see, you know you will not find what you want to find to support your little lie.
So, let me ask you, Oldstyle. Did you ever hear of George W. Bush? Did you ever hear of the great republican recession of 2008. You know, the period when we had the worst economy since the great depression? The period when jobs were being lost at over 500,000 per month? The time when economists were pretty much universally saying that we could well end up in a depression with over 20% unemployument? Or, did you sleep through that period?
No, of course not. You know fully well. But, being a con tool, you would like to say that unemployment should have turned around immediately. Even though no independent economist said such a thing. And, of course, you do not get your talking points from those bat shit crazy con tool web sites, or fox. Sure, Oldstyle.
August 2012 - 8.1%
September 2012 - 7.8%
October 2012 - 7.9%
November 2012 - 7.7%
Not forty something months, dipshit. Do you know arithmetic? About 33 months. And no, the numbers were not adjusted to bring the number back up to 8%. Another lie. And, again, in perfect lock step with the bat shit crazy sites and fox. But you were hoping, weren't you oldstyle.
So, oldstyle, you know where you lied. See above. And you know why you lied. And I am sure that your statements were just Oldstyle "common sense", even though they did line up perfectly with those con sites and fox, which you say you never see. Sure, Oldstyle.
And, surprisingly enough, you have absolutly no criticism of the republicans for blocking Obama's job agenda. Completely. Record filibusters. And complete refusal to bring any part of that legislation forward in the House. Of course not. All Obama's fault. Attack, attack, attack. Just like the bat shit crazy con tool sites and fox. Dems are wrong, repus are correct. Always, always, always. But then, you never pay attention to them, now, do you Oldstyle. Of course not.
Good for you, Oldstyle. You are actually questioning information. How refreshing. Lets see.
So, you believe that once a new bill is passed, the unemployment rate should have reacted IMMEDIATELY? Is that correct. Before the stimulus even started to be spent?? Is there some logic in that which I am missing. Is that some new economic theory that I missed? And you are, of course, wrong about what the rate was. It was about 8.5%. And you will find NO economist that would support your ridiculous contention that the rate should have gone down immediately. Of course, maybe you can find a non partial link to prove me wrong.
So, lets look at the gov numbers.
March 2009 - 8.5%
April 2009 - 8.9%
May 2009 - 9.4%
June 2009 - 9.5%
July 2009 - 9.4%
August 2009 - 9.7%
September 2009 - 9.8%
October 2009 - 10.2%
November 2009 - 10%
December 2009 - 10%
Historical Unemployment Rates in the United States
So far, all of your numbers are wrong. Is it too much to expect you to use actual government numbers. I gave you the link. Do you need help with Google, or what. Or are you simply lying, hoping that no one will notice?
So, the rate topped out in October of 09, about 7 months after the stimulus was passed. And, apparently, you would like everyone to believe that it should have gone down immediately. Based on the Oldstyle theory of economic stimulus, apparently. Because you will find, as I did, no source that believes it should have gone down sooner. That is, if you actually used google and looked, which you will not. Because, you see, you know you will not find what you want to find to support your little lie.
So, let me ask you, Oldstyle. Did you ever hear of George W. Bush? Did you ever hear of the great republican recession of 2008. You know, the period when we had the worst economy since the great depression? The period when jobs were being lost at over 500,000 per month? The time when economists were pretty much universally saying that we could well end up in a depression with over 20% unemployument? Or, did you sleep through that period?
No, of course not. You know fully well. But, being a con tool, you would like to say that unemployment should have turned around immediately. Even though no independent economist said such a thing. And, of course, you do not get your talking points from those bat shit crazy con tool web sites, or fox. Sure, Oldstyle.
August 2012 - 8.1%
September 2012 - 7.8%
October 2012 - 7.9%
November 2012 - 7.7%
Not forty something months, dipshit. Do you know arithmetic? About 33 months. And no, the numbers were not adjusted to bring the number back up to 8%. Another lie. And, again, in perfect lock step with the bat shit crazy sites and fox. But you were hoping, weren't you oldstyle.
So, oldstyle, you know where you lied. See above. And you know why you lied. And I am sure that your statements were just Oldstyle "common sense", even though they did line up perfectly with those con sites and fox, which you say you never see. Sure, Oldstyle.
And, surprisingly enough, you have absolutly no criticism of the republicans for blocking Obama's job agenda. Completely. Record filibusters. And complete refusal to bring any part of that legislation forward in the House. Of course not. All Obama's fault. Attack, attack, attack. Just like the bat shit crazy con tool sites and fox. Dems are wrong, repus are correct. Always, always, always. But then, you never pay attention to them, now, do you Oldstyle. Of course not.
Last edited:
Jimmy_Jam
Senior Member
- Sep 29, 2012
- 1,071
- 136
- 48
Just because OUR government has not been able to appropriate its infrastructure spending effectively doesn't mean it can't be done. Evidence here:
China approves $157-billion infrastructure spending | Reuters
shows China's level of commitment to economic growth, and their commitment to continue. Are we China? Of course not, nor would we want to be, but if you're looking for evidence of how a healthy and modern infrastructure supports to a more efficient and robust economy, I can think of few better examples. There are a number of reasons why our current system does not support the economy we would like to have. Appropriate infrastructure is one of them.
Do you know of another body/entity better suited? If you think corporations, good luck getting them to spend the kind of money necessary to make us globally relevant again. They'd much rather outsource to a country like China that DOES have the infrastructure to support their objectives. It's much easier and cheaper for them.
Similar threads
New Topics
-
NYC Mayor Mamdani Stiffs Emergency Snow Shovelers- Started by Captain Creeper
- Replies: 8
-
-
-
What do you know about the Battle of Lake Khasan (1938)? The battle which Stalin’s Bolshevik empire lost- Started by Litwin
- Replies: 0
-
Biden admin's top civil rights lawyer joins NAACP as Trump attacks on voting rights escalate- Started by C_Clayton_Jones
- Replies: 2
