Millions out of work - a crumbling infrastructure - I have an idea!

[Rshermr]

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".

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.

And another con tool post con dogma. What a surprise. I can either believe Rabbi, or the CBO. What should I do??

 

[Unkotare]

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?

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.

Have you given any thought to quality? Remember that high-speed rail line that got liberals here all tingly up their legs then collapsed and killed a bunch of people? Ever driven on a Chinese highway? Taken a public bus during rush hour?

 

[Jimmy_Jam]

Have you given any thought to quality?

Yes, I have. Have you given any thought as to how we can force our corporations to stay in the U.S. and stop manufacturing in China?

Remember that high-speed rail line that got liberals here all tingly up their legs then collapsed and killed a bunch of people?

No, I don't. Was I talking about high-speed rail? Since you bring it up, Acela, the high-speed arm of Amtrak, is one of the few profitable lines for the company. It is limited from operating like it should for high-speed rail because of older infrastructure at points that prevent it from running optimally. Despite this, it operates at a 40% profit margin, so I guess we can do away with the notion that there is no demand.

Is the Northeast Corridor really profitable? - Fred Frailey - Trains Magazine - Trains.com online community

Ever driven on a Chinese highway? Taken a public bus during rush hour?

No, and no. Are we China? Do we have the population that China has? We do not want to become China, but if we want to stop all of our jobs from going there, we sure as hell had better recognize that we are simply not able to support that kind of production efficiency. If we could, then we wouldn't have lost so much production to China, would we? Stop assuming a left-wing agenda on my part and start realizing, like too Americans are NOT doing, that we are losing the global economic race, and badly. But yeah, I guess business as usual is the way to go.

 

[Oldstyle]

So, oldstyle says:

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.

To answer your following...

"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." Rshermr.


What I'm "saying" is that my statements are my own and this whole "bat shit crazy con tool web site" thing is some idiotic conspiracy theory cooked up by you so that you don't have to address what you don't have an answer for. It's what you DO with everyone who posts something you find inconvenient to respond to!!! You start blathering about DOGMA! DOGMA! DOGMA! I repeat my challenge to you, "Tommy"...if you think I'm lifting anything that I post from some right wing web site...then by all means EXPOSE me! Since you seem to feel that I get all of my thoughts from these sites it should be quite easy to do. My thoughts are my thoughts. Since you don't seem to think it's possible to HAVE an independent thought process I'm guessing that probably ISN'T the case with you?

 

[Oddball]

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?

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.

The ChiComs?

Seriously?

 

[Oldstyle]

In reply to this gem of your's Rshrmr:

"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."

I made the charge that politicians from both sides have been using the CBO to provide them with favorable numbers that they can then use to push their legislative agendas. I provided the example of the Democrats setting the time period with which we would figure the "cost" of ObamaCare only taking it out to the years BEFORE the costs skyrocket while including the years where money is coming in but not being paid out. THAT is what I'm speaking about when I say that the numbers the CBO arrive at will always be suspect simply because THEY are not the ones who decide WHAT numbers they get to crunch. In the case of ObamaCare they did exactly what they were asked to do. They figured the cost of ObamaCare in that ten year window and delivered a cost analysis which the Democrats then used to "pooh pooh" the charge that they were adding another huge entitlement program that we would be hard pressed to pay for without massive tax increases.

 

[rdean]

Deany, since only 6% of scientists are Republicans, will you admit that it's almost a virtual certainty that the crumbled infrastructure was built by Democrats ?

Someone who clearly doesn't understand that nothing lasts forever. Pity.

The most famous Republican scientist in the world is Michael Behe who gave us the term "irreducible complexity". A term that has made him a laughing stock and the most discredited scientist in the world. The most famous Republican scientist is also the most discredited. You have to admit, there is a certain "symmetry" there.


Republicans insist there must be more than 6% of scientists who are Republican. After all, NASA was created by Republicans as was the interstate highway system. But like nearly all the racists and KKK joined the Republican Party, so did all the scientists leave. The greatest right wing institutions of learning are no more than tier four. Republicans taking credit for anything scientific is like Republicans taking credit for Lincoln or taking out Bin Laden. If only what they "imagine" were real. But alas, it isn't. It's only what they "imagine".

 

[Jimmy_Jam]

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?

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.

The ChiComs?

Seriously?

Yeah, the same one our corporations go to for all their manufacturing needs. Those ones.

 

[Oldstyle]

What I find most amusing is that first you accuse me of stealing all of my thoughts from conservative web sites but then you turn around and accuse me of being a "liar" when off the top of my head I give what I remember to have happened. The truth is...YOU'RE the one who relies entirely on web sites for your information...I'm the one who's going from my memory. And because I don't have the numbers exactly correct...you accuse me of lying? Really?

Let's look at another of your posts...

"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."

Here's what's amusing, Rshermr...you wade into me for missing that the height of unemployment was several months earlier than I had remembered...something which doesn't change the underlying argument that I made at all...while totally misusing the data that YOU pulled from someone else's web site. If the Obama Stimulus was passed on Feb. 17th and unemployment topped out in Oct. as your cite says then how many months is that? According to you it is 7. But for those of us who didn't flunk simple arithmetic make that out to be 8 and a half. So does THAT make you a "liar" as well? Or do I get held to a higher standard simply because I DON'T glean all of my information from other people's web sites?

And I've NEVER made the contention that the unemployment numbers would go down sooner rather than later under the Democrats plan. Quite to the contrary actually. I was scoffing at Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama's promises of 400,000 shovel ready jobs being created immediately after they were given the stimulus they asked for. Anyone with any experience with how government spends it's money knew THAT was wishful thinking to an extent that was laughable. What's amusing is that you've spent most of your time here PROVING that very point with your repeated demonstrations that the stimulus money WASN'T being spent in 2009!

 

[Rshermr]

In reply to this gem of your's Rshrmr:

"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."

I made the charge that politicians from both sides have been using the CBO to provide them with favorable numbers that they can then use to push their legislative agendas. I provided the example of the Democrats setting the time period with which we would figure the "cost" of ObamaCare only taking it out to the years BEFORE the costs skyrocket while including the years where money is coming in but not being paid out. THAT is what I'm speaking about when I say that the numbers the CBO arrive at will always be suspect simply because THEY are not the ones who decide WHAT numbers they get to crunch. In the case of ObamaCare they did exactly what they were asked to do. They figured the cost of ObamaCare in that ten year window and delivered a cost analysis which the Democrats then used to "pooh pooh" the charge that they were adding another huge entitlement program that we would be hard pressed to pay for without massive tax increases.

Yes. You keep trying to say that. But you are entirely wrong. Where did you get the idea that the CBO has been given a time period, and end date, if you will? Because, Oldstyle, the CBO has gone much further into the future than that. So, your information is wrong. So, don't get angry with you. I am telling you the truth. Apparently you are lying to yourself, since you have NO LINK FOR THE STATEMENTS THAT YOU ARE MAKING. Or maybe someone else is lying to you. And thanks a lot for your statement about the ongoing costs of Obamacare, which would be the affordable care act, should you actually use the correct name. And where are your sources to prove that the costs go way up after the first ten years? Who gave you that info. Or is it just Oldstyle common sense, which again lines up perfectly with the bat shit crazy con tool web sites, and fox. I know, you came up with those numbers independently. But you just can not provide the source.

Makes me believe you are a liar. Can not prove it. Maybe you just have unbelievable common sense. Ya think?? Attack, attack, attack. Eh, oldstyle.

 

[rdean]

Republicans don't understand that the previous president's budget is in effect for nearly a year after he leaves office. Obama was sworn in at the beginning of the year, but he is stuck with Bush's budget until the end of October. That's they way it works. But because Obama was president and Bush's policies are failures, they must belong to Obama. Republicans simply can't face the truth. It causes too much pain.

 

[Rshermr]

So, oldstyle says:

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.

To answer your following...

"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." Rshermr.


What I'm "saying" is that my statements are my own and this whole "bat shit crazy con tool web site" thing is some idiotic conspiracy theory cooked up by you so that you don't have to address what you don't have an answer for. It's what you DO with everyone who posts something you find inconvenient to respond to!!! You start blathering about DOGMA! DOGMA! DOGMA! I repeat my challenge to you, "Tommy"...if you think I'm lifting anything that I post from some right wing web site...then by all means EXPOSE me! Since you seem to feel that I get all of my thoughts from these sites it should be quite easy to do. My thoughts are my thoughts. Since you don't seem to think it's possible to HAVE an independent thought process I'm guessing that probably ISN'T the case with you?

Sure they are, Oldstyle. they just line up perfectly with the con web sites and fox. Perfectly. And have no basis in fact. I have no problem at all showing your statements to be without validity. None at all. But then, you have no source. No proof of your statements. Just what you want to believe and what you want others to believe. You are totally without integrity.

 

[Oldstyle]

In answer to the following?

"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."[/QUOTE] Rshermr

Fine then...let's discuss your backing of Obama's tax raises on the wealthy. Since liberals are supposedly working from a Keynesian fiscal model would you care to point out to me where it is that Keynes advocated for tax raises in a weak economy? It's my belief that the Obama Administration's fiscal policy of calling for tax increases at this time is based solely on sating the far left of their party and has nothing to do with sound Keynesian economic policy.

 

[Oldstyle]

So, oldstyle says:


To answer your following...

"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." Rshermr.


What I'm "saying" is that my statements are my own and this whole "bat shit crazy con tool web site" thing is some idiotic conspiracy theory cooked up by you so that you don't have to address what you don't have an answer for. It's what you DO with everyone who posts something you find inconvenient to respond to!!! You start blathering about DOGMA! DOGMA! DOGMA! I repeat my challenge to you, "Tommy"...if you think I'm lifting anything that I post from some right wing web site...then by all means EXPOSE me! Since you seem to feel that I get all of my thoughts from these sites it should be quite easy to do. My thoughts are my thoughts. Since you don't seem to think it's possible to HAVE an independent thought process I'm guessing that probably ISN'T the case with you?

Sure they are, Oldstyle. they just line up perfectly with the con web sites and fox. Perfectly. And have no basis in fact. I have no problem at all showing your statements to be without validity. None at all. But then, you have no source. No proof of your statements. Just what you want to believe and what you want others to believe. You are totally without integrity.

Which is it, Rshermr? You accuse me of gleaning everything I post from "con web sites and fox" but then you turn around and criticize me for not having a "source"? I thought my "source" was all these con web sites and fox? I know this is hard for someone like YOU to grasp, since you have to GOOGLE for ALL of your knowledge but I don't. I actually can come here and post off the top of my head and not sound like a complete idiot...unlike you.

 

[Mr. Peepers]

I took a high speed train across Ireland from Dublin to Galway. Beautiful. Nice, comfy seats, clean bathrooms, good food, and only 25 Euro!!! Took less than 2 hours. I think those would be a real asset to this country, as spread out as it is. Would get lots of cars off the roads too.

 

[Oddball]

I took a high speed train across Ireland from Dublin to Galway. Beautiful. Nice, comfy seats, clean bathrooms, good food, and only 25 Euro!!! Took less than 2 hours. I think those would be a real asset to this country, as spread out as it is. Would get lots of cars off the roads too.

Ireland ain't America.

I know that may come as a bit of a news flash to you, but there it is.

 

[Oldstyle]

In reply to this gem of your's Rshrmr:

"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."

I made the charge that politicians from both sides have been using the CBO to provide them with favorable numbers that they can then use to push their legislative agendas. I provided the example of the Democrats setting the time period with which we would figure the "cost" of ObamaCare only taking it out to the years BEFORE the costs skyrocket while including the years where money is coming in but not being paid out. THAT is what I'm speaking about when I say that the numbers the CBO arrive at will always be suspect simply because THEY are not the ones who decide WHAT numbers they get to crunch. In the case of ObamaCare they did exactly what they were asked to do. They figured the cost of ObamaCare in that ten year window and delivered a cost analysis which the Democrats then used to "pooh pooh" the charge that they were adding another huge entitlement program that we would be hard pressed to pay for without massive tax increases.

Yes. You keep trying to say that. But you are entirely wrong. Where did you get the idea that the CBO has been given a time period, and end date, if you will? Because, Oldstyle, the CBO has gone much further into the future than that. So, your information is wrong. So, don't get angry with you. I am telling you the truth. Apparently you are lying to yourself, since you have NO LINK FOR THE STATEMENTS THAT YOU ARE MAKING. Or maybe someone else is lying to you. And thanks a lot for your statement about the ongoing costs of Obamacare, which would be the affordable care act, should you actually use the correct name. And where are your sources to prove that the costs go way up after the first ten years? Who gave you that info. Or is it just Oldstyle common sense, which again lines up perfectly with the bat shit crazy con tool web sites, and fox. I know, you came up with those numbers independently. But you just can not provide the source.

Makes me believe you are a liar. Can not prove it. Maybe you just have unbelievable common sense. Ya think?? Attack, attack, attack. Eh, oldstyle.

Well, I used my "common sense" to see that when someone uses the first ten years of a program...in which during four of those ten years payments aren't being made...that the true cost of what ObamaCare is going to be is totally skewed. If you REALLY want to know what the cost of the program is going to be then you should get rid of the years when nothing is being paid out. The Democrats didn't DO that. They asked the CBO to crunch numbers for those first ten years. The proof of what I'm saying is that when the CBO did a followup ten year projection of costs...leaving out just one year at the front end and adding one at the back? The cost for ObamaCare increased substantially. And if you took away those four years when services won't be being paid for and replace them with four years where they WILL? Then the ten year cost of ObamaCare doubles.

 

[Rshermr]

So, Oldstyle says:

What I find most amusing is that first you accuse me of stealing all of my thoughts from conservative web sites but then you turn around and accuse me of being a "liar" when off the top of my head I give what I remember to have happened. The truth is...YOU'RE the one who relies entirely on web sites for your information...I'm the one who's going from my memory. And because I don't have the numbers exactly correct...you accuse me of lying? Really?

Right, oldstyle. Odd how your memory Always, always, always has the story worse than it was and is. Never ever do you err on the side of the current administration. Always looks like the situation was worse thanit was. Funny how that happens. And no, I do not care why you are wrong. sorry you do not want to actually know what happened. And what, are you blaming me for providing you with the truth. And lying? yes, Really.

Let's look at another of your posts...

"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."

OK, lets see what you have to say about that.

Here's what's amusing, Rshermr...you wade into me for missing that the height of unemployment was several months earlier than I had remembered...something which doesn't change the underlying argument that I made at all...while totally misusing the data that YOU pulled from someone else's web site. If the Obama Stimulus was passed on Feb. 17th and unemployment topped out in Oct. as your cite says then how many months is that? According to you it is 7. But for those of us who didn't flunk simple arithmetic make that out to be 8 and a half. So does THAT make you a "liar" as well? Or do I get held to a higher standard simply because I DON'T glean all of my information from other people's web sites?

Yup, my mistake. A month off. As I said, I make errors. the difference is, I do not lie. And do you see a difference between that and you "early next year" and what the truth was, which was October. So, 8 months versus a year or so. do you yet see that the two are not alike???

And I've NEVER made the contention that the unemployment numbers would go down sooner rather than later under the Democrats plan.

Maybe you should go back and re read your own posts, cowboy. You did not make the contention that they would go down, but that they should have gone down should the stimulus plan have worked. You have made that contention several times.

Anyone with any experience with how government spends it's money knew THAT was wishful thinking to an extent that was laughable. What's amusing is that you've spent most of your time here PROVING that very point with you repeated demonstrations that the stimulus money WASN'T being spent in 2009!

Whatever, Oldstyle. You always want us to believe you are an expert on such things. You would think you were a civil engineer instead of a food services professional. Stupid contentions, but that would be you.

 

[Rshermr]

In reply to this gem of your's Rshrmr:

"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."

I made the charge that politicians from both sides have been using the CBO to provide them with favorable numbers that they can then use to push their legislative agendas. I provided the example of the Democrats setting the time period with which we would figure the "cost" of ObamaCare only taking it out to the years BEFORE the costs skyrocket while including the years where money is coming in but not being paid out. THAT is what I'm speaking about when I say that the numbers the CBO arrive at will always be suspect simply because THEY are not the ones who decide WHAT numbers they get to crunch. In the case of ObamaCare they did exactly what they were asked to do. They figured the cost of ObamaCare in that ten year window and delivered a cost analysis which the Democrats then used to "pooh pooh" the charge that they were adding another huge entitlement program that we would be hard pressed to pay for without massive tax increases.

Yes. You keep trying to say that. But you are entirely wrong. Where did you get the idea that the CBO has been given a time period, and end date, if you will? Because, Oldstyle, the CBO has gone much further into the future than that. So, your information is wrong. So, don't get angry with you. I am telling you the truth. Apparently you are lying to yourself, since you have NO LINK FOR THE STATEMENTS THAT YOU ARE MAKING. Or maybe someone else is lying to you. And thanks a lot for your statement about the ongoing costs of Obamacare, which would be the affordable care act, should you actually use the correct name. And where are your sources to prove that the costs go way up after the first ten years? Who gave you that info. Or is it just Oldstyle common sense, which again lines up perfectly with the bat shit crazy con tool web sites, and fox. I know, you came up with those numbers independently. But you just can not provide the source.

Makes me believe you are a liar. Can not prove it. Maybe you just have unbelievable common sense. Ya think?? Attack, attack, attack. Eh, oldstyle.

Well, I used my "common sense" to see that when someone uses the first ten years of a program...in which during four of those ten years payments aren't being made...that the true cost of what ObamaCare is going to be is totally skewed. If you REALLY want to know what the cost of the program is going to be then you should get rid of the years when nothing is being paid out. The Democrats didn't DO that. They asked the CBO to crunch numbers for those first ten years. The proof of what I'm saying is that when the CBO did a followup ten year projection of costs...leaving out just one year at the front end and adding one at the back? The cost for ObamaCare increased substantially. And if you took away those four years when services won't be being paid for and replace them with four years where they WILL? Then the ten year cost of ObamaCare doubles.

Which is total nonsense. Just your poor common sense. So, you are saying that the cbo is stupid, and you are oh so smart. Sorry, oldstyle, I will put my money on the CBO. But thanks for your opinion. So, is it only you who sees the costs doubling. Are you saying no one else sees that. Including the CBO. You must have a link, oldstyle. But then, since you are simply lying again, you will have no link. dipshit. Quit wasting my time.

 

[Rshermr]

I took a high speed train across Ireland from Dublin to Galway. Beautiful. Nice, comfy seats, clean bathrooms, good food, and only 25 Euro!!! Took less than 2 hours. I think those would be a real asset to this country, as spread out as it is. Would get lots of cars off the roads too.

Ireland ain't America.

I know that may come as a bit of a news flash to you, but there it is.

Yup, and oddball thinks those trains would not work in the US. You know, different dirt, more rocks, different language. You know. Oddball thought.