Obama calling out Cantor

[rdean]

Is this, "We won't help disaster victims" Cantor?

Seems that policy fits right in with "let him die" and "applauding executions".

 

[Listening]

Is this, "We won't help disaster victims" Cantor?

Seems that policy fits right in with "let him die" and "applauding executions".

Seriously...

What was the point of this post ?

To attack Cantor ?

To discredit him ?

 

[Si modo]

Oh......the tedium......

Crisis No More: The Success of Obama's Economic Stimulus Program - Brookings Institution

Kiplinger.com

That's all well and fine, but that really doesn't answer my question.

Do try to come up with something that indicates that the 'stimulus worked' and some sort of data and/or statistic on which that claim is based.

It may be a difficult thing to find, but it certainly is not a confusing request.

 

[LoneLaugher]

I provided the info.......and you refuse to acknowledge it as fact. That is your problem.

Of course, the fact that so many people on your side of the issue have that same problem, means that it has become a problem for us all. The all-out attempt to squelch any hint of confidence in the economy......led by the constant chant about "Obama's failed stimulus" has had a negative effect on the recovery.

Since you love to ask people to answer questions that you already know the answer to, here is one for you:

Has the USA gained or lost jobs in the private sector since the the stimulus went into effect?

 

[Stephanie]

Ooooooooooooooo The Obama is "calling" out Cantor or this person and person..HELL he's even taken to calling out the very people he supposedly represents.

You would think the Thug in Chief would REALIZE the people don't CARE who he is "calling out" anymore.

In fact with his approval numbers I think the people are sick of him, calling out others.
He should just sit down and shut up...Stop being the bully that he is, he might get a bump or two in his polls.

 

[LoneLaugher]

You've been posting here for 7 years? That is something.

 

[Stephanie]

You've been posting here for 7 years? That is something.

yeah and you've been here only a few days, so?
Maybe someone could school you in how to use the quote button.

 

[LoneLaugher]

You've been posting here for 7 years? That is something.

yeah and you've been here only a few days, so?
Maybe someone could school you in how to use the quote button.

You mean THIS quote button?

Thanks for your guidance. I knew if I gave you a chance, you'd demonstrate that you've learned something in all the time you've spent here. Way to go!

 

[Si modo]

I provided the info.......and you refuse to acknowledge it as fact. That is your problem.

....

What fact?

If you think what you linked to provides any support whatsoever for your claim that the stimulus worked, I have to question your ability to understand what you allegedly read.

 

[Stephanie]

You've been posting here for 7 years? That is something.

yeah and you've been here only a few days, so?
Maybe someone could school you in how to use the quote button.

You mean THIS quote button?

Thanks for your guidance. I knew if I gave you a chance, you'd demonstrate that you've learned something in all the time you've spent here. Way to go!

Listen up dear. I've seen YOUR type come and go on this board. So I am now done with you...have fun..

 

[LoneLaugher]

I provided the info.......and you refuse to acknowledge it as fact. That is your problem.

....

What fact?

If you think what you linked to provides any support whatsoever for your claim that the stimulus worked, I have to question your ability to understand what you allegedly read.

Of course you do. It is the only way that you can justify your refusal to accept the facts for what they are. Did you read the entire Brookings article?

 

[Si modo]

I provided the info.......and you refuse to acknowledge it as fact. That is your problem.

....

What fact?

If you think what you linked to provides any support whatsoever for your claim that the stimulus worked, I have to question your ability to understand what you allegedly read.

Of course you do. It is the only way that you can justify your refusal to accept the facts for what they are. Did you read the entire Brookings article?

Yes.

So, your next logical step would be for you to show us all where the analyst says the stimulus worked and where they support that claim with data.

If you actually care about logic and making any sense, that is.

I'll wait to see if you do that (which would indicate you actually have any interest in honest discussion).

 

[LoneLaugher]

Since I am guessing that you did not read the entire article....here it is.


http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Fi...s_burtless/0817_stimulus_success_burtless.pdf

 

[Listening]

Since you love to ask people to answer questions that you already know the answer to, here is one for you:

Has the USA gained or lost jobs in the private sector since the the stimulus went into effect?

Could we ask if the stimulus has affected the orbit of the moon around the earth ?

Because there is as muich chance of establishing causation there as there is to connecting to private sector jobs.

In other words, if your definition of success is how many jobs have been created, then please state so. But, at the same time, it would be good if you could establish why that is the case.

You would also need to explain why private sector jobs are created when there isn't any stimulus money floating around. Would you do that please ?

 

[Si modo]

Since I am guessing that you did not read the entire article....here it is.


http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Fi...s_burtless/0817_stimulus_success_burtless.pdf

You 'guessed' wrong, cupcake.

I read it when it was first released and again last night.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Dude.......It is there in the article.....with data and full, careful explainations of the data. I am not going to rewrite the stuff that makes the case.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Since I am guessing that you did not read the entire article....here it is.


http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Fi...s_burtless/0817_stimulus_success_burtless.pdf

You 'guessed' wrong, cupcake.

I read it when it was first released and again last night.

I---do---not---believe---you.

 

[Si modo]

Since I am guessing that you did not read the entire article....here it is.


http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Fi...s_burtless/0817_stimulus_success_burtless.pdf

You 'guessed' wrong, cupcake.

I read it when it was first released and again last night.

I---do---not---believe---you.

OK. Then, you have no interest in any honest discussion.

That's OK. You have plenty of company here.

 

[LoneLaugher]

You 'guessed' wrong, cupcake.

I read it when it was first released and again last night.

I---do---not---believe---you.

OK. Then, you have no interest in any honest discussion.

That's OK. You have plenty of company here.

Bring honsety......and we can try it sometime.

 

[Si modo]

Dude.......It is there in the article.....with data and full, careful explainations of the data. I am not going to rewrite the stuff that makes the case.

I'm not asking you to rewrite anything.

You made a claim that the stimulus worked. The burden is on you to support that claim. (That's a logical thing, in case you didn't know).

You provided a link thinking that you met that burden. I see no statement in there that comes close to any support.

You haven't met your burden.

So, your claim is irrelevant until you meet your burden.

That's just how it works in reality.