The Stimulus Seems to have failed

[OMGturt1es]

How much do you think engineering consulting firms charge per day? For that matter what makes you think the expertise in evaluating levies is trivial?

Lack of understanding. That's what.

I am not a levee expert. Levee expertise is not a trivial matter. Assessing material compaction, construction method, existing embankment geometry, subsurface conditions, hydraulic head, etc., etc., etc., takes specific knowledge. Gaining an clear understanding of what these conditions mean, and predicting future performance, takes years of experience, modeling, and remediation.

 

[BeAChooser]

I think we can safely say that all politicians lie.

I think that's just a copout because many politicians don't lie and republicans as a rule lie much less frequently than democrats. You will not find examples of Bush or republicans pushing the sort of lies that the media has routinely let Obama and democrats get away with for the last 2 decades. I decided a while back that Obama is worse then even Bill Clinton, when it comes to lying. And lying only for partisan political and personal reasons. Not just lying because they might think it's in the National Interest.

Your other major point appears to be that we would actually be better off if the stimulus had not passed. I must say that this appears to me to be the reverse of the quack argument, and suffers from the same problem: how do you know that, really?

Well of course there is no absolute certainty about this. One can only point to past history and draw logical conclusions about probabilities of outcomes. But that doesn't make the analysis incorrect or worthless. Everything in life is probabilitistic. You learn to deal with it instead of insist on certainty before you do anything. There are four historical cases. Cases where recessions/depressions were ended in a relatively short time through cuts (or at least no or very minor increases) in government spending, taxes and regulations (lots of these). Cases where recessions/depressions did not end in a relatively short time after cuts (or at least no or very minor increases) in government spending, taxes and regulations (hardly any of these). Cases where recessions/depressions ended in a relatively short time after massive government intervention (none of these). And cases where recessions/depressions ended after a long period of time following massive government intervention (several of these). So draw a rational conclusion.

You point me to a chart, but you must know that correlation is not the same thing as causation.

Oh come on. Try to think logically. If the claim is that more government spending stimulates economies and reduces unemployment, why wouldn't the unemployment line in that chart be the mirror image of the government spending line, i.e., go down when government spending goes up? Instead, when spending goes up, so does unemployment. And when spending goes down, so does unemployment. And there is a further quite obvious case for causation in that chart. The change in the unemployment rate lags behind or matches the change in government spending over virtually the entire width of the chart. There are virtually no instances where spending lags behind unemployment in that chart.

Finally, I'd like to note that a lot of people are throwing around the word "socialist".

Well, I'm one of them.

In fact, here's a thread where I posted quite extensively on the topic of Obama and socialism (and communism):

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=168256

Take a look at the evidence presented in that thread regarding Obama's associations with socialists and communists. The numbers are truly remarkable. At the drop of a hat I could list scores of people, something you would not be able to do with any other president in history. Don't delude yourself into thinking that's just an coincidence. And you'll note in that thread that I offered a challenge regarding those numbers that no one accepted. Because they know as well as I that everywhere you turn, Obama has links to socialists and communist.

I really don't understand how anything here could be called "socialist".

Well just look at Wikipedia's definition of socialism:

Socialists generally share the view that capitalism unfairly concentrates power and wealth among a small segment of society that controls capital and derives its wealth through a system of exploitation. This in turn creates an unequal society, that fails to provide equal opportunities for everyone to maximise their potential, and does not utilize technology and resources to their maximum potential nor in the interests of the public.

And the solution is to tax the rich, redistribute wealth, regulate the markets, control companies, provide universal healthcare, appoint people like Van Jones as czars, etc. Does that philosophy sound at all familiar? It should.

Wikipedia goes on to say:

Socialism is not a concrete philosophy of fixed doctrine and programme; its branches advocate a degree of social interventionism and economic rationalisation (usually in the form of economic planning), but sometimes oppose each other. A dividing feature of the socialist movement is the split between reformists and revolutionaries on how a socialist economy should be established. Some socialists advocate complete nationalisation of the means of production, distribution, and exchange; others advocate state control of capital within the framework of a market economy.

Obama and the leaders of the democrat party clearly advocate policies that reflect that ideology. You'd have to be blind not to see it. And Obama has surrounded himself with people who espouse that ideology … who even freely admit that they are socialists or communists (although sometimes they call themselves progressives or social democrats, but that's just part of the game). And keep in mind that socialism is just a stop on the road to communism, according to Marx, so we're really talking about one *ism* here.

 

[OMGturt1es]

But seriously. You speak of being held responsible. Is that reality? Did any engineer working for the government on levees actually get "held responsible" for what happened in Katrina?

The USACE was held accountable for inadequate channel maintenance.

Various governments have been held accountable for levee breaches, even when developers built near levees that the state had never intended for urban-grade protection.

Many firms will not touch levee work because liability risks are so high.

Individual engineers are called into court, and can be help responsible.

Because I do know that a scientist who studied levee failures and criticized the Corp of Engineers for those failures was fired for pointing out those failures.

I doubt it.

And I do know that on January 30, 2008, US District Court Judge Stan Duval ruled that "even though the US Army Corp of Engineers was negligent and derelict in their duty to provide flood protection for the citizens of New Orleans, he was compelled to dismiss a class action lawsuit filed against the Corps for levee breaches after Hurricane Katrina", citing "the Flood Control Act of 1928 which, among other actions, provided protection to the federal government from lawsuits when flood control projects like levees break" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Army_Corps_of_Engineers_civil_works_controversies_(New_Orleans) ). So I'm not sure you risk all that much, personally. Governments have a way of protecting their own. Again, that problem of No Accountability.

You conclude from one case? Governments HAVE been forced to pay.

And engineering firms are constantly dragged into court. My local office has been in and out of court. We actually stopped doing any residential work strictly because litigation risks were too high.

Stop playing expert in those fields of which you've no knowledge. Seriously. Stop.

And by the way, a little investigation shows this may be just another instance of government interference, turf building and money grabbing by government agencies artificially raising costs and creating inefficiency.

http://www.nola.com/hurricane/index.ssf/2010/03/coastal_restoration_spending_f.html

Wow!

I don't get it. What does that article demonstrate?

And the following might explain why the government seems willing to pay almost any price just to get out of a regulation and deadline quagmire that it appears to have created for itself:

http://www.swillinoislevees.org/pressclippings/pressclippings-January-June2010.pdf

You know, people like you DON'T DESERVE to have their levees fixed. It's just amazing to me how folk with NO KNOWLEDGE AT ALL can get so huffy about the government trying to improve infrastructure so that their ungrateful houses aren't lost in a flood. Believe it or not, but most of the significant levee problems that cause breaches are not obvious.

So BOOO HOOO HOOO. Cry me a river. FEMA and the USACE aren't releasing reports that aren't complete. It took me all of 5 minutes to find articles citing problems with underseepage. That's not surprising. I even saw pictures of the lower landward slopes sandbagged during flood fight. That's a really bad sign.

 

[OMGturt1es]

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=532&pictureid=3343[/qimg]

Can we talk about the graph?

Yes.

The economy tanked. It was epic bad. No good.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

I think that's just a copout because many politicians don't lie and republicans as a rule lie much less frequently than democrats. You will not find examples of Bush or republicans pushing the sort of lies that the media has routinely let Obama and democrats get away with for the last 2 decades. I decided a while back that Obama is worse then even Bill Clinton, when it comes to lying. And lying only for partisan political and personal reasons. Not just lying because they might think it's in the National Interest.

 

[OMGturt1es]

And the following might explain why the government seems willing to pay almost any price just to get out of a regulation and deadline quagmire that it appears to have created for itself:

http://www.swillinoislevees.org/pressclippings/pressclippings-January-June2010.pdf

I just found this:

http://www.mvs.usace.army.mil/me_levees/index.html

From the USACE site, "With each flood event we have seen greater underseepage and sand boiling at earlier, lower river stages. This indicates progressive subsurface deterioration. Recent new data also tells us subsurface soil conditions are inferior to what we historically thought."

And this:

http://www.stlbeacon.org/content/view/8353/143/

"Aging infrastructure affects the levees protecting East St. Louis and other parts of the three-county area of Madison, Monroe and St. Clair. Like elsewhere, there's a threat of under seepage. There also have been failures of so-called gravity drains made of iron pipes that rust over time."

These are serious problems. Increasing boiling at lower and lower hydraulic head indicates subsurface erosion. This is how levees often fail.

Old penetrations can also cause failure. They rust over time.

 

[ideogram]

republicans as a rule lie much less frequently than democrats

Sorry, I can't take you seriously after you write that. WMD.

ETA: I find you much more interesting when you use facts instead of rhetoric.

ETA: Oh, I can't resist.

You learn to deal with it instead of insist on certainty before you do anything.

It seems to me you forgot this principle in your criticism of certain bills being passed when they are admittedly not perfect.

 

[BeAChooser]

If you scrutinized yourself in the same manner this wouldn't offend me.

I just know that when you claimed 5 minutes of your time is worth $65, flags went up.

You don't have enough data to support that conclusion. Since you're just going to doubt my response

Did I sound like I was doubting your response when I drew that conclusion. Hardly. It's totally consistent with the ineffectiveness and waste we've all come to love in government funded efforts.

I guess it's a waste to explain that the government has scrutinized our billings more than any other client.

Which only reinforces the conclusion that the government did a really lousy job of monitoring your progress.

1. The government isn't funding a bunch of "levee assessors." The government hired private engineering firms who boast nationally-recognized levee experts. These experts tend to be senior engineers with advanced degrees, multiple licenses, and a career's worth of work assessing and fixing levees.

Pardon me, but I've had a number of experiences with "experts" of this sort (not specifically levee experts, however). Generally I've found the value added minimal.

By the way, you aren't the folks making $250,000 a mile to re-create documents showing how the levee was built, are you?

2. By policy, we bill half an hour minimum, so we don't charge $780 per hour.

Oh. I understand. Your hourly fee is $130 per hour. I have a lot less problem with that. In fact, almost no problem.

3. Firms that assess levees are taking on HUGE risk. Individual engineers that stamp these reports can be pulled into court. It happens. Liability risk is a big reason that the government hires outside firms to conduct infrastructure assessment.

That doesn't make sense. As I pointed to another poster, on January 30, 2008, US District Court Judge Stan Duval ruled that "even though the US Army Corp of Engineers was negligent and derelict in their duty to provide flood protection for the citizens of New Orleans, he was compelled to dismiss a class action lawsuit filed against the Corps for levee breaches after Hurricane Katrina", citing "the Flood Control Act of 1928 which, among other actions, provided protection to the federal government from lawsuits when flood control projects like levees break" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Ar..._(New_Orleans) ). So I don't see why the government would have to hire outside firms in order to avoid it's own liability in this instance. They've NO accountability.

I also asked that poster if any government funded private sector engineer working on levees in Katrina was "held responsible" and pulled into court? Were any fired as a result? In fact, can you name any cases in other levee cases (perhaps in California where there are lots of levees) where private sector engineers working under government funding on levees have been exposed to serious liability when levees failed. Just curious.

I'm obviously not going to go into any detail, but large, costly goofs were attributable to corporate-level employees.

And were those companies or those employees punished in any significant way by the government? "pulled into court"?

Look, I don't like Scott Adams, but there's a good reason so many folk relate to his comics.

I know what you mean.

I don't know many things for certain. One thing I do know, however, is that when one says, "All the Federal government can point to is one case of very costly mismanagement and failure to meet goals after another...," they're full of it. 100%.

Well by all means … name a large federal government program that has cost effectively met the goals on which it was sold to the American public. Certainly public education, medicare, social security, and I think this stimulus bill haven't.

You are a tool of partisan interests.

If that's all I am, then you shouldn't have any problem naming a large federal program that has cost effectively met it's goals. The ball is back in your court.

Quote:
I don't see anyone in government losing any jobs over any of these things. In fact, the only people whose pensions seem to be secure and who don't seem to be suffering 9% unemployment are … well … government funded workers … even though a good case can be made that they put America into this recession in the first place. There is no accountability when it comes to government ... and especially it's *managers*.

Well, you haven't been paying attention, frankly. Local governments nation-wide are in dire situations.

Yes, in my state that's true and so far very few (but some) government employees have been laid off. Far less than the percentage in the private sector. And the public sector employees are even insisting their pensions be insulated from losses in the stock market at taxpayer expense. And at the national level, the number of government employees has actually increased during this recession. Thanks to Obama.

Governments have laid off tons of folk. I don't know where you've been.

Prove it. Let's see your sources. Let's see how those "tons" of layoffs compare to the numbers that have lost their jobs in the private sector. Bet that in most cases its a drop in the bucket. And while you're looking for your sources, here's one of mine:

http://www.paindependent.com/todays_news/detail/public-sector-jobs-seem-recession-proof

Public Sector Jobs Seem Recession-Proof
June 10, 2010

Threats to cut state workers have become a regular part of the annual June budget soap opera in Harrisburg, even after two years of a recession which has cost Pennsylvania more than 200,000 private sector jobs.
… snip …

During the two years from September 2007 until September 2009 - a range stretching from a few months before the national recession hit until the most recent data available - the ranks of state government employees grew by nearly four percent.* In the same time frame, the number of private sector workers in Pennsylvania, the ones who have to pay for the public sector employees salaries and benefits with their tax dollars, has dropped by more than four percent.
http://www.commonwealthfoundation.org/imgLib/20100610_Privatevspublicjobslg.jpg

The levee work is not Stimulus-funded. It's just an example of a government contract.

Well I think you certainly led us to believe, in post #148, that the only reason you are employed is the stimulus. If not, then you were being a little deceptive in your arguments. This thread is about the stimulus and we could care less if you are a government contractor and your funding doesn't come from the stimulus.

You didn't read the dates that I posted proving that the Stimulus was passed prior to revised 2008 quarter 4 GDP estimates.

LIAR. I fully acknowledged that. And then pointed out that it doesn't matter as far as my assertion on this thread is concerned. In fact, it only strengthens my case because at the time the stimulus was sold, Obama and the democrats, based on what they thought the decline in GDP was, should have thought the recession was much less serious than the one in 1981-82, which we survived without massive socialist social spending bills. They had even less reason to believe a stimulus was necessary. The fact that the contraction was later found to be 6.3% (still less than Q1 1982) doesn't affect the validity of that assertion. Not one iota.

Quote:
Just like they seem to be counting public school teachers as private sector jobs.

I'll accept evidence or retraction.

Where have you been? Stuck in a cave?

I tell you what. Why don't you give us a list of the private sector jobs that make up Obama's claimed 90% of all stimulus jobs? Bet you can't do it. And here's why:

http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/teacherbeat/2010/03/stimulus_mitigated_teacher_job.html

March 25, 2010

… snip …

The bottom line: Although K-12 employment dropped by about 1.4 percent from 2009 to 2010, the federal economic-stimulus law paid for about 342,000 jobs over that time period, or 5.5 percent of total K-12 employment. In other words, it appears that the legislation did, in fact, save a significant number of teachers' jobs.

Now you do the math. Just to handle the 340,000 teacher jobs attributed to the stimulus and still make 90% of all jobs private sector jobs, the stimulus would have to have created/saved 3 million private sector jobs. And that doesn't even factor in the rest of the government employees paid for via stimulus funds, Mr Cave Dweller.

 

[BeAChooser]

Dude. Look at the graphs, and read your response. Read it out loud. Record it. Play it back, while looking at the graphs.

LOL! You're making a silly mistake. You think that because the dip in the curve of your chart is appears most prominent in the latest recession, it must be the worst. But you forget that the look is only a function of the GDP at that point. The GDP in 1981/82 was about 3 trillion. The GDP in 2008 was about 14 trillion. So the same percentage drop in GDP in both cases will LOOK almost 5 times more serious in 2008. But it's not. The percent contraction in 1982 was WORSE than the percent contraction in 2008. And that's a fact that hundreds of sources both in and out of government confirm. So you read that out loud, DUDE. Record it, DUDE. Play it back, DUDE. And you try to show us that you're an engineer who actually knows how to deal with percentages and graphs.

 

[BeAChooser]

The USACE was held accountable for inadequate channel maintenance.

Source?

Various governments have been held accountable for levee breaches

Which governments? Source?

Individual engineers are called into court, and can be help responsible.

Can you source some examples. Not doubting you. Just curious.

Quote:
Because I do know that a scientist who studied levee failures and criticized the Corp of Engineers for those failures was fired for pointing out those failures.

I doubt it.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2010/02/fired_katrina_whistleblower_va.html

Ivor van Heerden, a disaster-science expert who faulted the Army Corps of Engineers for badly constructing levees and thereby contributing to the devastating, post-Hurricane Katrina flooding filed a long expected lawsuit against Louisiana State University which fired him last year. The lawsuit basically accused the university of wrongly terminating him for pointing out the corps' deficiencies.

Quote:
And I do know that on January 30, 2008, US District Court Judge Stan Duval ruled that "even though the US Army Corp of Engineers was negligent and derelict in their duty to provide flood protection for the citizens of New Orleans, he was compelled to dismiss a class action lawsuit filed against the Corps for levee breaches after Hurricane Katrina", citing "the Flood Control Act of 1928 which, among other actions, provided protection to the federal government from lawsuits when flood control projects like levees break" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Ar..._(New_Orleans) ). So I'm not sure you risk all that much, personally. Governments have a way of protecting their own. Again, that problem of No Accountability.

You conclude from one case? Governments HAVE been forced to pay.

Then provide us with some current examples. Because a ruling by a US District Court judge that the Flood Control Act of 1928 provides protection to the federal government from lawsuits "when flood control projects like levees break" is nothing to sneeze at. It's precedent setting.

And engineering firms are constantly dragged into court. My local office has been in and out of court.

In levee work? On jobs where the government was the funding agency?

We actually stopped doing any residential work strictly because litigation risks were too high.

Irrelevant. No one is suggesting that engineering consulting firms don't get dragged into court when working of fully private sector projects. But when they work on government funded projects monitored and approved by the government? I'm a little skeptical. Because you know that old saying … you can't sue the government (or government contractors).

Stop playing expert in those fields of which you've no knowledge.

How do you know I have no knowledge?

Quote:
And the following might explain why the government seems willing to pay almost any price just to get out of a regulation and deadline quagmire that it appears to have created for itself:

http://www.swillinoislevees.org/pres...y-June2010.pdf

You know, people like you DON'T DESERVE to have their levees fixed.

Wow! I guess you didn't like hearing about the regulation and deadline quagmire that the government created where levee assessment is concerned. Guess you didn't like my question about the urgency … when we are dealing with flood loads that only expected to happen once in a 100 years … or 500 years, as the case may be. But at least its not part of the stimulus package, so perhaps it's all off topic and we should simply drop it as an issue in this thread.

 

[BeAChooser]

Sorry, I can't take you seriously after you write that. WMD.

Come clean. Admit it. You weren't going to take me seriously from the get-go. You're just looking for an excuse to avoid dealing with the other points I made in my post.

And notice that I said lying for "partisan political and personal reasons". IF Bush/republicans lied about WMD (and I'm not agreeing that they did and we can talk about that on one of the many past threads where WMD were the topic if you'd like) then I believe they lied because they had an honest belief that ridding the world of Saddam and his regime was in the National Interest. Even if it took a lie. That's far different than the sort of lies the Clinton administration engaged in the 1990s and the type of lies the Obama administration is now promoting.

 

[BeAChooser]

http://money.cnn.com/2010/07/15/news/economy/lost_decade/index.htm

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- The risk of a double-dip recession is getting a lot of attention, but even that grim prediction could prove a little too optimistic.

Disappointing job reports, weakness in housing and consumer spending and problems in world financial markets have raised concerns about the U.S. economy stalling out later this year. Now some economists are starting to talk about an even worse fate: a prolonged period of very weak growth, a so-called "lost decade."

Oh yeah, the stimulus has the economy humming again.

 

[ideogram]

Come clean. Admit it. You weren't going to take me seriously from the get-go. You're just looking for an excuse to avoid dealing with the other points I made in my post.

You don't know me very well. I admit my first impression of you is negative, but I assure you I can change my opinion very quickly.

Part of the problem is the sheer volume of your text. I don't like wading through rhetoric to find the facts. I prefer to focus on one point at a time.

How much I deal with you depends on my level of interest.

ETA: Look, I 'd really like to engage you in some kind of reasonable conversation, but you're going to have to meet me halfway. Can you please try to summarize your main points? You spent a lot of time talking about lying politicians. Now you want to argue about whether the Republicans lie more than the Democrats. I think that's silly so I won't be pursuing that. Then you wanted to talk about the stimulus failing. So I asked you (actually, anyone) how we can measure that. I'm not exactly sure what your reply was there. Finally, I said I don't think the stimulus is a socialist program. Which prompted a lot of talk about what the definition of socialism is, anyway. Is that what you want to focus on?

Since you've forced me to admit I don't think highly of you, I'll continue to be honest and say I think you are pulling a snowjob.

 

[ideogram]

Let me emphasize this:

I want to know how we can measure the true effect of the stimulus. How can we decide whether the stimulus is succeeding or failing? How exactly can we know that things would have been better or worse without the stimulus?

 

[kookbreaker]

Oh yeah, the stimulus has the economy humming again.

I have to wonder who is drooling salaciously over the prospect of our economy tanking more: BAC, or JihadJane?

JihadJane drools over the idea of the economy tanking so the great socialist revolution can begin.

BAC drools over the idea of the economy tanking so the great socialist revolution can end.

 

[BeAChooser]

I admit my first impression of you is negative

And what would be the cause of that? Because I actually do use facts to support my assertions? Sure, I'm a little intolerant of democrat dishonesty and criminality, but who shouldn't be? And yes, I'm very intolerant of socialist/communist thinking (and those espousing it), but I think experience and history gives me good cause. And it's true that sometimes I get a little abrupt (perhaps interpreted as *snarky*) but I get that way in the face of obtuseness or when someone gets unpleasant with me first. Look, what's not to like about me?

Part of the problem is the sheer volume of your text. I don't like wading through rhetoric to find the facts.

But facts must be put in context. And I fear that were I not to try and use proper complete sentences, I'd be criticized for that.

I prefer to focus on one point at a time.

And perhaps I would do that if folks didn't make more than one point in their posts, and if issues consisted of just one point. But sadly, neither is the case in the real world. I just glad we don't try to communicate on these forums like we were texting one another. Because I'd rather read a book.

How much I deal with you depends on my level of interest.

Fair enough. I certainly don't want you to deal with me if you aren't interested.

I admit my first impression of you is negative

And what would be the cause of that? I deal in facts. Sure, I'm a little intolerant of democrat dishonesty and criminality, but who shouldn't be? And yes, I'm very intolerant of socialist/communist thinking (and those espousing it), but I think experience and history gives me good cause. And it's true that sometimes I get a little abrupt (perhaps interpreted as *snarky*) but I get that way in the face of obtuseness or when someone gets unpleasant with me first. Look, what's not to like about me?

Part of the problem is the sheer volume of your text. I don't like wading through rhetoric to find the facts.

But facts must be put in context. And I fear that were I not to try and use proper complete sentences, I'd be criticized for that.

I prefer to focus on one point at a time.

And perhaps I would do that if folks didn't make more than one point in their posts, and if issues consisted of just one point and weren't connected to many other things. But sadly, neither is the case in the real world. I'm just glad we don't try to communicate on these forums like we were texting one another. Because I'd rather read a book then. I like the fact that discussion on this forum can be like talking with one another, and have real depth, rather than consist of a series of one liners.

Look, I 'd really like to engage you in some kind of reasonable conversation, but you're going to have to meet me halfway. Can you please try to summarize your main points?

I think I did earlier when I wrote:

So what better way to evaluate the effectiveness of the stimulus than to compare what has happened with what the Obama administration predicted would happen? They said that if we did NOT pass the stimulus, unemployment would climb to 9%. They promised that with the stimulus, unemployment would max out at only 8%. Well it went to over 10%, is still well over 9%, and some worry it is on the way back up. They claimed that the stimulus money would provide "immediate" job relief and that almost all of the money would be spent in the first 18 months. Yet, neither happened. In fact, 18 months is about up and only about 50% of the money has been spent (the rest is a slush fund to reward democrat supporters as the election approaches … and now you know the real reason for the stimulus). They claimed that over 90% of the jobs would be in the private sector (indeed, Obama is still claiming this). But that's just another baldfaced lie

and when I wrote

What is denied is that it was THE worst recession since the Great Depression at the time that Obama made that claim to justify the stimulus. What is denied is that it's severity at that time required massive socialist spending in order to fix the economy and bring back jobs. And what is denied is that what we seen happening now can in any way be described as a stimulus success. And all of these denials are based on the actual facts regarding this and past recessions/depressions.

All the rest has just been facts to back up those assertions.

You spent a lot of time talking about lying politicians. Now you want to argue about whether the Republicans lie more than the Democrats.

Only because, in order to excuse all the lies that have come from Obama and democrats about the stimulus, you made the claim that all politicians are alike. Which is demonstrably false. Don't expect me to ignore assertions like that.

I think that's silly so I won't be pursuing that.

Well you are entitled to an opinion but if you can't defend it with facts, it may not be worth all that much. I don't know how old you are, but I watched carefully what happened during the the last three administrations (and more). And I can tell you, based on what I observed and know to be fact, democrat politicians lie far more often than republicans and those lies threaten the very foundations of this country.

So I asked you (actually, anyone) how we can measure that. I'm not exactly sure what your reply was there.

Just look at the first paragraph in my summary above.

Finally, I said I don't think the stimulus is a socialist program. Which prompted a lot of talk about what the definition of socialism is, anyway. Is that what you want to focus on?

Not really (in this thread), but if you're going to claim the stimulus and other programs that Obama/democrats have been putting into place don't have socialist philosophy at their core, that may be what we need to discuss. Because the stimulus and other legislation being forced into law (over the objection of most Americans, I might add) have socialist roots. That fact alone explains why Obama and democrats are not willing to let the free market successfully deal with a recession and unemployment, as the free market has done many, many, many times in the past.

Since you've forced me to admit I don't think highly of you, I'll continue to be honest and say I think you are pulling a snowjob.

The only snowjob being pulled here is the one by Obama, democrats and their complicit media. It's a snowjob to pretend that their agenda isn't socialistic/communistic, a snowjob to claim they aren't socialists at heart, and a snowjob to claim the stimulus has "worked as planned" (and I'm quoting the Vice President).

Now tell me, have you heard of the Cloward-Piven strategy?

 

[BeAChooser]

BAC drools over the idea of the economy tanking so the great socialist revolution can end.

I'm taking no pleasure in what I see happening to this country. Far from it. Probably unlike you, I fought the evils of socialism and communism for much of my life. And now I see it rearing its ugly head once again ... because democrats just don't learn and have no sense of history or economics.

I'm not drooling ... because I'll be negatively affected just as badly as anyone ... probably more than most. And my children will certainly be affected in a negative way. The bottom line is that ridiculing the claims by democrats that the stimulus has "worked as planned" (which is what I'm doing) is not drooling, kb, but an appropriate response to utter stupidity.

 

[ideogram]

I'd rather read a book

It appears to me that your writing style will result in people's eyes glazing over at the sight of your posts. I could be wrong.

The Obama administration made bad predictions. That doesn't imply the stimulus made things worse. I have said this several times now.

 

[BeAChooser]

The Obama administration made bad predictions.

The Obama administration ignored history. As for "predictions", who knows what their economic models actually showed? They could simply have been lying about them predicting such and such unemployment with and without the stimulus. Afterall, we already know they've lied in order to promote this (and other) bills. They certainly lied when they claimed economic conditions were worse than any recession since the Great Depression at the time they made that claim. They certainly lied when they claimed the money would go towards immediate job relief and all be spent in about 18 months. They certainly lied when they claimed that 90% of the saved/created jobs would be in the private sector. And they lied by omission in hiding the environmental and "green" agenda of the bill during its selling. So why might they not have been lying about those claimed predictions as well?

You can't have it both ways. You can't claim that they made a bad prediction and believe the Vice President (who was in charge of the stimulus) when he said the stimulus "is working better than hoped" (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/09/03/politics/main5284608.shtml)? . You can't believe it was just a bad prediction when Obama told Anderson Cooper that "the stimulus package is working exactly as we had anticipated." (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ar...rson_cooper_interview_barack_obama_97446.html ) . Logically, he either lied to Cooper during that interview or he lied to Congress and the American people back when he was trying to sell his porkulus package.

Try not to be so gullible and forgiving. The future at the country is at stake.

 

[ideogram]

Try not to be so gullible and forgiving. The future at the country is at stake.

What is the alternative, paranoid conspiracy theories?