The Stimulus Seems to have failed

Do you have evidence that 2 or more of the other measures (GDP, exchange rate, consumer spending, GNP, stock market, rate of inflation, trade balance...) are not better now than 2 years ago?

The question wasn't about trends, it was about comparing 2008 to 2010. If in 6 months, the trends you value hold, the 2008 versus 2010 numbers will look different. In which case THEN you can crow about how well your policy worked, not before.
 
You presented static numbers after being corrected.

LOL!

Like I said, joobz, trends don't help you.

Because the current trends in unemployment, National Debt, National Deficit, government compensation, and foreclosures are all UP.

Because the Stimulus was a FAILURE.
 
If in 6 months, the trends you value hold, the 2008 versus 2010 numbers will look different. In which case THEN you can crow about how well your policy worked, not before.

Even then he won't be able to crow. Because the trends in GDP, consumer spending, the stock market, the rate of inflation and trade balance are not exactly favorable. They all appear headed lower. Many experts are in fact expecting a double dip ... i.e., a drop in GDP, consumer spending, and the stock market as a result of the taxes Obama is putting into effect in January. As the impact of his health care proposals are felt. As the impact of the new debt is felt. joobz has just been drinking the KoolAid, Chris. :D
 
The question wasn't about trends, it was about comparing 2008 to 2010. If in 6 months, the trends you value hold, the 2008 versus 2010 numbers will look different. In which case THEN you can crow about how well your policy worked, not before.
I'm just trying to understand the statement. As I said, if it was so clear cut, then Gibbs is clearly wrong.
 
LOL!

Like I said, joobz, trends don't help you.
What do you mean help me?

I thought we are discussing OUR economy. Not just mine.

Because the current trends in unemployment, National Debt, National Deficit, government compensation, and foreclosures are all UP.
UP over what time frame?
And you previously mentioned cherry picking. Why do you select those values?

Because the Stimulus was a FAILURE.
It is still too early to state that.
 
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/index.php/gordon/354821

Is Obama’s Middle Name Hoover?

… snip …

We tried raising taxes, especially on the rich, in the teeth of a recession once before in order to narrow the gap between federal revenues and expenditures. That was in 1932. The results were not pretty, to put it mildly. Both houses of Congress passed Hoover’s proposed tax increases by wide margins, and John Nance Gardner, the speaker of the House (and FDR’s first vice president), even wanted to add on a national sales tax, which would have impacted the poor far more than the rich, in order to balance the budget. It didn’t work and the economic decline sharply accelerated. Government revenues in 1932 were $1.9 billion, despite the tax increases. Expenditures that year were $4.6 billion. The deficit, in other words, was 132 percent of revenues, by far the worst peacetime deficit in the nation’s history. Ever since, the idea that taxes should be raised in a recession has been an off-the-table idea. That, after all, was what Herbert Hoover did, not a model later presidents have chosen to emulate. At least until President Obama, that is.

So this leads to the question … who is going to be the President that will inherit the depression that Obama started? Hmmmmmm? :D
 
Over the last month or two. Isn't that the definition of trend, joobz? :D
I was simply asking how you were using the term.
regarding the trends.
Obama wishes to lower the deficit by letting the Bush tax cuts expire, but you seem to be against that action. THis makes no sense, as you are using that as an important economic indicator.

Secondly, the slight increase in unemployment was a result of lost census jobs. However, other job trends increased well. So, your point is a bit miss leading.
 
Secondly, the slight increase in unemployment was a result of lost census jobs. However, other job trends increased well.

No they didn't, as I clearly explained in post #680 and #700. Posts you and your friends basically ignored, joobz. :D
 

You continue to ignore the content of my earlier posts. Why is that joobz? :D For example, half the supposed increase in private sector jobs came from health care. But health care doesn't generate wealth. It consumes it. So how is that a sign of an improving economy? Especially when those new jobs are only the result of increased government regulation which experts admit will cost jobs overall? How is an increase in the number of underemployed a sign of an improving economy? Or an increase in the number of people no longer even bothering to look for work? Only in your imagination. :D
 
What industries generate wealth, BeAch? What criteria do you use to determine this?
 
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalp...bama-i-believe-government-should-be-lean.html

September 08, 2010

In Cleveland, Ohio, today, President Obama said, “I believe government should be lean; government should be efficient. I believe government should leave people free to make the choices they think are best for themselves and their families, so long as those choices don’t hurt others.”

LIAR. Your actions put the lie to your words, Obama. What do you think we are? Stuck On Stupid like you so that we'd believe such a *transparent* lie? Or maybe you are just speaking to your base. Yeah … that makes more sense. :D
 
You continue to ignore the content of my earlier posts. Why is that joobz? :D For example, half the supposed increase in private sector jobs came from health care. But health care doesn't generate wealth. It consumes it.
this is nonsense.
Just ask the people who develop MRI, HPLC, ECG, and all other aspects of health care.
 
this is nonsense.
Just ask the people who develop MRI, HPLC, ECG, and all other aspects of health care.

It's foolish to think the recent increase in health care jobs is because of increased spending on development of health care technology. If anything, companies are now holding off on such developments because they fear government run health care will prohibit the widespread use needed to recoup those costs.
 
It's foolish to think the recent increase in health care jobs is because of increased spending on development of health care technology. If anything, companies are now holding off on such developments because they fear government run health care will prohibit the widespread use needed to recoup those costs.
As a participant in health care research, your statement is blatantly false.


ETA:
A quick look at the PMA (pre market approvals) that must be submitted to get a device approved shows that there are currently 91 new concepts in review at the FDA. This is completely consistent from year to year, looking back to 1999.
IN other words, the idea that new medical devices are somehow not being developed because of health care reform is nothing more than the wild, baseless speculations.
 
Last edited:
Of course I didn't suggest that, did I. :D
Yes, you did.
It's foolish to think the recent increase in health care jobs is because of increased spending on development of health care technology. If anything, companies are now holding off on such developments because they fear government run health care will prohibit the widespread use needed to recoup those costs.
 

Back
Top Bottom