The Stimulus Seems to have failed

[BeAChooser]

To me, that sounds like you're basically admitting that you are a salesman for your point of view.

Of course I'm an advocate for my point of view. And I do it with facts and logic. If the other side can't contest those facts and logic, then I hope on a forum of supposed *skeptics*, my point of view will triumph.

To my mind, this is a thread for discussing an idea, not for selling one.

I think you'll find very few threads at JREF that are about just discussing an idea rather than selling one side's opinion about it.

Which is not to say that you shouldn't argue passionately for what you believe is the truth, but you should also do so fairly, and respect the other side.

As far as fairness is concerned, nothing is stopping the other side from presenting facts and logic to support their views. And when they have, I've responded. As to respect ... respect is something that is earned.

People other than you in this thread have made good points... for you to not acknowledge that is dishonest.

What specific "good" points do you think other people have made that I haven't acknowledged? Don't be vague, be specific ... otherwise I'll give your attack on me the respect I think it deserves.

You have posted many "facts" that have been disputed

For example? Again, be specific or I'll ignore you. Because I don't think the material I've posted has been effectively disputed.

You are going about this all the wrong way.

And what approach have you tried? Care to link us an example on the topic of the stimulus and Obama's economic policies? A quick browser search doesn't turn up any posts by you on that topic. So why the sudden interest in this topic?

If the answers aren't satisfactory, keep pressing.

But I think that's exactly what I've been doing on this thread. Pressing the point home. Building a thread full of facts that make the failure of the Stimulus and Obama's economic policies indisputable except in the most partisan eyes. And I think that's worth doing.

In fact, I would like to see a new topic called something like "The history of Keynes policies" in which you give people you're little history lesson, and then people can respond, and you both dissect historical evidence in depth.

People have had their chance to talk about Keynes early in this thread. Now we appear to be past that ... to simply citing more and more evidence that the Stimulus didn't work. That a Keynesian approach didn't work. Assuming that what Obama did is even something Keynes would have blessed in the first place.

 

[BeAChooser]

There you go again, attempting to divert the discussion by spamming another random article.

Wrong. That wasn't a random article. It specifically concerns the dishonesty the democrats have employed where *stimulus* spending is concerned. They've claimed one thing then done another. They've made promises, then broken them. It specifically concerns the top democrat in the House continuing to promote the bogus notion that Obama's Stimulus worked. It's entirely appropriate to point out that she's still doing that on a thread like this where her dishonesty has been proven in so many ways. Why start another thread and have to present that dishonesty all over again and argue it all over again? I think it's best to just keep this topic and the history of discussing it together in one thread. If that bothers you I'm sorry. Perhaps if you think what I'm saying can be argued more effectively, then you should start a thread and give it a try. Because all I see now is yet another attempt to silence the opponents of Obama's policies.

 

[BeAChooser]

Obamanomics 101. How to pay for stimulus spending?

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN2527792620101025

Oct 25 (Reuters) - The U.S. Treasury Department on Monday sold securities that fetched a negative yield for the first time, implying investors are willing to pay the government to own its debt.

 

[joobz]

Obamanomics 101. How to pay for stimulus spending?

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN2527792620101025

One must wonder what this means in terms of inflationary expectations over the next several years.

 

[L The Detective]

Of course I'm an advocate for my point of view. And I do it with facts and logic. If the other side can't contest those facts and logic, then I hope on a forum of supposed *skeptics*, my point of view will triumph.

Well, yes. To a certain extent we are all advocates for our point of view. But we shouldn't slaves to it. Ultimately what we are all advocating for is the truth, and thus as skeptics we should constantly be evaluating all points of view, including our own.

Thus, if you get too married to a point of view, it's no longer about finding the truth, but simply about winning. Or in your words, "triumph." That's counter-productive to real discussion. If you aren't actually willing to be wrong, then you can never be right.

I think you'll find very few threads at JREF that are about just discussing an idea rather than selling one side's opinion about it.

No, I disagree. There are a lot of people here who are pretty fair debaters, in my opinion. Sure, everyone is always doing a little selling, it's human nature. But I think people here do a pretty good job of resisting that, at least compared to other forums. That's why I come here.

As far as fairness is concerned, nothing is stopping the other side from presenting facts and logic to support their views. And when they have, I've responded.

You have responded inconsistently. Primarily because you are so busy spamming articles that you don't have time to respond to everything, old arguments get lost in a sea of new arguments. Your style of posting inhibits discussion.

What specific "good" points do you think other people have made that I haven't acknowledged?

Well, what's "good" is subjective. That's a tricky question because in order to answer it, I'm going to have to go back and look for specific examples, and I already know that you will do your absolute best to argue against or discredit those examples in any way possible. So what's the point?

I'd prefer to focus on how your article spam is sabotaging discussion.

For example? Again, be specific or I'll ignore you. Because I don't think the material I've posted has been effectively disputed.

Huh? I merely said that you have posted "facts that have been disputed." Do you disagree with me that there has been dispute?

And what approach have you tried? Care to link us an example on the topic of the stimulus and Obama's economic policies? A quick browser search doesn't turn up any posts by you on that topic. So why the sudden interest in this topic?

So I criticize your approach, and your response is "what approach have you tried?" Are you asking me if I've done a better job of advocating for your beliefs? Why do you assume I share them? I probably agree with you on some things and disagree on others. In this particular example of whether "stimulus works," I don't think there's an easy answer to that question. So I wouldn't advocate strongly either for or against it.

But I think that's exactly what I've been doing on this thread. Pressing the point home. Building a thread full of facts that make the failure of the Stimulus and Obama's economic policies indisputable except in the most partisan eyes. And I think that's worth doing.

No, that's absolutely the opposite of what you're doing. You aren't pressing anyone. You are using a shotgun approach. People have rebutted many of your articles, and whether they are right or wrong, you have left many of these rebuttals untouched.

People have had their chance to talk about Keynes early in this thread. Now we appear to be past that ... to simply citing more and more evidence that the Stimulus didn't work. That a Keynesian approach didn't work. Assuming that what Obama did is even something Keynes would have blessed in the first place.

It is quite clear that we aren't past that, BAC. I don't see anyone here who has changed their minds.

Wrong. That wasn't a random article.

Was it in reply to anyone in particular? Then it was random. Even if it does relate to the topic of this thread, it does not relate to the flow of the thread's conversation, not in the least bit. It is spam.

So why do you call article spamming "evidence"? Isn't it telling that you use the word "evidence," almost as if you're in a court of law and you are a lawyer? Lawyers are paid to advocate for their side to the bitter end, regardless of the actual truth. Why do you equate yourself to that?

Or did you mean "evidence" in the scientific way? If that's the case, then why do you constantly interpret the facts and articles for us? Why not just post the facts silently and let them speak for themselves?

Spamming articles the way you are is useless to your cause. The shotgun approach doesn't work. The discussion becomes fragmented and no one wants to follow it anymore. It's also a way for you to avoid having real debate with people. If you are constantly filling the thread with a sea of articles, you can ignore anyone with a rebuttal anytime you want to. It's a cowardly debate tactic. Now, I'm not calling you a coward... but don't you think you should reevaluate your tactics here?

 

[BeAChooser]

Ultimately what we are all advocating for is the truth

Don't be naive. There are lots of posters on this forum who couldn't care less about the truth. On this thread, even. And neither does Obama, Pelosi or Reid.

and thus as skeptics we should constantly be evaluating all points of view, including our own.

Of course. Which is why I continue to look at the facts and post articles on them. Which is why I'm more than happy to debate facts whenever those on the other side actually post some … which, to be honest, is rather rare around here.

Or in your words, "triumph."

Well I think the facts clearly indicate my side is the one that needs to win if our country is to stay intact and not collapse in economic chaos. Like we are now seeing in France.

If you aren't actually willing to be wrong, then you can never be right.

I am willing to be wrong. But you won't convince me of that unless you post some facts and logic that clearly counter my current views. Not just opinion, which so far is all you've offered.

Originally Posted by BeAChooser
I think you'll find very few threads at JREF that are about just discussing an idea rather than selling one side's opinion about it.

No, I disagree. There are a lot of people here who are pretty fair debaters, in my opinion.

Show me some examples on topics that actually matter. Until you do, I will stand by the statement that there are very few threads where posters aren't trying to sell their opinion about this or that.

Originally Posted by BeAChooser
As far as fairness is concerned, nothing is stopping the other side from presenting facts and logic to support their views. And when they have, I've responded.

You have responded inconsistently.

PROVE IT. Don't just keep posting vague generalities.

Primarily because you are so busy spamming articles that you don't have time to respond to everything, old arguments get lost in a sea of new arguments. Your style of posting inhibits discussion.

First all, if you actually looked at this thread, you'd know that I have responded to any salient argument made to the contrary. I not going to keep repeating myself however. If a poster keeps saying something I've already addressed, and who ignored my response, don't expect me to keep responding. At some point I will just ignore anything further that poster states. And you continue to falsely claim I'm introducing new arguments rather than supporting the old ones. The posts you've objected to above all were further substantiation of the old argument, which the other side has basically ignored. And I'm sorry but I think the other side is the one who needs to step up if there is to be honest debate here, LTD. I'm inhibiting nothing.

Originally Posted by BeAChooser
What specific "good" points do you think other people have made that I haven't acknowledged?

Well, what's "good" is subjective. That's a tricky question because in order to answer it, I'm going to have to go back and look for specific examples, and I already know that you will do your absolute best to argue against or discredit those examples in any way possible. So what's the point?

In other words, there aren't quite as many "good" points made by the other side as you wanted folks to think. In other words, you seem afraid to actually defend your claim that there were "good" points or that I didn't acknowledge them. In other words, you continue to hide behind vague generalities and untruth. That's the point.

I'd prefer to focus on how your article spam is sabotaging discussion.

LOL! This from someone who just showed up on the thread, never attempted to discuss the topic of the thread when he/she joined, and doesn't seem to have shown any interest in this topic on any other thread prior to showing up here. I fail to see any evidence that I've sabotaged discussion. In fact, I'm the one who has clearly kept this thread alive and stimulated hundreds and hundreds of back and forth exchanges on the topic.

I merely said that you have posted "facts that have been disputed." Do you disagree with me that there has been dispute?

Oh, so you aren't actually claiming any of the facts were successfully disputed. I see.

So I criticize your approach, and your response is "what approach have you tried?"

Why shouldn't I ask what approach you have tried on this subject since you seem to be having problems with mine? It's easy to criticize, harder to do.

Why do you assume I share them?

I don't. I simply offered you the opportunity to show us how you've used a better approach on this topic elsewhere and now you don't seem to want to show us that, either.

In this particular example of whether "stimulus works," I don't think there's an easy answer to that question.

I disagree. I think there is a very easy answer to the question … an answer that is supported by all those posts citing facts that you seem to object to my posting.

You aren't pressing anyone.

LOL! And how am I going to force them to respond. If you've read the thread, you should already know that the other side has mostly abandoned the playing field. I'm just adding nails to the fence that will deter them from coming back.

People have rebutted many of your articles

Not successfully. When they tried, I rebutted them right back. And if you claim otherwise, then PROVE IT. Cite the posts where they successfully showed the stimulus wasn't a failure.

and whether they are right or wrong, you have left many of these rebuttals untouched.

Again, an unsubstantiated claim. I choose to ignore unsubstantiated claims so should I just ignore you? If I left "many" rebuttals untouched, you shouldn't have any problem directing our attention to some and defending your claim. Ball is in your court.

It is quite clear that we aren't past that, BAC. I don't see anyone here who has changed their minds.

LOL! Did you really expect the other side to change their minds? The sort of people who still support Obama and the current crop of top democrats have proven time and again that nothing will change their minds. Not even the results of the coming election which will repudiate Obamanomics. Haven't you figured out yet that I'm not really directing my arguments at them? They are simply a foil (when the occasionally show up) for making my points?

Originally Posted by BeAChooser
Wrong. That wasn't a random article.

Was it in reply to anyone in particular? Then it was random.

LOL! Then the OP of almost every thread is a random article. Because OPs are not a reply to anyone in particular either. You seem to be missing the point of this entire thread, LTD. That doesn't really surprise me given that until now you've shown little to no interest in the economy and Obamanomics.

Even if it does relate to the topic of this thread, it does not relate to the flow of the thread's conversation, not in the least bit. It is spam.

You keep misusing that word. Do you even know what spam is?

Spamming articles the way you are is useless to your cause.

How do you know. How do you know that part of the reason Obama is growing increasingly unpopular and even mainstream media outlets are saying the reason is the failure of the stimulus isn't because of the efforts of people like me? The weight of evidence presented in this thread is so massive that only the most diehard partisans are still even trying to defend it. But perhaps now they are trying another tactic.

It's also a way for you to avoid having real debate with people.

GARBAGE. You post some facts to defend the stimulus and I will be happy to debate you. You link us to some of those *rebuttals* that you claim I've ignored, and I'll be happy to rebut them, assuming I hadn't already done that. Until you do that, all you are trying to do now is derail and shut down the thread.

If you are constantly filling the thread with a sea of articles, you can ignore anyone with a rebuttal anytime you want to. It's a cowardly debate tactic.

The only coward is you. You continue to make these attacks but won't back them up to prove they are true. Cite some specific examples or go back to your religion threads.

Now, I'm not calling you a coward…

That's exactly what you just implied, LTD.

but don't you think you should reevaluate your tactics here?

Why do you care? Up till now, in a 1200+ post thread, you haven't had a single thing to say.

 

[joobz]

Don't be naive. There are lots of posters on this forum who couldn't care less about the truth. On this thread, even. And neither does Obama, Pelosi or Reid.

On this point, we agree.

Of course. Which is why I continue to look at the facts and post articles on them.

However, on this point, L is basing his argument on evidence. Look at just this page. People have pointed out flaws on your sources, and you've ignored this.

Which is why I'm more than happy to debate facts whenever those on the other side actually post some … which, to be honest, is rather rare around here.

Unfortunately, you are not being honest about this statement.

 

[L The Detective]

Don't be naive. There are lots of posters on this forum who couldn't care less about the truth. On this thread, even. And neither does Obama, Pelosi or Reid.

Define what you mean by "the truth"?

Because when it comes to politics, there is no objective "truth." Politics are a system man invented, so it's all ultimately subjective. There is an important discussion to have about which political system works the best for society, but your answers to that question are going to depend upon your own personal values and priorities. So right and wrong answers aren't easy to come by, the best we can do is look at the extremes like anarcho-capitalism and communism and say those don't seem to work.

Of course. Which is why I continue to look at the facts and post articles on them. Which is why I'm more than happy to debate facts whenever those on the other side actually post some … which, to be honest, is rather rare around here.

Do you ever acknowledge when someone "on the other side" has a good point? Do you ever acknowledge when you're wrong about something? How often would you say this happens?

Well I think the facts clearly indicate my side is the one that needs to win if our country is to stay intact and not collapse in economic chaos.

Even if you believe that's true, it's no reason not to have an open mind and actually have a real discussion, rather than just spamming articles.

I am willing to be wrong. But you won't convince me of that unless you post some facts and logic that clearly counter my current views. Not just opinion, which so far is all you've offered.

Everything in this thread is opinion. Everything. Economic systems are not simple, and facts in a vacuum tell us nothing. Your interpretation is required. That is subjective. Politics isn't science.

PROVE IT. Don't just keep posting vague generalities.

What, prove that you've been inconsistent when it comes to answering people's arguments? Why do you deny that? It's not a big deal... with all of the articles you're posting, I wouldn't expect you to be able to answer everyone. The point is that you are making it harder for yourself by spamming articles the way you do. Your arguments should be focused, the shotgun approach doesn't work.

If a poster keeps saying something I've already addressed, and who ignored my response, don't expect me to keep responding. At some point I will just ignore anything further that poster states.

That's a bad tactic, it makes it look like you aren't responding because you don't have a good response.

When I am debating someone, if I feel I need to repeat myself because the other side isn't understanding, I ask myself why that is, and attempt to break it down for them in as much detail as possible so that the misunderstanding becomes clear.

Oh, so you aren't actually claiming any of the facts were successfully disputed. I see.

I mean, c'mon. Obviously, a person selling a point of view is going to claim that none of their facts were successfully disputed, that none of the opposition ever made a good point, and that everything they are saying is FACT. Take a step outside yourself and listen to how you sound.

I'm not trying to paint you as a bad person or anything. I'm sure you're a perfectly nice guy (or girl) and certainly you're more knowledgable about politics than I am. But have a little humility, why don't you? I don't care how many forum points you've scored, so calm down. I just want to talk.

Why shouldn't I ask what approach you have tried on this subject since you seem to be having problems with mine? It's easy to criticize, harder to do.

I don't have a problem telling you my approach to political discussions. First of all I enter with humility. I don't think I have all the answers, and recognize that since politics are ultimately subjective, the answers are different for everybody anyway.

Second, I try to answer everyone's questions as honestly as possible. I don't shy away from hard questions, I gravitate towards them. If I am unsure about something, I say so. And if I feel like I made a mistake, I own up to it.

Third, if I feel that someone has a logical flaw in their belief, and it bothers me, I press them on it. I try to do so as politely as possible, of course, but I have trouble letting go of things... and you can see I'm kind of a stubborn person as well.

When it comes to politics, I enjoy hearing from all sides. I think there are intelligent points to be made on all sides, because political systems are not simple and different ones have different strengths and weaknesses.

Then the OP of almost every thread is a random article.

True, but you're missing the point. An OP is a starting point for discussion. Interjecting a starting point in the middle of discussion doesn't make much sense, does it?

The only coward is you. You continue to make these attacks but won't back them up to prove they are true.

I don't think you're a coward. I just think that this particular tactic you're using, spamming threads with articles, could be seen as cowardly. The reason why is because it allows you to put distance between yourself and any arguments you don't want to answer. I'm sure you probably don't mean to use it that way, though. You just think that your posts = evidence, and that the more of them you make the closer you get to proving something.

I really don't want to argue with you. All I'm trying to tell you here is that the shotgun approach doesn't work. And you should probably stop using smileys. You seem like an intelligent person, so it's a shame that no one around here seems to take you seriously. C'mon, let's change that!

 

[BeAChooser]

Define what you mean by "the truth"?

LOL! You used the word. You tell us what you meant when you wrote "Ultimately what we are all advocating for is the truth".

the best we can do is look at the extremes like anarcho-capitalism and communism and say those don't seem to work.

No, as this thread proves we can look at Obamanomics as exemplified by the Stimulus and conclude it doesn't work.

Do you ever acknowledge when someone "on the other side" has a good point?

You show an instance where the other side made a "good" point and I didn't acknowledge it. Don't hide behind trying to make me point out the good points for you. Don't try to move the goal posts just because you are now being asked to support an attack that you made on me.

Even if you believe that's true, it's no reason not to have an open mind and actually have a real discussion, rather than just spamming articles.

You don't appear to know the meaning of the word spamming. Nor have you proven I'm not open minded or in any way hindering a "real" discussion. You're just throwing out mud now and hoping something sticks because apparently you have nothing substantive to say about the OP topic and never did.

Everything in this thread is opinion. Everything.

That is ABSOLUTELY FALSE. It is an undeniable fact that, as pointed out in this thread, Obama promised that if the Stimulus Bill were passed unemployment would not exceed 8%. It's an undeniable fact that it did exceed that. It's an undeniable fact that Obama promised that 90% of the new and saved jobs would be in the private sector. It's an undeniable fact that almost all the jobs created or saved by the government have been government jobs. And I could go on and on proving you wrong. And that's not a subjective fact, either.

Originally Posted by BeAChooser
PROVE IT. Don't just keep posting vague generalities.

What, prove that you've been inconsistent when it comes to answering people's arguments? Why do you deny that?

Stop arguing like a Truther. I've said nothing one way or the other as to your assertion. I'm simply asking you to back up your claim and you seem unable to do that. You sort of stumbled into the tar pit, didn't you, LTD?

That's a bad tactic, it makes it look like you aren't responding because you don't have a good response.

That's your opinion. And you are close to getting that treatment. Either back up the attacks you've made on me or I'll ignore you. Then you can go back to showing your wisdom on whatever subjects you normally post about.

Take a step outside yourself and listen to how you sound.

No, you listen to how you sound. You keep making assertions about me but when asked to prove them, you keep backing down and moving the goal posts. You are sounding like a Truther. You keep saying that my facts have been rebutted, with the implication they've been proven wrong. Well I say they haven't been proven wrong. That any substantive argument made against the view that the Stimulus is not a failure has been successfully rebutted by me or others. The ball is your court. Prove me wrong by citing some examples. Bet you don't.

I just want to talk.

I don't want to talk, not unless you actually post something specific that proves the stimulus is or is not a failure. That proves Obama's economic policy vis a vis debt is or is not a failure. Outside of that, you are off topic as far as I'm concerned.

I don't have a problem telling you my approach to political discussions.

I don't care about your approach to political discussions. I want to see your approach to the topic of the stimulus and whether or not it is a failure. Why don't you show us an example of a better approach to debating it, since you don't seem to like this thread's approach?

First of all I enter with humility. I don't think I have all the answers, and recognize that since politics are ultimately subjective, the answers are different for everybody anyway.

You haven't entered with anything, LTD. You made no substative comment about the stimulus, debt or the economy. You seem to be here for only one reason … to keep me from posting articles that bear on those subjects.

Second, I try to answer everyone's questions as honestly as possible. I don't shy away from hard questions

And yet, you've totally refused to back up the various dishonest attacks you've made on me so far. Hard questions.

An OP is a starting point for discussion.

Tell that the moderators.

Interjecting a starting point in the middle of discussion doesn't make much sense, does it?

As I proved for the few posts you identified, I was not interjecting a starting point. I was supporting an older assertion with more facts.

I just think that this particular tactic you're using, spamming threads with articles, could be seen as cowardly.

And I think the tactic you are now trying could be seen as cowardly. Making vague attacks on a person and then refusing to back them up.

I really don't want to argue with you.

Of course not. You just want me to agree with you. Which is why you keep coming back, moving the goal posts and making claims you don't seem able to support with facts.

And you should probably stop using smileys.

 

[L The Detective]

LOL! You used the word. You tell us what you meant when you wrote "Ultimately what we are all advocating for is the truth".

I meant it the way it sounds... what we believe is true. I think the meaning is pretty obvious. But you used the word differently than I did. You said "There are lots of posters on this forum who couldn't care less about the truth." The way you used the word seemed loaded to me, as if "the truth" = your political views. That's why I asked you to define what you meant. Probably not a very clear question from me, so I apologize.

What's with the LOL? Were you actually laughing out loud? What was so funny?

You show an instance where the other side made a "good" point and I didn't acknowledge it.

I haven't been cataloging them in preparation for this conversation, so I don't have any. But that's beside the point... I am asking YOU if you can honestly think of any examples where you acknowledged that the other side of the discussion was right. There's no need to be defensive... if you can't think of any, just say so. If you would like to not answer the question for some reason, then say so.

You don't appear to know the meaning of the word spamming.

Semantics. Seems apt to me.

Nor have you proven I'm not open minded or in any way hindering a "real" discussion.

Of course not. It's impossible to "prove" something subjective.

That is ABSOLUTELY FALSE. It is an undeniable fact that, as pointed out in this thread, Obama promised that if the Stimulus Bill were passed unemployment would not exceed 8%. It's an undeniable fact that it did exceed that. It's an undeniable fact that Obama promised that 90% of the new and saved jobs would be in the private sector.

Well, that's true. I probably shouldn't have said "everything" in this thread is an opinion, when you use the word everything you get in trouble. Let me amend that and say that all of the *conclusions* in this thread are opinion. That I will stick by.

Now, I will grant you that those first two things are facts. But...

It's an undeniable fact that almost all the jobs created or saved by the government have been government jobs. And I could go on and on proving you wrong. And that's not a subjective fact, either.

This is not a fact. This is opinion. There's absolutely no way to measure how many jobs are created or saved, because we would have to include all of the indirect effects of the stimulus. And there's no real way to measure that, am I right?

That's your opinion. And you are close to getting that treatment. Either back up the attacks you've made on me or I'll ignore you.

Yes, that's my opinion; ignoring people is a bad debate tactic. I have already tried to back it up as best I can, but I will try to be more clear. Here's why I think that: if you simply ignore someone, it makes it seem like you don't have a good counter-argument. Especially if you are quick to do so. It makes you look weak.

That's just my opinion. I can't back it up except with common sense arguments. If you disagree, at least explain why you think so. Why are you so quick to ignore people?

No, you listen to how you sound. You keep making assertions about me but when asked to prove them, you keep backing down and moving the goal posts. You are sounding like a Truther.

Why do you keep using that word "prove" and keep demanding "evidence"? That's strange. Don't you understand that I am not making any objective claims?

You keep saying that my facts have been rebutted, with the implication they've been proven wrong.

If that's what you thought, then I apologize for the misunderstanding. I didn't mean to imply that your facts have all been proven wrong. In fact, I was trying to be even handed, I believe I said that both you and others in this thread have made good points. Is that fair enough?

I don't want to talk, not unless you actually post something specific that proves the stimulus is or is not a failure.

But I don't think it's actually possible to measure whether the stimulus is a success or a failure. I think the best we can do is to look at history and try to make predictions based on that, and... um, and if I'm not mistaken, don't you kind of agree with me on that? I'm pretty sure I've heard you say something similar. That's why I would really like to see a discussion about the history of Keynesian policies, and I would love for you to be in it. Even though I'm not a fan of your salesman-ish debate techniques, I do respect your knowledge on this subject.

I don't care about your approach to political discussions.

But you asked, remember? From post 1221:

And what approach have you tried?

As I proved for the few posts you identified, I was not interjecting a starting point. I was supporting an older assertion with more facts.

They aren't really facts. They are interpretations of facts.

Let's look at the last article you posted, in post 1223: "Obamanomics 101. How to pay for stimulus spending?" What are the "facts" you are establishing in this post? Basically, that there are signs that the economy is bad? Even if that's true, it doesn't establish that the cause is the stimulus, right? Correlation is not causation.

Whether the stimlulus is working is not measured by how well the economy is doing now, but rather how well it would have been doing in an alternate universe where there was no stimulus. Since there's no dimensional door for us to step into, there's no real way to know if it's working. The actual effects are impossible to measure. The only true way is to look at the history of Keynesian policies and see if there's a pattern of effect or not. I'm pretty sure I've heard you say the same thing several times in this thread, am I right?

 

[BeAChooser]

Enjoy your trolling, LTD. But I'll no longer bite.

 

[joobz]

Enjoy your trolling, LTD. But I'll no longer bite.

You've only helped confirm what is obvious to everyone; That you are not interested in truth or facts. Only spamming politically myopic nonsense.

This isn't to say everything you post is wrong. But, the shear effort one must go through to find the diamonds in the dung heap makes it not worth their time.

 

[BeAChooser]

Your stimulus dollars at work folks:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100...74392614626562.html?mod=WSJ_hp_editorsPicks_5

A proposal to build the world's biggest solar-thermal power plant in the Southern California desert got the go-ahead Monday from the Obama administration, which used the announcement to bolster its message that renewable energy creates jobs.

The $6 billion project is being developed by Solar Trust of America, a joint venture between Germany's Solar Millennium AG and privately held Ferrostaal AG on 7,025 acres of federally owned land near Blythe, Calif.

… snip ...

The Obama administration said the Blythe solar-power project will create 1,066 jobs at the peak of construction and almost 300 permanent jobs to operate the facility.

Note several facts.

It's not US companies that will be benefiting from this. The hardware and development will all come from Germany. In fact, not only will a German company (Solar Millennium) benefit, but Ferrostaal, it's partner is 70% Abu Dhabi (an arab company) owned. They will also be the one ones to profit from the energy produced by the plant.

The number of US jobs created will be tiny compared to the $6 billion dollar expenditure. Of that $6 billion, the US government will be handing Solar Trust of America a federal grant worth about 30% of the project's cost under the Stimulus act. So that's just about $6 million dollars in government funding per permanent job created. What a deal.

And what will be the projected cost of the *green* energy from these plants? From what I've read, the estimated LCOE (levelized cost of energy) is about 18 cents per kWh (over 40 years life). That compares with the 7 cents per kWh predicted in that industry just a decade from now as technology improves (http://pul.se/Is-Concentrating-Sola...esearch-and-Analysis-601pinlb4Oz,6j0f3NxWGtDE ). That compares with 3 to 4 cents per kWh for coal and natural gass fired plants available NOW. That compares with the 2 to 3 cents per kWh possible in nuclear plants (if you keep environmentalists from making their construction nothing but one delay after another). So you can expect that the government subsidies needed to make this green energy stimulus monstrosity affordable to the poor democrat base in California now and into the future will add even more to the eventual taxpayer cost of this government stimulus project. Remember, taxpayers and energy users subsidize the poor's power in CA. Like I've said before, stimulus funding of green energy projects isn't about the jobs or economics … but the leftist environmental and socialist agendas.

And finally, don't you love how they can throw the words "America" and "Trust" into the name of the umbrella company and think they will fool us?

 

[L The Detective]

Enjoy your trolling, LTD. But I'll no longer bite.

You're afraid to respond to my post, why?

Your stimulus dollars at work folks:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100...74392614626562.html?mod=WSJ_hp_editorsPicks_5

This article is interesting, and I think we probably agree that this doesn't seem to be a good use of stimulus dollars. I would much rather see it spent on nuclear power plants than solar.

But that has little to do with the topic of this thread. What are you asserting with this post? That the govt may spend stimulus money in ways that we disagree with? No one is disputing that fact, so it's redundant.

The real question is, do the jobs created stimulate the economy in ways better than tax cuts would. Your post doesn't address this, so it's not really evidence of anything.

And again, why are you so afraid to answer my questions? I've gone out of my way to be as pleasant to you as possible, I even complimented you a few times. What about my questions scares you?

 

[Dorian Gray]

DG, as I already pointed out, you need to look at who controlled Congress and the events taking place at the time, rather than just look at who was President, if you want a clear picture.

But then those posts just went in one ear and out the other, didn't they?

For you, they sure did! Because when bad things happen, you blame whichever is a Democrat. That's why you stay away from the first 6 years of Bush, because it's all crap and it's all Republican. You're all Rainman-like about that time, huh.

 

[drkitten]

You're afraid to respond to my post, why?

Because he's a fundamentalist, which I mean in a strict and descriptive sense -- as well as a completely pejorative one.

Fundamentalism arises when a group starts to lose direction and hegemony; the more or less total collapse of Reaganomics in the 2000s is a good example. Rational thinkers look at what deregulation did to the economy and say "hmm, maybe there was an upside to regulation after all" and try to salvage some thing pragmatic and useful from the wreckage.

But to the True Believers [tm], this is unacceptable. Obviously, what went wrong was that we didn't have faith enough that the Great Pumpkin would come, and didn't clap hard enough for Tinker Bell to come back.

It helps, of course, that very few True Believers actually know what they believe; they just have a set of catch phrases they like to parrot, because if you understand the assumptions underlying the various theories, you probably also understand that if the assumptions are untrue, the theory is so much hamster phlegm.

So you have the effect of a whole bunch of Biblical Fundamentalists who have never actually read the entire Bible but believe wholeheartedly in every word they've had read to them from the pulpit.

And they take turns providing those stock phrases to help keep each other's spirits up....

BAC doesn't participate in a conversation with you because he can't; not only does he not understand the snippets he linkspams, but in many cases it's amply demonstrated that he doesn't even read them. Not only are they often irrelevant, but far too often they actively contradict the point he'd like to make, but because he found them on another set of fundamentalist linkspam, they must be acceptable stock phrases.

In a sense you have to admire his huevos; he's not just preaching to other fundamentalists, but he's actively trying to evangelize to a fairly sophisticated group here. He's just so bad at it, and at some level he knows that, which is why he dare not read any of the material he posts or our responses to it, lest he be converted to apostasy and turned into a pillar of salt for his unbelief.

 

[L The Detective]

Because he's a fundamentalist, which I mean in a strict and descriptive sense -- as well as a completely pejorative one.

Yeah, I agree with you. He's obviously completely sure that he is right. I just can't understand how anyone could be so sure, when it comes to something as subjective as politics. It's not science, there are no right or wrong answers, the best we can say is that there are some ideas that seem to work better than others, right?

And yet, notice how BAC constantly uses words like "proof", and "evidence," as if he thinks politics is a science and he can objectively prove that his views are right. I think there's something fundamentally flawed in his understanding of the nature of politics. I tried to bring this up with him several times, and to use one of his catchphrases, "crickets." That's a shame though, because I would really liked to have had a real conversation with him about that. Oh well.

I don't necessarily even think he's that wrong about this topic, even though I think it's obvious that stimulus spending has to work on some level. But as to whether it works better to stimulate the economy than tax cuts... I'm just not completely sure. At some level that's probably my failing, but I get the sense that there are some legitimate arguments to be made in favor of tax cuts over stimulus spending. I just don't know what they are.

Yeah... sorry, I don't have a lot intelligent to say about this topic, that's why I haven't chimed in until page 30. I would make a new topic about the subjectivity of politics but I don't think BAC would be joining my party.

 

[joobz]

I don't necessarily even think he's that wrong about this topic, even though I think it's obvious that stimulus spending has to work on some level. But as to whether it works better to stimulate the economy than tax cuts... I'm just not completely sure.

That's the funny thing. 36% of the stimulus went to tax cuts. another third went to entitlement programs and the last 1/3 went to the grants and contracts which created jobs. In other words, all of the things that people talk about represent about a 1/3 of what the stimulus package offered. Some people think that the tax cuts were a waste and 2/3rds of the bill should have gone to grants/contracts. I don't know if this is true or not.

What I do know is that the stimulus bill was actually a measured rational approach to end the economic problems. The fact that it didn't work as well as intended is a shame.

 

[YoPopa]

Because he's a fundamentalist, which I mean in a strict and descriptive sense -- as well as a completely pejorative one.

Yeah, I agree with you. He's obviously completely sure that he is right.

LTD, I believe you are sincere in wishing to have this type of adult discussion but I caution that you are not going to get very far with it if you insist on vilifying BAC while siding with the likes of drtKitten. In the field of arrogant dogmatics drtKitten is at least the equal of BAC.

I just can't understand how anyone could be so sure, when it comes to something as subjective as politics. It's not science, there are no right or wrong answers, the best we can say is that there are some ideas that seem to work better than others, right?

I see your point about never being able to be absolutely sure when it comes to politics but only in the sense of distinguishing between moral choices. Choices such as those posed by the questions "Am I my brother's keeper?" "Should people be free to fail?" "Are you responsible for your own choices?" Once you have decided on the answers to such questions then the relative effectiveness of one political action over another become much easier to assess.

 

[YoPopa]

That's the funny thing. 36% of the stimulus went to tax cuts. another third went to entitlement programs and the last 1/3 went to the grants and contracts which created jobs. In other words, all of the things that people talk about represent about a 1/3 of what the stimulus package offered. Some people think that the tax cuts were a waste and 2/3rds of the bill should have gone to grants/contracts. I don't know if this is true or not.

What I do know is that the stimulus bill was actually a measured rational approach to end the economic problems. The fact that it didn't work as well as intended is a shame.

A long time ago I read a quote from someone who was arguing that the economy was going to suffer because the politicians were like journeymen trying to fix an incredibly complicated clock mechanism with a sledge hammer. The argument being had by the vast majority today is that their hammer is better than the other guy's.

The crisis we are in is in large part one of confidence. How can anyone have confidence when almost 1/2 of the country wants to use the "wrong" hammer?