Newt- Winning GOP nomination? I hope not

[G13]

Originally Posted by Klath [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Yes, we'd all be better off drinking the kool-aid that FOX News serves up. [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

You may believe that the stimulus package was a waste of time but the general consensus among non-partisan economic sources including IHS Global Insight, Moody's.com, Economy.com and Macroeconomic Advisers is that the economy "could have been worse" without the ARRA.

Actually that isn't true.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...-run/?page=all

Carry on with your propaganda

[Klath]

Originally Posted by G13 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Actually that isn't true.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...-run/?page=all

Carry on with your propaganda

The Washington Times? And you accuse me of spreading propaganda. [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Still, even with the bias, all the WT story really says is that the effects of the stimulus aren't as good as originally forcasted.

Here's how Politico reported the same CBO information:

CBO: Stimulus added up to 3.3M jobs

When you compare the two versions of the story, pay attention to the cherry-picked details and wording in the Washington Times version and what they chose to include and what they chose to omit. It is clearly written to cast the stimulus in the worst possible light.

Just for the record, here's how the director of the CBO compares the various policy options raised by Democrats vs Republicans:

CBO ranks Democratic and Republican stimulus proposals in one chart

The information in their chart is pulled from here (PDF).

[G13]

Originally Posted by Klath [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

The Washington Times? And you accuse me of spreading propaganda. [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Still, even with the bias, all the WT story really says is that the effects of the stimulus aren't as good as originally forcasted.

Here's how Politico reported the same CBO information:

CBO: Stimulus added up to 3.3M jobs

When you compare the two versions of the story, pay attention to the cherry-picked details and wording in the Washington Times version and what they chose to include and what they chose to omit. It is clearly written to cast the stimulus in the worst possible light.

Just for the record, here's how the director of the CBO compares the various policy options raised by Democrats vs Republicans:

CBO ranks Democratic and Republican stimulus proposals in one chart

The information in their chart is pulled from here (PDF).

You whine about the Washington Times and use Politico as a source? Really?

http://news.investors.com/ArticlePri...?id=592709&p=1

Recovery: After nearly all the stimulus money has been spent, the Congressional Budget Office now admits it cost more than advertised, did less to boost growth and will hurt the economy in the long run.

In its latest quarterly report on the economic effects of the Obama stimulus, the CBO sharply lowered its "worst case" scenario while trimming many of its upper-bound estimates for stimulus-fueled growth and employment.

The new report finds, for example, that the stimulus may have added as little as 0.7% to GDP growth in 2010 — when spending was at its peak — and created as few as 700,000 new jobs.

Both are down significantly from the CBO's previous worst-case scenario.

The report also lowered the best-case estimate for added growth in 2010 to 4.1% from 4.2%.

In addition, the CBO says the extra infrastructure money didn't boost growth as much as it previously claimed, because states reacted by spending less out of their own budgets on highways.

So in other words, the CBO now says it's possible that the stimulus had virtually no meaningful effect on growth and employment despite its massive price tag.

Again, you are seriously being disingenuous and spreading lies and propaganda. Fitch just downgraded it's outlook on the US economy as negative. You claim the Stimulus wasm't as good as originally expected? It wasn't even in the same ball park and it cost almost 900 billion in tax dollars. It wasn't even close to original projections, hence you're engaging in blatant propaganda that would make Goebbels stand up and applaud. Where do you think the stimulus money came from? The money tree? Obama's stash?

By all estimates, the Stimulus has been an absolute disaster. Only 6% of the stimulus was only used towards infrastructure projects. Billions were wasted on corruption like we've seen at Solyndra and Brightsource, where the Obama administration basically paid back their millionaire and billionaire campaign bundlers with your tax dollars, yet you continue to shill for a corrupt administration.

You're not even aware how the Obama Administration is calculating their unemployment numbers. You parrot talking points like "3.3 million jobs created or saved" without a firm grasp of the facts. First of all, the Obama Administration is no longer counting/calculating in their unemployment numbers people who have stopped looking for work because they can't find a job. Their 99 weeks have run out and they have no money. Apparently they are no longer considered real people by the Obama Administration.

They have completely dropped out of the job market, because like any market, the job market expands and contracts. The labor participation rate in the job market is declining at an alarming rate, yet here you are shilling for the Government.

The job market as a whole has shrunk significantly over the last 3 years. To put it in perspective, 315K people LEFT the job market last month because they can't find work. Magically they are no longer counted by the Obama Administration, so they aren't counted towards the unemployment rate. The real unemployment rate is past 15%. Only 120K jobs were created in which the majority are retail and temp jobs for the Holidays, yet the propagandists are telling us that the unemployment rate is going down? It doesn't even pass the laugh test, but go ahead and trot out your Keynesian sycophants for Big Government.

During this same time during Reagan's presidency in the 80s, a million jobs were created in one month. To even sustain the current unemployment rate, in reality we're going to need to see consecutive 250K positive jobs per month. That's never going to happen if the Government keeps sucking the public dry to fund their economic disasters like Obama's Stimulus.

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

People are unemployed for a longer period since the Great Depression. Median income has dropped. Health Insurance premiums have gone way up. The inflation rate has climbed more than 3%. Food stamp usage has skyrocketed. Home values have dereased. 4+ trillion has been added to the debt within 3 years before interest. The poverty rate is expanding. Do you have any idea how much of a disaster that is economically?

Here's a report just released by the Census Bureau.

http://content.govdelivery.com/attac...%202011%29.pdf

http://news.yahoo.com/factory-orders...150305291.html

These numbers indicate a downward trend in manufacturing. If produced goods and services are not moving off shelves as expected, manufacturers will be forced to cut prices which will reduce profit and cut into demand. When you have the Government taking money out of the private sector to re-distribute to their political cronies, which is exactly what we saw happened with the Stimulus, it's long term economic impact can be felt for decades as we are now seeing with these CBO projections.

Here is what the director of the CBO actually stated:

http://cboblog.cbo.gov/?p=3026

What you are not grasping is the fact that the Stimulus is going to be a long term drag on the economy because it's going to hinder private investment. This 3+ million job number you keep trotting out is the number being pandered by the Obama Administration. It's a lie. The real number is around 700K, which were mostly temporary jobs for the Census in 2010. There are "green jobs" within the Stimulus that cost millions of dollars per job. The CBO also released a report that says each "saved or created job" in the Stimulus cost US taxpayers more than 200K PER Stimulis job. What a bargain.

Doug Elmendorf, an economist for the CBO, clarified this when he stated the following:

The elemental truth of the matter is that putting money into ventures that generate losses, as was the case for the bulk of the so-called stimulus spending, reduces the resources available to society. As resources are reduced there is less economic growth and less demand for workers.

You don't even understand basic economics. You've been brainwashed to believe that Government Spending can create wealth and jobs on it's own without taxing somebody else.

[Humerox]

Originally Posted by Taluvill [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Learn to not listen to everything that our lovely liberal news stations show you, they are really good at taking things out of context.

so he wasn't really advocating making poor children work off their school lunch money by cleaning bathrooms in the school, among other nice little jobs, right?

there was nothing out of context in his hypothetical suggestion for a solution to a problem we all are aware of...he was deadly serious.

the man is a complete moran.

[Hailto]

Originally Posted by Humerox [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

complete moran.

Oh you

[Humerox]

Originally Posted by Hailto [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Oh you

yeah...memes ftw

[Taluvill]

but they weren't* Meant that the jobs were being given to people who already had guaranteed jobs through their unions, which payed a large portion of Obama's campaign fee's I might add.

[Loke]

I'm not sure who said it, but I remember hearing some where "Newt Gingrich is what a dumb person thinks smart people sound like" or something to that affect. We're so far gone, it doesn't matter. Once the rest of the world quits allowing us to borrow; us, and anyone we owe money to is going to be in for a rude awakening. I don't think anyone can fix that, the only thing they can really do is quit making it worse by putting it off and pretending it isn't going to happen. First the sub-prime, now euro zone. They're all results of reckless lending and investment that is being subsidized through the printing presses. In time I think we'll see that the MF global fiasco is going to negatively impact the the commodities market on a huge scale (more so than already). Shit is in shambles, but all people care about is who cheating on their wife or who should have to pay more taxes. Shit is ridiculous and its all coming to an end here in the not to distant future imo.

TL;DR - Doesn't matter, we're fucked regardless.

[Humerox]

Originally Posted by Loke [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Doesn't matter, we're fucked regardless.

/thread

we may not make it the 10-15 years i've been projecting.

nín hǎo

[Loke]

Originally Posted by Humerox [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

we may not make it the 10-15 years i've been projecting.

I'm really hoping for 3 more good-ish years before we start to see any real decline. I'm naturally pessimistic though. If they can some how keep convincing people the dollar is strong for a few more years I think I'll be golden.