I didn't remember it at all. When I saw your post I thought "that can't be right", so I looked it up. And lo and behold, it wasn't. Did you know that Dick Cheney spent $1 billion on caviar in his last two weeks in office? Isn't that outrageous? Well, if that number is wrong, I'm sure his caviar habit is outrageous anyway. And maybe it wasn't caviar, but it was certainly something, for some amount of money. You comprehend? barfo
But again I ask...You also said "the situation" - are you now wishing to refine your statement to "only unemployment"????!?!?!?!?
The amazing thing is that my original point about "apocalypse" really had nothing to do with it. BB stuck words in my mouth about racking up "insane" amounts of debt just for the heck of it, so I decided to be just as dramatic and stick words and situations in his mouth. But he got hyperventilated and went after the good 'ol NEA. I'm surprised he didn't choose the Dept. of Health and Human Services too.
Is that a joke? Massive unemployment only hurts those people who are unemployed? You have lost all credibility. What's next, going to argue that 2 plus 2 actually equals 8? ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhaahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahhaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahaaahahhahaahaahahahahahahsahhahaaahaahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa me..........
I'm sorry that you can't seem to discuss issues like an adult and that you have anger issues. I really hope that someday you seek help.
How is one suffering from anger issues when they are laughing at you? Does everyone who laughs at you have anger problems? When someone says something so ridiculously stupid and isn't joking I react how I react. Deal with it. If you read what I write and can't tell when I am being sarcastic or intentionally mean, I shouldn't expect you to understand how unemployment hurts those who aren't. Did you see the part at the end? It said.....me You make me sad. You make me feel like there is nothing that can be done. When people have such backwards though processes that they feel like those of us that are sane are suffering from anger issues I don't know what to say. Welcome to ignore, I suggest you do the same so I don't hurt your feelings again. I don't want to be responsible for how my horrific so called "anger" affects you.
I won't bother with most of your tripe as your anger issues are clear in your other posts suggesting people kill their own families. You just need help. My point was addressed to Denny, who stated that the "situation" was worse than it would have been without the stimulus. Then in his next post he provided a graph - showing only unemployment. I stated... It is highly unusual for someone to quantify the entirety of the economy based upon the statistic of unemployment UNLESS they were themselves unemployed and then maybe I could see their entire focus revolving around that...maybe. So I'm trying to determine - and have yet to receive an answer- as to whether Denny is refocusing his definition of "situation" as "unemployment". If Denny were unemployed then I would find it more plausible. Otherwise I believe Denny is just up to his old shenanigans.
Why blather on about a "single" statistic when I've now produced two rather important ones. You seem to ignore the second and 3rd, the size of the growing debt and deficits, and GDP growth. I'd say all three are HUGE indicators that the economy is sucking. And all 3, Obama and his advisors promised would be better if the stimulus pork bill was passed. Maybe you want to go back and read post #52: Now can you pick 2 measures of the overall economy that are doing well? I'll give you one, Wall Street/Banking. I'll leave it up to you to figure out that there isn't a 2nd.
I don't think Obama promised the debt/deficits would get better this year due to the stimulus. As for the others, one can't really prove one way or another what would have happened without the stimulus. barfo
There's no measurable positive effect on the economy. What was the emergency that the pork bill had to be passed in haste so nobody could debate it or even read much of it before the vote?
Clearly there are positive effects on the economy. A non-zero number of people are employed due to the stimulus spending, and their paychecks get spent on consumer goods, etc. One can certainly debate the long-term vs. short-term implications, but to say that it has no positive effect in the short term is at best an exaggeration. I think it had something to do with the economy spinning down the toilet. I am not defending the not-reading or not-debating aspects, however. barfo
Sorry, but I call the bolded part utter bullshit. "If we don't pass this stimulus bill, unemployment will reach 9%." Yet with the bill, unemployment has reached 9.7%. Which is better, the 9% without or the 9.7% with? "If we pass this bill, GDP growth will rebound and we'll only run $7T in combined deficits over the next 10 years." Yet with the bill, the 10 year estimate has been adjusted to over $9T. Which is better, the $7T without or the $9T+ with? I'd argue that the $7T without is an absurd amount in the first place. "The economy is worse than we thought." Who is in charge here? The guys in the West Wing are supposed to know these things. "Emergency, emergency! The economy is the worse since the depression!" So spend the money like it's an emergency, dammit. How about spending it all in the first month if you can? "It's the worst economy since the depression." Well, no, that's a flat out lie. It's the worst economy we've had since Jimmy Carter was sent packing. Obama's on that same course.
You can call it that, but it doesn't make it so. Stimulus money is being used to hire people. I'm not sure how you could deny that. Your logic here is abominable. You are crediting the administration for being able (both economically and politically) to predict unemployment rates. It's completely silly. If they had said "If we don't pass this stimulus bill, unemployment will reach 11%", would you then be claiming the stimulus was a huge success, because unemployment is only 9.7%? Of course you wouldn't. The $7T wasn't a "without" number. They changed the estimate from 7T with the stimulus to 9T with the stimulus. Shocking, that they weren't able to predict the future. Well, you can't. Government spending doesn't work that way. It is certainly arguably the worst since the depression, depending on what metrics you look at. I like how you accuse them of being too negative about the economy, in the same post as you accuse them of being too positive about the economy. barfo
Have you ever heard of opportunity cost? There's no way that spending $500K to create a job while dozens of other jobs are lost is a good thing. Government sure can spend money in a hurry. They're already spending $300B per month, and if there's one thing government is good at, it's writing checks. For the cost of the stimulus, they could have given all businesses and employees an instant break from FICA withholding. That would have amounted to a 15% cut in payroll expenses across the board, meaning companies could hire up to 15% more wages or spent that money on services from other companies. In no way is it arguably the worst since the depression, based upon any metrics you look at. Pick one metric you think makes it worse than the early 1980s. Before you do, realize unemployment was higher than now, and much higher if you consider women weren't in the workforce in anywhere near the numbers they are now. Or that inflation was double digits. Or interest rates were pushing 20%. (Obama's entire presidency is going to look like 80-83)
But they don't. There are companies now with money to burn but inevitably they end up holding onto the money because they aren't sure what's happening to the economy. So you'd just end up giving companies 15% more money to put into savings.
