Stimulus Package Working Better than Expected.

[Wild Cobra]

You act as if the CBO is the only one saying it worked. In the past I have linked several private economic firms who have said the exact same thing: Without the stimulus - the recession is far worse.

I don't even think any serious person takes this as a debatable issue. I just post these threads to get people like you and Jack to squirm with BS.

Replying to me? I'm not in threaded mode, so I don;t know if you are, but am assuming so.

There lies one of the problems with the Internet. You can find arguments to support or deny just about any position. For that reason, I don't agree that your findings have any relevance. In fact, I would say that by going by the (biased) opinion of other makes your position weaker than mine. I can support my positions without links of other peoples words. Can you?

[admiralsnackbar]

Replying to me? I'm not in threaded mode, so I don;t know if you are, but am assuming so.

There lies one of the problems with the Internet. You can find arguments to support or deny just about any position. For that reason, I don't agree that your findings have any relevance. In fact, I would say that by going by the (biased) opinion of other makes your position weaker than mine. I can support my positions without links of other peoples words. Can you?

Why are you so proud of yourself for arguing out your ass?

[Wild Cobra]

So is there any non partisan organization that you would trust when reviewing their economic data?

Trust? No. I look at the findings and decide for myself, I don't rely on others to tell me what to think. The CBO has an absolutely laughable record. They should be ignored until proven right.

[Blake]

Trust? No. I look at the findings and decide for myself, I don't rely on others to tell me what to think. The CBO has an absolutely laughable record. They should be ignored until proven right.

what is the source of the findings you have found?

[Wild Cobra]

Why are you so proud of yourself for arguing out your ass?

What can I say. I'm an arrogant asshole.

But at lest I earned it.

[Blake]

I'm a pretty big fan of the CBO, personally. They seem to couch their estimates fairly.

From what I've read, I would agree.

I guess Manny likes estimates.

the WSJ

[RandomGuy]

Replying to me? I'm not in threaded mode, so I don;t know if you are, but am assuming so.

There lies one of the problems with the Internet. You can find arguments to support or deny just about any position. For that reason, I don't agree that your findings have any relevance. In fact, I would say that by going by the (biased) opinion of other makes your position weaker than mine. I can support my positions without links of other peoples words. Can you?

You say that as if all sources are created equal. They aren't.

It takes some solid critical thinking to evaluate sources, and decide how much emphasis to place on them.

You try the "I can support my position without anyone else" schtick in a real, formal debate by attempting to support your positions "because I said so", and you will be laughed off stage.

Simply because some sources can be easily dismissed does not mean ALL sources should be, as you seem to suggest here.

That is a failure of logical thinking, don't you agree?

[RandomGuy]

What can I say. I'm an arrogant asshole.

But at lest I earned it.

Being overly convinced that your opinions are *the* correct ones is pretty much admitting confirmation bias.

There is a fine line between arrogance and narcissism.

I personally tend to be much more skeptical of your positions, simply because you fail to acknowlege the real possibility that you can be wrong about something.

[Blake]

What can I say. I'm an arrogant asshole.

But at lest I earned it.

what's outstanding is that you are arrogant and ignorant at the same time, which usually leads to spectacular fail that's entertaining to watch.

[MannyIsGod]

So because you (allegedly - have yet to see the analysis of the stimulus you've done) can back up your opinions while I use the opinions of experts in their fields your stance is stronger.

You may very well be more informed about economics than I am (I doubt it - but w/e - I'm not here to pull out my economic and measure it against yours) your argument is automatically correct? The sources I have used are experts with extensive experience and training and who without a doubt know the field better than you.

You can use stupid irrelevant arguments like "you can find anything to support what you say" or you can actually use factual evidence to disprove what I'm saying. Up to you.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Wild Cobra- I can support my positions without links of other peoples words.

Wild Cobra-The CBO has an absolutely laughable record. They should be ignored until proven right.

[MannyIsGod]

I'm a pretty big fan of the CBO, personally. They seem to couch their estimates fairly. Of course, the OP doesn't mention that this is only an estimate. The CBO admits that the underlying employment data isn't exactly pristine and has to use models based upon "previous similar policies" in addition to other corrective methodology. That's why it's an estimate. I guess Manny likes estimates.

Estimates are as good as it gets when dealing with economics on this scale. Whether I like them or not is fairly irrelevant when its the best accepted method.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Estimates are as good as it gets when dealing with economics on this scale. Whether I like them or not is fairly irrelevant when its the best accepted method.

But WC chooses who to believe when it's convenient for him..

[Wild Cobra]

There is a fine line between arrogance and narcissism.

True. However if you actually knew me, you would know. wouldn't you.

I personally tend to be much more skeptical of your positions, simply because you fail to acknowlege the real possibility that you can be wrong about something.

On the contrary. I do know that I am sometimes wrong. If you recall, I do account for the times my predictions were wrong. I simply believe my wisdom is advanced enough to see the truth. Yes, I am still at times wro0ng. However, I think my accuracy outweighs my inaccuracy.

Can you show me to be otherwise?

[Blake]

That's a recent do ent. Past predictions have a 50% chance either way if done correctly. If the past prediction was purposely low-balled, it has a higher than 50% chance of saying the bailout worked.

Again, what would have happened if there was no bailout? Can you trust a CBO report on that? Wasn't unemployment not suppose to get as high as it did?

Please wake-up, and stop trusting these elitists. They only have their future as a concern. Not yours.

What do you think would have happened if there was no bailout?

What findings do you personally have to show that the CBO's findings are laughable?

[Blake]

Yes, I am still at times wro0ng. However, I think my accuracy outweighs my inaccuracy.

wro0ng

Can you show me to be otherwise?

based on your past defensive posts, that would be a pointless exercise as you would find a way to convince yourself that you are still more accurate than not.

[Wild Cobra]

What do you think would have happened if there was no bailout?

What findings do you personally have to show that the CBO's findings are laughable?

I'm note even going to try to quantify your stupid question with someone else's link. I have all along, over these last 18+ months, said that the bailout was wrong.

[MannyIsGod]

Oh well then obviously it is so.

[Blake]

I'm note even going to try to quantify your stupid question with someone else's link. I have all along, over these last 18+ months, said that the bailout was wrong.

I didn't ask you directly to answer my question with someone else's link.

I said:

What findings do you personally have to show that the CBO's findings are laughable?

Blaming alcohol for your failure at reading comprehension is a fail.

[jack sommerset]

you don't like to read, do you.

much easier to ass talk.

I read alright. 9.9% unemployment. Do you really think that is working better than expected, ass talker?

[George Gervin's Afro]

I read alright. 9.9% unemployment. Do you really think that is working better than expected, ass talker?

http://useconomy.about.com/od/econom...mploy_rate.htm


Obviously, the unemployment rate is important as a gauge of joblessness. For this reason, it is also a gauge of the economy's growth rate.

However, the unemployment rate is a lagging indicator. This means it measures the effect of a recession and so occurs after one has already started. It also means unemployment will continue to rise even after the economy has started to recover.Employers are reluctant to lay people off when the economy turns bad. For large companies, it can take months to put together a layoff plan. Companies are even more reluctant to hire new workers when the economy improves.

that was the first link after I yahoo's the subject... Many more sources for you

[jack sommerset]

that was the first link after I yahoo's the subject... Many more sources for you

I read those too. So some believe the "stimulus" worked better than expected yet we went WAY over the amount of jobs lost. You people that think the stimulus worked "better than expected" are ing nuts.

No way of proven it worked period, unless you have a time machine and change history to see what would have happened if Obama did nothing. Obama himself said unemployment would not go over 8 percent yet yahoos ignore that and now are trying to say it worked better than expected. NUTS

[Cant_Be_Faded]

I doubt it was truly better than they expected. Unless someone has full access to the article. This entire GFC, you have governments bending and twisting things they said to paint it in a good light. They could have had like 10 different estimates, it beat a few, and then they say it beat estimates.

Words are the number 1 thing to be skeptical of in this financial crisis.

And alot of the reported jobs gains for the first few months of 2010 had to have been temporary government census jobs.

We caaaan't move forward...until you mail it back.

[Duff McCartney]

And alot of the reported jobs gains for the first few months of 2010 had to have been temporary government census jobs.

What are you basing that on? Are you just assuming that it has to be temporary government census jobs? Or are you just guessing it is?

[MannyIsGod]

I doubt it was truly better than they expected. Unless someone has full access to the article. This entire GFC, you have governments bending and twisting things they said to paint it in a good light. They could have had like 10 different estimates, it beat a few, and then they say it beat estimates.

Words are the number 1 thing to be skeptical of in this financial crisis.

And alot of the reported jobs gains for the first few months of 2010 had to have been temporary government census jobs.

We caaaan't move forward...until you mail it back.

Even you too with this?