Obama stimulus package will hurt economy in long run -- CBO

[jimpeel]

Well the opinion piece is a misrepresentation of what the letter actually says is all I was pointing out. Which is right, well that is open for debate and only the initiatives passing and time will tell. Still for him to post the story that puts the situation in the worst light is to be expected. Not sure about Jim, but I am quite sure there are a few folks around here that would be up in arms and mad as hell if Obama started slashing taxes. It's just so important for them to hate him, their whole identity depends upon it.

You confuse hating the man with hating his policies. I don't hate the man at all. What I hate is his willingness to take chances with the economy using ideas which are doomed to failure.

I would be cheering loudly if he started slashing taxes for industry and business. I would be cheering loudly if he started cutting taxes on the citizenry at large and allowing them to pump that money -- EARNED MONEY which produces products -- into the economy. Merely showering money from the government presses -- UNEARNED MONEY which produces nothing -- which lowers the value of all of the M1 in circulation is sheer madness. Did no one learn anything at all from the Weimar Republic? Do we need to start printing twenty-million dollar notes?

Twenty-million Mark Note c.1923

 

[randomJACKASS]

It is not some sort of "link war". What you need to understand is that the providing of links is called "proper attribution" and is required under the tenets of the Fair Use Doctrine. Posting copyrighted material under Fair Use requires that one use a link, author's name, source name, and, if possible, the copyright notice ie: "Copyright AP 2009 all rights reserved". If you do not do that you are in violation of Fair Use.

There is more to the Fair Use Doctrine; but I will leave it to you to look it up and, in deference to your wishes, I won't provide you with a link.

Now you completely pull that out of nowhere to confuse what I said, and ignore my point entirely and set up a "straw man" argument to make it look like you win again (implying you were ever victorious to begin with, or even that there was even anything to win at hand at all)?!? I get that, (fair use stuff) always did, and you know it. It's just that when you start throwing out link after link to support erroneous claims, I fail to see the point in throwing link after link back, when it's either; a. opinion and not fact we are debating anyway, or b. throwing link after link to back facts debunking your link after link, to back fallacious statements you're trying to make. The World Wide Web has no shortage of bad opinions, and incorrect "facts" dressed up as real information that one can link to.

In simpler terms if you are on about shouting about how the world is flat, for example, then there is no amount of evidence I could throw at you the proves the world is spherical, that would matter, if you are set on believing it's flat. So why should I waste my time with a "link war"? So, you either already got that point, and just wanted to duck the issue, and make yourself "right" again, albeit not about the point at hand, or you didn't get my point, which just makes you look silly, so which is it?

 

[randomJACKASS]

You confuse hating the man with hating his policies. I don't hate the man at all. What I hate is his willingness to take chances with the economy using ideas which are doomed to failure.

I would be cheering loudly if he started slashing taxes for industry and business. I would be cheering loudly if he started cutting taxes on the citizenry at large and allowing them to pump that money -- EARNED MONEY which produces products -- into the economy. Merely showering money from the government presses -- UNEARNED MONEY which produces nothing -- which lowers the value of all of the M1 in circulation is sheer madness. Did no one learn anything at all from the Weimar Republic? Do we need to start printing twenty-million dollar notes?

Twenty-million Mark Note c.1923

Well, that is a personal thing. I'll grant you that much, but do not try to tell me there are not some here, (without naming anyone) capable of letting blind hatred for policy become personal. It can and does happen to most of us at times, some more often than others. Still, you used an opinion based article, to cloud what the actual letter really said. You may have done so in good faith, (I actually had to do a bit of searching to obtain the actual letter) though the motivations could range from simple convenience, ie. the info quickly available to you at the time, all the way to your (possible) desire to believe your original article and the slant it provides (which is no crime even so). In either case, what I posted is the actual letter and, what it actually says, so I hope that is of some help. Either way, it behooves you to just accept that I am right on this small point, because that is indeed the actual fact in this instance. There is no logical argument available to you that contradicts this, this time.

 

[jimpeel]

Now you completely pull that out of nowhere to confuse what I said, and ignore my point entirely and set up a "straw man" argument to make it look like you win again (implying you were ever victorious to begin with, or even that there was even anything to win at hand at all)?!? I get that, (fair use stuff) always did, and you know it. It's just that when you start throwing out link after link to support erroneous claims, I fail to see the point in throwing link after link back, when it's either; a. opinion and not fact we are debating anyway, or b. throwing link after link to back facts debunking your link after link, to back fallacious statements you're trying to make. The World Wide Web has no shortage of bad opinions, and incorrect "facts" dressed up as real information that one can link to.

In simpler terms if you are on about shouting about how the world is flat, for example, then there is no amount of evidence I could throw at you the proves the world is spherical, that would matter, if you are set on believing it's flat. So why should I waste my time with a "link war"? So, you either already got that point, and just wanted to duck the issue, and make yourself "right" again, albeit not about the point at hand, or you didn't get my point, which just makes you look silly, so which is it?

You certainly are one verbose SOB when it comes to trying to convey the simplest thoughts.

I understood you perfectly. What was to argue about your points? They were quite valid -- example A and example B and all that. Were you simply seeking an argument over the inarguable? Equivocation of the unequivocal?

My point was about your obvious resentment of links and, no, I don't have any knowledge of your knowledge of the Fair Use Doctrine. Certainly, you assume far too much with that belief.

BTW, am I credited as being wrong when I credit you as being right; or is my credit to you merely a bit of praise that does not rise to the issue to my being right or wrong; or is the status quo preserved?

 

[jimpeel]

Well, that is a personal thing. I'll grant you that much, but do not try to tell me there are not some here, (without naming anyone) capable of letting blind hatred for policy become personal. It can and does happen to most of us at times, some more often than others. Still, you used an opinion based article, to cloud what the actual letter really said. You may have done so in good faith, (I actually had to do a bit of searching to obtain the actual letter) though the motivations could range from simple convenience, ie. the info quickly available to you at the time, all the way to your (possible) desire to believe your original article and the slant it provides (which is no crime even so). In either case, what I posted is the actual letter and, what it actually says, so I hope that is of some help. Either way, it behooves you to just accept that I am right on this small point, because that is indeed the actual fact in this instance. There is no logical argument available to you that contradicts this, this time.

I read the letter in its entirety, including the tables of data; and there is that pesky "baseline" thing that gnaws away at your contention.

The baseline is the "if he were to do nothing" part of the opinion piece.

Noting the fact that the numbers get closer and closer over the three year period in the tables, along with the statement in the body of text of the letter -- "In the longer run, the legislation would result in a slight decrease in gross domestic product (GDP) compared with CBO’s baseline economic forecast" -- leaves no doubt as to the veracity of the statement by the author of the piece.

The baseline is the status quo; and the status quo is that there is no stimulus and no legislation.

 

[randomJACKASS]

You certainly are one verbose SOB when it comes to trying to convey the simplest thoughts.

I understood you perfectly. What was to argue about your points? They were quite valid -- example A and example B and all that. Were you simply seeking an argument over the inarguable? Equivocation of the unequivocal?

My point was about your obvious resentment of links and, no, I don't have any knowledge of your knowledge of the Fair Use Doctrine. Certainly, you assume far too much with that belief.

BTW, am I credited as being wrong when I credit you as being right; or is my credit to you merely a bit of praise that does not rise to the issue to my being right or wrong; or is the status quo preserved?

Actually this is fun....

Depending on what the meaning of "is", is, perhaps....

Verbosity is fun, and sometimes an art in and of itself. It frightens me sometimes, how little many folks who post online have mastered our language! I find it a good place to excercise my mastery of English and improve it, but I digress....

My resentment is not of links Jim, its of exercises in futility! Links are great when they have meaning, or help one to come to better understanding, but they are worthless when they become virtual "ping pong balls" in debates that further nothing, and help no one! Granted debate can be fun, even when compromise or change of point of view, is not a possible outcome, but only to a point. After that the argument becomes tedious, an a waste of my energy, and resources, which could be better spent on something else in life. At least that is what I mean to convey.

At the end of the day, so long as my bills are paid, and my family is comfortable, and there is no terrible injustice being done, I have only a limited desire to have political debate. There is only so far I will go, and it only makes sense. Sure it matters enough to pay attention, do some reading and have opinions. Sure it matters enough to back a candidate and go to the polls and vote, and try to have a voice. It does not matter enough for me to spend a large chunk of time trying to compile an argument to try and change some random jackass on the Internet's opinion! It can be a fun sideline, but as son as I put too much energy into it, I'd better back away from the keyboard.....

 

[randomJACKASS]

I read the letter in its entirety, including the tables of data; and there is that pesky "baseline" thing that gnaws away at your contention.

The baseline is the "if he were to do nothing" part of the opinion piece.

Noting the fact that the numbers get closer and closer over the three year period in the tables, along with the statement in the body of text of the letter -- "In the longer run, the legislation would result in a slight decrease in gross domestic product (GDP) compared with CBO’s baseline economic forecast" -- leaves no doubt as to the veracity of the statement by the author of the piece.

The baseline is the status quo; and the status quo is that there is no stimulus and no legislation.

One more time and I must move on.

Read the bolded part of your quote, and then consider this; you chose to post a somewhat exaggerated opinion about the letter. I am contending nothing but that! Where did I say that the "stimulus" was good? I did not. But you do prove one of my points in one respect. Your passion, (mania?) has made you falsely conclude what I believe.

 

[spike]

spike...GW is out of office. Ask your messiah to change things. However, don't ask him to "to do a lot of things that actually helped our citizens" if they are against the Constitution.

Your messiah made a lot of large scale foolish mistakes with our money. Where in the Constitution does it mandate rebuilding infrastructure in Iraq or invading foreign non-threats?

 

[spike]

Now you completely pull that out of nowhere to confuse what I said, and ignore my point entirely and set up a "straw man" argument

Yep.

 

[jimpeel]

One more time and I must move on.

Read the bolded part of your quote, and then consider this; you chose to post a somewhat exaggerated opinion about the letter. I am contending nothing but that! Where did I say that the "stimulus" was good? I did not. But you do prove one of my points in one respect. Your passion, (mania?) has made you falsely conclude what I believe.

I have never stated anywhere that you have ever stated that the stimulus was good. My challenge was to what you posted in support of your contentions:

Here is what the first comment at the bottom of the stry was as well:

JJ, Dinans first sentence is a lie, "President Obama's economic recovery package will actually hurt the economy more in the long run than if he were to do nothing, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said Wednesday." Nowhere in the CBO letter does it even suggest such a thing. The worst the CBO letter states is that in 2019 the GDP may be down 0.1 to 0.3 percent owing to increased debt.
If you are unable to read the CBO against Dinan, and not see the flagrant lying, then you are mentally incompetent.

That completely ignores the baseline, calls the author a liar, and insults the reader.

If you are going to use the contentions of others to suopport your own you must expect those persons' contentions to be challenged.

 

[Gonz]

Your messiah made a lot of large scale foolish mistakes with our money.

Not my messiah by any stretch, but, yes, he did allow Congress to get away with stupidity in his last year.

Where in the Constitution does it mandate rebuilding infrastructure in Iraq or invading foreign non-threats?

That would be under the treaties part...ask Congress, they okayed it.

 

[Cerise]

"I do think that there was some spending in the bill that was makeup for a starvation diet under the Bush administration....."

 

[spike]

Not my messiah by any stretch, but, yes, he did allow Congress to get away with stupidity in his last year.

He did amazingly stupid shit repeatedly. So if he's not your messiah maybe you cut the crap calling Obama mine? It's pretty useless thing for you to inject in the conversation, like you accuse others of.

That would be under the treaties part...ask Congress, they okayed it.

No, it's not under the treaties part. It's good to know that you'll support whatever happens over the next 4 years though....as long as Congress okays it.

 

[chcr]

He did amazingly stupid shit repeatedly. So if he's not your messiah maybe you cut the crap calling Obama mine? It's pretty useless thing for you to inject in the conversation, like you accuse others of.

It's different when he does it.

 

[Gonz]

No, it's not under the treaties part.

Show me where I'm wrong.

It's good to know that you'll support whatever happens over the next 4 years though....as long as Congress okays it.

I didn't support "whatever happens" when the Republicans were in charge. I'll sure in hell not support this bunch of socialists.

It's different when he does it.

It'd be nice if he found his own words instead of being a parrot.

 

[chcr]

It'd be nice if he found his own words instead of being a parrot.

Mr. Pot, Mr. Kettle. Mr. Kettle, Mr. Pot.

 

[spike]

Show me where I'm wrong.

Show me where you're right.

I didn't support "whatever happens" when the Republicans were in charge. I'll sure in hell not support this bunch of socialists.

Awesome, so then you're gonna quit using "Congress okayed it" as if it's any justification for bush's debacle in Iraq.

It'd be nice if he found his own words instead of being a parrot.

Just pointing out your hypocrisy again. I realize you don't like that. Tough.

 

[Gonz]

Show me where you're right.

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States;

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties,

Awesome, so then you're gonna quit using "Congress okayed it" as if it's any justification for bush's debacle in Iraq.

You blame Bush for invading Iraq...as if he had no authority to do so. Congress gave him the authority. Twice. The United Nations Security Council okayed it. Saddam said "I dare you"....what more do you want?

Just pointing out your hypocrisy again. I realize you don't like that. Tough.

What?

 

[jimpeel]

What?

Ignore it. That is one of his favorite "throw it out there" words.

 

[spike]

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States;

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties,

So I can't help but notice none of that mandates rebuilding infrastructure in Iraq or invading foreign non-threats.

You blame Bush for invading Iraq...as if he had no authority to do so. Congress gave him the authority. Twice. The United Nations Security Council okayed it. Saddam said "I dare you"....what more do you want?

I blame Bush because it was his dumb idea and he mislead people into thinking they were an imminent threat with WMDs. Turned out to be a big lie that cost us a trillion dollars and killed tens of thousands of people.

It's good to know you won't blame Obama for anything during his presidency as long Congress oikays it though.

That is one of his favorite "throw it out there" words.

Yeah, I throw it out there when you type something hypocritical.