Questions for 2stupid4words

[Guest Former Resident]

But obviously it did lead someone to conclude that. Someone who thinks about these things practically is likely to read your comments, then ask "OK, so now what?" Here's the key point, I think:

"Consider the present situation. Unemployment is around 9.7%. That's still less than it would have been if the companies that were on the brink in 9/08 had failed, causing the stock market to fall further, additional businesses to close, etc. Can anyone be 100% sure this would happen? No, but then no one can be 100% sure that a person having a heart attack will die without medical treatment. Wouldn't you call it ignorant if someone refused to go to hospital on that basis? The point is that the overwhelming consensus among economists was that the economy was in danger of complete collapse and a stimulus was needed to avert it."

Former Resident, do you agree or disagree with those comments?

I specifically stated and acknowledged, in post #34, that the government DID do something. Again, there was nothing in my response that would lead anyone to conclude that I felt the "government should do nothing", except a lack of reading comprehension, perhaps.

The question I responded to, "How many would be unemployed", requires a definitive answer, which cannot be provided.

Based upon my answer/comments, people have "concluded" and/or assumed that I think the government should not have done anything, that I am an ignorant anti-government right-winger, lacking "clarity" in my posts and against the stimulus. And, all of that was apparently determined from my response to a complex question in which an answer cannot be provided, based on the OP's specific request for facts.

Perhaps a better worded question from the OP or an answer based more on "opinion", rather than supporting fact, may have been better suited, but only the OP knows what answer they were looking for.... and instead of jumping on a reader for their response(s), perhaps reading the actual comment a person is responding to, would then not cause someone to jump to "conclusions" about the responses given.

As to your question if I agree or disagree with the quoted comments:

While I'd like to believe that unemployment is less today because of the stimulus, we are not out of the woods yet and I think a great deal remains to be seen. The unemployment in my local area is in double digits, businesses have closed and/or moved out of my area.... but, at the same time, there are a few more job opportunities available (want ads in classifieds), than say a year ago, so that could be considered a slight improvement (as long as those are permanent and not temporary jobs)

So, do I think the stimulus helped... Yes, I do, to a point. However, I don't think it helped to the degree the government thought it would, or hoped it would. I was not favor of some of the ridiculous frivolous pork spending in the stimulus, but obviously something needed to be done to get our economy back on track.

As to your analogy comparing the economy to someone suffering a heart attack, while both serious situations, they are apples and oranges:

A person who does not seek medical treatment, while suffering a heart attack, makes a unilateral decision, which only affects THEIR life...

The government, however, not seeking "medical treatment" (by way of stimulus, etc.) would affect MILLIONS of lives.

Therefore, the comparison between a unilateral decision and a multilateral decision just cannot be made here (apples to oranges).

[Guest Guest]

I was responding to the questions in the OP's original post, specifically, the unemployment question... and, as you can see, the OP does not pose a question about what I/you/we (general public) would have the government do:

What condition would the economy be in today if the government hadn't rescued its biggest players? More specifically:

How many would be unemployed?

What would be the condition of consumer demand and consumer confidence?

Would anyone be lending money?

How would tax revenues have been affected?

How big would the debt be?

Where would the stock market be?

What would people's assets be worth?

What would be the condition of the world economy?

Would we be in a recovery, in a second Great Depression, or somewhere between?

What would be our prospects for future economic growth?

In answering these questions, you are expected to support your answers with facts and proper citation, like any good high school or college student should do.

I answered the unemployment question with this response (post #34):

For argument's sake let's take your question: "How many would be unemployed?" and break that down... We were promised by Obama that unemployment would not rise above 8%. Today's unemployment figures are 9.7% and that's down from 10%. If the economists do not know exact answers, how is anyone else supposed to know the answer to THIS particular question. Sure, one could speculate and, of course, say that if Obama didn't do anything this number could be much higher. But, Obama DID take action and this number is well above what he (Obama) promised or even thought. Also the drop to 9.7% is due to the temporary workers hired to conduct the census, which is taken into account and this drop was expected. But once those temporary workers are no longer employed, will this number rise? The unexpected unemployment figures took many by surprise, Obama included, so I again submit that your question "How many would be unemployed" CANNOT be answered.

Fact: Obama promised that unemployment would not rise about 8%

Fact: As of the day I posted this response, unemployment was at 9.7% (down from 10%)

Fact: Obama/government DID do something

Fact: Even though the government DID do something, this question still cannot be more specifically answered, as per the OP's original post, because even with the government's best intentions, the unemployment figures are still much higher (than expected) and may continue to rise. The point is, the government DID do something and the unemployment figures are/were higher than anticipated.

My comments are not pointless because I provided an answer to one of the questions in the original OP, with supporting facts.

And I am far from upset... It is not my "lack of clarity" that is causing any confusion. It is you that apparently did not read and understand the OP and I stand by my argument that an answer to that specific question cannot be provided, within the context of the OP, which asked for facts to support the answer, with anything other than "unknown".... One could speculate, but that's not "fact".

If the OP wanted to know what the reader thought the government should do, then the OP should have asked that question... however, any answer to that question would be based on the reader's opinion and would contradict the OP's request to support answers with facts.

Early projections from the Obama administration were more optimistic than what eventually happened. However, the top figure the administration predicted with the stimulus package was 8.5%, not 8%. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/st...ama-promised-s/ They now believe the error was due to an unexpected rate of contraction in the GDP. http://mediamatters.org/research/200906090019

Two points should be made. First, their estimate was off by 1.5%, a significant discrepancy but not so much that the entire projection was worthless. 10% still is better than 12% or 15% or 20%, any of which could have been the number without the stimulus.

Second, you're demanding a ridiculous standard. No economist can predict any economic factor or indicator to the last decimal point with 100% accuracy. That doesn't mean that they should just stop doing economic analysis or that their projections aren't generally sound. But that's the implication of your argument. You're arguing that their projections were worthless because they were off by 1.5%. You keep trying to defend that argument but you're making a ridiculous point. The original point to which you responded was that you can't just look at the debt to understand whether a policy worked, was necessary, etc. You must also look at factors like unemployment, the markets, etc. Your argument suggests that there's no point in doing that because Obama's numbers were off by 1.5%. That's ridiculous. It's like saying the bookies are wrong if they predict a 20-point victory in the Super Bowl but it turns out to be only 14 points. They still accurately identified the winning team and the margin of victory was still substantial. In the same way, even a peak 10% unemployment rate is a big relief considering how close the economy came to a complete meltdown.

You continue to ignore the fact that without the stimulus, unemployment would be higher.

[Guest Guest]

The question I responded to, "How many would be unemployed", requires a definitive answer, which cannot be provided.

You may have read it that way but obviously that is not how the question was intended. A reasonable reading of the question is that the point was being made that all these factors must be considered and analyzed in order to understand why we have incurred additional debt. By burying your head in a dogmatic interpretation of what you insist the question meant, you have managed to divert all attention away from the main point, as expressed in the previous sentence. And you did it in the language of a favorite right wing talking point on this subject, further suggesting that you may be a reactionary, right wing knucklehead. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/st...ama-promised-s/ And so even if you're not, you're still buying reactionary right wing knucklehead arguments that obscure the issues so that there's an excuse for doing nothing.

While I'd like to believe that unemployment is less today because of the stimulus, we are not out of the woods yet and I think a great deal remains to be seen. The unemployment in my local area is in double digits, businesses have closed and/or moved out of my area.... but, at the same time, there are a few more job opportunities available (want ads in classifieds), than say a year ago, so that could be considered a slight improvement (as long as those are permanent and not temporary jobs)

Slight improvement compared to what? You can't say it's slight if much higher unemployment rates were likely without the stimulus. It's as though you're stubbornly assuming that things wouldn't have gotten any worse without the stimulus, which denies your own admission that something needed to be done. It's as though you want to have it both ways.

As to your analogy comparing the economy to someone suffering a heart attack, while both serious situations, they are apples and oranges:

A person who does not seek medical treatment, while suffering a heart attack, makes a unilateral decision, which only affects THEIR life...

The government, however, not seeking "medical treatment" (by way of stimulus, etc.) would affect MILLIONS of lives.

Therefore, the comparison between a unilateral decision and a multilateral decision just cannot be made here (apples to oranges).

That reflects extremely poor reasoning on your part. The fact that governments must choose policies for millions of people is not germane to the point, which is that choices must be made amid some degree of uncertainty.

[Guest Guest]

Today’s collection of lies by 2stupid4words can be found at http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...st&p=105813

He claims that President Obama’s approval rating is at 45%. That is a lie. The only poll that even suggests that leaves out 9% of the people. His average poll numbers have held steady for quite some time at more than 45% [http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_obama_job_approval-1044.html ] and far higher than the 31% approval rating for Congressional Republicans. http://www.pollingreport.com/cong_rep.htm

2stupid4words also claims that President Obama “blew off D-day ceremonies to go to theatre with Michelle.” 2stupid4words makes it sound like date night. That is also a lie. President Obama went to Ford’s theatre with Michelle on official business. They were part of a ceremony to commemorate the 4th of July. So it wasn’t just a night out at the theatre. They were commemorating Independence Day, one of our highest national holidays. http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7018917693

Furthermore, there were no particular ceremonies for him to blow off, and none in the evening with which the event at Ford Theatre would have conflicted. President Obama has done nothing different than was done by George W. Bush, who also did not participate in any D-day ceremony during several years of his presidency. http://mediamatters.org/research/201006070009

Finally, 2stupid4words claims that President Obama has yet to come out publicly in support of Israel, supposedly because he does not want to upset Hamas. That is a lie. President Obama has long supported Israel against Hamas, and in fact has called Hamas a terrorist organization. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama_...n_policy#Israel http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN1636948020080416

2stupid4words: all lies all the time.

[Guest Former Resident]

Early projections from the Obama administration were more optimistic than what eventually happened. However, the top figure the administration predicted with the stimulus package was 8.5%, not 8%. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/st...ama-promised-s/ They now believe the error was due to an unexpected rate of contraction in the GDP. http://mediamatters.org/research/200906090019

Two points should be made. First, their estimate was off by 1.5%, a significant discrepancy but not so much that the entire projection was worthless. 10% still is better than 12% or 15% or 20%, any of which could have been the number without the stimulus.

Seriously... are you actually reading anything I've said???? I really think you need to go back and re-read my comments.

Second, you're demanding a ridiculous standard. No economist can predict any economic factor or indicator to the last decimal point with 100% accuracy. That doesn't mean that they should just stop doing economic analysis or that their projections aren't generally sound. But that's the implication of your argument. You're arguing that their projections were worthless because they were off by 1.5%. You keep trying to defend that argument but you're making a ridiculous point. The original point to which you responded was that you can't just look at the debt to understand whether a policy worked, was necessary, etc. You must also look at factors like unemployment, the markets, etc. Your argument suggests that there's no point in doing that because Obama's numbers were off by 1.5%. That's ridiculous. It's like saying the bookies are wrong if they predict a 20-point victory in the Super Bowl but it turns out to be only 14 points. They still accurately identified the winning team and the margin of victory was still substantial. In the same way, even a peak 10% unemployment rate is a big relief considering how close the economy came to a complete meltdown.

I haven't "demanded" anything... I answered a question.

"The original point to which you responded was that you can't just look at the debt to understand whether a policy worked, was necessary, etc. "

Please show me where in any of my responses that I said or suggested this??????

You must also look at factors like unemployment, the markets, etc. Your argument suggests that there's no point in doing that because Obama's numbers were off by 1.5%

Again... please show me where in any of my responses that my argument suggests this??? I am not now and have never been arguing about 1.5%. Try reading my comments and you may actually understand them.

You continue to ignore the fact that without the stimulus, unemployment would be higher.

Did you read what I said here in post 51: "While I'd like to believe that unemployment is less today because of the stimulus, we are not out of the woods yet and I think a great deal remains to be seen." or this one from the same post: "So, do I think the stimulus helped... Yes, I do, to a point. However, I don't think it helped to the degree the government thought it would, or hoped it would."

I'll ask again... are you actually reading anything I've said or are you just foaming at the mouth because you think you've hooked some ignorant right-winger and you're trying to spin my words into what you think they mean?

[Guest Former Resident]

You may have read it that way but obviously that is not how the question was intended. A reasonable reading of the question is that the point was being made that all these factors must be considered and analyzed in order to understand why we have incurred additional debt. By burying your head in a dogmatic interpretation of what you insist the question meant, you have managed to divert all attention away from the main point, as expressed in the previous sentence. And you did it in the language of a favorite right wing talking point on this subject, further suggesting that you may be a reactionary, right wing knucklehead. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/st...ama-promised-s/ And so even if you're not, you're still buying reactionary right wing knucklehead arguments that obscure the issues so that there's an excuse for doing nothing.

Are you the author of the OP? I think only the OP can state with certainty how their question was intended.

A "reasonable reading" of the question in the original OP should lead any reasonable person to come to the same conclusion I did... Per the OP's request for facts to support the answer, this question cannot be answered because the answer would be based solely on speculation and last time I checked, speculation is not fact.... Is it the word "facts" that you are having trouble understanding?

So now I may be right wing knucklehead... Should I then assume that you are part of the loony left-wing?

Slight improvement compared to what? You can't say it's slight if much higher unemployment rates were likely without the stimulus. It's as though you're stubbornly assuming that things wouldn't have gotten any worse without the stimulus, which denies your own admission that something needed to be done. It's as though you want to have it both ways.

Let me see if I can break this down for you in simple terms for you to understand (even though I thought I was pretty clear on that already):

Last year, the want-ad section of the local newspaper did not have many jobs posted. This year, there are a few more jobs posted in that section... not a lot, but a few more than last year, even though my local unemployment is still in the double digits (with me so far?) I don't know what you'd call it, but in my book, locally, that's "slight improvement" considering my local unemployment rate.

While I'd like to believe that unemployment is less today because of the stimulus, we are not out of the woods yet and I think a great deal remains to be seen (did you notice I just quoted myself on that last sentence?) That sentence was in response to a quoted question and referred to the national unemployment figures because that's what had been discussed.

Notice that I put a period at the end of that sentence before I began my next sentence that spoke about my local unemployment figures, which I then tied into the second portion of that above sentence (after the comma)?

I don't know and neither do you, for certain, what the national unemployment figures would have been had the stimulus not been passed... because, Obama, himself, said they would not rise above 8%. They went up to 10% and that was with THE PASSING OF THE STIMULUS.

If the stimulus had not been passed, we could ASSUME those figures would be higher... but that might be presumptuous of us considering that we were told by the President, that unemployment would not RISE above 8% by PASSING the stimulus.

So, who really knows what the unemployment figures MAY have been if the stimulus was not passed, one can assume and speculate that it might have been much higher than the 10%, but we'll never know because we DID reach 10% and we DID pass a stimulus.

Which brings me right back to my original post answering the OP's question "How many would be unemployed"... the answer is unknown.

Are you really having that much trouble understanding what I am saying?

That reflects extremely poor reasoning on your part. The fact that governments must choose policies for millions of people is not germane to the point, which is that choices must be made amid some degree of uncertainty.

Not poor reasoning at all... It was suggested that a person not seeking medical treatment while having a heart attack and not doing something about the financial crisis are the same... they are not.

Again, a person makes a unilateral (one) decision that affects only themselves - one person

The government makes multilateral (more than one) decisions that affects millions (more than one person)

Of course we are all affected by whatever decisions and/or policies the government makes (as we would have been affected if the government did not "seek treatment" (stimulus) and just as we have been affected by the government "seeking treatment" (stimulus).

But, unless the person not seeking treatment during a heart attack is my loved one... I am NOT affected by that person NOT seeking treatment.

This is why the two cannot be compared.

[Guest Guest]

Again, a person makes a unilateral (one) decision that affects only themselves - one But, unless the person not seeking treatment during a heart attack is my loved one... I am NOT affected by that person NOT seeking treatment.

This is why the two cannot be compared.

That's not germane either. The germane point is that the people in charge must make decisions. In government, that means Congress and the President but the opinions of citizens matter, too because citizens vote in the next elections, choosing the officials who will make the next set of decisions. That's the idea behind this forum.

So it matters what ordinary people think about these things. But we live in a culture of constant entertainment, instant gratification and celebrity obsession fed by mass media that make their money entertaining people instead of informing us. It is not a healthy situation. If you say things that feed that, then you become part of the problem.

The original point was that it makes no sense just to complain about the additional debt incurred since January 2009 without understanding why it was incurred. You and I agree that the stimulus was needed but why? You seem to acknowledge that the stimulus probably kept the unemployment rate from rising further. That's my point and it's the heart of the question because that's what matters both to past policy choices and to future policy and voting choices. If you think the stimulus wasn't big enough, it wouldn't make sense to support candidates who opposed them. But regardless what you think, you can't intelligently favor one policy over another without considering all of its likely effects, compared with the effects of not adopting the policy. When you say that no one can know the answers to those questions, maybe you meant something more specific than what that sounds like. OK, so be more careful how you say things next time. Because no matter what you mean, we live in a culture that is cynical about everything government tries to do - with some justification but still, if that's all we do, we're going to dig our own collective grave.

You think the stimulus helped but not enough. OK, so what should be done now? Should we have another stimulus? Should we now target toward development, such as in boosting the development of green technologies?

What frustrates me is a lack of clear thinking. It comes from both right and left but the right has turned it into an art form. They oppose government even when it's needed and since they're out of power and only want to tear things down when they're in, they are content to complain about everything. A large chunk of the voting population is buying it because complaining is the easiest and most natural thing to do. If the upcoming elections don't dig any deeper into the situation than to say "Obama didn't fix everything," then we're likely to elect people who will make our problems worse. That's my concern right now.

You can protest that you didn't mean that. Maybe you didn't but when all you have to say (in response to the "OP") is that no one can know the answer to any of the questions, that just feeds the culture of "government stinks so let's not do anything." Even if that's not what you intended.

[Guest Former Resident]

That's not germane either. The germane point is that the people in charge must make decisions. In government, that means Congress and the President but the opinions of citizens matter, too because citizens vote in the next elections, choosing the officials who will make the next set of decisions. That's the idea behind this forum.

My argument that the two cannot be compared is very relevant as it relates to the context in which the comparison was made/suggested by someone.

Of course the government makes decisions (I never suggested otherwise), but their decisions affect all of us (whether they are good, bad, etc.). We are not in charge of THEIR decision making... we have input when it comes to our vote, as you have suggested, but that doesn't mean that everyone agrees with every decision the government makes, and ultimately the government makes multilateral decisions affecting us (citizens) one way or another (again, good or bad, etc.).

The person who doesn't seek treatment for a heart attack is only harming himself... His decision NOT to seek treatment does not affect you or I in the same way it would had the government NOT passed the stimulus package. Just as if the person having the heart attack had sought treatment... again, that does not affect you or I, but the government's decisions do affect you and I (again, whether good, bad, agree with them or not)... we are all affected by them, which is why this comparison is an apple and an orange... They are two very different animals.

So it matters what ordinary people think about these things. But we live in a culture of constant entertainment, instant gratification and celebrity obsession fed by mass media that make their money entertaining people instead of informing us. It is not a healthy situation. If you say things that feed that, then you become part of the problem.

I'm sorry, but I'm not sure what this has to do with anything I've said?? What does the culture we live in have anything to do with a comparison made between a heart attack sufferer and the economy?

The original point was that it makes no sense just to complain about the additional debt incurred since January 2009 without understanding why it was incurred. You and I agree that the stimulus was needed but why? You seem to acknowledge that the stimulus probably kept the unemployment rate from rising further. That's my point and it's the heart of the question because that's what matters both to past policy choices and to future policy and voting choices. If you think the stimulus wasn't big enough, it wouldn't make sense to support candidates who opposed them. But regardless what you think, you can't intelligently favor one policy over another without considering all of its likely effects, compared with the effects of not adopting the policy. When you say that no one can know the answers to those questions, maybe you meant something more specific than what that sounds like. OK, so be more careful how you say things next time. Because no matter what you mean, we live in a culture that is cynical about everything government tries to do - with some justification but still, if that's all we do, we're going to dig our own collective grave.

I fully understand the financial situation. As I had stated, I was/am in favor of parts of the stimulus, but not the frivolous pork spending that was included. Perhaps if that money was allocated to more useful projects, and real stimulus, maybe the unemployment rate would not have risen as high as it did.

I thought I have been pretty specific in my argument that the "How many would be unemployed" question cannot be answered.

You think the stimulus helped but not enough. OK, so what should be done now? Should we have another stimulus? Should we now target toward development, such as in boosting the development of green technologies?

Yes, I think the stimulus helped to a degree. I do not know if we should have another stimulus or not, but if we did, I would hope that it would be a true stimulus and not lined with frivolous spending, as I stated above.

What frustrates me is a lack of clear thinking. It comes from both right and left but the right has turned it into an art form. They oppose government even when it's needed and since they're out of power and only want to tear things down when they're in, they are content to complain about everything. A large chunk of the voting population is buying it because complaining is the easiest and most natural thing to do. If the upcoming elections don't dig any deeper into the situation than to say "Obama didn't fix everything," then we're likely to elect people who will make our problems worse. That's my concern right now.

Both the right and left do their fair share of complaining and/or opposing... I know many on the "left" who are not happy right now, just as I know many on the "right" aren't either.

Regardless of what you or anyone else thinks of my political affiliation, I had no illusions about Obama coming into office and what he had on his plate to deal with. I do recall, however, seeing many of his supporters thinking that Obama would fix everything.

You can protest that you didn't mean that. Maybe you didn't but when all you have to say (in response to the "OP") is that no one can know the answer to any of the questions, that just feeds the culture of "government stinks so let's not do anything." Even if that's not what you intended.

I'm not sure how you would conclude that my intention in answering those questions was that the "government stinks so let's not do anything." Would you care to point out to me in any of responses where that conclusion could have been drawn from?

You mean to tell me, with certainty and fact (again, there's that word, per the OP's request) that those questions CAN be answered?? Do you have a crystal ball?? How can one answer one of those questions today (2010), with fact, about events that MAY have occurred had the government done nothing?

The point I am trying to make is that those questions cannot be answered because no one knows what may have happened...how can you base a fact on speculation?

I took only one of those questions: "How many would be unemployed" and presented my argument as to why I feel this question cannot be answered and I still stand behind my argument that the only answer that can be given is "unknown".

Can you provide an answer to that particular question, with supporting facts, per the OP's request?? I'll await your answer

[Guest Guest]

My argument that the two cannot be compared is very relevant as it relates to the context in which the comparison was made/suggested by someone.

Of course the government makes decisions (I never suggested otherwise), but their decisions affect all of us (whether they are good, bad, etc.). We are not in charge of THEIR decision making... we have input when it comes to our vote, as you have suggested, but that doesn't mean that everyone agrees with every decision the government makes, and ultimately the government makes multilateral decisions affecting us (citizens) one way or another (again, good or bad, etc.).

The person who doesn't seek treatment for a heart attack is only harming himself... His decision NOT to seek treatment does not affect you or I in the same way it would had the government NOT passed the stimulus package. Just as if the person having the heart attack had sought treatment... again, that does not affect you or I, but the government's decisions do affect you and I (again, whether good, bad, agree with them or not)... we are all affected by them, which is why this comparison is an apple and an orange... They are two very different animals.

I'm sorry, but I'm not sure what this has to do with anything I've said?? What does the culture we live in have anything to do with a comparison made between a heart attack sufferer and the economy?

I fully understand the financial situation. As I had stated, I was/am in favor of parts of the stimulus, but not the frivolous pork spending that was included. Perhaps if that money was allocated to more useful projects, and real stimulus, maybe the unemployment rate would not have risen as high as it did.

I thought I have been pretty specific in my argument that the "How many would be unemployed" question cannot be answered.

Yes, I think the stimulus helped to a degree. I do not know if we should have another stimulus or not, but if we did, I would hope that it would be a true stimulus and not lined with frivolous spending, as I stated above.

Both the right and left do their fair share of complaining and/or opposing... I know many on the "left" who are not happy right now, just as I know many on the "right" aren't either.

Regardless of what you or anyone else thinks of my political affiliation, I had no illusions about Obama coming into office and what he had on his plate to deal with. I do recall, however, seeing many of his supporters thinking that Obama would fix everything.

I'm not sure how you would conclude that my intention in answering those questions was that the "government stinks so let's not do anything." Would you care to point out to me in any of responses where that conclusion could have been drawn from?

You mean to tell me, with certainty and fact (again, there's that word, per the OP's request) that those questions CAN be answered?? Do you have a crystal ball?? How can one answer one of those questions today (2010), with fact, about events that MAY have occurred had the government done nothing?

The point I am trying to make is that those questions cannot be answered because no one knows what may have happened...how can you base a fact on speculation?

I took only one of those questions: "How many would be unemployed" and presented my argument as to why I feel this question cannot be answered and I still stand behind my argument that the only answer that can be given is "unknown".

Can you provide an answer to that particular question, with supporting facts, per the OP's request?? I'll await your answer

Yes, I can answer the question. Without the stimulus, there would be millions more unemployed than there are now. That is based on the precarious position of enormous companies in Sept. 2008, many of which would have failed without TARP, causing further declines in the markets, loss of consumer confidence, loss of wealth and a host of other negative developments, all of which would have increased the unemployment rate.

Honestly, I don't think you realize how silly you've made the argument. You've dug your heels in on dogmatically insisting that a particular question called for a precise answer. OK, so now I'm asking a different question: in more general terms, what would have happened to these various economic factors without the stimulus?

Obviously, you think bad things would have happened without the stimulus. There's no other reason to support it, considering especially that it increased the debt and sooner or later will cost us all money. There has to be a reason to incur more debt. So you must be making an assessment of the thing you say cannot be assessed. You've met yourself coming 'round the barn.

If you intend at all to speak out on these issues, even just to friends and family, I hope that you will think about how your remarks are likely to be received. People misunderstand each other all the time. I've explained to you why your comments probably will be misinterpreted. Do with the observation what you will.

[Guest Former Resident]

Yes, I can answer the question. Without the stimulus, there would be millions more unemployed than there are now. That is based on the precarious position of enormous companies in Sept. 2008, many of which would have failed without TARP, causing further declines in the markets, loss of consumer confidence, loss of wealth and a host of other negative developments, all of which would have increased the unemployment rate.

Honestly, I don't think you realize how silly you've made the argument. You've dug your heels in on dogmatically insisting that a particular question called for a precise answer. OK, so now I'm asking a different question: in more general terms, what would have happened to these various economic factors without the stimulus?

Obviously, you think bad things would have happened without the stimulus. There's no other reason to support it, considering especially that it increased the debt and sooner or later will cost us all money. There has to be a reason to incur more debt. So you must be making an assessment of the thing you say cannot be assessed. You've met yourself coming 'round the barn.

If you intend at all to speak out on these issues, even just to friends and family, I hope that you will think about how your remarks are likely to be received. People misunderstand each other all the time. I've explained to you why your comments probably will be misinterpreted. Do with the observation what you will.

So, even though Obama promised that unemployment would not rise above 8% with the passing of the stimulus and even though unemployment rose to 10% with the passing of the stimulus and now sits, as of the last unemployment figures, at 9.7%, you mean to tell me that you can say with certainty that had the government NOT passed the stimulus, millions more would be unemployed?? Millions more WERE/ARE unemployed with the PASSING of the stimulus. So, I'm sorry, no one can say for sure what may have happened. Again, one could speculate and/or assume that had the government not passed the stimulus, millions would have been unemployed... but then again, the government speculated and/assumed that with the passing of the stimulus unemployment would not rise above 8% and they were wrong.. and millions more than they anticipated are unemployed.

I don't know what would have happened... And, I can't answer what may have happened when unemployment continued to rise, foreclosures rose, etc., because all of that still happened with the passing of the stimulus, so why and how am I going to speculate on how bad things could have been without its passing, when things were and still are bad with its passing?

If the stimulus worked in the way that the government had hoped and unemployment did not rise above 8% (I would have given Obama big kudos for that) and people weren't losing their homes, etc., THEN perhaps one would be in a position to look at that more objectively and say "Hey, you know what, had the government not passed the stimulus, we would have been up $hit's creek." But one can't say that, because the government DID pass the stimulus and we were and still are in that creek.

I said I felt the stimulus helped to a degree... to what degree, however, still remains to be seen. There's speculation that we may be headed for a double-dip recession... Was that anticipated with the passing of the stimulus?

So, let's say for argument sake that we do end up with a double-dip recession and unemployment continues to rise (both unexpected), how does one even begin to determine that millions more may have been unemployed if the stimulus did not pass, when it did and we're now heading for more trouble, with millions more perhaps being unemployed? Just as there is no way of knowing how many would have been unemployed had the stimulus not passed... there's no way of knowing how many may be unemployed should this scenario play out.

As I have said, I was not in favor of ALL of the stimulus, and I'm not meeting myself coming " 'round the barn". There was absolutely no reason whatsoever for all that pork in the stimulus bill... how can anyone support frivolous spending like that under the guise of a stimulus? With unemployment at 9.7% (and those figures expected - speculation/assumed - to rise due to the census worker's being temporary), it doesn't look like the stimulus is stimulating as much as the government thought it would. So let's not insult a person's intelligence by stating unequivocally that without the stimulus passing millions more would be unemployed... Today, there is an entire 1.7%+ of the population that didn't expect to lose their jobs with, and because of, its passing.

And just because the government proclaims they "saved or created" millions of jobs due to the stimulus doesn't make it so. In fact, it was found that their "saved or created" figures were way off, but, yet, they claim the stimulus was a success. So, tell me, and I really hate to keep repeating myself, but... how was the stimulus a "success" when millions more than anticipated have become unemployed with it's passing; so we just don't know what type of unemployment figures we may have been looking at had the government done nothing.

I have no problems with people understanding what I am saying when I speak to them about these issues or anything else... perhaps it is you who is not understanding what I am saying?

[Guest 2smart4u]

So, even though Obama promised that unemployment would not rise above 8% with the passing of the stimulus and even though unemployment rose to 10% with the passing of the stimulus and now sits, as of the last unemployment figures, at 9.7%, you mean to tell me that you can say with certainty that had the government NOT passed the stimulus, millions more would be unemployed?? Millions more WERE/ARE unemployed with the PASSING of the stimulus. So, I'm sorry, no one can say for sure what may have happened. Again, one could speculate and/or assume that had the government not passed the stimulus, millions would have been unemployed... but then again, the government speculated and/assumed that with the passing of the stimulus unemployment would not rise above 8% and they were wrong.. and millions more than they anticipated are unemployed.

I don't know what would have happened... And, I can't answer what may have happened when unemployment continued to rise, foreclosures rose, etc., because all of that still happened with the passing of the stimulus, so why and how am I going to speculate on how bad things could have been without its passing, when things were and still are bad with its passing?

If the stimulus worked in the way that the government had hoped and unemployment did not rise above 8% (I would have given Obama big kudos for that) and people weren't losing their homes, etc., THEN perhaps one would be in a position to look at that more objectively and say "Hey, you know what, had the government not passed the stimulus, we would have been up $hit's creek." But one can't say that, because the government DID pass the stimulus and we were and still are in that creek.

I said I felt the stimulus helped to a degree... to what degree, however, still remains to be seen. There's speculation that we may be headed for a double-dip recession... Was that anticipated with the passing of the stimulus?

So, let's say for argument sake that we do end up with a double-dip recession and unemployment continues to rise (both unexpected), how does one even begin to determine that millions more may have been unemployed if the stimulus did not pass, when it did and we're now heading for more trouble, with millions more perhaps being unemployed? Just as there is no way of knowing how many would have been unemployed had the stimulus not passed... there's no way of knowing how many may be unemployed should this scenario play out.

As I have said, I was not in favor of ALL of the stimulus, and I'm not meeting myself coming " 'round the barn". There was absolutely no reason whatsoever for all that pork in the stimulus bill... how can anyone support frivolous spending like that under the guise of a stimulus? With unemployment at 9.7% (and those figures expected - speculation/assumed - to rise due to the census worker's being temporary), it doesn't look like the stimulus is stimulating as much as the government thought it would. So let's not insult a person's intelligence by stating unequivocally that without the stimulus passing millions more would be unemployed... Today, there is an entire 1.7%+ of the population that didn't expect to lose their jobs with, and because of, its passing.

And just because the government proclaims they "saved or created" millions of jobs due to the stimulus doesn't make it so. In fact, it was found that their "saved or created" figures were way off, but, yet, they claim the stimulus was a success. So, tell me, and I really hate to keep repeating myself, but... how was the stimulus a "success" when millions more than anticipated have become unemployed with it's passing; so we just don't know what type of unemployment figures we may have been looking at had the government done nothing.

I have no problems with people understanding what I am saying when I speak to them about these issues or anything else... perhaps it is you who is not understanding what I am saying?

The problem here is that you're trying to talk rationally with a non-rational far left Loon. While you may make perfect sense to most clear thinking people, the Loons are filtering your words through their Kool-Aid infused brains and it's more than they can handle.

[Guest Guest]

Former Resident,

Probably just about everyone would agree with you that we don’t like the pork in the stimulus bills. It was a small percentage of the outlay but that’s no excuse for it. Politically, it helped get the bill passed. That stinks but neither Bush nor Obama had the time or the power to reform the system before passing the bill.

You’re not hearing yourself. You say that you agree with the stimulus but then you say its effects can’t be predicted or even known, point out that millions more still are unemployed after the stimulus and suggest that it can’t be called a success. That’s like saying that you go to a doctor with gangrene in your leg; the doctor amputates below the knee to save the remainder of your leg, and then you complain that you can’t know for sure that the whole leg would have been lost, you lost part of the leg anyway and therefore the operation was a failure. It’s a perfect parallel.

When you analyze these questions, you have to ask “compared with what?” The stimulus saved major companies from going under and in turn saved the economy from collapse. If you don’t think so, then don’t. I can only remind you of what people were saying and what was happening when the crash began to hit on September 15, 2008.

[Guest Guest]

This fall a bunch of tea partiers are going to elect the most radical right House ever seen. While they probably won't take over the Senate, that will be enough to ensure that Congress gets nothing done. Since most of them are being elected on anti-bailout rage, when the next bailout is needed (credit card companies in all likelihood) they'll not be able to do anything and then we shall see what will happen. At that time I sincerely hope that everyone remembers who opposed the financial reform that has been utterly defanged by the Republicans and a good chunk of the Democrats.

[Guest 2smart4u]

This fall a bunch of tea partiers are going to elect the most radical right House ever seen. While they probably won't take over the Senate, that will be enough to ensure that Congress gets nothing done. Since most of them are being elected on anti-bailout rage, when the next bailout is needed (credit card companies in all likelihood) they'll not be able to do anything and then we shall see what will happen. At that time I sincerely hope that everyone remembers who opposed the financial reform that has been utterly defanged by the Republicans and a good chunk of the Democrats.

This fall, patriotic americans will take back their country from the far left socialist Loons led by Comrade zerO that are trying to turn America into a socialist

nanny state where inititive, self-determination, self-reliance and personal responsibility are forbidden.

If you wish to live under the thumb of the federal government, move to France. Give me liberty or give me death / Patrick Henry; 1775

[Guest Guest]

This fall, patriotic americans will take back their country from the far left socialist Loons led by Comrade zerO that are trying to turn America into a socialist

nanny state where inititive, self-determination, self-reliance and personal responsibility are forbidden.

If you wish to live under the thumb of the federal government, move to France. Give me liberty or give me death / Patrick Henry; 1775

Perhaps you should read what I read again since I blamed both parties.

[Guest Guest]

This fall, patriotic americans will take back their country from the far left socialist Loons led by Comrade zerO that are trying to turn America into a socialist

nanny state where inititive, self-determination, self-reliance and personal responsibility are forbidden.

If you wish to live under the thumb of the federal government, move to France. Give me liberty or give me death / Patrick Henry; 1775

Stupid,

Would you prefer to live under the thumb of giant international corporations? That's what you're going to get without a strong and active government. If Patrick Henry had seen the modern international corporation, he would have recognized that it was the greater threat to freedom.