Questions for 2stupid4words

[Guest Guest]

Research Reaganomics, it resulted in a surge in the economy; spending, investments, hiring, all went up.

I know the Loonys would like to write that out of the history books because Reagan was Republican but spinning your nonsense won't change zerO's failures at improving the economy. All he's done is spent us into record shattering debt that may destroy America as we know it.

That's why people don't act as their own doctors: they don't know what they're doing. Your "solution" is like if the doctor prescribes you a medication and tells you to take two tablets a day. "Hey, that worked," you say, "so I'll take ten a day." That's what you're saying, and yes, that's how uninformed it is.

Reagan came into office under completely different circumstances, when the national debt was $1 trillion dollars and we still had a manufacturing base. After nearly thirty years of Reaganomics, it was $10 trillion, ten times what it had been when Reagan began, and our manufacturing base was seriously depleted. We spent those thirty years mortgaging our future. That's what the extra $9 trillion dollars in debt were about. Republican presidents borrowed the money so they could keep good times going and get re-elected. Sure, you can have good times if you borrow money, but for all their talk about the debt, Republicans just borrow and spend, which is worse than tax and spend.

Obama borrowed money to invest in the future. If Republicans had done that, they would have been doing the right thing. But they didn't borrow to build for the future. They borrowed to keep consumption going while our manufacturing base declined. We didn't invest in new energy or infrastructure, we let our manufacturing base decline without planning for any replacement, we deregulated main sectors of the economy and the economy was in freefall when Obama came in. Even Reagan didn't try for more tax increases when the stock market fell precipitously in 1987.

So I ask you again, explain how tax cuts would work with the economy in the condition it was in in late 2008 and early 2009. If you knew anything about economics, which you obviously don't, you wouldn't make an argument like that.

You have demonstrated a complete lack of understanding and sophistication about economics. Economic policy has to be fitted to the economic conditions of the time. Your idea is to cut taxes all the time. It doesn't work that way, especially when the economy is in freefall. Your idea would send the economy into a tailspin because there would be nothing to keep all those companies from failing.

I'll give you this: people would be paying less taxes - because they wouldn't have any money to pay taxes with. That's what happened in the 1930s and would happen again if the government hadn't stimulated the economy. Even Republicans were for it until they had to vote on it. Remember McCain "suspending his campaign" to address the economic crisis, leading to TARP I? You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

Don't take my word for it. Instead of spitting out your one-size-fits-all talking point, do some research this time. Research what reputable economists were saying, study economics, then report back.

[Guest Guest]

Your questions CANNOT be answered with anything other than "Maybe" or "Unknown"... There is no way of knowing what may have happened, just as there is no way of knowing what might happen in the future... we are still not out of the woods yet.

So, not being able to address your "issues" has nothing to do with a "tired old right-wing song"... They are impossible questions to answer logically in which to have any intelligent discussion about them.

No they're not. These are the questions economists ask every day. They don't know exact answers, but they do know that when major companies are about to fail, the economy has to be stimulated so those companies don't fail. Because if companies that big fail, it sets off a spiral and the entire economy collapses.

That's why every economically advanced country and every major business does economic analysis. By making your argument, you're telling us that you don't understand economics. If someone wants to come here with an intelligent argument, fine, but don't come here, post from complete ignorance and expect not to be called on it.

Besides, if it's all guesswork, then there's no basis for choosing between one set of policies and another. Why be concerned about $13 trillion dollars in debt as opposed to $10 trillion? Who cares? That's where your "logic" would lead.

[Guest Guest]

Tell that to the Dems in Congress who have opposed building nuclear plants to replace oil consumption. You're right about one thing though, I do believe

zerO would say F--- Louisiana.

All you ever do is choose one side over the other. You've become so partisan that your argument is reduced to "yeah, my guys stink but your guys stink worse." Your guys ran the economy into the ditch and refused to invest in wind, solar and geothermal energy. Clinton aided and abetted deregulation, which comes straight out of Reaganomics: "get the guv'mint of our backs." You can't be that general if you want to govern a country properly. But all you have are generalities. You never offer any analysis or any reliable research to support your talking point.

OK, so both sides stink, largely because of what the political system has become, beholden as it is to the influence of big money. I'm interested in how we get out of the problem. We're not going to get out of it by going back to the policies that got us into it. Most of us are more interested in our future and the future of our children than in your childish political games.

[Guest Guest]

Your questions CANNOT be answered with anything other than "Maybe" or "Unknown"... There is no way of knowing what may have happened, just as there is no way of knowing what might happen in the future... we are still not out of the woods yet.

So, not being able to address your "issues" has nothing to do with a "tired old right-wing song"... They are impossible questions to answer logically in which to have any intelligent discussion about them.

That's like telling someone who is having a heart attack not to go to a hospital. You can't be sure the heart attack will kill him or that the doctors can save him, so by your logic, don't bother going to the hospital.

You're making exactly that argument. In September 2008, the economy was in freefall. Major businesses were failing and many others were headed toward bankruptcy. The stock market dropped sharply, causing the economy to lose trillions of dollars of value. The overwhelming majority of economists agree that at a time like that a direct stimulus is necessary, and that is what was done.

But now you guys want to argue that it was never so bad as that in the first place, even though everyone could see we were in crisis at the time. You have very short memories. It's like the guy going to the hospital, having surgery and then saying he should never have gone because he didn't really need it.

At some point, don't you have to ask yourself if you're just being stubborn?

[Guest Guest]

Research Reaganomics, it resulted in a surge in the economy; spending, investments, hiring, all went up.

I know the Loonys would like to write that out of the history books because Reagan was Republican but spinning your nonsense won't change zerO's failures at improving the economy. All he's done is spent us into record shattering debt that may destroy America as we know it.

All he's done is save the economy from collapsing. The money was spent, the companies survived, the market is back and the economy is recovering but you refuse to give Obama any credit for it, even though his policies were the ones that got us here.

Reagan didn't do his tax cuts during an economic meltdown. So Reaganomics doesn't answer the question. Read the post again: you were supposed to answer how corporate and capital gains tax cuts would save the economy from the condition it was in when Obama took office. I'm putting in bold the parts you overlooked. They were put there repeatedly so you wouldn't overlook them, but you did anyway.

Now explain how corporate and capital gains taxes would work during an economic meltdown. How much are you going to cut? If you cut $1 trillion, then you're still increasing the debt by a trillion dollars. But unlike TARP, the tax cut isn't targeted, so companies are getting it even though they don't need it. Remember, the economy was near meltdown. Nobody was lending and nobody was investing. Are businesses suddenly going to start investing in that climate? No they aren't. What about the banks? How is it going to work for them, particularly the ones that were about to fail? Go ahead genius, explain how your all-purpose answer-for-everything works when the economy is melting down. (It doesn't.) Go ahead. Give us the benefit of your erudition, and don't neglect to be very specific.

You didn't explain any of this. All you did was refer us back to the policies that caused the long-term problem. Yes, they seemed to work short-term but that was because we were borrowing money to finance consumption. I know you're not much for facts but look again at the hard, cold numbers. They don't lie. Republicans won elections by borrowing, spending and deregulating. In the process they created a false prosperity based on borrowed money and speculation - the same thing as happened in the late 1920s and early 1930s. It's just a fact. http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports...bt/histdebt.htm

Until you deal with these facts and the specific conditions President Obama inherited, you're not being reasonable. If you truly love this country, you must look at the facts - all of them, including the ones that don't support your argument. So you have a lot of reading to do.

[Guest ko]

You read WEEKLY? You should start reading DAILY if you want to stay abreast of zerO's failures. Reading the entertainment section on weekends isn't

cutting it for you.

I can't read a columnist daily. I should have said biweekly. Although, some columnists are only weekly. FAIL

[Guest Guest]

Tell that to the Dems in Congress who have opposed building nuclear plants to replace oil consumption. You're right about one thing though, I do believe

zerO would say F--- Louisiana.

Offshore drilling is dangerous. The wells can leak. The proof is spilling into the Gulf right now.

Nuclear power plants are dangerous. They can leak or explode. Chernobyl is an example. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster Would you like to have to tell people why their city was destroyed?

We put men on the moon. We could have already had wind, solar and geothermal energy by now if we had wanted it. We didn't do it because the oil companies make money and stopped all efforts to move away from fossil fuels.

This is treasonous. It has compromised our national security and costs us trillions of dollars, which we have shipped overseas to hostile powers.

Our future is in clean, renewable energy, not oil, coal or nuclear.

[Guest ko]

Tell that to the Dems in Congress who have opposed building nuclear plants to replace oil consumption. You're right about one thing though, I do believe

zerO would say F--- Louisiana.

You can quote me on this: "I'll take an oil spill over a nuclear meltdown any day of the week." Not to mention, management of nuclear waste is costly and--in a post 9/11 world--an extremely delicate issue of national security. While what we are witnessing now is as much a humanitarian crisis as it is an environmental one, an accident at a nuclear power plant could result in an extreme and immediate loss of human life. At the same time, it's important to note that the oil spill in Louisiana was not without its immediate human victims; although, I imagine the loss of life in the case of a nuclear meltdown would be far worse.

So, take that and sift through it. If you can truly disagree with me on any of those points, I'd like to know why. Then, you can find me some Democrats who are against wind and solar energy.

[Guest Former Resident]

No they're not. These are the questions economists ask every day. They don't know exact answers, but they do know that when major companies are about to fail, the economy has to be stimulated so those companies don't fail. Because if companies that big fail, it sets off a spiral and the entire economy collapses.

That's why every economically advanced country and every major business does economic analysis. By making your argument, you're telling us that you don't understand economics. If someone wants to come here with an intelligent argument, fine, but don't come here, post from complete ignorance and expect not to be called on it.

Besides, if it's all guesswork, then there's no basis for choosing between one set of policies and another. Why be concerned about $13 trillion dollars in debt as opposed to $10 trillion? Who cares? That's where your "logic" would lead.

First of all... you know nothing about me, my education, my political affiliations, etc.

Secondly, do not insult my intelligence by calling me or my posts ignorant... and don't be so quick to judge what you think I "don't understand".

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.

[Guest Former Resident]

That's like telling someone who is having a heart attack not to go to a hospital. You can't be sure the heart attack will kill him or that the doctors can save him, so by your logic, don't bother going to the hospital.

You're making exactly that argument. In September 2008, the economy was in freefall. Major businesses were failing and many others were headed toward bankruptcy. The stock market dropped sharply, causing the economy to lose trillions of dollars of value. The overwhelming majority of economists agree that at a time like that a direct stimulus is necessary, and that is what was done.

But now you guys want to argue that it was never so bad as that in the first place, even though everyone could see we were in crisis at the time. You have very short memories. It's like the guy going to the hospital, having surgery and then saying he should never have gone because he didn't really need it.

At some point, don't you have to ask yourself if you're just being stubborn?

I'm amazed at your interpretation of my post: Where in my post did I say I was against the stimulus???? Where in my post did I state my political affiliation??? Because I simply commented that those questions could not be answered, you ASSUME that I am atubborn republican with a "short memory" who was against the stimulus???

Wow... talk about reading between lines that don't exist. You've got some talent!

[Guest 2smart4u]

You can quote me on this: "I'll take an oil spill over a nuclear meltdown any day of the week." Not to mention, management of nuclear waste is costly and--in a post 9/11 world--an extremely delicate issue of national security. While what we are witnessing now is as much a humanitarian crisis as it is an environmental one, an accident at a nuclear power plant could result in an extreme and immediate loss of human life. At the same time, it's important to note that the oil spill in Louisiana was not without its immediate human victims; although, I imagine the loss of life in the case of a nuclear meltdown would be far worse.

So, take that and sift through it. If you can truly disagree with me on any of those points, I'd like to know why. Then, you can find me some Democrats who are against wind and solar energy.

Oh uninformed one, your naivety is amusing. Nuclear power has come a long way since 3-mile island, many layers of redundancy are built into the controls to insure complete safety. It's this "green nonsense" that Al Gore and the Loony left is supporting that will keep the U.S. from ever attaining energy independence from OPEC. Not to worry however, come Nov. there will be a new mayor in town and the sheriff's won't be re-hired in '12.

[Guest Guest]

You can quote me on this: "I'll take an oil spill over a nuclear meltdown any day of the week." Not to mention, management of nuclear waste is costly and--in a post 9/11 world--an extremely delicate issue of national security. While what we are witnessing now is as much a humanitarian crisis as it is an environmental one, an accident at a nuclear power plant could result in an extreme and immediate loss of human life. At the same time, it's important to note that the oil spill in Louisiana was not without its immediate human victims; although, I imagine the loss of life in the case of a nuclear meltdown would be far worse.

So, take that and sift through it. If you can truly disagree with me on any of those points, I'd like to know why. Then, you can find me some Democrats who are against wind and solar energy.

Jon Corzine, Edward Kennedy, Robert Menendez, Frank Lautenberg, Rush Holt among many others.... ALL opposed offshore Wind farms.

As far as Nuclear.. Spare me the Rhetoric. There has not ever been, nor can there ever be a "Nuclear Meltdown" with the design of today's power plants. TMI was not a meltdown, wasnt even close to one..yes it was a mistake, but it was a mistake that was contained with very little impact on the surrounding community. Chernobyl happened because of a combination of Soviet Quality Control (Or lack thereof) and the fact that they never bothered to put the reactor in a containment vessel..as everyone else does. Couple that with a crappy overall design and you got an explosion...that was STILL not a flipping "Meltdown". Europe (Western Europe, specifically France) uses Nuclear to produce upwards of 85% of their Electric Production. there is NO legitimate reason we cannot do the same. It is a Travesty and a shame on our national pride the we, the nation who Pioneered Nuclear Power Generation werent able to get a license to build a new reactor for almost 4 decades.

[Guest Guest]

You can quote me on this: "I'll take an oil spill over a nuclear meltdown any day of the week." Not to mention, management of nuclear waste is costly and--in a post 9/11 world--an extremely delicate issue of national security. While what we are witnessing now is as much a humanitarian crisis as it is an environmental one, an accident at a nuclear power plant could result in an extreme and immediate loss of human life. At the same time, it's important to note that the oil spill in Louisiana was not without its immediate human victims; although, I imagine the loss of life in the case of a nuclear meltdown would be far worse.

So, take that and sift through it. If you can truly disagree with me on any of those points, I'd like to know why. Then, you can find me some Democrats who are against wind and solar energy.

Nuclear meltdown ?? You've been reading too many comic books. And I'm certain you know nothing about nuclear waste management.

[Guest ko]

I can't read a columnist daily. I should have said biweekly. Although, some columnists are only weekly. FAIL

***

biweekly is once every two weeks. sorry for this error. i was meaning to say "twice a week," and i guess I don't know a word for that phrase.

[Guest Guest]

First of all... you know nothing about me, my education, my political affiliations, etc.

Secondly, do not insult my intelligence by calling me or my posts ignorant... and don't be so quick to judge what you think I "don't understand".

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.

But your post is ignorant. By the "logic" of your post, there would be no such thing as economic policy; they might as well flip a coin.

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.

What would you have done? By your logic, the government should have done nothing, even if it meant the economy would collapse. They don't have the luxury of making anonymous comments on a town forum. They have to choose what to do. What would you have done?

As for your being insulted, you're posting anonymously, so there's no reason for you to care. You might also have noticed that there's a difference between calling you ignorant and calling your post ignorant. On the other hand, when you persist in an argument that makes no sense and then compound it by getting insulted because you got called out, you begin to invite comments that you are both ignorant and stupid. I don't have to know you or even know who you are. I can read what you're writing, and it doesn't reflect much intelligence.

[Guest Guest]

Jon Corzine, Edward Kennedy, Robert Menendez, Frank Lautenberg, Rush Holt among many others.... ALL opposed offshore Wind farms.

As far as Nuclear.. Spare me the Rhetoric. There has not ever been, nor can there ever be a "Nuclear Meltdown" with the design of today's power plants. TMI was not a meltdown, wasnt even close to one..yes it was a mistake, but it was a mistake that was contained with very little impact on the surrounding community. Chernobyl happened because of a combination of Soviet Quality Control (Or lack thereof) and the fact that they never bothered to put the reactor in a containment vessel..as everyone else does. Couple that with a crappy overall design and you got an explosion...that was STILL not a flipping "Meltdown". Europe (Western Europe, specifically France) uses Nuclear to produce upwards of 85% of their Electric Production. there is NO legitimate reason we cannot do the same. It is a Travesty and a shame on our national pride the we, the nation who Pioneered Nuclear Power Generation werent able to get a license to build a new reactor for almost 4 decades.

A ship called the Titanic supposedly could not sink. We've had spacecraft blow up despite our best technology. With something as powerful as nuclear energy, we should never think that a disaster can't happen.

No doubt, technology has advanced since Chernobyl, and yes this is the United States. On the other hand, we just saw how companies like to cut corners - that's why there's an oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.

We may have to use nuclear energy for awhile but I would feel much safer with wind, solar and geothermal energy, which also avoid the inevitable problem of nuclear waste.

[Guest Guest]

I'm amazed at your interpretation of my post: Where in my post did I say I was against the stimulus???? Where in my post did I state my political affiliation??? Because I simply commented that those questions could not be answered, you ASSUME that I am atubborn republican with a "short memory" who was against the stimulus???

Wow... talk about reading between lines that don't exist. You've got some talent!

If you're not an anti-government right winger, then don't make dumb arguments. Governments have to choose policies, and while no one can predict any economic factor exactly, economists can and do predict general trends and effects. At the very least, put your comments in context. The way you left it, one is left to conclude only that government should do nothing.

[Guest ko]

Jon Corzine, Edward Kennedy, Robert Menendez, Frank Lautenberg, Rush Holt among many others.... ALL opposed offshore Wind farms.

As far as Nuclear.. Spare me the Rhetoric. There has not ever been, nor can there ever be a "Nuclear Meltdown" with the design of today's power plants. TMI was not a meltdown, wasnt even close to one..yes it was a mistake, but it was a mistake that was contained with very little impact on the surrounding community. Chernobyl happened because of a combination of Soviet Quality Control (Or lack thereof) and the fact that they never bothered to put the reactor in a containment vessel..as everyone else does. Couple that with a crappy overall design and you got an explosion...that was STILL not a flipping "Meltdown". Europe (Western Europe, specifically France) uses Nuclear to produce upwards of 85% of their Electric Production. there is NO legitimate reason we cannot do the same. It is a Travesty and a shame on our national pride the we, the nation who Pioneered Nuclear Power Generation werent able to get a license to build a new reactor for almost 4 decades.

You guys win. I don't know shit about nuclear waste, or reactors, or the costs. F**K it. I don't even see a problem with nuclear power plants now. Where the F**K are all the nuclear power plants? They're pretty much green even. WTF? Let's fu**in' bulid these shits.

[Guest 2smart4u]

***

biweekly is once every two weeks. sorry for this error. i was meaning to say "twice a week," and i guess I don't know a word for that phrase.

You know all about nuclear waste management but "twice weekly" trips you up.

[Guest Former Resident]

But your post is ignorant. By the "logic" of your post, there would be no such thing as economic policy; they might as well flip a coin.

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.

What would you have done? By your logic, the government should have done nothing, even if it meant the economy would collapse. They don't have the luxury of making anonymous comments on a town forum. They have to choose what to do. What would you have done?

As for your being insulted, you're posting anonymously, so there's no reason for you to care. You might also have noticed that there's a difference between calling you ignorant and calling your post ignorant. On the other hand, when you persist in an argument that makes no sense and then compound it by getting insulted because you got called out, you begin to invite comments that you are both ignorant and stupid. I don't have to know you or even know who you are. I can read what you're writing, and it doesn't reflect much intelligence.

The original post posed a series of questions in which I stated in my first post to this thread that they could not be answered. It doesn't matter what I, or you, or anyone else did or did not do... the questions still cannot be answered because no one... not me, not you, not our President, not the economists, not the advisors, etc., KNOW the exact answers to these SPECIFIC questions.

And, I'm sorry... no one "calls me out". Do not even flatter yourselves.

I never said that the government should not have done anything and I'm well aware of the financial mess we were in/are still in... but the OP is asking questions that CANNOT... I repeat... CANNOT be answered.

My argument makes perfect sense to an intelligent and educated person, because they can also determine that those questions cannot be answered in simple terms... Way too many variables and nothing is an exact science... One can speculate based on information they have at hand, but even that is just SPECULATION... and I think that was proven in my answer to the "How many would be unemployed?" question.

And that was my point in responding to this thread.

Oh...and I have to laugh at you thinking I felt "insulted"... I'm originally from Kearny and I have very thick skin.

[Guest Former Resident]

If you're not an anti-government right winger, then don't make dumb arguments. Governments have to choose policies, and while no one can predict any economic factor exactly, economists can and do predict general trends and effects. At the very least, put your comments in context. The way you left it, one is left to conclude only that government should do nothing.

I answered one question from the original post... If you are not smart enough to understand my argument, that's your problem. My comments were in perfect "context" to the question I answered and NOTHING in my response would lead anyone to conclude that the "government should do nothing"

Maybe a little reading comprehension on your end is in order?

[Guest Guest]

Former Resident,

Your comments are pointless because they give no sense at all of what you would have the government do. Anyone can always say "I'm not sure that will work" about anything, so the statement is trivial; and in addition, it's so general that it could mean anything from a complete inability to predict anything to an ability to be 100% of a precise result, or anywhere in between. You don't have good grounds for being upset when it was your own lack of clarity that caused the confusion.

Governments and their citizens have to make choices. While it's true that no one can say with absolute certainty exactly what effects any policies will have, governments can and must evaluate the likely effects of policies.

[Guest Guest]

My comments were in perfect "context" to the question I answered and NOTHING in my response would lead anyone to conclude that the "government should do nothing"

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?

[Guest 2smart4u]

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'm 100% sure you don't have a clue.

[Guest Former Resident]

Former Resident,

Your comments are pointless because they give no sense at all of what you would have the government do. Anyone can always say "I'm not sure that will work" about anything, so the statement is trivial; and in addition, it's so general that it could mean anything from a complete inability to predict anything to an ability to be 100% of a precise result, or anywhere in between. You don't have good grounds for being upset when it was your own lack of clarity that caused the confusion.

Governments and their citizens have to make choices. While it's true that no one can say with absolute certainty exactly what effects any policies will have, governments can and must evaluate the likely effects of policies.

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.