Romney

[calicoug]

Sure, we dramatically increased the national debt for no perceptible gain whatsoever.

Porkulus was a cited factor in the S&P downgrade...spending with no apparent gains.

While we have no apparent increase in borrowing costs as a nation, that might be more of a dynamic of everyone else sucking more right now.

Well that is clearly false. There were perceptible gains- GDP was increased significantly, jobs were created, etc. There are many measurable gains- the question is simply whether it was worth what was paid. According to 6 of the 9 studies conducted on that issue, the answer is yes- we got a good bang for our buck.

As for the S&P downgrade, first- the stimulus was hardly the reason for the downgrade. The incompetence of Congress in dealing with the debt ceiling was clearly their primary concern- they say it in their first paragraph of their report:

We lowered our long-term rating on the U.S. because we believe that the
prolonged controversy over raising the statutory debt ceiling and the related
fiscal policy debate indicate that further near-term progress containing the
growth in public spending, especially on entitlements, or on reaching an
agreement on raising revenues is less likely than we previously assumed and
will remain a contentious and fitful process. We also believe that the fiscal
consolidation plan that Congress and the Administration agreed to this week
falls short of the amount that we believe is necessary to stabilize the
general government debt burden by the middle of the decade.

Second, even if S&P had said what you argued, is there anyone left who thinks S&P has any credibility at all? Certainly the bond market doesn't.

Third, even if we had spent the stimulus money with "no perceptible gain whatsoever," that doesn't correlate to "hurting the economy" unless you can show it shrunk economic output (and no, you can't).

[Jacob]

The fact that unemployment went over 8% doesn't mean it failed. It clearly means the administration was wrong about the likely trajectory of unemployment. The argument for the stimulus is that unemployment would have been higher than what it went to without the stimulus. On that point, most every economist I have seen agrees unemployment was reduced by the stimulus.

It failed based on Obama's own metrics. That "unemployment would have been higher without it" is meaningless without real numbers. What's the standard? 0.1% higher? 2% higher? Obama said it was 8%. It failed that standard.

[calicoug]

It failed based on Obama's own metrics. That "unemployment would have been higher without it" is meaningless without real numbers. What's the standard? 0.1% higher? 2% higher? Obama said it was 8%. It failed that standard.

No, that's entirely false. That means the baseline was incorrect, not that the bill had no effect. Otherwise, you would be arguing that if Obama had said unemployment won't rise above 50%, the bill would have been a smashing success.

[Jacob]

No, that's entirely false. That means the baseline was incorrect, not that the bill had no effect. Otherwise, you would be arguing that if Obama had said unemployment won't rise above 50%, the bill would have been a smashing success.

In response to your 3 sentences:
Howso? Didn't say the bill had no effect. No I wouldn't.

[Color Me Badd Fan]

I'm wondering if the money that was given to Solyndra would have been better spent by randomly dropping bags of cash throughout the Country. Bang for our buck indeed.

[calicoug]

In response to your 3 sentences:
Howso? Didn't say the bill had no effect. No I wouldn't.

Ok- take out "had no effect" and replace with "didn't work" if that clarifies it for you.

[Jacob]

Ok- take out "had no effect" and replace with "didn't work" if that clarifies it for you.

And we've come full circle. How do you determine whether it worked? You say Obama's baseline was wrong. What is the correct baseline?

[calicoug]

And we've come full circle. How do you determine whether it worked? You say Obama's baseline was wrong. What is the correct baseline?

Well, there are a number of ways to calculate it (the CBO offers one way, the reports I gave you from the Washington Post offer others). There is no one clear baseline, but we can calculate the baseline using alternative methods. It should be entirely obvious, however, that using a number identified by a White House economist is not the baseline. As I said, if she had given a different number, say 50%, 20%, 15%, etc., you certainly wouldn't be saying it worked (and imagine if the WH had said nothing at all- would we not have any baseline???). You would be saying the baseline was incorrect- and you would be right. It was a bad forecast, nothing more. We have much better data to use for the baseline now looking backwards.

And, using the various baselines that people are using based on historical data, the stimulus worked.

[il Padrino Ute]

You are fixiated on this issue like a Ute fan who just cannot understand why some mormons support BYU despite the obvious damage it does to the LDS Church's reputation. It is just so clear to them and they cannot understand why so many of their co-religionists have their head in the sand.

Trust me. I am a right winger. I know many right wingers. They really dislike Obama a great deal more than they dislike Romney. Give our social conservatives time to come around. They were a key constituency for a two term President and thought they were in the catbird seat in the Republican Party. It is taking them some time to realize that the pressing economic concerns are trumping their concerns.

The only thing that could change this is if it comes out that Obama is getting favors from interns that he oughtn't be getting. However, as much as I am no fan of Obama's political agenda I think the dude is a stand up good human being.

You serious, Clark? A stand up human being admits when he's in the wrong. He is the most arrogant asshole on the planet. He supports and condones the slaughter of the unborn and the almost born. His words have proven him to be an anti-Semite. The man is evil.

To hell with Obama. It will be cause for celebration for anyone who values freedom when he is voted out of office.

[PaloAltoCougar]

A great deal can change in the next 10+ months, of course, but wouldn't a Romney/Rubio ticket be a winner today, by providing Mitt with Florida and taking a chunk out of Obama's solid Latino base? It also galvanizes Tea Partiers and evangelicals, and his wife seems likely to attract voters who share Goatnapper's primary concerns.


Is Rubio a viable VP pick? He's young and relatively experienced, but Obama's election undercuts that attack since Obama was roughly in the same boat in '08. I know Rubio has said he's not interested, but experience suggests that kind of reticence vanishes when a future president comes calling.

[il Padrino Ute]

A great deal can change in the next 10+ months, of course, but wouldn't a Romney/Rubio ticket be a winner today, by providing Mitt with Florida and taking a chunk out of Obama's solid Latino base? It also galvanizes Tea Partiers and evangelicals, and his wife seems likely to attract voters who share Goatnapper's primary concerns.


Is Rubio a viable VP pick? He's young and relatively experienced, but Obama's election undercuts that attack since Obama was roughly in the same boat in '08. I know Rubio has said he's not interested, but experience suggests that kind of reticence vanishes when a future president comes calling.

I don't know if Rubio is a viable pick. He'd certainly be a good choice. I'd prefer a Romney/Christie ticket, as Christie would be able to carry Romney in the personality department.

[Goatnapper'96]

A great deal can change in the next 10+ months, of course, but wouldn't a Romney/Rubio ticket be a winner today, by providing Mitt with Florida and taking a chunk out of Obama's solid Latino base? It also galvanizes Tea Partiers and evangelicals, and his wife seems likely to attract voters who share Goatnapper's primary concerns.


Is Rubio a viable VP pick? He's young and relatively experienced, but Obama's election undercuts that attack since Obama was roughly in the same boat in '08. I know Rubio has said he's not interested, but experience suggests that kind of reticence vanishes when a future president comes calling.

She's got my vote!

[doctorcoug]

Now, certainly you can make an argument it didn't work, [BOLD]but the weight of the evidence available would not be on your side[BOLD] - certainly not nearly enough to draw the conclusions you and Viking have.

You obviously aren't a scientist.

1. The article you posted does a poor job of evaluating the evidence. Reading the author's conclusions is the highway to bring misled by the investigator's conclusions to the study. Self-interpretation of the data is far more reliable than relying on the investigator's conclusions. The news author spent the majority of the time talking about the author's conclusions and very little time on the actual study. Buyer beware!

2. If there are 9 high quality studies and 6 show a statistically significant improvement and 3 failed to show such improvement, the true scientist would state "there is insufficient evidence to support the hypothesis that the intervention resulted in a significant difference". We fail to reject the null hypothesis.

3. It was not discussed what is economically significant. In medicine we talk about clinical significance. Just because we find something is statistically significant it may not be clinically significant. For instance, plaque size and zetia...who cares? What patients care about is stroke rates. I am not an economist so I'm not certain what is "economically significant". Just on the surface, GDP doesn't seem like a good measure. Maybe a better marker is disposable income for the lower and middle class.


As I said, i'm not an economist. I have no idea what is right on this issue (sounds like economists don't know, either). I haven't followed this at all. I am not debating the issue, I'm displaying flaws in your argument.

[Goatnapper'96]

I don't know if Rubio is a viable pick. He'd certainly be a good choice. I'd prefer a Romney/Christie ticket, as Christie would be able to carry Romney in the personality department.

I prefer the bodacious ta-tas to be on the VP's wife, not the VP!

Edit: unless of course the VP is a woman, in that case either the VP or her wife would be acceptable.

[calicoug]

You serious, Clark? A stand up human being admits when he's in the wrong. He is the most arrogant asshole on the planet. He supports and condones the slaughter of the unborn and the almost born. His words have proven him to be an anti-Semite. The man is evil.

To hell with Obama. It will be cause for celebration for anyone who values freedom when he is voted out of office.

No hyperbole here, right? In one post, you somehow used the following words to describe one person:

arrogant
asshole
anti-Semite
evil
slaughter

You should step away from politics for a while. You've lost all perspective.