• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Judging Stimulus by Job Data Reveals Success

Say what you will, but at least say it with FACTS:

Unemployment: February '09 (since Obama took over mid-January) - 8.2%
Unemployment: January '10 - 9.7%

That's an 18% increase in unemployment. Granted, an increase and not a decrease - so it's only (potential) success is that it staved off even further losses.

And just a reminder:
Unemployment: February '01 - 4.2%
Unemployment: February '09 - 8.2%

So, under Bush unemployment rose by 95%.

Slam Obama all you'd like. But use the facts. Unemployment when he took over was 8.2% (I'd even let you use 7.7% - then January '09 rate). But 6% would be a full 50% off reality.

Not that I disagree with your overall point, but this is a silly way to measure ;)

The bottom line is, the death spiral our economy was in has leveled off into a fidgety plateau and if the trend continues, it will (we can only hope) start going back up.

edit: Calling our President "your Messiah" is just as stupid as typing out his full first, middle, and last name. Debate policies and actions, attacking someone's name or your-perception-of-my-perception is just... weak.
 
Last edited:
Excellent job of addressing the points that I made. You really are an excellent debater.

addressing your points?

about middle names?

and green skies?

why would anyone want to address that?

LOL!
 
addressing your points?

about middle names?

and green skies?

why would anyone want to address that?

LOL!

Who is reading this forum to you? You should get somebody else. I'll make it really easy for you, since picking out important information is a skill you've proven to lack:

That chart you were all bashing shows a clear reversal of trend in our economy, starting right about when that stimulus money started to flow.

So explain to me, how can you look at such a chart and conclude that President Obama has made things worse?
 
How can people look at that chart and come up with the conclusion that Obama made things worse?

There is a clear and definitive reversal of trend shown on that chart. It happens right about where the stimulus funds start going out.

Correlation =/= causation
 
Correlation =/= causation

Economic experts say that the stimulus halted the worst of the decline.

You say it's all a coincidence and in fact the tax cuts and contracts created by the stimulus package actually made things worse.

Provide evidence or reasoning to support your assertion.
 
Economic experts say that the stimulus halted the worst of the decline.

And I'm not disagreeing. I'm taking issue with your blind acceptance of dubious specific numbers and your misunderstanding of correlation v. causation. I'll ask again - do you actually think that the economy turned around the moment Obama got elected or the stimulus was passed like that chart would seem to indicate, or do you recognize that trying to attribute month-to-month changes in a $14 trillion economy to individual presidential proposals is absurd?

You say it's all a coincidence and in fact the tax cuts and contracts created by the stimulus package actually made things worse.

No, I didn't say that. Try reading what I write and responding to that, rather than to the strawmen that you'd like to respond to.
 
Not that I disagree with your overall point, but this is a silly way to measure ;)

The bottom line is, the death spiral our economy was in has leveled off into a fidgety plateau and if the trend continues, it will (we can only hope) start going back up.

edit: Calling our President "your Messiah" is just as stupid as typing out his full first, middle, and last name. Debate policies and actions, attacking someone's name or your-perception-of-my-perception is just... weak.

I'm not the one who uses "your Messiah". So, I'm assuming that was addressed to someone else?
 
Economic experts say that the stimulus halted the worst of the decline.

You say it's all a coincidence and in fact the tax cuts and contracts created by the stimulus package actually made things worse.

Provide evidence or reasoning to support your assertion.

I personally don't doubt that it helped, I wish it would have been bigger, and I wish they would be doing more now. I think the pain felt by many during the recession could have been avoided had this been the case. However, to be fair the chart does not show a reversal of trend, only the slowing of a trend. Jobs were lost on every month of the chart except november.
 
And I'm not disagreeing. I'm taking issue with your blind acceptance of dubious specific numbers and your misunderstanding of correlation v. causation. I'll ask again - do you actually think that the economy turned around the moment Obama got elected or the stimulus was passed like that chart would seem to indicate, or do you recognize that trying to attribute month-to-month changes in a $14 trillion economy to individual presidential proposals is absurd?



No, I didn't say that. Try reading what I write and responding to that, rather than to the strawmen that you'd like to respond to.

I certainly don't think inauguration day created jobs. (well, maybe a couple temps who set up podiums and such...)

And no, I don't think the stimulus package was the sole factor in the turnaround, perhaps you noticed I never said anything of the sort. What I actually said was:

"How can you dumb ****ers claim that Obama made things worse?"

Me: The stimulus helped. We needed help. The sky is blue.
Conservatives here: Obama made things worse. The sky is green.
 
Who is reading this forum to you? You should get somebody else. I'll make it really easy for you, since picking out important information is a skill you've proven to lack:

That chart you were all bashing shows a clear reversal of trend in our economy, starting right about when that stimulus money started to flow.

So explain to me, how can you look at such a chart and conclude that President Obama has made things worse?

the only thing i said about that chart, master debater, is "it's pretty"

LOL!
 
the only thing i said about that chart, master debater, is "it's pretty"

LOL!

...yes Prof. That's kindof what I was getting at. You don't bother addressing any actual substance of any sort on any topic that I've ever seen you post on.
 
you mean, like barack's middle name, hussein?

or the color of greenish skies?

LOL!

i guess it's cuz i'm just not as INTO debating as you are

take a gander at the links above, master-d
 
I certainly don't think inauguration day created jobs. (well, maybe a couple temps who set up podiums and such...)

And no, I don't think the stimulus package was the sole factor in the turnaround, perhaps you noticed I never said anything of the sort. What I actually said was:

"How can you dumb ****ers claim that Obama made things worse?"

Me: The stimulus helped. We needed help. The sky is blue.
Conservatives here: Obama made things worse. The sky is green.

Setting aside the fact that jobs are not the only consideration in figuring out whether something is better or worse (debt is a consideration as well), why don't you show me where I said "Obama made things worse. The sky is green," thus prompting your response.

I'll wait.
 

Most of it did a lot of good. My school would be charging twice the tuition it is now if it would not be for the stimulus. This is a fact. Over 1/3 of the 25,000 students that go to the same college as me would not have been able to afford it this year had it not been for the stimulus giving funding to higher ed.
 
you mean, like barack's middle name, hussein?

or the color of greenish skies?

LOL!

i guess it's cuz i'm just not as INTO debating as you are

take a gander at the links above, master-d

Nicely pasted links. Care to provide any analysis beyond one-liners?

On cursory inspection, I find a lot of bad analysis and faulty information in these links, many of which look like...blogs. I'll go into more detail tomorrow, but it's too late for me to dig into this right now. Not too many hours before the alarm **** goes off and I have to do things to pay this internet bill.
 
Most of it did a lot of good. My school would be charging twice the tuition it is now if it would not be for the stimulus. This is a fact. Over 1/3 of the 25,000 students that go to the same college as me would not have been able to afford it this year had it not been for the stimulus giving funding to higher ed.

too anecdotal to be of much worth

but effortless to kick back

College tuition hikes in double digits - Education- msnbc.com
 
Nicely pasted links. Care to provide any analysis beyond one-liners?

On cursory inspection, I find a lot of bad analysis and faulty information in these links, many of which look like...blogs. I'll go into more detail tomorrow, but it's too late for me to dig into this right now. Not too many hours before the alarm **** goes off and I have to do things to pay this internet bill.

analysis?

LOL!

there's nothing to analyze, it's HARD news

y'know, ap, the hill, reuters, abc, the bozeman daily chronicle (LOL!), the globe, the sac bee, the washington examiner, st petersburg times...

blogs like that

LOL!

you're a funny funny debater, master

when you get back tomorrow, be sure to do more on barack's middle name, hussein

that's my favorite
 
Most of it did a lot of good. My school would be charging twice the tuition it is now if it would not be for the stimulus. This is a fact. Over 1/3 of the 25,000 students that go to the same college as me would not have been able to afford it this year had it not been for the stimulus giving funding to higher ed.

So you're saying that the stimulus is good because it took tens of millions of dollars out of someone else's pocket and put it into the pockets of students at your school.

I'm sure that that was very nice for all of you, but I'm not really seeing how that's related to "stimulus."
 
I'm pretty sure it is accurate. It is all in the presentation.

If you look close it looks like obama has more job losses total.
Yeah, but he inherited those job losses, so they were really his. :roll:
 
As infrastructure projects perk up (signaling money being spent), there will be a multiplier effect. The lag in which debt is issued, money is appropriated, projects are planned, bids are accepted, firms orchestrate production is indeed timely.

For the nteenth time..... The stimulus was puny. It was weak. We needed at a bare minimum $1.5 trillion in infrastructure stimulus alone. There will most likely be a second.
 
So you're saying that the stimulus is good because it took tens of millions of dollars out of someone else's pocket and put it into the pockets of students at your school.

The money from the stimulus was borrowed. From foreigners or private institutions/investors who were not going to spend it. Given the composition of GDP; if we were to remove government stimulus from the (G) aspect.... would we be experiencing positive or negative growth?

I'm just saying... It was better than nothing.
 
you mean, like barack's middle name, hussein?

or the color of greenish skies?

LOL!

i guess it's cuz i'm just not as INTO debating as you are

take a gander at the links above, master-d
Professor haiku youve been railing against Obama from day 1. Somehow I doubt your sincerity that this was about the unemployment situation so I posit a question were you fidgeting as much as a chichuahua under Reagan as you are now?
 
Denial ain't the river in Egypt, Gentlemen.
 
too anecdotal to be of much worth

but effortless to kick back

College tuition hikes in double digits - Education- msnbc.com

I like how you post some news anecdotes and then call opposing views anecdotal.

analysis?

LOL!

there's nothing to analyze, it's HARD news

y'know, ap, the hill, reuters, abc, the bozeman daily chronicle (LOL!), the globe, the sac bee, the washington examiner, st petersburg times...

blogs like that

LOL!

you're a funny funny debater, master

when you get back tomorrow, be sure to do more on barack's middle name, hussein

that's my favorite

"There's nothing to analyze, I believe whatever I read if it fits my world view!"

You're the one who keeps typing out our President's full name. The point I was trying to make is that you have really weak partisan reasons for doing so. But again, you didn't really understand that. I'm seeing a trend.
 
Back
Top Bottom