• 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!

Obama’s Economists: ‘Stimulus’ Has Cost $278,000 per Job

Here we have OC doing what he does so well... he puts words in other people's mouths and then argues from that point. And he'll argue you said it, and as witnessed above, he will call you stupid for a position he's assigned you. It's the only way the cretin seems to know how to debate... dishonestly.

Okay. Go and prove this. Try. And analyzing the logic behind the argument is not putting words in other's mouths. Merely because you have a historical problem with people dissecting your argument and showing how the logic is not only asinine but completely uneducated is not my problem. Furthermore, your constant failure to actually show how taking the logic within the argument of your opponent to its logical end is not dishonest. It's calling debating. The reason you are so often on the losing side of the debate is because you never learned how to debate in the first place. That is not my problem either. When someone shows how stupid the logic you used is, you fly off the hand rather then self reflect as to whether or not that logic was faulty in the first place. That is not a sign of maturity, nor a sign you are willing to grow as a person. I take it you don't take criticism well? Your constant inability to actually prove your argument much less how the concluded logic you declare "dishonest" is actually dishonest suggests you never were taught proper debate skills.

OC can't take the words at face value or ask what someone implied or their underlying meaning.

Let's see. The cost per job directly states it ends at the saved job alone. That explicitly argues that multipliers were not applied in the calculation. You will not have response to this because you cannot refute the logic I use. Hence why you always fall back on "he's dishonest!" Absolutely nothing I stated is what you make it out to be. If it was, you could show that the logic within the argument you posted taken to its conclusion is not what I argued. But you cannot. Nor will you even try.

Nope... he jumps right in a puts words in other people's mouths. It's a bad habit of his, that and his professional prevaricating while accusing others of it.

OC, it's time to clean up your pathetic act.

.

Good luck proving this. Especially after how I just dissected your tactic.

The simple fact that you call logic "putting words in other's mouths" is not a sign of skill on your part.
 
What's retarded is your ridiculous assumption that the saved/created jobs were created out of thin air and not at the expense of others.

Why? First of all, I made no assumption that the jobs were created out of nowhere. That is a fabrication on your part. Do that again and I will call you a liar and I will prove it. I merely pointed out that the assumptions within the cost model are faulty as they are extremely unrealistic as it requires earned money in those jobs not to be taxed or spent.

You're taking money from Oscar Meyer to "Create or Save" a job, claiming that when the recipient buys hot dogs, he'll create more jobs. It makes no sense.

Considering that the stimulus was debt financed, no money was "taken" at all. Unless you think that the government points guns at people and forces them to buy debt. But that would be rather stupid wouldn't? Learn how a debt offering works and then come and tell me that the government "took" money from corporations or people. Actually I'm not really sure what you are arguing in that quote. Increased demand at levels above capacity do increase jobs if employers expand production. Or at least keeping demand from falling assuming no changes in productivity result in no jobs being lost. So Oscar Meyer freely buying US debt in which is returned to them in government contracts should at least maintain their employment levels holding all other factors constant.

"I'm going to take $1.00 from you so we can pay Steve to paint the fence that Al over there decided was the least important thing to spend money on. We're going to save that job. Not to worry, you'll get $.80 back from Steve when he buys your XXX and with that you can hire more people, we'll of course pocket $.20 for providing our services. Everybody wins."

Where did you get this notion that debt offerings are involuntary actions upon debt purchasers? Furthermore, a company that stands to get a big contract actually has an incentive to buy short term to medium term debt. As the money will fuel a contract to them increasing revenues over baseline, they'll also get interest on the debt they freely purchase. Basically it's getting your money for basically free after taxes.

Now how about you stop acting pretentious?
 
I hate to break this to you, but condescending liberals like you are a dime a dozen.

I wasn't aware that Gringrich and Goldwater are/were liberals.

I do find it amusing there's a hate club for me. I guess after destroying so many of you so often you guys band together in what little hope you have of actually getting a hit on me. Cute really.
 
OC, multipliers are the smallest part of the error. The value of the work is far and away the biggest thing making the calculations false.
 
Why? First of all, I made no assumption that the jobs were created out of nowhere. That is a fabrication on your part. Do that again and I will call you a liar and I will prove it. I merely pointed out that the assumptions within the cost model are faulty as they are extremely unrealistic as it requires earned money in those jobs not to be taxed or spent.
And I was merely pointing out the flawed assumptions within your unrealistic model that requires money used to create or save jobs come out of thin air.

Considering that the stimulus was debt financed, no money was "taken" at all. Unless you think that the government points guns at people and forces them to buy debt.
No, but they do point guns at people and force them to pay off that debt. I assume you're not advocating we default on those obligations. Of course, that's paid with interest. Maybe you want to tell me that will create jobs for bankers? Oscar Meyer pays taxes to cover interest and loan payments for all of these jobs, if not now, then sometime down the road, making those jobs cost more and more as compounded interest works its magic.

Where did you get this notion that debt offerings are involuntary actions upon debt purchasers?
I hold no such belief. Where did you get the notion that debt is never repaid, that the employee wins, the government wins, the company wins, and the only loser is the thin air from which we get the money to make this all work?
 
I wasn't aware that Gringrich and Goldwater are/were liberals.

I do find it amusing there's a hate club for me. I guess after destroying so many of you so often you guys band together in what little hope you have of actually getting a hit on me. Cute really.

Thanks !!

Great job at proving my post correct.
 
OC, multipliers are the smallest part of the error. The value of the work is far and away the biggest thing making the calculations false.

I'm not so sure about that. The total spending and stated jobs given look reasonable. It's just that the underlying assumptions as to why the calculation stopped there are truly asinine. And IMO, the lack of multipliers are a rather large error.
 
And I was merely pointing out the flawed assumptions within your unrealistic model that requires money used to create or save jobs come out of thin air.

So you are a liar. Got it. I actually stated the model in question is exceptionally unrealistic. My ENTIRE POSTS detailed why the model was unrealistic as its assumptions basically required those in the saved/created jobs to be robots. Can you read? And you were NOT merely pointing out that. Instead of actually reading what I wrote, you assumed what you wanted and then created obvious fabrications to attack me on. Too bad that I called you on your bull**** you liar.

Less fail next time liar.

No, but they do point guns at people and force them to pay off that debt.

Not necessarily. Unless you can prove that a specific person's taxes went towards debt servicing, you don't have an argument, unlike say the DOE calling in the swat team on the unpaid education loans. That would actually being pointing guns at people to force them to pay off that debt.

I assume you're not advocating we default on those obligations. Of course, that's paid with interest. Maybe you want to tell me that will create jobs for bankers? Oscar Meyer pays taxes to cover interest and loan payments for all of these jobs, if not now, then sometime down the road, making those jobs cost more and more as compounded interest works its magic.

Are you really that foolish? I just pointed out how the OP's argument is idiotic because it does not account for multipliers. And you just argued that multipliers don't exist by saying that the costs to provide the initial capital for the initial jobs ends there and no additional jobs are created by indirect spending. Try again, with less fail.

I hold no such belief.

Because you stated that the government took money to pay for the stimulus. Which is wrong. The government will eventually have to pay off the debt related to the stimulus, but it did not take money to pay for the stimulus at the time of the capital infusion. Reread your own post before saying you never held such a belief.

Where did you get the notion that debt is never repaid

More lies? I never argued the debt is never repaid. In fact, I did mention something about how Oscar Meyer ends up better overall after taxes on the money it lent to the government that came back in demand.

that the employee wins, the government wins, the company wins, and the only loser is the thin air from which we get the money to make this all work?

Debt financing is not the same as quantitative easing. Learn the difference.
 
So you are a liar. Got it. I actually stated the model in question is exceptionally unrealistic. My ENTIRE POSTS detailed why the model was unrealistic as its assumptions basically required those in the saved/created jobs to be robots. Can you read? And you were NOT merely pointing out that. Instead of actually reading what I wrote, you assumed what you wanted and then created obvious fabrications to attack me on. Too bad that I called you on your bull**** you liar.
The problem is that your reasoning is exceptionally unrealistic, as I've clearly explained. You have no understanding of debt.

Not necessarily. Unless you can prove that a specific person's taxes went towards debt servicing, you don't have an argument, unlike say the DOE calling in the swat team on the unpaid education loans. That would actually being pointing guns at people to force them to pay off that debt.
Most people choose to pay taxes rather than refusing to the point of being persuaded by guns. This is not rocket science.

Are you really that foolish? I just pointed out how the OP's argument is idiotic because it does not account for multipliers. And you just argued that multipliers don't exist by saying that the costs to provide the initial capital for the initial jobs ends there and no additional jobs are created by indirect spending. Try again, with less fail.
I'm sorry you're having such trouble understanding the point. Borrowing has consequences that offset the gains you wish to claim. You're only looking at one side of the coin.

Because you stated that the government took money to pay for the stimulus. Which is wrong. The government will eventually have to pay off the debt related to the stimulus, but it did not take money to pay for the stimulus at the time of the capital infusion.
Whether they take it immediately or a few years of now is beside the point. They are going to take the money.


I know this is a difficult concept for many of you on the left, but there is no free lunch.
 
You do realize this is merely because they are not in power. Look at their record when in power. Didn't McCain rightly say they spent like drunken sailors? If you accept such blatant pandering, you will be fooled again. :coffeepap

Source please.
 
The problem is that your reasoning is exceptionally unrealistic, as I've clearly explained. You have no understanding of debt.

Still carrying the liar title eh? How is my reasoning exceptionally unrealistic? You falsely attributed an argument to me that I never made. So you calling that theory wrong and I wrong for backing it when I never argued it is dishonest. Furthermore, after I clarified that I never made that argument you declared wrong, you KEEP attributing it to me. So either you can't read or you have a serious chip on your shoulder and you're willing to basically lie in the face of everything.

Most people choose to pay taxes rather than refusing to the point of being persuaded by guns. This is not rocket science.

Actually it's jail. Not guns. But still doesn't address what you quoted.

I'm sorry you're having such trouble understanding the point.

I'm sorry you think that lying is a good argument.

Borrowing has consequences that offset the gains you wish to claim. You're only looking at one side of the coin.

One must wonder if you can read. I never argued that borrowing does not have consequences. I merely pointed out that borrowing can result in good outcomes dependent upon who you are. You never addressed this instead attributing arguments to me that I never made. Furthermore, you still refuse to stop attributing arguments I never made despite clarification I never made them. How does this not render you a liar ?

Whether they take it immediately or a few years of now is beside the point. They are going to take the money.

Nice fallacy of raising the bar. Not only are you a liar in accusing me of things I never said, but you now, faced with an argument you can't lie yourself out of (don't you hate that there's a limit on editing posts?) you now raise the bar. Sure, money will be allocated in the future towards debt servicing, but you are still wrong that they took the money to pay for the stimulus. People freely gave them money to pay for the stimulus. Someone else 10, 15, 30 years down the road is going to pay it back.

I know this is a difficult concept for many of you on the left, but there is no free lunch.

It's amusing you think Gringrich and Goldwater are on the left.

Btw, you haven't actually addressed what I was talking about, namely that the cost assumption per job is stupid because it does not account for multipliers. I doubt you even know what a multiplier is.
 
Last edited:
That's pretty funny coming from someone whining that everyone hates him.

Everyone? Not a chance. Just those that have problems being honest. Like people who remove context, and then blatantly lie about what you said. Despite reading the actual quote they were replying to showing in fact that they were not talking about the subject in question. Hint: You.
 
OC running around calling everyone a LIAR...........

.......have you ever posted anything beyond that?
.
.
.
.
 
OC running around calling everyone a LIAR.

Wrong. I first point out what I said and what they accused me of saying. I then often give them a chance to take that back. When they again blatantly misrepresent what I said despite being given clarification as to what was actually said, I accusing them of being a liar. Because I previously established the basis for what was deemed deliberately untruthful, gave them time to retract their statements and when they failed to do so and kept pushing the same mispresentation, I am not calling people liars. I am merely attributing a proven event of deliberate dishonestly to their character.

have you ever posted anything beyond that?

it's funny you say that.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/us-pa...eagan-and-jfk-tax-cuts-13.html#post1059639353

Btw, did I call Vance a liar?

http://www.debatepolitics.com/us-pa...gy-leading-us-off-cliff-4.html#post1059639555

Note how he misrepresented my position, was clarified and then admitted he was wrong. You people get clarified, and then keep misrepresenting my positions. I never once called Vance a liar in that thread. Because he was not.
 
Last edited:
I'm not so sure about that. The total spending and stated jobs given look reasonable. It's just that the underlying assumptions as to why the calculation stopped there are truly asinine. And IMO, the lack of multipliers are a rather large error.

You misunderstand I think. If a stimulus job does 500mil of road work, then you have gotten 500 mil of value from that stimulus job, plus employed people. The calculation only would divide the cost of the job by the number of people employed, and ignores that the work provided something of value.
 
You misunderstand I think. If a stimulus job does 500mil of road work, then you have gotten 500 mil of value from that stimulus job, plus employed people. The calculation only would divide the cost of the job by the number of people employed, and ignores that the work provided something of value.

True, but that is exceptionally hard to quantify. What is the additional economic growth based on the capital improvement over baseline? At least with multipliers we can generate decent estimates based on the velocity of money.

But your argument and mine are somewhat similar in that the value of the stimulus doesn't end at the saved/created job, and therefore the calculated number is stupid.
 
Still carrying the liar title eh? How is my reasoning exceptionally unrealistic? You falsely attributed an argument to me that I never made. So you calling that theory wrong and I wrong for backing it when I never argued it is dishonest. Furthermore, after I clarified that I never made that argument you declared wrong, you KEEP attributing it to me. So either you can't read or you have a serious chip on your shoulder and you're willing to basically lie in the face of everything.

Actually it's jail. Not guns. But still doesn't address what you quoted.

I'm sorry you think that lying is a good argument.

One must wonder if you can read. I never argued that borrowing does not have consequences. I merely pointed out that borrowing can result in good outcomes dependent upon who you are. You never addressed this instead attributing arguments to me that I never made. Furthermore, you still refuse to stop attributing arguments I never made despite clarification I never made them. How does this not render you a liar ?

Nice fallacy of raising the bar. Not only are you a liar in accusing me of things I never said, but you now, faced with an argument you can't lie yourself out of (don't you hate that there's a limit on editing posts?) you now raise the bar. Sure, money will be allocated in the future towards debt servicing, but you are still wrong that they took the money to pay for the stimulus. People freely gave them money to pay for the stimulus. Someone else 10, 15, 30 years down the road is going to pay it back.

It's amusing you think Gringrich and Goldwater are on the left.

Btw, you haven't actually addressed what I was talking about, namely that the cost assumption per job is stupid because it does not account for multipliers. I doubt you even know what a multiplier is.
No... I never attributed any argument to you -- on the contrary, I pointed out that you had a naive understanding with implied assumptions that were quite outrageous. Your follow-up attempts have only underscored the simplemindedness of your argument.

Actually it's jail. Not guns. But still doesn't address what you quoted.
I'll continue to hold your hand and eventually we'll get through this... now, what happens when you refuse to go to jail?
 
No... I never attributed any argument to you

Therefore you are a liar. Let's revisit your earlier posts:

What's retarded is your ridiculous assumption that the saved/created jobs were created out of thin air and not at the expense of others.

Looks like you did. And after I point out I made no such argument you again attribute the same argument I never made to me:

And I was merely pointing out the flawed assumptions within your unrealistic model that requires money used to create or save jobs come out of thin air.

Therefore, you are lying.

on the contrary, I pointed out that you had a naive understanding with implied assumptions that were quite outrageous.

On the contrary, you never even addressed what I wrote. I never once argued that jobs came out of "thin air." Not a single instance. Yet you TWICE attributed an argument to me I never made. Tell me, how does falsely accusing someone of making an argument they never made after being told they never made that argument not make you a liar?

Your follow-up attempts have only underscored the simplemindedness of your argument.

If you want to attack someone on the thin air argument, attack the person who made it: You. I get that you don't really have much skill so much so you have to basically lie about what people say to have any hopes of winning an argument, but at least TRY to make it look like they made it. You have yet to address my actual statement that the calculated job cost number is stupid because it requires those in the saved/created jobs to be robots. Tell me which of my assumptions is wrong on the argument I actually made.

I'll continue to hold your hand and eventually we'll get through this... now, what happens when you refuse to go to jail?

The idiocy level here is rising. People can't even figure out what other people said.
 
Last edited:
Therefore you are a liar. Let's revisit your earlier posts:

Looks like you did. And after I point out I made no such argument you again attribute the same argument I never made to me:

Therefore, you are lying.
None of that is attributing an argument to you. It's precisely what I said it was: - pointing out the absurd, implied assumptions in your argument. If you're still confused, I suggest you consult a dictionary.

On the contrary, you never even addressed what I wrote. I never once argued that jobs came out of "thin air." Not a single instance.
Of course you didn't. That's why you make naive arguments with conclusions that imply such things.


You have yet to address my actual statement that the calculated job cost number is stupid because it requires those in the saved/created jobs to be robots.
What?
Oh no you don't! Liar, liar pants on fire! The article never said that! You're lying! OMG!
 
None of that is attributing an argument to you.

And you got to that conclusion how?

It's precisely what I said it was: - pointing out the absurd, implied assumptions in your argument. If you're still confused, I suggest you consult a dictionary.

Name a single absurd implied assumption in my argument.

Of course you didn't. That's why you make naive arguments with conclusions that imply such things.

Come again? You outright state I never made such an argument...and yet you said this "What's retarded is your ridiculous assumption that the saved/created jobs were created out of thin air and not at the expense of others" while saying my argument which I didn't say actually says that. All without actually naming a single assumption you think is wrong. Wow. You're a prime example of why the DOE needs to end.

What?
Oh no you don't! Liar, liar pants on fire! The article never said that! You're lying! OMG!

Actually I never said the article stated that. It merely requires it. Learn to read. Seriously. Furthermore, to further prove you are a liar, here are my quotes detailing how my argument has not changed.

Post #68
My original point still stands. The stated cost per job is exceptionally stupid as it requires no taxes to be levied and no income to be spent by those saved or created jobs.

Post #54
The only way Weekly Standard's numbers hold up if no one taxed those jobs and the people in those saved jobs spent no money and put it under the bed away from the financial sector.

Post #56
The idiotic assumption underlying Zimmer's stupid argument is that those who had jobs created/saved incurred no taxes and spent no money. Now, I don't know where he's from, but people I know spend money merely to eat and house themselves, both often incur taxes in some form. Therefore, the base assumption which ends at the saved job itself is rather idiotic as it ignores basic human behavior

I guess you enjoy being a liar?

You accuse me of an argument I never made, never address my argument and then say you're not a liar after you then argued my argument (which I never made) makes assumptions you cannot even name, but you think are absurd.

Total. Epic. Fail.
 
Last edited:
Come again? You outright state I never made such an argument...and yet you said this "What's retarded is your ridiculous assumption that the saved/created jobs were created out of thin air and not at the expense of others" while saying my argument which I didn't say actually says that. All without actually naming a single assumption you think is wrong. Wow. You're a prime example of why the DOE needs to end.
Actually I never said your argument stated that. It merely requires it. Learn to read. Seriously. Wow. You're a prime example of why the DOE needs to end.

I guess you enjoy being a liar?

Total. Epic. Fail.
 
Back
Top Bottom