• 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

obvious Child said:
Okay. Go and prove this. Try.
Click to expand...
Phew. Prove that you put words in my mouth never uttered? Go back and read the OP and your response.

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.
Click to expand...
Here we have a third go. Like I said folks, he puts words in other people's mouths and then tells you to defend them. Are you a complete or partial retard? I guess partial because you can use a keyboard.

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.
Click to expand...
Now a forth go. Is it dementia or partial retardation? I'm not quite sure how to analyze this from a distance.

Good luck proving this. Especially after how I just dissected your tactic.
Click to expand...
A fifth go.

The simple fact that you call logic "putting words in other's mouths" is not a sign of skill on your part.
Click to expand...
A sixth go. Trying to assign an argument never stated.

Like Charles Manson, you're relentless.

Now... let's make it simple so even you can understand. I don't accept the premise of your argument or defense of Obama. His job isn't to siphon wealth from others, run it through the government meat grinder and send it out to his pet constituents. See... nothing remotely close to your attempt to ascribe a position to me. You didn't even hit the dart board, in fact you brained an audience member.

Now what argument are you going to ascribe this time Charlie?

5
4
3
2
1...

.
 
It would be better if Obama shared the money between unemployment people.
 
back to topic

Obama's economists

Shrek%20the%20Third%20-%20Three%20Blind%20Mice%20-%2001.jpg
 
LuckyDan said:
Aren't those the founding partners of Dewey, Cheatham and Howe?
Click to expand...

nah that would be these guys

(along with a few jr associates)

sharkschool.jpg
 
American said:
Source please.
Click to expand...

OK, but I thought you might have paid some attention to your party:

Since 1970, spending has grown 64% faster when a Republican sits in the White House than when a Democrat does.

…

•In the twelve years that a Democrat has sat in the White House, spending has increased at an average rate of 1.29% per year; during the 22 years of Republican presidencies, government spending has risen at an average rate of 2.12%. In other words, spending has grown 64% faster when a Republican sits in the White House than when a Democrat does.
•During the 20 years Democrats have controlled both houses of Congress, spending has grown at an average rate of 1.84% per year, more than double the average rate of 0.89% per year during the six years the GOP ran Congress. (During the other eight years, when control of Congress was split between the two parties, spending grew at an average rate of 2.52%. The split-control years all occurred during Republican presidencies.)
•When Democrats controlled the White House plus both houses of Congress, spending grew at 1.70% per year, slightly below the average growth rate of 1.83% for the entire period.
•The slowest spending growth occurred when a Democrat sat in the White House and Republicans controlled both houses of Congress. Spending rose by an average of just 0.89% during the six years of this situation, which all occurred with Bill Clinton as president and Newt Gingrich as Speaker of the House.
•During the 14 years Republicans controlled the White House and Democrats controlled both houses of Congress, spending grew at an average annual rate of 1.92%. During the eight years with a Republican president and a split Congress, spending grew at 2.54% per year.

Spending Statistics: Republicans vs. Democrats « Atypical Guy

Republicans have forgotten how to control spending
Q: Have Republicans forgotten how to control spending?
A: Absolutely. We let spending lurch completely out of control. As president of the United States, I’d take an old veto pen that Ronald Reagan gave me, and I’d veto every single pork barrel bill that comes across my desk. And we’ve got to stop it and stop it now. I look forward to it.

Source: 2007 GOP YouTube debate in St. Petersburg, Florida Nov 28, 2007

Republicans have forgotten how to control spending. (Nov 2007)

John McCain on the Issues

“We had a chance to change government and it changed us,” McCain said. “We didn’t lose the election in 2006 because of Iraq, we lost it because the Republican majority allowed the largest increase in spending since the Great Society.”

Weird Republican beliefs - NYTimes.com


Also of interest:

Moderator Jim Lehrer of PBS began the debate with the most immediate question on most voters' minds: where each candidate stood on the proposed $700 billion bailout for Wall Street. Both men agreed that Congress needs to take action, but neither committed to supporting specific parts of the plan.

Obama, McCain Face Off Over Spending And War : NPR

So, I'm not sure waht you don't, but you should have known your parties spending habits, and that McCain critized them for it. And all while saying congress need to take action on the Wall Street bail out. Enjoy. :coffeepap
 
Boo Radley said:
“We didn’t lose the election in 2006 because of Iraq, we lost it because the Republican majority allowed the largest increase in spending since the Great Society.”
Click to expand...

the maverick is 100% correct

and since obama and his party took over complete control of the govt...

mccain makes a good point

I'm not sure waht you don't,
Click to expand...

pardon?

but you should have known your parties spending habits, and that McCain critized them for it
Click to expand...

huh?

And all while saying congress need to take action
Click to expand...

it do?

Enjoy
Click to expand...

ok, thanks
 
Let's keep our fingers crossed and hope these democrats get voted out of office in 2012 so we can get back to a NORMAL way of running our country.
 
Taylor said:
Actually I never said your argument stated that. It merely requires it.
Click to expand...

Come again? How does it require them?

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.
Click to expand...

Oh look. Assert something, don't prove it. Provide no logical reasoning. Declare victory.
 
Bee said:
Let's keep our fingers crossed and hope these democrats get voted out of office in 2012 so we can get back to a NORMAL way of running our country.
Click to expand...

Yeah, we need some one like Reagan, who tripled the debt. Oh wait....

Well, he fixed unemployment...after actually having worse numbers than Obama has had at this point, and by massive stimulus spending...
 
zimmer said:
Phew. Prove that you put words in my mouth never uttered? Go back and read the OP and your response.
Click to expand...

Do you reject that the argument given in the OP stated that the calculated number stopped with the saved/created job?

Granted, I realize you don't have a grasp of logic, but try.

Here we have a third go. Like I said folks, he puts words in other people's mouths and then tells you to defend them. Are you a complete or partial retard? I guess partial because you can use a keyboard.
Click to expand...

Cute. Your article flatly states that the calculation ends with the saved/created job. This explicitly argues that there was nothing else included in the calculation. It completely ignores that those who had their job saved or created did not have their incomes taxed, nor spent any money. Go ahead and try to disprove this. You can't. All you are going to do is throw out unprovable assertions I'm putting words in your mouth. You are completely incapable of showing how my logic is in any way wrong. You won't even TRY to refute the argument I'm giving. You will merely try to insult me.

See, I stated this "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." to which you had nothing but personal insults, which I am reporting you for. I predicted you could not deal with the logic I gave and look what you did? You didn't even try to do it.

Now a forth go. Is it dementia or partial retardation? I'm not quite sure how to analyze this from a distance.
Click to expand...

Enjoy your warning.

Now... let's make it simple so even you can understand. I don't accept the premise of your argument or defense of Obama.
Click to expand...

Did I defend him? I merely pointed out the calculation is stupid because it ignores multipliers.

His job isn't to siphon wealth from others, run it through the government meat grinder and send it out to his pet constituents. See... nothing remotely close to your attempt to ascribe a position to me. You didn't even hit the dart board, in fact you brained an audience member.
Click to expand...

Failure to disclaim an article you post is admission that it is your argument. You should have learned this day one.

Now what argument are you going to ascribe this time Charlie?
Click to expand...

Try to fail less in your response. and actually do something other then personal insults.
 
obvious Child said:
Do you reject that the argument given in the OP stated that the calculated number stopped with the saved/created job?

Granted, I realize you don't have a grasp of logic, but try.



Cute. Your article flatly states that the calculation ends with the saved/created job. This explicitly argues that there was nothing else included in the calculation. It completely ignores that those who had their job saved or created did not have their incomes taxed, nor spent any money. Go ahead and try to disprove this. You can't. All you are going to do is throw out unprovable assertions I'm putting words in your mouth. You are completely incapable of showing how my logic is in any way wrong. You won't even TRY to refute the argument I'm giving. You will merely try to insult me.

See, I stated this "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." to which you had nothing but personal insults, which I am reporting you for. I predicted you could not deal with the logic I gave and look what you did? You didn't even try to do it.



Enjoy your warning.



Did I defend him? I merely pointed out the calculation is stupid because it ignores multipliers.



Failure to disclaim an article you post is admission that it is your argument. You should have learned this day one.



Try to fail less in your response. and actually do something other then personal insults.
Click to expand...

You enjoy hitting the report button? ROTFLOL... the post was worth the points. It's in the public domain now, and you try this crap again, I'll simply link to it to remind all how you seem to have a penchant for ascribing words and arguments never uttered.

You failed to read my posts yet again, and are still trying to stuff words in my mouth never uttered. I will not defend a premise that is false at its core. It's not my argument, it's your attempt, yet again to have someone defend a position never uttered but ascribed to by you. You really should try to cure yourself of this most unfortunate habit, for it makes you look moronic, and tremendously insecure in your ability to debate.

You see, it's not Obama's job to steal wealth, run it through the government meat grinder and send of the remains to his pet constituents. I don't care how you want to slice and dice it. I know, a difficult concept for you to grasp, but give it a try.

.
 
Last edited:
zimmer said:
You enjoy hitting the report button? ROTFLOL... the post was worth the points. It's in the public domain now, and you try this crap again, I'll simply link to it to remind all how you seem to have a penchant for ascribing words and arguments never uttered.

You failed to read my posts yet again, and are still trying to stuff words in my mouth never uttered. I will not defend a premise that is false at its core. It's not my argument, it's your attempt, yet again to have someone defend a position never uttered but ascribed to by you. You really should try to cure yourself of this most unfortunate habit, for it makes you look moronic, and tremendously insecure in your ability to debate.

You see, it's not Obama's job to steal wealth, run it through the government meat grinder and send of the remains to his pet constituents. I don't care how you want to slice and dice it. I know, a difficult concept for you to grasp, but give it a try.

.
Click to expand...

Oh look. I predict you will not even attempt to rebut the logical argument I gave and resort to personal attacks....and what do you do? Run away from refuting my logical arguments and then resort to personal attacks.

Really, people are going to think we're in cahoots. I say it here and it comes out on your end.

You didn't even try. Exactly as I predicted.

I realize you don't care about appearing credible to anyone, but acting down to the letter as your opponent predicted is not a way to come off looking good
 
Last edited:
obvious Child said:
Oh look. I predict you will not even attempt to rebut the logical argument I gave and resort to personal attacks....and what do you do? Run away from refuting my logical arguments and then resort to personal attacks.

Really, people are going to think we're in cahoots. I say it here and it comes out on your end.

You didn't even try. Exactly as I predicted.

I realize you don't care about appearing credible to anyone, but acting down to the letter as your opponent predicted is not a way to come off looking good
Click to expand...

You are thick.

I answered the question long ago. I don't accept the premise you ascribed to me... pure and simple, and defeated your attempt with a very concise point (perhaps you just failed to understand), which makes your attempt to assign me your argument and follow-up jawboning 100% moot.

Like I said, you try to ascribe a position to others, deceitfully as always. Your argument was DOA and I explained why long ago. But, you just keep on trying.

This reminds me of the time you went on a rant about taxes, only to blow up your own argument at the very end of your initial post, by calling the masses of people stupid. You shot yourself in the face, I didn't have to do anything but point out your hilariously tragic logic... but you being you... just kept on trying. It reminds me of your attempt to tell me how autobahns work, using Bremen as a laughable example. That and your defense of shoebox/deathtrap cars. Fail. Fail, Fail, Fail. Four strikes and you're out.

Perhaps one day you'll score a hit (bring a lighter). Perhaps, but as long as you elect to be deceitful in your manner, it ain't likely gonna happen.

Now... pack up your deceit and take it elsewhere.

.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom