• 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!

LA Times: Obama stimulus spending: $246,436 per new job

Then they'd also realize that the money is doing something else, too. Not just making jobs.

that's a good point. they are also using taxpayer money to pay off Hillary's campaign debts.
 
Let's get something straight - Yahoo answers is just not a source, period. Anyone can post there, just like this forum.

This is a side issue. I don't want to get dragged into it. I don't have time. You may conclude whatever you wish.

I wish that you'd conclude that your confidence in the the numbers that the administration is throwing out there about saved jobs is baseless. Instead you want to play the part of ignorance and just hope that they're right. Not exactly the intellectually superior position.
 
I wish that you'd conclude that your confidence in the the numbers that the administration is throwing out there about saved jobs is baseless. Instead you want to play the part of ignorance and just hope that they're right. Not exactly the intellectually superior position.

It's hardly intellectually superior to conclude they are baseless based on no information either, huh?

If you want to go find out the details of how they collect job data and prove it's worthless, nobody is stopping you. Instead, you keep asking me to go find out. Go look it up and make your case. Until you do that, you really ought to have nothing more to say about it.
 
It's hardly intellectually superior to conclude they are baseless based on no information either, huh?

The fact that such a "transparent" administration isn't telling you how they're getting these numbers should send up warning signs all over the place.

If you want to go find out the details of how they collect job data and prove it's worthless, nobody is stopping you. Instead, you keep asking me to go find out. Go look it up and make your case. Until you do that, you really ought to have nothing more to say about it.

Yeah, far be it from me to ask someone how they got their numbers. :roll:
 
The fact that such a "transparent" administration isn't telling you how they're getting these numbers should send up warning signs all over the place.

How do you know they aren't telling you how they are getting the numbers? Have you checked, or are you just assuming?

Yeah, far be it from me to ask someone how they got their numbers. :roll:

I didn't have any numbers in the first place. That's the point.
 
How do you know they aren't telling you how they are getting the numbers? Have you checked, or are you just assuming?

I didn't have any numbers in the first place. That's the point.

Recovery.gov, where you keep telling me the method is, has the numbers. I keep looking for the method there, but I can't find it. Can you?
 
Well let's try and find that number using this technique.

Well maybe they take the average for jobs lost + jobs created and put it in with total number of jobs and call it a day. Find as many job related statistics as you can and try and fill in an equation to maybe get a better idea?
 
Recovery.gov, where you keep telling me the method is, has the numbers. I keep looking for the method there, but I can't find it. Can you?

I didn't say the method was there, I said they had lots of information about it in general and you might find the method there.

Fine, I'll go get your research started. Here, this took 0.30 seconds to find on Google:

Web Site Begins Collecting Data From Stimulus Grant Recipients - washingtonpost.com

Web Site Collects Data on Stimulus
Grant Recipients Must File Reports

By Ed O'Keefe
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, August 21, 2009

As Obama administration officials traveled the country this week announcing the distribution of hundreds of millions of dollars in new economic stimulus grants, a government Web site began accepting the spending and jobs data from grant recipients that will provide the first fact-based progress report about the economic recovery efforts.
 
Amazing, they were given money. Where is the method?
 
Amazing, they were given money. Where is the method?

"a government Web site began accepting the spending and jobs data from grant recipients"

Do I have to do the reading for you too?
 
Data is not a method. How is that data collected? How is it interpreted?
 
Data is not a method. How is that data collected? How is it interpreted?

It is collected from reports from the grant recipients. Seriously, do you not get this from that sentence?

Here's another source that I easily found that explains, as well as critically examines, the reporting issue. You're smart, do some reading:

| Following the Money | GAO.gov
 
^^No methodology there.
 
^^No methodology there.

You obviously didn't read enough to find any, not in four minutes. I'm not going to hold your hand. This is exactly why I declined to get into this debate.
 
The link had no methodology. It's just a summary of their conclusions.
 
Then you have some more reading and research to do, don't you?

You should probably find a site that outlines the methodology, quote it, and post it here. I can't prove a negative.
 
You should probably find a site that outlines the methodology, quote it, and post it here. I can't prove a negative.

I never asked you to prove anything. Nor did I claim proof of anything.
 
I never asked you to prove anything. Nor did I claim proof of anything.

Then why are your numbers reliable if you don't have a method to collect the data?
 
You should probably find a site that outlines the methodology, quote it, and post it here. I can't prove a negative.

In this case, with his track record of posting countering evidence to your claim, you have a chance to prove this negative. :lol:
 
In this case, with his track record of posting countering evidence to your claim, you have a chance to prove this negative. :lol:

I've made it clear that I make no claims about this and have no claims to back up. Don't take cheap shots.
 
I've made it clear that I make no claims about this and have no claims to back up. Don't take cheap shots.

You have no claims to back up? So then you think that the "jobs saved" statistic is baseless or at least a good guess and not empirical data?
 
You have no claims to back up? So then you think that the "jobs saved" statistic is baseless or at least a good guess and not empirical data?

No, because that would be YOUR claim that YOU would need to back up.

I think that nobody on this thread knows whether the jobs saved statistic is good or not. Not me, not you.
 
No, because that would be YOUR claim that YOU would need to back up.

I can't prove a negative. If I challenge you to provide the methodology behind the numbers and you can't provide it, then it casts a ton of doubt into the numbers.

I think that nobody on this thread knows whether the jobs saved statistic is good or not. Not me, not you.

I think everyone knows that it is bad because no one is jumping in to help defend you on this.
 
I can't prove a negative.

It's not a negative. But whatever - if you don't want to make a claim or can't, don't.

If I challenge you to provide the methodology behind the numbers and you can't provide it, then it casts a ton of doubt into the numbers.

No it doesn't. Perhaps I simply don't want to take on your challenge. Which I don't. It proves nothing. I am not the official spokesman for the stimulus.

I think everyone knows that it is bad because no one is jumping in to help defend you on this.

Ah, another logical fallacy.

Perhaps they see that I'm doing a bangup job. Or perhaps, just perhaps, they realize you're being silly by continuing to pursue this.

Sorry to disappoint you, but I'm just not interested in working on this. Nor explaining why any further.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom