StrangeSox

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 12, 2011 -> 02:28 PM) So did Obama either ignore them, or does he just have idiots working for him? Any of those are possible, this WH did shift from jobs pretty quickly and very prematurely at Geithner's push. The other issue is politics and that the WH can't just come out with a bunch of technical papers and wonkish analysis to present policy to a public, it has to sell it and sell it hard. Even if they didn't believe it was the ideal package, they wouldn't talk down their own plan as not enough if they knew it was the best they could get. Maybe we should listen to those economists you keep ignoring who have been right a hell of a lot more than the WSJ-strain of economists over the past decade or so?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Sep 12, 2011 -> 02:25 PM) And since it was effective in stopping the slide, as demonstrated clearly in the GDP graph, but wound up being small due to the fact that the slump was larger than initially thought, I'm happy to have your support for the American Jobs Act. Don't even give his argument that much credit. It's just a way for him to conveniently ignore all of the economists who actually were saying "this is too small" and focus only on what the WH was saying. Of course the WH isn't going to come out and say that their proposed plan won't be enough, either because they believe it will work or because they know its the best that can pass and talking down their own plan is bad politics.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 12, 2011 -> 02:23 PM) Unless you work for the President, it doesn't matter. He and his party are the ones who told us we needed this. Ah, this slight of hand again. Never mind what all those economists were actually saying, it only counts if it came from the White House!

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 12, 2011 -> 02:20 PM) There is no real proof that an even bigger stimulus plan would have worked. There also wasn't the revisionist effort that we have seen since the stimulus plans failure to make it seem as such. "Revisionist" in the sense that they traveled through time and planted editorials and papers before, shortly after and continually since the ARRA passed, as has been pointed out to you several times.

the stimulus succeeded in preventing a complete collapse but failed to break the cycle, so both sides can claim whatever they want.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 12, 2011 -> 12:11 PM) For once with the lack of an off season, I can understand it. That's what I was thinking as well. This team needs the reps together.

Almost on cue, Salon has an article that actually explains my hasty metaphor http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_roo...n_labor_history

that's incredibly tame compared to what greenwald's been writing for years.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Sep 12, 2011 -> 10:07 AM) Of course not. That's anti-liberal. Spend more more and more, except on defense. That's the party mantra right? Democrat =/= liberal! That appears to be the party mantra of whichever side is in power, with both sides spending tons on defense.

Oh, then I retract my previous statements. eta found a news article with all Senate dems signing a pledge against Bush's SS privatization proposal because it'd raise deficits and that'd be 'immoral'. To be fair, though, basic Keynesian economics would be consistent with opposing running massive deficits when the economy is doing ok and advocating running big deficits to close the GDP gap when the economy is stuttering/falling off a cliff. I wouldn't actually attribute anything other than partisan opposition to Bush's plan to the Dems' position, though.

I guess so? eta there was rhetoric of "unfunded wars" and "unfunded taxcuts" but the democrats weren't proposing an ideological opposition to government spending as an alternative. It wasn't deficits themselves Democrats were railing against. They weren't demanding drastic cuts in other programs to pay for these things.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Sep 12, 2011 -> 09:58 AM) Like the Democrats now ignore it when they want it increased to fund policies they prefer? GMAFB. the democrats didn't pretend to be deficit hawks for a decade and then completely change course and fabricate reasons for it.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Sep 12, 2011 -> 09:57 AM) Lol, "they." Remember all the GOP deficit hawks 2000-Jan 2009?

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 12, 2011 -> 09:53 AM) Yeah, like the Democrats and the deficit... Huh?

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Sep 12, 2011 -> 09:50 AM) I don't know of any conservative who completely ignores prior deficits and places the blame solely on Obama. I think the issue is raising those deficits to historical levels going forward. They completely ignored them when they were being accumulated to fund policies they preferred.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Sep 12, 2011 -> 09:36 AM) The modern curve is the most non-concave-downward thing I've ever seen. It's flat since the stimulus. Utterly utterly flat. Just looking at the graph with a ruler, it looks like you can draw an ever-so-slightly downward trend line from 2010-present.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 12, 2011 -> 09:36 AM) Um, those graphs don't agree with each other. Balta's first graph, the one with the red and blue lines, ends 20 months after Peak Employment 2007, or November 2009.

The GOP is completely dishonest and rails against policies it pushed for for decades simply because there's a Democrat in the WH?! Say it isn't so! What's sad is that it largely works.

You could say he was the first modern President to do so.

...what?

Wow did not expect this. Tons of credit to Martz several really well designed plays. Fantastic defense.

Ball punch!

Awesome start!

Ideological opposition

I get free NFL Red Zone on my new Droid X2!