Harry Reid: But for me we'd be in a worldwide depression

[Ockham]

Harry Reid, Senate Majority leader is taking credit for saving the United States from a worldwide depression.







The smugness of that statement is incredible. Will it have an effect on the election in 2 weeks?


http://biggovernment.com/publius/2010/10/21/reid-but-for-me-wed-be-in-world-wide-depression/

 

[tacomancer]

There is evidence that the stimulus did a lot of good, so he actually is right. I would like to still see him replaced by someone with some fire though. Reid rolls over too much.

 

[Ockham]

There is evidence that the stimulus did a lot of good, so he actually is right. I would like to still see him replaced by someone with some fire though. Reid rolls over too much.

So you agree, Reid saved the world. Am I right?

 

[tacomancer]

So you agree, Reid saved the world. Am I right?

Well, he doesn't actually say that in the video. The words were "but for me, we would be in a world wide depression" and I think that statement is probably true given that the idea that we there would have been a depression without the stimulus is a credible one among economists (however, there is also controversy).

Stimulus: The depression that might have been | The Economist

His little smiley is a bit smug though and completely uncalled for. He was doing his job and should not feel especially proud of himself for it.

 

[Ockham]

Well, he doesn't actually say that in the video. The words were "but for me, we would be in a world wide depression" and I think that statement is probably true given that the idea that we there would have been a depression without the stimulus is a credible one among economists (however, there is also controversy).

He does say exactly that, and you agree with him. :shock:


Ok then...

 

[tacomancer]

He does say exactly that, and you agree with him. :shock:


Ok then...

No, he did not say he saved the world. I did not hear him speak those words. But yes, given that he was the leader, he had a lot of say over whether the legislation got moved forward or not. It could not have happened without his involvement.

But yes, I believe there is a very good case to be made that he is correct.

 

[Whovian]

There is evidence that the stimulus did a lot of good...

Define 'a lot'. It did SOME good, certainly. But the vast majority of the Crapulus did nothgin to help the economy, unemployment, etc.

 

[Your Star]

Define 'a lot'. It did SOME good, certainly. But the vast majority of the Crapulus did nothgin to help the economy, unemployment, etc.

Actually it did. You think the economy is bad now? If the stimulus hadn't happened it would be the great depression part deux.

 

[digsbe]

Harry Reid is just an ignorant senile little man. He needs to retire, but hopefully he'll be fired

 

[OscarB63]

holy ****all, if Reid and the stimulus saved us, I'd hate to see the shape we'd be in if they hadn't.

 

[Ockham]

Actually it did. You think the economy is bad now? If the stimulus hadn't happened it would be the great depression part deux.

"What would have been" is a hypothetical - in fact no one knows what would have been any more than one can look into a crystal ball and predict the 2025 World Series winner. Democrats and those who use this idiotic talking point about "what would have been" seem to want us to believe Democrats have some secret time machine in which they traveled to the future and saw what happened and came back in time to correct it.

I like Dr. Who just as much as the next guy - but that's a television show and time machines don't really exist. So this nonsense about what "would have or wouldn't have happened" is BS.

 

[Whovian]

Define 'a lot'. It did SOME good, certainly. But the vast majority of the Crapulus did nothgin to help the economy, unemployment, etc.

Actually it did. You think the economy is bad now? If the stimulus hadn't happened it would be the great depression part deux.

I'm still waiting for links to credible sources to back up statements like that. So far, no one has bothered to rpoduce any. Until then, it's just an opinion... not a fact.

 

[Whovian]

I like Dr. Who just as much as the next guy - but that's a television show and time machines don't really exist. So this nonsense about what "would have or wouldn't have happened" is BS.

I was wondering when someone would comment on my account name

 

[Kandahar]

Meh, any Democratic Senate majority leader could have pushed through a stimulus bill. In fact, a GOOD Senate majority leader would've pushed through a much larger one. Reid doesn't deserve much credit for it...but he does deserve some of the blame for it not being bigger and better.

He's a d-bag. Hopefully Chuck Schumer replaces him as the Democratic leader, whether or not Reid wins his reelection bid.

 

[Ockham]

I was wondering when someone would comment on my account name

I go back to Dr #4 - Tom Baker. Care for a jelly baby?

 

[tacomancer]

"What would have been" is a hypothetical - in fact no one knows what would have been any more than one can look into a crystal ball and predict the 2025 World Series winner. Democrats and those who use this idiotic talking point about "what would have been" seem to want us to believe Democrats have some secret time machine in which they traveled to the future and saw what happened and came back in time to correct it.

I like Dr. Who just as much as the next guy - but that's a television show and time machines don't really exist. So this nonsense about what "would have or wouldn't have happened" is BS.

I have to disagree with this. Modelling possible outcomes of various actions is critical to choosing an action to take over a situation. Even from simple things (if I don't put dishes in the dishwasher, they will not get clean) to complex (weather, economics, etc) thing, we can not simply make decisions in a vacuum or else we will never have an idea of whether any decision was ever right.

Discussing possible outcomes to decisions, as long as their is good evidence to back up those outcomes, is perfectly valid.

 

[Whovian]

I go back to Dr #4 - Tom Baker. Care for a jelly baby?

My daughter is in the middle of knitting my scarf now... it's about 11 feet long at the moment. I also plan to make a full size TARDIS as a garden shed next year.

I started watching at the tail end of Jon Pertwee, and never stopped. I know where to get actual jelly babies if you are looking...lol. I'd still love to give Liz Sladen a 'ride' in my TARDIS

 

[Ockham]

I have to disagree with this. Modelling possible outcomes of various actions is critical to choosing an action to take over a situation. Even from simple things (if I don't put dishes in the dishwasher, they will not get clean) to complex (weather, economics, etc) thing, we can not simply make decisions in a vacuum or else we will never have an idea of whether any decision was ever right.

Discussing possible outcomes to decisions, as long as their is good evidence to back up those outcomes, is perfectly valid.

It's perfectly valid to you and those who agree with you for partisan political reasons. To me, it's not valid - no matter which political party is espousing it. Possible outcomes? No --- that's not what was said, it's being stated as a fact, not a possible outcome. And what you deem "evidence" is highly suspect... "modeling outcomes" with numbers? You can make numbers and statistics prove anything. I'm sure you DO agree - you're a liberal. You're motivation is partisan and you're towing the party line.

 

[Morality Games]

It's perfectly valid to you and those who agree with you for partisan political reasons. To me, it's not valid - no matter which political party is espousing it. Possible outcomes? No --- that's not what was said, it's being stated as a fact, not a possible outcome. And what you deem "evidence" is highly suspect... "modeling outcomes" with numbers? You can make numbers and statistics prove anything. I'm sure you DO agree - you're a liberal. You're motivation is partisan and you're towing the party line.

Given the context of this thread, I don't think you can credibly advance the idea you are not partisan. These discussions aren't supposed to be personal anyway.

 

[Ockham]

Given the context of this thread, I don't think you can credibly advance the idea you are not partisan. These discussions aren't supposed to be personal anyway.

I'm not claiming to be non partisan. I'm claiming that a politician of any political persuasion making such a claim would be to me, invalid.

 

[tacomancer]

It's perfectly valid to you and those who agree with you for partisan political reasons. To me, it's not valid - no matter which political party is espousing it. Possible outcomes? No --- that's not what was said, it's being stated as a fact, not a possible outcome. And what you deem "evidence" is highly suspect... "modeling outcomes" with numbers? You can make numbers and statistics prove anything. I'm sure you DO agree - you're a liberal. You're motivation is partisan and you're towing the party line.

Ok. So economists are just being partisan and unprofessional if they come up with an outcome that might support a partisan idea?

The end result of this argument is that we may as well not have economists and make our decisions by flipping a coin or throwing darts at a board.

 

[Morality Games]

I'm not claiming to be non partisan. I'm claiming that a politician of any political persuasion making such a claim would be to me, invalid.

Then almost every single political statement is invalid, because, based on the (generally correct) premise that the public prefers simplicity, political language tends to be hyper reductive: distributing blame, taking credit, and calling for action all filter information to the easy, dramatic points people can appreciate.

As I don't believe you think that way about the language of conservatives and the Republican Party (or it doesn't alter your opinion of either significantly), I don't think you live up to the lofty standard you are claiming.

 

[Ockham]

Then almost every single political statement is invalid, because, based on the (generally correct) premise that the public prefers simplicity, political language tends to be hyper reductive: distributing blame, taking credit, and calling for action all filter information to the easy, dramatic points.

Not all political statements are the same. Let me illustrate it. If a politician says, "But for me, the unemployment rate would be 8.9% instead of 9.1%" That's potentially believable. Harry Reid's statement however, "But for me, we (the United State) would be in a worldwide depression", is not believable. First, the head of the Senate doesn't have that much power to influence anything world wide on his/her own. Need I go on or do you understand my point?

As I don't believe you think that way about the language of conservatives and the Republican Party, I don't think you live up to the lofty standard you are claiming.

Not my problem bud, that's your problem.

 

[OscarB63]

Harry Reid....delusions of granduere. like a flea believing it owns the dog.

 

[Morality Games]

Not all political statements are the same. Let me illustrate it. If a politician says, "But for me, the unemployment rate would be 8.9% instead of 9.1%" That's potentially believable. Harry Reid's statement however, "But for me, we (the United State) would be in a worldwide depression", is not believable. First, the head of the Senate doesn't have that much power to influence anything world wide on his/her own. Need I go on or do you understand my point?

I don't think a politician would bother bragging about making employment stick at 8.9% instead of 9.1% because it wouldn't make enough of an impression on the public consciousness to secure them votes.

Harry Reid couldn't do it on his own, but his influence was sufficiently large that he could have allowed the economy to fail. It is based on his willingness to sponsor legislation that prevented that outcome he bases his claim.

Not a very sound claim, but fully in the spirit of America's political language, which is, after all, full of not very sound claims.

Not my problem bud, that's your problem.

You attacked megaprogman's ethos and championed your own without providing any evidence. It was part of your ongoing debate with him. Like any other point in an argument, you need to prove it or drop it.