- Joined
- Oct 12, 2009
- Messages
- 23,909
- Reaction score
- 11,003
- Location
- New Jersey
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Right
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?
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...
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.
Actually it did. You think the economy is bad now? If the stimulus hadn't happened it would be the great depression part deux.
Whovian said: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 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
"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 go back to Dr #4 - Tom Baker. Care for a jelly baby?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Not my problem bud, that's your problem.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 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?
Not my problem bud, that's your problem.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?