Michele Bachmann:

[Chuck_G]

Why does Michele Bachmann think we should cut spending? To grow business, to cut the deficit, the usual. But also because God told her we should, via last week's East Coast earthquake and Hurricane Irene. The St. Petersburg Times' Adam C. Smith reports that the presidential candidate told a Sarasota, Florida crowd this weekend, "I don't know how much God has to do to get the attention of the politicians. We've had an earthquake; we've had a hurricane. He said, 'Are you going to start listening to me here?' Listen to the American people because the American people are roaring right now. They know government is on a morbid obesity diet and we've got to rein in the spending."

Questions for debate:

1. Is god really worried about government spending in the U.S. and responsible for hurricanes and earthquakes to provoke fear?

2. Do you think she really believes this or it is just an appeal to the christian far right?

[nursebenjamin]

... why did Barney Frank say said prediction was 'dumb'?

If you had bothered to listen to the interview in which Barney Frank makes this statement, then you would know to answer to this question. Frank says, “In the first place, no body knows. In the second place, he should have just said, ‘If we pass this, it’ll be better than if we don’t pass this.’� The interviewer then cuts Frank off, and he’s not allowed to elaborate further.

In other words, in January 2009, the scope of the recession was unknown; no one knew exactly how much stimulus was needed. And on Frank’s second point, I must disagree. As I stated earlier in this thread, I believe that project planning is better than being completely ignorant of the possible outcomes of policies that we’re implementing, even if the initial assessment turns out to be wrong.

Pundits and political hacks that are making a big deal out of this quote mine are basically irrelevant to the conversation that we should be having over how to put Americans back to work. It’s not as if the 2009 report had been dead on, you guys would have a better opinion of Obama, right?

P.S. You are also ignoring the fact that the bill passed was not the same one in the proposal.

And I call yet again for you to document your assertion that the claim was made prefaced by the assumptions. What we do know is this:

"On page four of the 2009 Romer/Bernstein report a chart states that the unemployment rate nationwide with the $821-billion economic stimulus package would peak at 8 percent."

If you have a quote related to that where Romer/Bernstein say that plus 'assuming the following assumptions are correct', let me know. Until then you don't have a case.

We went over all this a week ago! I even gave you a link to the January 2009 report. In your opinion, does page three "preface" what's written on page five? (The chart that you refer to is actually on page five, not four.)

From the report, page 3: “It should be understood that all of the estimates presented in this memo are subject to significant margins of error. There is the obvious uncertainty that comes from modeling a hypothetical package rather than the final legislation passed by the Congress. But, there is the more fundamental uncertainty that comes with any estimate of the effects of a program. Our estimates of economic relationships and rules of thumb are derived from historical experience and so will not apply exactly in any given episode. Furthermore, the uncertainty is surely higher than normal now because the current recession is unusual both in its fundamental causes and its severity.�

[East of Eden]

... why did Barney Frank say said prediction was 'dumb'?

If you had bothered to listen to the interview in which Barney Frank makes this statement, then you would know to answer to this question. Frank says, “In the first place, no body knows. In the second place, he should have just said, ‘If we pass this, it’ll be better than if we don’t pass this.’� The interviewer then cuts Frank off, and he’s not allowed to elaborate further.

I agree with Barney Frank, the prediction was a bad idea. I don't recall Reagan attaching a number to his economic proposal (that worked). If Obama's people were so sure ahead of time of the uncertainty with the numbers, they had no business making a prediction. I'm sure many supported the 'stimulous' based on the false prediction/data. All we have to show for it is a huge debt.

In other words, in January 2009, the scope of the recession was unknown; no one knew exactly how much stimulus was needed. And on Frank’s second point, I must disagree. As I stated earlier in this thread, I believe that project planning is better than being completely ignorant of the possible outcomes of policies that we’re implementing, even if the initial assessment turns out to be wrong.

What president knows anything exactly?

]Pundits and political hacks that are making a big deal out of this quote mine are basically irrelevant to the conversation that we should be having over how to put Americans back to work. It’s not as if the 2009 report had been dead on, you guys would have a better opinion of Obama, right?

The quote mine is to focus on the statement below that they didn't know, when the focus should be that Obama's policies have failed.

P.S. You are also ignoring the fact that the bill passed was not the same one in the proposal.

Thank goodness or we probably would have been worse off.

And I call yet again for you to document your assertion that the claim was made prefaced by the assumptions. What we do know is this:

"On page four of the 2009 Romer/Bernstein report a chart states that the unemployment rate nationwide with the $821-billion economic stimulus package would peak at 8 percent."

If you have a quote related to that where Romer/Bernstein say that plus 'assuming the following assumptions are correct', let me know. Until then you don't have a case.

We went over all this a week ago! I even gave you a link to the January 2009 report. In your opinion, does page three "preface" what's written on page five? (The chart that you refer to is actually on page five, not four.)

From the report, page 3: “It should be understood that all of the estimates presented in this memo are subject to significant margins of error. There is the obvious uncertainty that comes from modeling a hypothetical package rather than the final legislation passed by the Congress. But, there is the more fundamental uncertainty that comes with any estimate of the effects of a program. Our estimates of economic relationships and rules of thumb are derived from historical experience and so will not apply exactly in any given episode. Furthermore, the uncertainty is surely higher than normal now because the current recession is unusual both in its fundamental causes and its severity.�

OK, thanks for posting that, but it is no different than how any other president or corporate CEO operates, with partial info. That does not change my original comment that a prediction was made that didn't come to pass. Was I supposed to include the entire report with the comment?

[WinePusher]

Not at all, this is the first time you have made any mention of any taxes being necessary or justified. What am I to assume when the only mention you make to any taxes is how bad they are, am I a mind reader and am supposed to know your inner thoughts on the matter? So basically you are advocating a national sales tax on top of the current local sales taxes? Along with the excise taxes you would already put in presumably many items you would be effectively taxing a tax.

How about you don't assume anything at all from now on. I extensively expressed opposition towards taxing business, that doesn't translate into opposing every single tax in existence. And yes, implement a national sales tax in exchange for an elimination of the income tax, payroll tax, capital gains tax, corporate tax, estate tax and most, if not all, tariffs.

Yes, slaveowners paid their slaves by providing them shelter, food and water. Slave labor is not free, so like I said, thanks for reinforcing my point.

The costs associated with owning slaves was a necessary cost of doing business as you put it. Unlike regular employees slaves were never paid for the work they did. No slave labor is not free but that doesn't mean the slaves were paid.

This is becoming a game of semantics that I'm not interested in playing. Was there a cost imposed on individuals who employed the use of slave labor. Yes. That's my point.

Where did I say "all taxes are bad?" I didn't, stop putting words in my mouth. I am perfectly fine with most excise and sales taxes. I said taxes on imports, taxes on corporate profits, taxes on inheritance, taxes on income, taxes on capital gains and taxes on wages are bad.

Again this is your first post in which you admit some taxes are justified, every other post you have made has done nothing but say how harmful to comsumers taxes are.

Yea, not really. We've been in a prolonged discussion about one tax, taxes on business, as it relates to TANSTAAFL. Unless I explicitly state all taxes are bad, you shouldn't assume I believe all taxes are bad.

Excise and sales taxes. How can you expect to have a meaningful debate regarding taxation if you don't understand the basic dynamics of tax policy? There are many different taxes out there and each one of them as their own different effects.

Yet again if you suddenly take a more nuanced approach to the matter which I have been trying to get you to do from the start instead of what previously has been an absolute anti tax argument how can you blame me for you changing your argument?

I've changed absolutely nothing, you're just reading something that doesn't exist.

Yea, let's just ignore the way you completely mischaracterized the concept of full employment. First of all, there is no such thing as an unproductive worker. An unemployed full time student in college is productive even though he is unemployed. An unemployed hospital volunteer who lives off of his inheritance is a productive individual. Unproductive individuals are people who contribute absolutely nothing to society, the drug addicts, the no lifers, etc. I can see why offering welfare to a single employed mom who works for a low wage to supplement her overall income can be desirable, but I can see no reason to give welfare support to those unproductive individuals whom I described above. This isn't a case of the have and have not's, it's a case between the people who actually do something for society and the people who do absolutely nothing and live off their backs.

Amazing how you continue to ignore the elephant in the room, the millions of people who have lost their jobs through no fault of their own because of the recession.

So your remedy is what? To diminish the standard of living of people who do have jobs? To decrease the amount of income earned by an individual and make it even harder for them to get by? Tell me, is it your intention for the unemployed to actually become employed again? The longer a person is unemployed, the harder it is for them to re-enter the labor force, and unemployment benefits only compound this problem. Unemployment benefits extend the length of duration of unemployment, it's simply another government program that has the opposite effects of what its purpose actually is.

I have, but it's more than obvious that you have not so let me explain it to you. After the 1929 Stock Market Crash unemployment peaked at 9% and began steadily declining afterwards within the subsequent months reaching about 6%. Then smoot hawley was passed unemployment soared back in the opposite direction. The tariff was specifically designed to reduce unemployment and it ended up having the opposite effect, it increased unemployment. Government intervention caused what would have been a nominal recession to become a depression.

Strange how you think 9% unemployment is nominal but at the same time keep trying to hold Obama's feet to the fire about unemployment going above 8%.

It is nominal when compared to actual unemployment rates during the depression. And as I said, the rate did not stubbornly hold at 9% as it is now, it declined to about 6% within the subsequent months and skyrocketed upward after the government intervened.

Does this refute the fact that one of the main causes of the Great Depression was government intervention. No. I don't give damn which party passed it, government interventionist policies are fundamentally unsound and it doesn't matter whether they receive endorsement from republicans or democrats. And you don't have the slightest clue about what caused this recession. Republicans don't cause recessions, Democrats don't cause recessions, recessions are caused by shocks to economic indicators. They are a natural part of the business cycle. Do you know what that is? Obviously not, since you just blamed the recession on republicans.

I find it funny that when government policies are enacted by republicans you suddenly dont want to blame any party which makes me wonder why you keep blaming democrats specifically for anything bad you think the government has done. I have plenty of clues about what caused the current recession I'm sorry that you refuse to look past the surface of an issue in favor of a simplistic answer.

When you imply that the recession was caused by a particular party, what you're basically saying is "I know absolutely nothing about the dynamics of this situation other than what I hear from the talking heads at MSNBC." And if you actually did know anything about the recession, you would welcome it since it rids the market of malinvestment which is, once again, the result of government intervention. If you traced the roots of this recession to their origin, you end up at the doors of the Federal Reserve because by creating money and allowing institutions to borrow at the discount window they distort prices. The fed causes a disingenuious economic boom because they cause money to be allocated to worthless production sectors, and the bust (recession) corrects the malininvestment. The response is to do nothing, to let the bust run its course and purify the market of malinvestment.

No argument? Just questions? Are these questions going to be endless? Should I just expect questions from now on? I honestly don't know, and I'm not totally against unemployment benefits for a short duration to help an individual transition through a difficult period. I'm against prolonged unemployment benefits.

But if you are for unemployment benefits even for a short time you are then contradicting yourself and are in fact for supporting unproductive workers even though that is the accusation you leveled at me. When you set up a scenario that sets up an obvious domino effect you should expect questions about the obvious outcomes of your scenario. If you don't want to be questioned on your positions you really shouldn't be on a debating site.

No I'm not because short term unemployment benefits puts the individual back into a productive mode as opposed to long term unemployment benefits whic encourages to remain unproductive.

I didn't read you wikipedia link, I only read what you write. What are you trying to prove by citing derivatives markets? I don't know what your point is. I've read the Credit Default Swap explanation elsewhere and already told you why it's mostly irrelevant. The failure of CDS institutions such as AIG was a symptom of the moral hazard which was created by government regulators. You can't buy and sell bad loans if they don't exist in first place, and they wouldn't have existed if lenders were not shielded from the risk. In a free market such exchanges would have never occurred because of Profit and Loss.

If you are not going to read cited material from me why should I pay any attention to those you use? You on many occassions have cited outside documents as evidence for your position and I being the fair minded person read them in order to get a better understanding of exactly what your position is. If you are automatically going to ignore any article I bring as evidence what point is there in debating in the first place? You have made your mind up before you even began this argument and as you point out here you have no intention of allowing any inconvenient things like evidence get in the way of your preconceived notions of reality. If this is what you have been doing all along I see no point in continuing this exchange at all.

I generally write an argument in my own words which accompanies the link. I did it in this thread, I did it in the Global Warming thread. I generally don't read posted links because they're worthless, anybody can find stuff on google that supports their position. It takes no effort and it's lazy and unattractive. I'm not going to take time out of my day to read the content of a link since that person was to lazy to articulate the content of the link in his own words. Anyways, are you going to respond to any of the points I made?

[micatala]

Cite where I ever said the claim was "unconditional".

I have cited the claim you made.

When you made the claim, you did not include the conditions that were part of the claim. Thus, the claim you made was that the Administration made an unconditional claim.

No I did not.

Yes you did. Your claim was that the Obama Administration said this:

What we can measure is that Obama said if his phoney stimulous was passed, unemployment would not go over 8%, it is now over 9%.

This is different than saying that the Administration said this:

Assuming current estimates that we are losing 500,000 jobs per month and given current estimates of job losses to date, we project that the stimulus should keep unemployment under 8%

I yet again call for evidence that the Administration's claim was the first of these and not something more like the second or a retraction.

And I call yet again for you to document your assertion that the claim was made prefaced by the assumptions. What we do know is this:

"On page four of the 2009 Romer/Bernstein report a chart states that the unemployment rate nationwide with the $821-billion economic stimulus package would peak at 8 percent."

If you have a quote related to that where Romer/Bernstein say that plus 'assuming the following assumptions are correct', let me know. Until then you don't have a case.

You allude to this quote from page four of the 2009 report. YOu claimed you had alluded to this report earlier than Post #195 in Post #195. However, I again searched and found no instance of this quote in the thread before Post #195. Perhaps you can clarify or document, did you refer to this before Post #195 or not?


At any rate, I see nursebenjamin has provided a link to the full report. He also has documented that the chart you allude was prefaced by assumptions.

How is this not evidence that your original claim is wrong? How is this not evidence that the claim was conditional, as I had stated?









And I have to say again, my counterclaims do not absolve you of providing evidence for your claims. I will take it that evidence has now been provided, by nursebenjamin, for a conditional claim.

I do not accept that this is the same claim you made. "Assuming A, then B" or "B will follow provided conditions A1, A2, A3, etc. hold" are not the same as "B will occur."

Completely wrong. YOU are the one who needs to produce a prediction made CLEARLY tied in with the needed assumptions, rather than after the fact excuse making by Obama's people.

Well, I think nursebenjamin has done this. I will also attempt to find additional data supporting the differences between the estimates in play in January 2009 versus the reality.

Even if you did, it would not make my statement false, which was that they said unemployment wouldn't pass 8% and it did not happen.

I really do not understand how, given nursebenjamin's evidence, we can come to any other conclusion than that the claim as you stated is false.

Whether the failure was due to bad policy, bad data, or both, the bottom line failure is the same.

Again, if the conditions that the estimates were based upon were not realized, then there is no failure.

A: "If the car is going 50 mph, then the brakes will stop it in 100 feet."

B: "The brakes will stop the car in 100 feet."

You gave the second statement, claiming that is what the Administration said. It has been pointed out, and you seem at times to even acknowledge, that statement A is the kind of statement the Administration made, one with conditions. Your original claim did not include the conditions.

Again, where is the original statement clearly stating the conditions? That's all you have to come up with for me to retract.

See the report, the whole thing, and not the one sentence you pulled out without the context.

Furthermore, in addition to the general caveats, the report includes the following

First, the likely scale of employment loss is extremely large. The U.S. economy has already lost nearly 2.6 million jobs since the business cycle peak in December 2007. In the absence of stimulus, the economy could lose another 3 to 4 million more. Thus, we are working to counter a potential total job loss of at least 5 million. As Figure 1 shows, even with the large prototypical package, the unemployment rate in 2010Q4 is predicted to be approximately 7.0%, which is well below the
approximately 8.8% that would result in the absence of a plan.

The reality was job losses were more significant than these estimates from the time.

And in fact, job losses ended up being over 8 million.

United States
September 2008 – 280,000 jobs lost
October 2008 – 240,000 jobs lost
November 2008 – 333,000 jobs lost
December 2008 – 632,000 jobs lost[2]
January 2009 – 741,000 jobs lost
February 2009 – 681,000 jobs lost
March 2009 – 652,000 jobs lost
April 2009 – 519,000 jobs lost
May 2009 – 303,000 jobs lost
June 2009 – 463,000 jobs lost
July 2009 – 276,000 jobs lost
August 2009 – 201,000 jobs lost
September 2009 – 263,000 jobs lost
October 2009 – 111,000 jobs lost[3]
November 2009 - 64,000 jobs created[4]
December 2009 - 109,000 jobs lost[4]

Note that our current estimates, looking back, is that we lost 632,000 jobs in December 2008 and 741,000 in January 2009.

However, estimates at the time were smaller.

http://www.epi.org/publication/job_loss ... r_of_2008/

Jobs Picture, January 9, 2009

Job losses ballooned in final quarter of 2008

by Heidi Shierholz with research assistance from Tobin Marcus

This morning the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported the nation shed 524,000 jobs last month, capping 12 months of declining payroll employment. The BLS also revised its employment estimates for previous months downward by 154,000 jobs, showing that the U.S. economy lost nearly 2.6 million jobs since December 2007.

THus, we actually lost almost 100,000 more jobs in December 2008 than what was estimated at the time. Just as I claimed, the economy was worse than was known when the Roemer report came out.


Here is a chart with updated numbers from the beginning of 2008 into 2011.

http://money.usnews.com/money/careers/a ... -job-gains

Note that the monthly numbers during 2008 and into early 2009 are again significantly higher than the 500,000 or so estimates at the time.

Also note that the total loss during 2008 was actually well over 3.5 million instead of the 2.6 million estimated in the report.

So, not only have you not substantiated your claim, I have now substantiated my counter-claim. Job losses prior to and during the time the claims in question were being made were much more significant than thought at the time.

The car was was going 80 mph, and not 50 mph.





So, actual evidence, now provided by nursebenjamin and myself shows that East of Eden's assertion is false. The claims made were absolutley conditional, and we provided the conditions. To portray the unconditional claim as what the Obama Administration said is simply not correct.

I should refrain from responding to the fallaciousness of your comparison until after you provide evidence or a retraction because your response here does not absolve you of your obligation to support your claims.

What are you talking about? You are the one claiming there is a statement out there clearly tied to assumed conditions, where is it? That''s YOUR job to come up, not mine.

Well, at this point, now that other people have provided evidence related to your claim that shows the conditions were there, this question has been answered.

However, I will reiterate that none of this means that you did not make an unsubstantiated statement, and that your portrayal of what the Administration said was incorrect, and that you never did substantiate your claim. The only source you alluded to supports my claim, not yours.

Where is the support that the Administration says what you said they said?

See above. They do not deny they made a prediction that didn't pan out, they just after the fact say their then assumptions were wrong.

THis is illogical. You again portray "If A, then B" as if it says the same as "B occured".

I am certainly willing to entertain I missed something. However, I have searched at length through the thread and not found any evidence that anyone from the Obama Adminstration said what you said they said, either with the context or without it. How about you at least provide evidence from an actual reliable source quoting the Administration in full, and not paraphrasing for your original claim of what they said.

Then why did Barney Frank say said prediction was 'dumb'?

One, this is irrelevant. Two this question has been answered multiple times already. Three, as noted above, as far as I can tell you never did provide even the short out of context quote from the report until Post #195, when you claimed you had provided it earlier.



Is there any reason not to continue to ask for a retraction of the original claim by East of Eden? As far as I can see, the one quote he alludes from the January 2009 report does not make the unconditional claim he portrays as what the Obama Administration said. The report includes caveats, and it includes specific estimates on job losses that had occured up to that time and what was expected to occur in the future and that were clearly used in coming up with the 8% projected unemployement number.


It is absolutely fallacious and incorrect to point to the actual unemployment rate going up to 10% as a failure of analysis or policy on the part of the Adminstration.


It is every bit as incorrect as what Bill said in the car analogy.

[East of Eden]

[quote="micatala]You allude to this quote from page four of the 2009 report. YOu claimed you had alluded to this report earlier than Post #195 in Post #195. However, I again searched and found no instance of this quote in the thread before Post #195. Perhaps you can clarify or document, did you refer to this before Post #195 or not?[/quote]

No, it was common knowledge a prediction of some kind was made, ask Barney Frank.

At any rate, I see nursebenjamin has provided a link to the full report. He also has documented that the chart you allude was prefaced by assumptions.

How is this not evidence that your original claim is wrong? How is this not evidence that the claim was conditional, as I had stated?

Once again, I never claimed the prediction was unconditional, despite your numerous false statements to the contrary. Yes, conditions were buried in the report, but it does not mean a prediction wasn't made that didn't pan out. Do you really think a corporate CEO who made a forecast like this that was off significantly would get a pass because of false assumptions? He would be replaced. The same with a manager of a sports team.

Again, if Obama was so unsure of things no prediction should have been made, as Barney Frank said. People voted for the stimulous based on the phoney data.

Well, I think nursebenjamin has done this. I will also attempt to find additional data supporting the differences between the estimates in play in January 2009 versus the reality.

That's OK, we all know Obama's people were wrong. Apparently they didn't even know what the unemployment rate was.

I really do not understand how, given nursebenjamin's evidence, we can come to any other conclusion than that the claim as you stated is false.

Do you deny a prediction was made that didn't happen? YES OR NO, PLEASE. You can say in your opinion my question isn't fair, but you are false to say it isn't a true statement.

Again, if the conditions that the estimates were based upon were not realized, then there is no failure.

You really think an unbiased person would go along with that? According to the last few elections, there is failure. Obama can't even win a district in Queens.

The reality was job losses were more significant than these estimates from the time.

And in fact, job losses ended up being over 8 million.

The real number has nothing to do with the reality that there were ZERO jobs created in August, while at this time of Reagan's recover 1,100,000 were created. That isn't failure? Good luck running on that platform, Obama.

THus, we actually lost almost 100,000 more jobs in December 2008 than what was estimated at the time.

Big deal, 100K is a relatively minor difference. FWIW, I say our real unemployment is about 20%, contrary to the figures provided by the nice government men.

So, not only have you not substantiated your claim, I have now substantiated my counter-claim. Job losses prior to and during the time the claims in question were being made were much more significant than thought at the time.

We disagree. You're bringing up two different questions when I only brought up one.

So, actual evidence, now provided by nursebenjamin and myself shows that East of Eden's assertion is false. The claims made were absolutley conditional, and we provided the conditions. To portray the unconditional claim as what the Obama Administration said is simply not correct.

You're making things up again, I never claimed the prediction was unconditional. I am saying it is a side issue, part of a whitewash.

However, I will reiterate that none of this means that you did not make an unsubstantiated statement, and that your portrayal of what the Administration said was incorrect, and that you never did substantiate your claim.

Baloney. There is a statement buried in the report, it does not invalidate my point.

One, this is irrelevant.

Your opinion. I think the caveats are not quite relevant.

Is there any reason not to continue to ask for a retraction of the original claim by East of Eden? As far as I can see, the one quote he alludes from the January 2009 report does not make the unconditional claim he portrays as what the Obama Administration said.

False again, I didn't say it was unconditional, you made up that phrase.

It is absolutely fallacious and incorrect to point to the actual unemployment rate going up to 10% as a failure of analysis or policy on the part of the Adminstration.

So who's fault is it, Bush? Doesn't he get the same free pass you try to give Obama?

[micatala]

[quote="micatala]You allude to this quote from page four of the 2009 report. YOu claimed you had alluded to this report earlier than Post #195 in Post #195. However, I again searched and found no instance of this quote in the thread before Post #195. Perhaps you can clarify or document, did you refer to this before Post #195 or not?

No, it was common knowledge a prediction of some kind was made, ask Barney Frank.
[/quote]


Common knowledge can be the basis for initial discussion but it is not evidence.

Try again.

At any rate, I see nursebenjamin has provided a link to the full report. He also has documented that the chart you allude was prefaced by assumptions.

How is this not evidence that your original claim is wrong? How is this not evidence that the claim was conditional, as I had stated?

Once again, I never claimed the prediction was unconditional, despite your numerous false statements to the contrary. Yes, conditions were buried in the report, but it does not mean a prediction wasn't made that didn't pan out.

The claim you made did not include the conditions.

Therefore you made an "unconditional claim."

The actual claim made by the Administration did include the conditions, which it seems you do not now dispute, but attempt to dismiss with the subjective and irrelevant language "buried in the report."

The prediction was conditional on the caveats and other info in the report.

It is absolutely false to claim the Administration said what you said they said without including the conditions that they included in the report.


By any measure of objectivity and logic, you either need to provide another source for your claim, one that does not have the conditions but is directly from a member of the Adminstration, or retract the claim.


Everything else in your post has either already been debunked or is irrelevant.

Do you really think a corporate CEO who made a forecast like this that was off significantly would get a pass because of false assumptions? He would be replaced. The same with a manager of a sports team.

Whether someone gets a "pass" or not is a separate issue.

THe issue is you made a claim about what the Administration said and that claim was never supported by evidence and when evidence was provided by someone else, it was found that the evidence showed your claim about what they said was not true.

People voted for the stimulous based on the phoney data.

I am going to start a list of your other unsubstantiated claims.

Provide evidence the data was "phoney."

Phoney implies deliberately wrong or deceptive. No evidence has been provided that the data was "phoney." Phoney is not the same as incorrect.


Back up that the data was "phony" or retract.

Well, I think nursebenjamin has done this. I will also attempt to find additional data supporting the differences between the estimates in play in January 2009 versus the reality.

That's OK, we all know Obama's people were wrong.

No, you are claiming that Obama's people were wrong. YOu continue to completely dogdge that

"If the car was going 50 mph, then the skid will be 100 feet."

With

"The skid will be 100 feet."

Your claim that Obama's people were "wrong" in their prediction is incorrect, and it is rather ridiculous to say that "everybody knows" this.

I really do not understand how, given nursebenjamin's evidence, we can come to any other conclusion than that the claim as you stated is false.

Do you deny a prediction was made that didn't happen? YES OR NO, PLEASE. You can say in your opinion my question isn't fair, but you are false to say it isn't a true statement.

Yes, I deny that a prediction was made that didn't happen.

The prediction made was essentially as follows:

"Given our current estimates of job losses over the past year and job losses at the current time, we project that if the recovery act is enacted, unemployment should stay below 8%."


THERE IS NO PREDICTION SEPARATE FROM THE CONDITIONS.

Thus, it is incorrect for you to say the prediction "didn't happen."



For you to say the prediction didn't happen is to assert that

A: "If the car is going 50 mph, then the skid will be 100 feet."

says the same thing as

B: "The skid will be 100 feet."



These are simply not the same statements.



I am sorry. You are objectively incorrect. What the voters think or what Barney Frank is quoted as saying or what job losses were last August or what happened during the Reagan Administration or whether Obama will or will not be reelected or whether people blame Obama for the economy or don't like his policies or what Bush said or did not say about WMD's are all completely irrelevant to what is actually written in the given report under consideration. All of these other points you bring can be debated if you wish on this or another thread.

But that does not absolve you from supporting or retracting your original claim.

You absolutely have not done that. Repeatedly insisting that A says the same as B when anyone can see that is not true is not providing support for your claim.

So, not only have you not substantiated your claim, I have now substantiated my counter-claim. Job losses prior to and during the time the claims in question were being made were much more significant than thought at the time.

We disagree. You're bringing up two different questions when I only brought up one.

No, I addressed the question and claim you made. Your claim concerning what the Administration said is simply not supported by the evidence. You do not get to "rewrite their claim" without the context simply to suit your argument.

One, this is irrelevant.

Your opinion. I think the caveats are not quite relevant.

Again, this amounts to saying that A = B above. This is not opinion, it is a fact.

Is there any reason not to continue to ask for a retraction of the original claim by East of Eden? As far as I can see, the one quote he alludes from the January 2009 report does not make the unconditional claim he portrays as what the Obama Administration said.

False again, I didn't say it was unconditional, you made up that phrase.

False again back at you. I pointed out numerous times that what you said the Administration said did not include conditions. The evidence says what they said did include the conditions. You may not have used the term "unconditional" but your claim did not include the conditions that that Administration made as part of the claim.



Again, you are falsely portraying what they said, plain and simple. You don't get to rewrite what they said and then portray that as their claim.


I again call for a retraction.



I will also be going on to several other unsubstantiated claims that have been made. The "phony data" allegation above is only the first of these.

[East of Eden]

Common knowledge can be the basis for initial discussion but it is not evidence.

Try again.

You keep ignoring that Frank knew a prediction had been made, and he didn't think the caveats excused the wrong outcome, or was he wrong to call it 'dumb'?

The claim you made did not include the conditions.

It didn't contain the rest of the 80-some page report, so what?

Therefore you made an "unconditional claim."

Produce a quote where I said it was unconditional. You're fabricating again.

The actual claim made by the Administration did include the conditions, which it seems you do not now dispute, but attempt to dismiss with the subjective and irrelevant language "buried in the report."

The prediction was conditional on the caveats and other info in the report.

It is absolutely false to claim the Administration said what you said they said without including the conditions that they included in the report.

Baloney, tell it to Barney Frank.

By any measure of objectivity and logic, you either need to provide another source for your claim, one that does not have the conditions but is directly from a member of the Adminstration, or retract the claim.

I never claimed it was unconditional, you brought that word in in this whole ridiculous conversation.

Everything else in your post has either already been debunked or is irrelevant.

My thoughts about your posts exactly.

Whether someone gets a "pass" or not is a separate issue.

THe issue is you made a claim about what the Administration said and that claim was never supported by evidence and when evidence was provided by someone else, it was found that the evidence showed your claim about what they said was not true.

Why won't you answer my questions? If a baseball manager predicts they are going to win the World Series and they don't, can he get a pass by saying he didn't know the SS would get injured?

I am going to start a list of your other unsubstantiated claims.

Provide evidence the data was "phoney."

Phoney implies deliberately wrong or deceptive. No evidence has been provided that the data was "phoney." Phoney is not the same as incorrect.

Are you going to use up 10 pages of this Bachmann thread on that now? Obviously I meant false data. A definition of phoney is not genuine.

Back up that the data was "phony" or retract.

See above.

Your claim that Obama's people were "wrong" in their prediction is incorrect, and it is rather ridiculous to say that "everybody knows" this.

Read it again, I meant they were wrong in their data, or do you deny this now?

Yes, I deny that a prediction was made that didn't happen.

If you won't admit to the obvious, I see no reason to continue this conversation.

I am sorry. You are objectively incorrect. What the voters think or what Barney Frank is quoted as saying or what job losses were last August or what happened during the Reagan Administration or whether Obama will or will not be reelected or whether people blame Obama for the economy or don't like his policies or what Bush said or did not say about WMD's are all completely irrelevant to what is actually written in the given report under consideration. All of these other points you bring can be debated if you wish on this or another thread.

But that does not absolve you from supporting or retracting your original claim.

The claim that the predicted numbers didn't happen is true, why can't you admit that? You are claiming special priveledges for Obama that nobody else in our society would get. This is the double standard that we seen in the MSM all the time. When Bush 1 said 'No new taxes' and then reneged, would he get a pass by saying the date on the debt was different than he thought? I never heard that.

Your claim concerning what the Administration said is simply not supported by the evidence. You do not get to "rewrite their claim" without the context simply to suit your argument.

You are the one rewriting the claim, I never said it was unconditional, just that the prediction didn't happen. Do you deny that? Your idea that the conditions somehow excuse the prediction is nothing more than your opinion, which I reject.

False again back at you. I pointed out numerous times that what you said the Administration said did not include conditions. The evidence says what they said did include the conditions. You may not have used the term "unconditional" but your claim did not include the conditions that that Administration made as part of the claim.



Again, you are falsely portraying what they said, plain and simple. You don't get to rewrite what they said and then portray that as their claim.

And I'll again say the conditions were a separate issue, to me not that relevant.

I will also be going on to several other unsubstantiated claims that have been made. The "phony data" allegation above is only the first of these.

Whatever. Maybe you'll have more success with those. This whole waste of time is funny coming from you, who makes unsubstantiated claims that I said the prediction was unconditional.

Here's a short video of more Obama non-performance, or maybe you think none of these are valid since Obama didn't exactly know the data?

http://www.breitbart.tv/devastating-vid ... e-numbers/

[nursebenjamin]

You keep ignoring that Frank knew a prediction had been made, and he didn't think the caveats excused the wrong outcome, or was he wrong to call it 'dumb'? …

Baloney, tell it to Barney Frank.

Question: Why should I give a rat’s ass as to what Barney Frank says? I’ve already stated that I believe that Frank was wrong and why. I believe that project planning (including situation analysis, problem identification, definition of the goal, etc…) is better than being completely ignorant of the possible outcomes of policies that we’re implementing, even if the initial assessment turns out to be wrong.

You seem most upset with the fact that the Obama administration bothered to analyzed their policy and set a goal . However, this is exactly what an effective leader should have done, even if that analysis comes with large error bars. The people who are making a big deal out of this “unemployment under 8%� quote mine are dishonest political hacks. These people are biased and dishonest to a level that makes them irrelevant to the conversation that we should be having over how to put Americans back to work. It’s impossible to have an intelligent conversation with someone that quote mines and isn't concerned about reality.

“One year after the stimulus, several independent macroeconomic firms, including Moody's and IHS Global Insight, estimated that the stimulus saved or created 1.6 to 1.8 million jobs and forecast a total impact of 2.5 million jobs saved by the time the stimulus is completed. The Congressional Budget Office considered these estimates conservative. The CBO estimated according to its model 2.1 million jobs saved in the last quarter of 2009, boosting the economy by up to 3.5 percent and lowering the unemployment rate by up to 2.1 percent. The CBO projected that the package would have an even greater impact in 2010. The CBO also said, "It is impossible to determine how many of the reported jobs would have existed in the absence of the stimulus package." The CBO's report on the first quarter of 2010 showed a continued positive effect, with an employment gain in that quarter of up to 2.8 million and a GDP boost of up to 4.2 percent.�[2] Some economists disagree with this evaluation; likewise, some have come to significantly more positive conclusions about the bill's effects on jobs. Economist Dan Wilson of the Federal Reserve … estimates that "ARRA spending created or saved about 2 million jobs in its first year and over 3 million by March 2011."[Ibid.]

Economist Dean Baker commented: [T]he revised data [from Department of Commerce] ... showed that the economy was plunging even more rapidly than we had previously recognized in the two quarters following the collapse of Lehman. Yet, the plunge stopped in the second quarter of 2009 – just as the stimulus came on line. This was followed by respectable growth over the next four quarters. Growth then weakened again as the impact of the stimulus began to fade at the end of 2010 and the start of this year.

"In other words, the growth pattern shown by the revised data sure makes it appear that the stimulus worked. The main problem would seem to be that the stimulus was not big enough and it wasn't left in place long enough to lift the economy to anywhere near potential output."[Ibid.]

I don’t really see how you can honestly conclude that the Recovery Act of 2009 was a failure. Was the bill perfect? Of course not. Is unemployment back to 2008 levels? No. Is the recession over for those of us who live on Main Street? No. But this Recession was 10-20+ years in the making. It would be completely unrealistic to expect a full recovery overnight.

And many economists say Obama's plan retarded the recovery.

Who? What economists? What specifically did these economists say? Why no attempt to even substantiate this claim?

... there were ZERO jobs created in August, while at this time of Reagan's recover 1,100,000 were created. That isn't failure? Good luck running on that platform, Obama.

Do you realize that this is an unfair comparison? Your 1,100,000 number is the summation of how many months? 36? You are comparing the summation of 30+ months with a cherry picked figure from last August. This is a bit dishonest, don’t you think? And do you mind substantiating that 1,100,000 number as well?

[East of Eden]

Question: Why should I give a rat’s ass as to what Barney Frank says? I’ve already stated that I believe that Frank was wrong and why.

Because Frank also recognized a prediction was made, and didn't happen, and he's one of you (liberal, not gay).

I believe that project planning (including situation analysis, problem identification, definition of the goal, etc…) is better than being completely ignorant of the possible outcomes of policies that we’re implementing, even if the initial assessment turns out to be wrong.

Although this often happens with government planning, what bothers me is it's failure, not that there was a projection.

You seem most upset with the fact that the Obama administration bothered to analyzed their policy and set a goal . However, this is exactly what an effective leader should have done, even if that analysis comes with large error bars. The people who are making a big deal out of this “unemployment under 8%� quote mine are dishonest political hacks. These people are biased and dishonest to a level that makes them irrelevant to the conversation that we should be having over how to put Americans back to work. It’s impossible to have an intelligent conversation with someone that quote mines and isn't concerned about reality.

Your description of Barney Frank as a biased, dishonest hack is noted.

Who? What economists? What specifically did these economists say? Why no attempt to even substantiate this claim?

You didn't ask. You seriously think no economists were against the plan? Here's a liberal saying it didn't work, if Obama even ever had a plan to begin with. It was mostly a payoff to his political allies, IMHO.

http://www.gop.com/index.php/briefing/c ... had_a_plan

This addresses the phoney 'jobs saved' canard:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124451592762396883.html

Do you realize that this is an unfair comparison? Your 1,100,000 number is the summation of how many months? 36? You are comparing the summation of 30+ months with a cherry picked figure from last August. This is a bit dishonest, don’t you think? And do you mind substantiating that 1,100,000 number as well?

Not cherrypicked at all, by this time in Reagan's first term 1,100,000 jobs were being created, on the way to 17,000,000 (not counting 'jobs saved', /sarcasm off). From a WSJ article within the last month that I read. This is from last fall, but you get the idea:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... 24906.html

[micatala]

Common knowledge can be the basis for initial discussion but it is not evidence.

Try again.

You keep ignoring that Frank knew a prediction had been made, and he didn't think the caveats excused the wrong outcome, or was he wrong to call it 'dumb'?

You are incorrect. I addressed Frank's statement and have not ignored it at all.

He is welcome to his opinion, but saying making the prediction was dumb is not evidence that your characterization of the Administration's claim is correct, nor is it even evidence that he agrees the analysis was incorrect or that the policy is wrong.

I don't see that Frank ever said the prediction was wrong. You have provided no evidence that he did not think the caveats excused the wrong outcome.

In my opinion, he was wrong to call it dumb, but that is irrelevant, as Frank's opinion does not affect the facts in the report.

Following your logic, if I find one Republican politician who thought a statement of Reagan's or a policy of Reagan's was dumb, then we should have that one statement trump what Reagan actually said or what his policy actually was. Isn't that a bit silly?

The claim you made did not include the conditions.

It didn't contain the rest of the 80-some page report, so what?

I don't expect you to include the whole report, but I do expect you to accurately portray what the Administration said. As has been shown, a couple of paragraphs do nicely.

My claim stands. You did not include the conditions in the report or even a summary of them. Thus you have mischaracterized the claim. Suggesting this is somehow too hard or not necessary to support your claim is a dodge.

The "so what" is the whole point. If the conditions were not present, then you would be correct. The Administration would have made what I have been refering to as an unconditional claim that something would happen, and that something did not happen, so they would have been wrong.

The presence of the conditions means you are wrong.

I'll ask agian. Yes or no.


Are these claims the same?

A: "If the car was going 50 mph, then the skid will be 100 feet."


B: "The skid will be 100 feet."

Yes or no.




__________________________________________________