Gallup: Unemployment drops down to 8.1%, lowest level yet.

Pull our troops out of Afghanistan we'll be needing them in Iran.

 

I removed that from my post.

But between the government deficits/QE's/Operation Twist ($5+T/$2.3T/$0.4T respectively) since 2008 - the total is over $7.5 trillion....all in debt...that was poured into the economy (directly/indirectly).

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/federal_debt_chart.html

I was not arguing anything here...I was merely posting facts.

If you seriously wish to understand the theory (and I severely doubt you do) then there are any number of Austrian School 'economists' I could recommend...Marc Faber, Jim Rogers, Peter Schiff, etc..

To get into the theory here would take too much time and besides, I SEVERELY doubt your mind is open on this issue - and wasting my time is not a passion of mine.


And you seem to have missed /avoided this question:

And you cannot provide ANY factual proof that the various Stimuli/QE's have rendered the U.S. economy ANY better now then it would have been had these spending policies never taken place.

True or false, please?

 

Sure. Do net 700,000 jobs die when the economy is good?

Economic growth stoppes and contraction stops.

No.

Only if you apply the literal sense. However, the unnecessary destruction of the economy may result in some businesses and jobs being lost forever.

Sure.

Any other inane comments you want to make?


[quyote]
Surely you realize that you can find evidence to support ANY idea/conclusion. [/quote]

No I don't realize that, and even so, that does not mean that evidence is equally strong on both sides.

Clearly.

Good for you. So what?

I agree that it is impossible to absolutely prove that Govt intervention had an effect.

The fallacy of your position is that you confuse the difference between absolute proof meaning there can be no evidence or proof. The fact that you cannot mathematically and absolutely prove something in a complex multivariable environment like economic does not mean that you cannot make rational arguments and deductions based on solid evidence.

However, that does not mean there isn't lots of evidence and solid argument that it did, as I have presented.

And when faced with an argument based upon solid evidence and logic, versus one based on nothing, it is logical to conclude that the argument based on solid evidence and logic is more probable.

 

Let me clarify it for you.

You stated: "That is what over $7.5 trillion in extra debt (from various Stimuli, gov't deficits, QE's, etc.) since 2008 has done for the U.S. economy." You were referring to the labor force being down, the housing market being worse and food stamp usage being up.

So my questions to you is, and I will rephrase it in your own words so that you can understand:

What is the factual proof that the $7.5 trillion in extra debt has done that for the US economy?

 

Please re-read my quoted response.

 

No kidding?

If you hadn't heard, we had a massive Great Recession with a collapse of the real estate market and construction industry that affected all aspects of the economy.

 

I put it to you that you merely use the term 'recessionary death spiral' for dramatic effect.

But, clearly you appear to have no idea what I mean (which is a little surprising) OR you feel the term is completely accurate and descriptive (which is a little disappointing) - so I guess 'that is that'.

I will take that as a 'no'.

Thank you.

 

So stop arguing that the reason we have low revenue is because of the Bush Tax cuts.

 

So despite all the massive Stimuli, gov't. deficits and Fed QE's/Operation Twist; in the 3 1/2+ years since these programs/policies began to be implemented...the work force is smaller, average homes prices are lower and more people are starving (without aid).

So these statistics prove that these policies have been successful - according to you?

Yes or no, please?

 

A recessionary death spiral like we were in 2008-09 is a pretty dramatic event.

Oh, I think I have a pretty good idea of what you mean. Rather than substantively contest or discuss my argument, you'd rather spend 3 pages with picayune silly little nonsense to make yourself feel like you are making some kind of valid argument.

[/QUOTE]

You take it incorrectly.

Welcome.

 

Why should I do that?

And for the record I argue we have had low revenues over the past couple years not just because of the Bush tax cuts, but also because of the Stimulus tax cuts, as well as the Great Recession.

 

So, for the last time (for now) what is your answer to the following question:

'And you cannot provide ANY factual proof that the various Stimuli/QE's have rendered the U.S. economy ANY better now then it would have been had these spending policies never taken place.

True or false, please?'

 

Nope. Do these statistic prove that these policies have been unsuccessful, according to you?

Yes or no, please?

 

Your question is an unfair one because it is based upon a false premises.

I agree that it is impossible to absolutely prove that Govt intervention had an effect.

The fallacy of your position is that you confuse the difference between absolute proof meaning there can be no evidence or proof. The fact that you cannot mathematically and absolutely prove something in a complex multivariable environment like economic does not mean that you cannot make rational arguments and deductions based on solid evidence.

However, that does not mean there isn't lots of evidence and solid argument that it did, as I have presented.

And when faced with an argument based upon solid evidence and logic, versus one based on nothing, it is logical to conclude that the argument based on solid evidence and logic is more probable.

 

So, you refuse to answer my question.

Noted.


Have a nice day.

 

I answered it fully.

Have a great day.

 

No answer?

So you refused to answer my question.

Noted.

 

According to me?

Saddling Americans with over $7.5 trillion in extra debt over 4 years with the result being:

- the work force is smaller
- average home prices are lower
- and more people are starving (on their own) then ever before?

Do I consider that successful?


Well, if the goal was to make most Americans worse off and more broke - then it was a raging success.

But considering the goal (I assume) was the opposite; then my answer is 'no' - I do not personally consider all these trillions of dollars in debt spent to be 'successful'.



Have a nice day.

 

So was it 'true' or 'false.

You never stated which.

Only one of those two words will suffice, btw.



Have a nice day now.

 

Ummm...hello?

Check post 243.

 

Dodge and non-answer.

The question was: "do these statistic prove that these policies have been unsuccessful, according to you?"

There was nothing in my question asking whether you thought they proved the policies were successful.

Are you refusing to answer my question?

And while you are at it, please provide factual proof of the following claim you made:

Saddling Americans with over $7.5 trillion in extra debt over 4 years with the result being:

- the work force is smaller
- average home prices are lower
- and more people are starving (on their own) then ever before? ​

Thank you.

 

I fully answered your unfair question, and much more so than the dodge and non-answer you gave me. DEFINITELY NOTE THAT.

 

I'm seeing the opposite. The job market is getting better. I know multiple people laid off in 2008-2009 who have found work again. But I don't hang around people who trash higher education and spend most of their time blaming Obama for their problems.

 

Yes, these statistics prove to me that these policies have been unsuccessful.

You did not ask 'do they factually prove'.

You asked if they prove it 'according to me'.

I answered your question as typed.

A little advice - next time you ask a question and get an answer to that particular question....don't whine about it.

OR

learn exactitude.

You still have not answered my previous question with either a 'true' or 'false' ONLY (you typed neither).

When you do - I will answer this one.

I fail to see why I should answer your questions when you will not even answer mine.



Have a more exact day.

 

Try reading the post again.


And since you obviously cannot even get it together enough to answer simple 'true' or false' questions with 'true' or 'false' (which is why they are called 'true or false questions' - ).

Then I will remove myself from this 'debate' until such time as you can get it together enough to answer 'true or false' questions.


SHEESH...when you are acting like this Iriemon, it's like talking to an intelligent 12 year old who is having a mini-tantrum.

From now on - I hope I will have the good sense to just ask you a question and when you do not answer it in the manner requested then I will just realize you are acting childish and just give up trying to take you seriously until your near-daily 'Obama is TOO a gwate Pwesident'-tantrum is over.