As to the question posed by the thread title, highest unemployment in 26 years would tend to indicate it hasn't worked.

Don't worry about it, I'm sure.

 

How is the analogy correct?

 

One was straight up honest about what they were trying to accomplish. The other, no so much.

 

The end result cannot be the only measure. The intent and approach have to be considered as well.

As to the question posed by the thread title, highest unemployment in 26 years would tend to indicate it hasn't worked.

 

Here's where I see the problem with your logic.

 

A tornado is coming and its a doozy.

 

The mayor decides to have the police haul the old folks down to the jail for their safety. They are able to transport 75% of the old folks. Unfortunately, the other 25% don't make it. Its the worst single-day tragedy in the history of the town.

 

Did the mayor's efforts not work due to it being the worst tragedy in the city's history?

Here's where I see the problem with your logic.

 

A tornado is coming and its a doozy.

 

The mayor decides to have the police haul the old folks down to the jail for their safety. They are able to transport 75% of the old folks. Unfortunately, the other 25% don't make it. Its the worst single-day tragedy in the history of the town.

 

Did the mayor's efforts not work due to it being the worst tragedy in the city's history?

 

That depends. Is the mayor of your party or from the other side? If he is from your party, he saved 75 percent of the people in town and made sure the other 25 percent got express tickets into heaven. If he is from the other party, he intentionally made sure that the 25 percent of the town that was on his enemies list was locked out of the shelter. He had also contracted with weather manipulators to generate the tornado in the first place.

Here's where I see the problem with your logic.

 

A tornado is coming and its a doozy.

 

The mayor decides to have the police haul the old folks down to the jail for their safety. They are able to transport 75% of the old folks. Unfortunately, the other 25% don't make it. Its the worst single-day tragedy in the history of the town.

 

Did the mayor's efforts not work due to it being the worst tragedy in the city's history?

 

Question is has it worked. Answer is no. Your example has quantifiable parameters. Stimulus does not so it is in no way comparable.

How is the analogy correct?

 

One was straight up honest about what they were trying to accomplish. The other, no so much.

 

The end result cannot be the only measure. The intent and approach have to be considered as well.

 

Debatable on the bolded.

 

As to your second comment, please elaborate.

Debatable on the bolded.

 

As to your second comment, please elaborate.

 

The second comment was aimed at the analogy - not the stimulus.

Question is has it worked. Answer is no. Your example has quantifiable parameters. Stimulus does not so it is in no way comparable.

 

Which part of this do you disagree with?

 

 

Economists say the money out the door -- combined with the expectation of additional funds flowing soon -- is fueling growth above where it would have been without any government action.

 

Many forecasters say stimulus spending is adding two to three percentage points to economic growth in the second and third quarters, when measured at an annual rate. The impact in the second quarter, calculated by analyzing how the extra funds flowing into the economy boost consumption, investment and spending, helped slow the rate of decline and will lay the groundwork for positive growth in the third quarter -- something that seemed almost implausible just a few months ago. Some economists say the 1% contraction in the second quarter would have been far worse, possibly as much as 3.2%, if not for the stimulus.

Which part of this do you disagree with?

 

 

Economists say the money out the door -- combined with the expectation of additional funds flowing soon -- is fueling growth above where it would have been without any government action.

 

Many forecasters say stimulus spending is adding two to three percentage points to economic growth in the second and third quarters, when measured at an annual rate. The impact in the second quarter, calculated by analyzing how the extra funds flowing into the economy boost consumption, investment and spending, helped slow the rate of decline and will lay the groundwork for positive growth in the third quarter -- something that seemed almost implausible just a few months ago. Some economists say the 1% contraction in the second quarter would have been far worse, possibly as much as 3.2%, if not for the stimulus.

What economists are saying this and how can they prove it? It's like Obama claiming he has saved x number of jobs. It's crap because you can't measure it. Unemployment continues to rise. That does not equal growth in my book. CFC worked to increase auto sales now but what about next month or the month after? Yes the factories will pick up to replenish the supply chain but what after that?

What economists are saying this and how can they prove it? It's like Obama claiming he has saved x number of jobs. It's crap because you can't measure it. Unemployment continues to rise. That does not equal growth in my book. CFC worked to increase auto sales now but what about next month or the month after? Yes the factories will pick up to replenish the supply chain but what after that?

 

 

So you're now claiming that the Wall St Journal is a shill for Obama? The WSJ?

Which part of this do you disagree with?

 

 

Economists say the money out the door -- combined with the expectation of additional funds flowing soon -- is fueling growth above where it would have been without any government action.

 

Many forecasters say stimulus spending is adding two to three percentage points to economic growth in the second and third quarters, when measured at an annual rate. The impact in the second quarter, calculated by analyzing how the extra funds flowing into the economy boost consumption, investment and spending, helped slow the rate of decline and will lay the groundwork for positive growth in the third quarter -- something that seemed almost implausible just a few months ago. Some economists say the 1% contraction in the second quarter would have been far worse, possibly as much as 3.2%, if not for the stimulus.

 

Because "many" other economists say that this cannot be determined. We can both cherry pick articles all day long showing both views.

That depends. Is the mayor of your party or from the other side? If he is from your party, he saved 75 percent of the people in town and made sure the other 25 percent got express tickets into heaven. If he is from the other party, he intentionally made sure that the 25 percent of the town that was on his enemies list was locked out of the shelter. He had also contracted with weather manipulators to generate the tornado in the first place.

 

The problem with this is that leaders from both sides are involved. Started by one, continued by the other.

Some might say the cash for clunkers didn't work but I'm sure glad they did it. Our automotive division's orders have increased greatly. My old department has started working overtime for the first time this year. Management has had to pull people out our medical department to help out.

Here's where I see the problem with your logic.

 

A tornado is coming and its a doozy.

 

The mayor decides to have the police haul the old folks down to the jail for their safety. They are able to transport 75% of the old folks. Unfortunately, the other 25% don't make it. Its the worst single-day tragedy in the history of the town.

 

Did the mayor's efforts not work due to it being the worst tragedy in the city's history?

IMO, the severity of the economic "crisis" was severely overblown. It was a smart move by the Obama administration- by continually calling it the next Great Depression, it excuses 9.7% unemployment. Fact of the matter is, we weren't anywhere near a Great Depression. We weren't even anywhere near the recession in the late 1930's:

 

Because "many" other economists say that this cannot be determined. We can both cherry pick articles all day long showing both views.

 

No cherry picking.

 

So in your mind as long as there are some who say it didn't work, it didn't work? We need unanimous support?

 

I'm not smart enough to debate economists and their models so all I have to off of are the comments being made. I will assume that the right-leaning WSJ did their research and didn't simply accept a small group of experts' opinions.

 

Is there one particular economist or group that you give more credence to than others?