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:

 

 

 

So besides debating the use of the term "depression" what are you saying in regards to the recent impact of the stimulus?

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?

 

Nope, I'm saying there's plenty enough arguments against that you can't merely pick a group and say it's working because they say it's working. Particularly when the numbers are so bad. To turn your question around, are you saying it worked merely because some say it worked? As to your WSJ right leaning argument, couldn't they be trying to get GW some love since he put it in place?

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

Yeah, that's right I'm claiming the WSJ is in Obama's back pocket. Where in the heck did I say that in my post? I was pointing out that there is no way to know what would have happen had the stimulus not been spent. I don't care who wrote or printed the article. It is a complete guess because there is no way to prove it. And for anyone to say at this point anything was a success is fooling themselves. Unemployment continues rise and consumer spending isnt'. That is the only way this economy will turn around.

Nope, I'm saying there's plenty enough arguments against that you can't merely pick a group and say it's working because they say it's working. Particularly when the numbers are so bad. To turn your question around, are you saying it worked merely because some say it worked? As to your WSJ right leaning argument, couldn't they be trying to get GW some love since he put it in place?

 

So nothing works until the point of it being an absolute success? It can't be working despite the metrics not yet being acceptable?

 

I'm saying that its being reported that its working. I've already stated that I'm not smart enough to sit down and make a final determination. You're saying, however, that because its not unanimous that it CANNOT be working. That doesn't seem logical.

Yeah, that's right I'm claiming the WSJ is in Obama's back pocket. Where in the heck did I say that in my post? I was pointing out that there is no way to know what would have happen had the stimulus not been spent. I don't care who wrote or printed the article. It is a complete guess because there is no way to prove it. And for anyone to say at this point anything was a success is fooling themselves. Unemployment continues rise and consumer spending isnt'. That is the only way this economy will turn around.

 

What do you have to see to say its working? Who will you believe?

 

Is it possible that its not solely an objective debate?

What do you have to see to say its working? Who will you believe?

 

Is it possible that its not solely an objective debate?

It's pretty simple, when unemployment starts to go down instead of up. When all industries increase not just the ones the government is trying to prop up.

 

I have multiple customers in the lawn and garden industry. Guess what, their business isn't picking up. Another in the appliance industry, again no increase. Furniture, nope nothing there. Sporting goods, still down. Communication towers (FM & Cell), business is awlful. Construction/fabrication, nothing going on.

It's pretty simple, when unemployment starts to go down instead of up. When all industries increase not just the ones the government is trying to prop up.

 

I have multiple customers in the lawn and garden industry. Guess what, their business isn't picking up. Another in the appliance industry, again no increase. Furniture, nope nothing there. Sporting goods, still down. Communication towers (FM & Cell), business is awlful. Construction/fabrication, nothing going on.

 

What?? You're bringing reality to the table?? How dare you!!:lol:

So besides debating the use of the term "depression" what are you saying in regards to the recent impact of the stimulus?

Your tornado analogy makes the assumption (at least I thought it did) that it could have been worse (the mayor saved many- just cause 25% were left doesn't mean his plan didn't work). I'm saying that stimulus was ineffective because we weren't going anywhere past ~10% unemployment anyways, yet even though we have the >$1 trillion in stimulus, we are still there.

It's pretty simple, when unemployment starts to go down instead of up. When all industries increase not just the ones the government is trying to prop up.

 

I have multiple customers in the lawn and garden industry. Guess what, their business isn't picking up. Another in the appliance industry, again no increase. Furniture, nope nothing there. Sporting goods, still down. Communication towers (FM & Cell), business is awlful. Construction/fabrication, nothing going on.

 

I disagree with your belief that its only "working" if ALL industries improve. Have we ever had a time when some industries didn't struggle?

So nothing works until the point of it being an absolute success? It can't be working despite the metrics not yet being acceptable?

 

I'm saying that its being reported that its working. I've already stated that I'm not smart enough to sit down and make a final determination. You're saying, however, that because its not unanimous that it CANNOT be working. That doesn't seem logical.

 

I'm saying that it is also being debated on whether it's working. Please point out where I said it has to be unanimous. The numbers would point to the fact that it's NOT working. Unemployment is almost 25% higher than what the high end was estimated to hit. You point out to some fictional "it would have been worse" and you hang your hat on that, or at least the people who claim that. How can they know that? I do remember months ago someone saying that this is the argument people would make if the numbers didn't turn out.

 

I still say at this point I don't believe it's working based on the numbers. Will it eventually work? I don't know but I do remember one argument was that it did not deliver enough current stimulus. That certainly appears to be true now.

I disagree with your belief that its only "working" if ALL industries improve. Have we ever had a time when some industries didn't struggle?

OK, how about a majority of industry?