AP: GOP Math Suspect in Stimulus Debate

Monday, November 02, 2009

Some Republicans are using grad-school arithmetic that is "highly misleading" when calculating the effects Obama's stimulus package, according to the Associated Press. On Friday The White House said 640,329 direct jobs have been created or saved.

Posted by dave at 09:31 AM | 72 COMMENTS | permalink | Comment on This Entry

Front Page
News Weblog
Comments
Flagged Comments
User Blogs
Write a Blog Entry
Edit Account
Stats Page
RSS Feed
Back Page

Subscriptions

RSS Feed

Author Info

dave

Private E-mail
No Home Page

Joined 2005/08/02
Visited 2009/11/18

Status: user

MORE STORIES

Palin's Book Goes Rogue on Some Facts (104 comments) ...

Stephen Colbert Adopts US Speedskating Team (25 comments) ...

AP: GOP Math Suspect in Stimulus Debate (72 comments) ...

6 Million Would Opt for Public Option (34 comments) ...

Career Women Are Smoking More Dope (224 comments) ...

Zero Tolerance/Intelligence - Another One Bites the Dust (17 comments) ...

Liz Cheney's new comedy show (4 comments) ...

Dickie Peterson of Blue Cheer dies at 61 (4 comments) ...

The Decade's Worst Movies (117 comments) ...

Sociologist: Spanking Makes Kids Dumber (52 comments) ...

'Laugh-In' Original Henry Gibson Dies (34 comments) ...

Judge Throws Out Birther Suit (53 comments) ...

Mary Travers of Peter, Paul and Mary Dies (46 comments) ...

Arkansas Cop Shoots Fire Chief in Court (58 comments) ...

Olympic Medalist, 72, Attacks Intruder (16 comments) ...

Special Features

Daily Nooner

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in the discussion of this weblog entry should note the site's moderation policy.

Simple and misleading are hallmarks of the GNOP.

#1 | Posted by 726 at 2009-11-02 07:17 AM | Reply | Flag:

Well, what are the real numbers then?

#2 | Posted by rightisright at 2009-11-02 07:22 AM | Reply | Flag:

'zactly!

#3 | Posted by nanc at 2009-11-02 08:06 AM | Reply | Flag:

You need to deduct the money Obama paid back, with the peoples tax dollars, for supporting and helping getting him elected right off the top. Then you will get a better idea on how much stimulus, funded by taxpayers again, is needed to create a job.

#4 | Posted by KBM at 2009-11-02 09:51 AM | Reply | Flag:

How can he say that the stimulus created or saved 650,000 jobs when we continue to lose hundreds of thousands of jobs in each report?

Please prove yourself Mr. Obama... please educate us on where you're getting the numbers for those jobs saved.

What a piece of sh... work.

#5 | Posted by Dont_TreadonMe at 2009-11-02 10:14 AM | Reply | Flag:

"How can he say that the stimulus created or saved 650,000 jobs when we continue to lose hundreds of thousands of jobs in each report?"

Just to see how tethered you are to reality, what do you think the unemployment rate would be if there had been no stimulus spending?

#6 | Posted by Danforth at 2009-11-02 10:18 AM | Reply | Flag:

"estimated number of jobs 'saved' or created"

Number of jobs 'saved', what idiotic bullshit.....
.

#7 | Posted by 2008ATL at 2009-11-02 10:20 AM | Reply | Flag:

'Please prove yourself Mr. Obama... please educate us on where you're getting the numbers for those jobs saved.

What a piece of sh... work.'

FUCK YOU AND THE FUCKING HORSE YOU RODE IN ON

This is CLASSIC GOP fuzzy math - Obama has NO OBLIGATION to refute GOP nonsense.

The ONUS in on the GOP to provide accurate info and they didn't. And the AP CAUGHT them putting the political spin on the Math.

R E A D the article before you run the mouth.

#8 | Posted by Monstman at 2009-11-02 10:21 AM | Reply | Flag:

"WASHINGTON Beware the math. Some Republican lawmakers critical of President Barack Obama's stimulus package are using grade-school arithmetic to size up costs and consequences of all that spending. The math is satisfyingly simple but highly misleading."

Nice try Mr. Obama, but you are so busted!

#9 | Posted by Eddie at 2009-11-02 10:25 AM | Reply | Flag:

what do you think the unemployment rate would be if there had been no stimulus spending?

#6 | Posted by Danforth at 2009-11-02 10:18 AM
------------

Hey Obamabot....

Why don't you explain how the unemployment rate got above 8% With the stimulus money.

Remember Dear Leader's promise.....
.

#10 | Posted by 2008ATL at 2009-11-02 10:25 AM | Reply | Flag:

This is CLASSIC GOP fuzzy math - Obama has NO OBLIGATION to refute GOP nonsense.

The ONUS in on the GOP to provide accurate info and they didn't. And the AP CAUGHT them putting the political spin on the Math.

#8 | Posted by Monstman

Holy Shit! Are you serious?

Are you saying that the White House did not go beyond fuzzy math and just guessed?

Are you sure?

#11 | Posted by Eddie at 2009-11-02 10:27 AM | Reply | Flag:

Nice reply... How dare I expect the President to prove his asinine statement about saving jobs.

Keep your juvenile comments to yourself please unless you plan to actually include facts.

#12 | Posted by Dont_TreadonMe at 2009-11-02 10:28 AM | Reply | Flag:

"Some Republican lawmakers critical of President Barack Obama's stimulus package are using grade-school arithmetic to size up costs and consequences of all that spending."

Nice try Mr. Obama, but you are so busted!
#9 | Posted by Eddie | Flag: Appropriate Grade-School Response

#13 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis at 2009-11-02 10:40 AM | Reply | Flag:

Just to see how tethered you are to reality, what do you think the unemployment rate would be if there had been no stimulus spending? - Danforth

Really trying to understand your point...

If you take the administrations word on it, and they C&S 640,329 job, and there are currently 15.9 million unemployed or 9.8percent, I would say it hasn't done much (0.2%) in otherwords we would be at 10.1%. Also most of the jobs claimed to have been created or saved (320K) have been in education, hardly a job multiplier, and it is only $160 billion, in a 12 Trillion dollar economy.

Right now looking at the economy, the way the stimulus jobs are paid for, and the type of jobs that the stimilus has focused on, I am doubtful it will have much effect on the economy. But I will remain open, and hopeful to its positive effects when they occur. Keep us posted.

But when the economy does improve, and it will, you carry a large burden of proof, to say the stimulus was the reason, especially when its being spent in such a slow tedious fashion. 800Billion over 3-5 years VS 36-60Trillion over those same years, it is a bump on a log.

www.bls.gov

#14 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2009-11-02 10:43 AM | Reply | Flag:

'Nice reply... How dare I expect the President to prove his asinine statement about saving jobs.

Keep your juvenile comments to yourself please unless you plan to actually include facts.'

#12 | Posted by Dont_TreadonMe

What is MORE CHILDISH than posting comment BEFORE YOU EVEN TAKE THE TIME TO READ the article you are commenting on?

The article you are commenting on is an AP analysis of a GOP report on the data!!!

So _YES_ it is up to the GOP to explain WHY THEY LIED.

For real.

Not kidding at ALL!

ONCE AGAIN perhaps you should actually READ the article BEFORE you post?

Do ya THINK? ubetcha! wink wink

#15 | Posted by Monstman at 2009-11-02 10:53 AM | Reply | Flag:

ANDREAMACKRIS... well said. One thing to add... I agree that the economy will improve and probably is already turning that corner; however, given the amount of the so-called stimulus that's been spent, the President's plan has had nothing to do with it. As long as taxes are not raised, we'll stumble through just fine.

P.S. I will also include increasing the cost of business... via programs like cap and trade... and thus cost passed on to the consumer, as a tax.

#16 | Posted by Dont_TreadonMe at 2009-11-02 10:55 AM | Reply | Flag:

MONSTMAN... from the article:

"On Friday, the White House released estimates that $160 billion in stimulus spending created or preserved 650,000 direct jobs."

As you can see, I was commenting on the statement above WITHIN the article. Look... please take the time to think before typing and leave the adult conversation to the adults. And trust me... I'm not just saying this because I believe you're drinking the "liberal kook-aid" b/c there are some others on the right who are just a juvenile at times.

Thus ends our conversation. I truly hope you have a nice day.

#17 | Posted by Dont_TreadonMe at 2009-11-02 11:02 AM | Reply | Flag:

The ONUS in on the GOP to provide accurate info and they didn't.

It's like the NOPpers budget that came out with no numbers at all.

As they say in NOPperland-"We don't need no stinkin' facts, we gots Jesus".

#18 | Posted by northguy3 at 2009-11-02 11:20 AM | Reply | Flag:

"Why don't you explain how the unemployment rate got above 8% With the stimulus money."

Bush drove the ship of state off the cliff.

"Remember Dear Leader's promise....."

It was a foolish underestimation of how bad Bush fucked things up.

#19 | Posted by Danforth at 2009-11-02 11:21 AM | Reply | Flag:

"most of the jobs claimed to have been created or saved (320K) have been in education, hardly a job multiplier"

WTF? If anything is -- ultimately -- a job multiplier, it's education.

#20 | Posted by Danforth at 2009-11-02 11:23 AM | Reply | Flag:

"only $160 billion, in a 12 Trillion dollar economy."

So, are you saying they should be spending more?

#21 | Posted by Danforth at 2009-11-02 11:23 AM | Reply | Flag:

This is CLASSIC GOP fuzzy math - Obama has NO OBLIGATION to refute GOP nonsense.

The ONUS in on the GOP to provide accurate info and they didn't. And the AP CAUGHT them putting the political spin on the Math.

R E A D the article before you run the mouth.

#8 | Posted by Monstman
* * * *

Ummm, no. The onus is on the president to get his numbers right in the first place.

So do they give you kneepads or something?

#22 | Posted by rightisright at 2009-11-02 11:28 AM | Reply | Flag:

"Hey Obamabot...."

I'm a Mathbot, idiot.

The $24,000 claim regarding CfC was bullshit, too.

#23 | Posted by Danforth at 2009-11-02 11:29 AM | Reply | Flag:

"Why don't you explain how the unemployment rate got above 8% With the stimulus money."

Bush drove the ship of state off the cliff.

It was a foolish underestimation of how bad Bush fucked things up.
#19 | Posted by Danforth at 2009-11-02 11:21 AM
--------------

Try again:

In January, the incoming administration predicted in a white paper study that without a huge stimulus package, unemployment would reach just over 8%, and would be contained at under 8% with a stimulus package.

It would appear as though your Bush Derangement Syndrome is robbing you of rational thought.....
.

#24 | Posted by 2008ATL at 2009-11-02 11:34 AM | Reply | Flag:

"Try again:
In January, the incoming administration predicted in a white paper study that without a huge stimulus package, unemployment would reach just over 8%, and would be contained at under 8% with a stimulus package."

And they were wrong. The Bush Bust & Bailout caused much greater damage.

"It would appear as though your Bush Derangement Syndrome is robbing you of rational thought....."

And it would appear you're another of the morons who believes you're only responsible for driving off the cliff until you pass off the steering wheel. Bush inherited true surplus budgets, and surpluses as far as the eye could see. He left a record deficit, and deficits as far as the eye could see.

#25 | Posted by Danforth at 2009-11-02 11:38 AM | Reply | Flag:

"On Friday, the White House released estimates that $160 billion in stimulus spending created or preserved 650,000 direct jobs."
"First, the naysayers' calculations ignore the value of the work produced."

Naysayers are being misleading? What does "Created or Preserved" mean then? The "ed" suffixing those two words is past-tense. There is no indication of future projections in that statement. Plus, "preserved" is essentially inert. Here again, this does not support the argument for the calculations negating future jobs to be created. If anything, highlights the cost of momentarily keeping unemployment percentage from further dropping those fractions of a percent.

"Second, critics are counting the total cost of contracts that will fuel work for months or years and dividing that by the number of jobs produced only to date."
"Any cost-per-job figure pays not just for the worker, but for material, supplies and that worker's output a portion of a road paved, patients treated in a health clinic, goods shipped from a factory floor, railroad tracks laid." .

So, what you're saying is that you're not saving direct jobs after all, but paying companies to stay in business and letting that money trickle-down to the employee? ...and the "libs" are okay w/ this? Interesting.
Also, if your fist point is to note the naysayer's calculation was not taking into account the value of what was being produced (another words, return profits), then how can you justify balancing in overhead costs in support of it being a "direct job"? Self-serving bias?

"The package approved by Congress is aimed at more than direct job creation, although employment was certainly central to its promotion and purpose."

Yet, this was all we heard about - direct job creation. See how arbitrary these words are in this argument alone? "Aimed" and "Central" two words used to put emphasis on where the bill's focus was. Essentially meaning the same thing, and untwisting the sentence we find it's basically saying, "Congress used the phrase direct job creation as leverage to promote their agenda."

#26 | Posted by R0B0T at 2009-11-02 11:40 AM | Reply | Flag:

"The onus is on the president to get his numbers right in the first place."

Correct. And they were way off predicting it would only go to 8%.

#27 | Posted by Danforth at 2009-11-02 11:42 AM | Reply | Flag:

"Plus, "preserved" is essentially inert."

Not when locales admit they would have otherwise had to lay off teachers, or firemen.

#28 | Posted by Danforth at 2009-11-02 11:43 AM | Reply | Flag:

"I believe that legislation of this enormous magnitude, that by necessity we are moving quickly -- we're not moving quickly because we're trying to jamb something down people's throats. We're moving quickly because we're told that if we don't move quickly, that the economy is going keep on getting worse, and we'll have another 2 or 3 or 4 million jobs loss this year."

PrezBo's just not that good with numbers.....
.

#29 | Posted by 2008ATL at 2009-11-02 11:51 AM | Reply | Flag:

Are you saying that the "stimulus" has had no effect on the economy? According to BushCo we would have collapsed completely without it.

As far as I can tell we did not completely collapse and the recession has been declared over. Though I personally cannot see how that is really possible without recovering the jobs that were lost (by the previous bus driver). I mean who cares (the bankers?)if the "recession" is declared over if the jobs don't ever come back?

#30 | Posted by donnerboy at 2009-11-02 11:57 AM | Reply | Flag:

"PrezBo's just not that good with numbers....."

But you supported the administration that said we wouldn't be in Iraq for "6 months", right?

#31 | Posted by Danforth at 2009-11-02 12:02 PM | Reply | Flag:

Doh! Wait! Not the G.O.P.! Not the party of "Selective Memory"!! Not the party of
"Controlled Amnesia"!! Surely not them!

Bah I'm outraged! I'm upset! Might start a
Teabag Sumpthin! I'm......out (yawn) raged!,
I'm up (zzzzzzzzz) set...

oh yeah, forgot, this is Republican Party we are
talking about...the same party that CONVENIENTLY
FORGOT 30 YEARS OF DEFICITS UNDER THEIR LEADERSHIP.

the same party which CONVENIENTLY FORGOT RECORD
SPENDING, RECORD TRADE DEFICITS, and RECORD SHIPPING OUT OF HIGH PAYING JOBS TO FORIEGN COUNTRIES.

the same party which CONVENIENTLY FORGOT 30 YRS OF
TRICKLE UP ECONOMICS and the BOMBING of the U.S.
Banking Sector under G.Dumbya...

umm....yeah....THAT REPUBLICAN PARTY...

Reality Check in order here....LEST WE FORGET...

www.calaborlaw.com

don't let them fool you again people...

#32 | Posted by earthmuse at 2009-11-02 02:20 PM | Reply | Flag:

But you supported the administration that said we wouldn't be in Iraq for "6 months", right?

#31 | Posted by Danforth at 2009-11-02 12:02 PM
-------------------

Yawns.....

Another unhinged Bush hater....how quaint

Whatever Bush did or didn't do simply doesn't matter.....BHO is responsible for everything he does, he did run for the opportunity remember...

I hope you don't think you're going to win any arguments by playing 'Well he did it too'
.

#33 | Posted by 2008ATL at 2009-11-02 02:33 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Whatever Bush did or didn't do simply doesn't matter"

So much for that "Fifty Years to Judge" repeat!

#34 | Posted by Redneckville at 2009-11-02 02:44 PM | Reply | Flag:

"GNOP Math 'Suspect'"?

Who do you think BUYS all those broken calculators vermin manu-fRactures?

#35 | Posted by frankf55 at 2009-11-02 03:04 PM | Reply | Flag:

I think it is only fair to say you can't blame the republicans. Has anyone ever met one that has better then a grade school education in math?

Please pray for them for they know not what they do.

#36 | Posted by RingMaster at 2009-11-02 03:42 PM | Reply | Flag:

Has anyone ever met one that has better then a grade school education in math?

Yes. Many. It's a shame you don't look beyond your blinders. There's a whole other world out there you are missing.

#37 | Posted by goatman at 2009-11-02 03:46 PM | Reply | Flag:

But you supported the administration that said we wouldn't be in Iraq for "6 months", right?
#31 | Posted by Danforth

Are you blindly in support of every policy your little club promotes? Based on your comment in assuming 2008ALT does just that, one might equally assume the same for you (you know, "we are like that which we hate" psychology kinda' thing). If so, it must be stressful managing all the contradictions those that represent your voice have within your own party let alone what some republicans think. A former president's actions should never justify the decisions made by today's. What are your thoughts on the Patriot Act? What do you think about OB expanding on it?

#38 | Posted by R0B0T at 2009-11-02 04:08 PM | Reply | Flag:

Once again the O-bots will give the allmighty a pass on HIS fuzzy numbers and point across the aisle.

Will someone please clarify and quantify the "Saved or Created" bullshit flowing from the left? Also, please attempt to explain the 8% unemployment estimate post-stimulus vs. the 10% we currently enjoy.

B.S. smells the same regardless of the party of origin.

Please continue...

#39 | Posted by Ari at 2009-11-02 04:34 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Are you blindly in support of every policy your little club promotes? "

I'm an Independent.

And if you noticed, I've blamed the Obama administration more than once, on this very thread, of underestimating the coming unemployment.

"What are your thoughts on the Patriot Act?

Not a fan.

"What do you think about OB expanding on it?"

Like most things this administration has done, I don't like it.

#40 | Posted by Danforth at 2009-11-02 04:40 PM | Reply | Flag:

Well the numbers the zero released ARE highly questionable, as admitted by C Romer. (BTW how many of these jobs were gov jobs?)

ALL of the numbers the WH quotes are bunk. Just by calling up companies and asking them how many were saved or created is BS. It begs for a distorted answer. Want more money, better give a good answer!

Oh and all those jobs are gross not net. The number is as bogus as they get! Wanna know the net number, use the one used for decades as released by the labor department!

The president himself has promised to create five million green jobs by spending $150 billion over ten years. The Center for American Progress suggested that federal outlays of $100 billion over a two-year period would create 2 million green jobs. The Apollo Alliance said $500 billion would be necessary to create 5 million green jobs. (Asked by the Wall Street Journal to explain the vast discrepancy between President Obama's expensive jobs figure with the Apollo Alliance's three-times-more expensive figure, an official with the organization replied, "Honestly, it's just to inspire people.")

#41 | Posted by DavetheWave at 2009-11-02 05:05 PM | Reply | Flag:

"There were few signs in the new data," writes the Washington Post's Neil Irwin, "that the private sector will be able to sustain that growth once the government pulls back." Or as Peggy Noonan writes in the Wall Street Journal, "No one has any faith in these numbers.

#42 | Posted by DavetheWave at 2009-11-02 05:09 PM | Reply | Flag:

When the government reports this figure, it wants us to believe that the new hires came from the pool of the unemployed and that they are net additions to the stock of employed workers. But the data do not speak to the number of workers who left their current jobs to fill government-sponsored jobs.

If the vacancies that are created as these workers move from their old firms to government-sponsored projects go unfilled, then these job-to-job transitions are negatives that must be subtracted from the positives. And in an economy that is growing on the basis of productivity improvements rather than more workers employed, firms may wait to fill vacated jobs.

#43 | Posted by DavetheWave at 2009-11-02 05:17 PM | Reply | Flag:

The premise of job "creation" is flawed to begin with.

ANY net addition to GOVERNMENT errr... "work" force is a LOSS to the taxpayer. ALWAYS! This is the most costly, overly-bloated, inefficient waste of MY hard-earned money imaginable on the planet!!

It is difficult to even contemplate what an utterly colossal waste of tax money it represents. The employment rolls should be slashed by at least 50%. Probably more. So please, please, PLEASE you liberals - don't dare make the argument that Obama has created jobs... when most of them are simply more handouts from the total hackers in Washington!

#44 | Posted by dockj at 2009-11-02 08:11 PM | Reply | Flag:

"How can he say that the stimulus created or saved 650,000 jobs when we continue to lose hundreds of thousands of jobs in each report?"

Just to see how tethered you are to reality, what do you think the unemployment rate would be if there had been no stimulus spending?

#6 | Posted by Danforth at 2009-11-02 10:18 AM

~~~~~

Hey Obamabot....

Why don't you explain how the unemployment rate got above 8% With the stimulus money.

Remember Dear Leader's promise.....
.

#10 | Posted by 2008ATL at 2009-11-02 10:25 AM

~~~~~

Bush drove the ship of state off the cliff.

"Remember Dear Leader's promise....."

It was a foolish underestimation of how bad Bush fucked things up.

#19 | Posted by Danforth at 2009-11-02 11:21 AM

LOL!

When in doubt blame Bush!

At least you admit Obama has been foolish.

LOL!

Bush is no longer president. Barry is. The sooner you and Barry realize that the better.

The $800 billion Stimulus, the $410 Billion Omnibus Bill with it's 9000 earmarks were signed my Obama.

Heck, Barry voted for TARP I and asked Bush to release TARP II before he took office.

Just who is not tethered to reality?

#45 | Posted by Mato at 2009-11-02 10:24 PM | Reply | Flag:

This one is easy, President Obama has said that he will create or save 3 million jobs. So if at the end of his term if we only have a 98% unemployment rate, and there are a total of 3 million people employeed, then the stimulas will be hailed as a huge success. After he leaves office he will get a nobel prize in math and be crowned king of the world because he stopped green house gasses in there track because no one will be able to pay there gas and electric bill and the use of fuel will come to a screatching halt.

#46 | Posted by stpasdf2000 at 2009-11-02 10:26 PM | Reply | Flag:

# 44 This one is easy, President Obama has said that he will create or save 3 million jobs. So if at the end of his term if we only have a 98% unemployment rate, and there are a total of 3 million people employeed, then the stimulas will be hailed as a huge success. After he leaves office he will get a nobel prize in math and be crowned king of the world because he stopped green house gasses in there track because no one will be able to pay there gas and electric bill and the use of fuel will come to a screatching halt.

#47 | Posted by stpasdf2000 at 2009-11-02 10:28 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Just who is not tethered to reality?"

The guy who thinks you're only responsible for driving off the cliff until you pass off the wheel.

Tell us...which economy would you rather have inherited? The one Clinton left Dubya? Or the one Dubya left Obama? And how long do you actually think it takes to recover from a multi-trillion dollar economic meltdown?

#48 | Posted by Danforth at 2009-11-02 10:36 PM | Reply | Flag:

In my opinion, the dem congress took the wheel in 2007. But, when did the housing crisis turn into Bill Murray and the groundhog in Groundhog's Day?

#49 | Posted by phys_ill at 2009-11-02 10:57 PM | Reply | Flag:

"In my opinion, the dem congress took the wheel in 2007"

Really? Name one financial bill they wrote, and Bush signed.

#50 | Posted by Danforth at 2009-11-02 11:04 PM | Reply | Flag:

Name one financial bill they wrote, and Bush signed.

#50 | Posted by Danforth

Here it is:

#51 | Posted by Timex at 2009-11-02 11:08 PM | Reply | Flag:

Danforth

Bush wouldn't even sign SCHIPS for kids.

Perhaps the reason he wouldn't was it was paid for and wouldn't add to the natl. debt?

#52 | Posted by Timex at 2009-11-02 11:10 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Just who is not tethered to reality?"

The guy who thinks you're only responsible for driving off the cliff until you pass off the wheel.

#48 | Posted by Danforth at 2009-11-02 10:36 PM

How can you speak of being "tethered to reality" while looking in the rear view mirror?

#53 | Posted by Mato at 2009-11-02 11:18 PM | Reply | Flag:

"How can you speak of being "tethered to reality" while looking in the rear view mirror?"

Bush was given surpluses as far as the eye can see, and left his successor deficits as far as the eye can see.

What do you make of that? Obama's fault?

#54 | Posted by Danforth at 2009-11-02 11:21 PM | Reply | Flag:

I do not believe anything that comes out of obamanation's mouth, or the jackass party, they are liars from birth. Yes from the day they first drawed breath, obama has never proved he was born in the U.S. AND HAS PAID MILLIONS TO KEEP IT COVERED...

#55 | Posted by Dr_Feelgood at 2009-11-02 11:24 PM | Reply | Flag:

"How can you speak of being "tethered to reality" while looking in the rear view mirror?"

Bush was given surpluses as far as the eye can see, and left his successor deficits as far as the eye can see.

What do you make of that? Obama's fault?

#54 | Posted by Danforth at 2009-11-02 11:21 PM

God, your dumber than I thought. Those surpluses were "projections" not real surpluses.

They were not "as far as the eye can see" they were 2-300 billion which your man Barry blew before he even took the oath.

Reality is rough if you are willing to recognize it.

#56 | Posted by Mato at 2009-11-02 11:26 PM | Reply | Flag:

Really? Name one financial bill they wrote, and Bush signed.

'Twas their inability to reach across the aisle -- instead they put forth pork-filled projects hidden in bills that would have failed us. (See current stimulus in question)

#57 | Posted by phys_ill at 2009-11-02 11:38 PM | Reply | Flag:

"God, your dumber than I thought."

I'm sure the folks who offered me to skip 3rd grade, 8th grade, and 13th grade might disagree.

"Those surpluses were "projections" not real surpluses."

They were laid at Dubya's feet. You're tap dancing.

"They were not "as far as the eye can see" they were 2-300 billion"

If you're just going to lie, why should I bother?

#58 | Posted by Danforth at 2009-11-02 11:40 PM | Reply | Flag:

"'Twas their inability to reach across the aisle "

Riiiiiiiiiiiight. I'm sure Republicans setting the all-time record for filibusters in less than half the time had nothing to do with it.

#59 | Posted by Danforth at 2009-11-02 11:41 PM | Reply | Flag:

Yeah, your right Danforth.

You not dumber than I thought.

I completely underestimated how dumb you are.

#60 | Posted by Mato at 2009-11-02 11:51 PM | Reply | Flag:

"I completely underestimated how dumb you are."

Posts the liar.

And tell us, what bona fides do you bring to the table?

#61 | Posted by Danforth at 2009-11-02 11:55 PM | Reply | Flag:

Yeah, your (sic) right Danforth.

You (sic) not dumber than I thought.

I completely underestimated how dumb you are.

#60 | Posted by Mato

What a beautiful self retort!

#62 | Posted by Timex at 2009-11-02 11:56 PM | Reply | Flag:

Both you and Timex have failed to prove your points.

You both fail to state how the stimulus numbers work.

Classic distraction from the left on non issues.

Both failed to state how Obama succeeded on the stimulus.

Both attacked the descender vs. defending the position.

Sucks to be in your positions.

#63 | Posted by Mato at 2009-11-03 12:18 AM | Reply | Flag:

"You both fail to state how the stimulus numbers work."

WTF? When did that become the topic? This was all about the economy Obama inherited, and whether our current situation is his fault, or the fault of the guy who drove the ship of state off the cliff.

"Both attacked the descender "

Again, WTF?

"Sucks to be in your positions."

No, it doesn't. Although I imagine it would suck to have to try to defend the economy Dubya left in his wake.

#64 | Posted by Danforth at 2009-11-03 12:23 AM | Reply | Flag:

"Sucks to be in your positions."

Not really. Being able to form cogent sentences with properly spelled words is essential when calling someone else 'dumb'. Give it a whirl sometime.

We won't know the full effects of the Stimulus money for a couple years. You know that, but it doesn't fit your meme.

#65 | Posted by Timex at 2009-11-03 12:29 AM | Reply | Flag:

I like how the self obsessed dr left can ignore factual posts such as mine....and spin off into their hate GW diatribes

What's the matter, facts get in the way of your hatred????/

#66 | Posted by DavetheWave at 2009-11-03 06:21 AM | Reply | Flag:

What's the matter, facts get in the way of your hatred????/
#66 | Posted by DavetheWave

Congrats on getting such a succinctly stated, almost perfectly crafted boomeranging retort rocket off the launching pad so early in the day.

#67 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis at 2009-11-03 06:35 AM | Reply | Flag:

The bigger question isn't who did what it is when will the media stop trying to spin both sides of the equation and just report the damn facts.

The toast is burning and yet all you guy's here can do is watch it burn.

WTFUA! The Copenhagen treaty is right around the corner.

#68 | Posted by oulosturmind at 2009-11-03 08:32 AM | Reply | Flag:

Well Nancy,Harry and Obama are using the same accounting methods Enron used to deceive everyone

#69 | Posted by bph320 at 2009-11-03 08:34 AM | Reply | Flag:

Oh no, Amy. Not this time. Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice I won't get fooled again! YEEEEEEAAAAAAAWWWW!

Take that "Bev"...

Nobody google amy's picture, it's a trap!

#70 | Posted by 101Chairborne at 2009-11-03 12:31 PM | Reply | Flag:

It's a shame you don't look beyond your blinders. There's a whole other world out there you are missing.

Too bad pubbies can't do math beyond counting money and adding debt.

Statistical analysis, compound interest and data correlation is as overly complex to them as climatology is to Rush Limbaugh.

#71 | Posted by RingMaster at 2009-11-03 03:23 PM | Reply | Flag:

Statistical analysis, compound interest and data correlation is as overly complex to them ...

Then why do they use these very concepts to prove that spending your way out of debt will only devalue the dollar and make things worse in the long run, but the democrats don't see it?

#72 | Posted by goatman at 2009-11-03 03:29 PM | Reply | Flag: