PDA

View Full Version : Boortz nails Obama



eg8r
12-13-2011, 10:16 AM
OK, so the lefties here refuse to accept reality that the Obama stimulus didn't really stimulate anything. They want to blame failure on everyone else so let's just take a look at a bit of stimulus spending...<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">•$200,000 to teach Siberian lawmakers how to engage Russian policy makers is Moscow. Yeah .. this really stimulated the American economy.
•The U.S. Forest service replaced windows in a visitor’s center that had been closed for years.
•The University of North Carolina received $762,000 to create a YouTube dance application.
•The California Academy of Sciences got $2,000,000 to send people to the Indian Ocean to photograph ants. “Everyone has run into ants … now we need to listen to them.” Yup … they said that.
•A Georgia Tech assistant music professor got $760,000 so he could jam with “world renowned musicians” to “create satisfying works of art.”
•About a half-million dollars to give smartphones to people trying to quit smoking so they could “contact their quitting support groups by text message or phone calls to prevent relapses.”
•Buses in Winter Haven, Florida that average two riders per hour got $2.4 million so that the two riders per hour would have brand new busses to ride on.
•$712,000 spent on a project by researchers at Northwestern University to develop “machine-generated humor.”
•Almost $300,000 to study how Yoga might reduce menopausal hot flashes.
•$500,000 to put microchips in recycling bins to check up on the recycling efforts of senior citizens.
•$250,000 for bug storage for an insect museum at North Carolina State University that gets 44 visitors a year. That’s less than one visitor per week for those of you who went to government schools.
•$174,000 to study whether retirement hurts or helps marriages.</div></div>Now I already know that sofla will defend every single one of these saying each individually is nothing but a drop in the bucket compared to the whole $800B or so that was spent but hear me out...Let's just look at these "small" sums of money (when compared to the whole). Do you consider the way that money was spent better than an alternative like maybe pumping that money into the school system to give teachers raises, hire more teachers, etc?

Seriously, $700k to build a humor machine? I understand the lefties need something like this to appear human but wouldn't $700k help the economy out a lot more if used in a way to get people back to work and self-sufficient rather than research on machine generated humor?

Is anyone right or left willing to admit that a large portion of this money was absolutely wasted by both Rep and Dem leaders? Instead of defending this garbage left and right and blaming the other party why isn't anyone just flat blaming "Government"?

eg8r

Soflasnapper
12-13-2011, 11:16 AM
1) As you haven't supplied a link, there is a doubt that Boortz has accurately characterized these expenditures. As a matter of fact, it is almost certain he has mischaracterized some, many, and/or most of them.

I can tell you for sure that there are no ants that can be photographed in the Indian Ocean, for instance. These lists are always put together in the most damning phrasing, and are often wholly misleading.

2) The right wing talking point that nothing got stimulated is among the most stupid of all time. You have to ignore not only the CBO's statement to the opposite point, but also mainstream blue chip economists employed in the private sector, such as Mark Zandi, McCain's economic advisor when he ran for president, etc.

If it wasn't the stimulus' effect on the economy, you have basically another Immaculate Conception story to tell, how the economy miraculously fixed itself from free-fall to positive real growth, for no reason at all, just because it felt like it or what? It's an absurd take that cannot be maintained with a straight face. Let's laugh at this idiocy together!

The graphs make it clear, as of the passage of the stimulus act, job losses began to lessen and losses turned to job gains, and the down 8% gdp 4Q08 went to up 3% or more in the 2Q09. Basically turned on a dime, for no economic or macroeconomic reason nameable, except for the stimulus.

We've now had 22 months straight of positive job growth in the private sector, 1.5 million new private sector jobs this year on top of 1.2 million new private sector jobs last year, and the auto industry just had its largest monthly volume of sales since the cash for clunkers sales bonanza.

eg8r
12-13-2011, 12:28 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">As you haven't supplied a link, there is a doubt that Boortz has accurately characterized these expenditures. As a matter of fact, it is almost certain he has mischaracterized some, many, and/or most of them.
</div></div>Go to his website. The page where this was copied from did not supply his source.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I can tell you for sure that there are no ants that can be photographed in the Indian Ocean, for instance. These lists are always put together in the most damning phrasing, and are often wholly misleading.
</div></div>You got caught in your own trap. This has nothing to do with whether there are ants or not. Why don't you want to address the subject? Do I need to spell it out for you?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">2) The right wing talking point that nothing got stimulated is among the most stupid of all time. You have to ignore not only the CBO's statement to the opposite point, but also mainstream blue chip economists employed in the private sector, such as Mark Zandi, McCain's economic advisor when he ran for president, etc.
</div></div>The fact that you think the stimulus actually stimulated anything is stupid and you have to absolutely ignore reality and the UE numbers. As Boortz mentioned, <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The stimulus plan was so absurd … did such a pitiful job of actually creating jobs … that the Obama administration had to go from “jobs created” to “jobs created or saved.” Now they’re at “jobs affected.” </div></div>I hate to change the subject but your pathetic defense by arguing strawmen is painfully sad to see.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">how the economy miraculously fixed itself from free-fall to positive real growth</div></div>Wow, now you are going to tell us the economy is "fixed". It is plain to see you had no desire whatsoever to discuss the topic.

Here was the link to his page...

eg8r http://www.boortz.com/weblogs/nealz-nuze/2011/dec/13/nailing-debbie-wasserman-schultz/

I chose to not talk about the ditzy Debbie part because she is a lost cause and about as dumb as a box of rocks.

eg8r

eg8r
12-13-2011, 02:09 PM
Since you were going to give no effort in checking on anything I did a quick search. I know nothing about the website or who pays for it, just the content on the one page I looked at from a simple google search...<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">6. Ants Talk. Taxpayers Listen (San Francisco, CA) – $1.9 million

The California Academy of Sciences is receiving nearly $2 million to send researchers to the Southwest Indian Ocean Islands and east Africa, to capture, photograph, and analyze thousands of exotic ants. The photographs of the ants – over 3,000 species’ worth, according to the grant proposal – will be posted on AntWeb, a website devoted to organizing and displaying pictures and information on the world’s thousands of ant species.

The project’s goals are, to the lay person, both laudable and arcane: In addition to “foster[ing]…a large pool of ant taxonomists,” it also strives to document “the vast majority of ant species known from [Africa].” “[Ants] give us back the most data on the environment than any other group. Their life cycle is shorter, they change very quickly,” says the project’s Principal Investigator in a promotional article on the Academy’s website. “Everyone has run into ants . . . now we need to listen to them.”
</div></div> Monkeys and Ants (http://www.redstate.com/brian_d/2010/08/04/obama-stimulus-money-to-study-ants/)

Here is the Government website (http://www.recovery.gov/Transparency/RecipientReportedData/pages/RecipientProjectSummary508.aspx?AwardIdSur=8352&AwardType=Grants) talking about stimulus money spent on cocaine monkeys.

Here is the Government website (http://www.recovery.gov/Transparency/RecipientReportedData/Pages/RecipientProjectSummary508.aspx?AwardIDSUR=19493&qtr=2009Q3) talking about stimulus money spent on ants in the indian ocean.

Continue being lazy, it seems to be the track you have decided to head lately.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Total Award Amount $276,489 </div></div>This is quite a bit less than the $2M that Boortz mentioned but he does not give any reference as to what else he might be lumping into that number. However, let's use the $276,000...Wouldn't that have better helped the economy if we used it to help get people back to work? Used it to fix infrastructure? I think it would be better than the 0 jobs the ant study has created.

Here is another exmaple of economic non-recovery by Obama money...<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The latest example of how this works to fund the Obama campaign but not help the economy is the Fisker electric car fiasco.

On Oct. 27, 2009, V.P. Biden stood in a closed GM plant in Wilmington Delaware to announce a $529 million loan guarantee to Fisker Automotive to build an electric car there. Biden proclaimed that this "bet on the future" would result in thousands of American jobs.

To date, 100 design and engineering jobs have been created in the U.S. But Fisker has now announced that the car will be built in Finland by 400 Finns.

Henrik Fisker said that he could not find a plant capable of building his electric car in the U.S. Funny, he didn't know that before he took our money and before he had Biden in the old GM plant promising "thousands" of American jobs.

Fisker's private backers include Al Gore.

This is the Obama recovery. His donors get the jobs, you get the bill. Oh, and Obama gets millions in campaign cash to tell American voters that he made all the right decisions and we ought to be more patient. Recovery for donors is immediate. It will take a while longer for the rest of us.
</div></div> http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=359421 I bet the Finns are tickled to death with this wonderful job creating money.

After more searching it appears that Boortz got the $2 million figure from a McCain report and I was unable to dig any deeper with such a quick 5 minute search. Again, though, $200k+ could have been spent much better than looking at ants.

eg8r

Soflasnapper
12-13-2011, 02:39 PM
Who now writes your material? You must be over-training or something, because you have been displaying a relatively new insult styling I more associate with the Dubster. Consider getting more rest, or whatever your problem may be (and has been the last couple of months).

That Boortz is unserious as a source of discussion is indicated by his trashing of DWS, who is not a ditz, whatever differences he may have with her spin.

I say again that his listing of wasteful spending projects is wholly unreliable on its face, first, coming from him as it does, and secondly, without any linking to evidence to show what he's talking about. However, any spending of this amount will OF COURSE contain ill-advised projects or outright wastes of money-- it is impossible that it wouldn't happen.

Just as in the various energy project loan guarantees-- it was budgeted in that 2% or so of these would go bad (a reasonable figure for large scale projects, in my view), and even with the Solyndra loan default, they are still below the budgeted losses.

As for the stimulus working or not, look up the charts for job growth (or loss), and gdp growth (or contraction).

How is it that the job losses stopped growing to more and more monthly losses, immediately going to lowered monthly losses, and soon returning to monthly job gains, just as the stimulus was passed?

How is it that the gdp stopped free-falling, in as severe a contraction as has ever been seen in this economy, to suddenly turn to positive growth, immediately after the stimulus was passed?

If these are not blatant coincidences, caused by something you cannot begin to point out, they are the net result of the stimulus, as must be admitted unless you are refusing to admit the plain truth. Which do you claim is true?

Soflasnapper
12-13-2011, 02:58 PM
$8 billion dollars is 8,000 million dollars.

1% of $800 billion dollars is $8 billion dollars.

That is not only an acceptable loss rate in nearly any situation, it is probably impossible to do better than that, in such a large scale expenditure program.

You may have perhaps really shown completely foolish and unmitigated wasteful spending of some $200,000, or even $2 million dollars. Benefit of the doubt, and all.

Now, show me 4,000 similarly sized examples, and then we'd barely be hitting the allowable waste and loss figure of 1%.

To get you started, show me just ONE similarly sized set of (alleged) boondoggle expenditures, and then you'd only have to produce 2,000 more situations comparable to the now-doubled up collection.

Here's betting you cannot do the single size task, let alone come up with 2k to 4k x as many, to barely get to the allowable 1% waste figure.

So what are you talking about exactly?

eg8r
12-13-2011, 03:05 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">That is not only an acceptable loss rate in nearly any situation, it is probably impossible to do better than that, in such a large scale expenditure program.
</div></div>LOL, you just flat out don't want to talk about the subject.

eg8r

eg8r
12-13-2011, 03:08 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Who now writes your material? You must be over-training or something, because you have been displaying a relatively new insult styling I more associate with the Dubster. Consider getting more rest, or whatever your problem may be (and has been the last couple of months).
</div></div>Kind of like you turning into gayle?

Now you are going to attack the source instead of the material, how adult of you. How far did that ever get you?

I was quite clear in my post that I recognized that the sample size I was looking at was quite small in the grand scheme of things which is exactly why I chose t mention it and cut you off at the knees before you tried your weak attempt to discredit it due to the size. If you don't want to talk about the subject then at least man up and say it. Acting like gayle certainly is not a positive step in the right direction.

If I remember our budget cut discussions I was constantly harping on making big cuts to the top 3 (can't include interest) budget killers and you said that was not possible and we should be looking at the smaller items. I now bring up a subject that shows examples of smaller items to help and you attempt to discredit them as "acceptable loss". You are trying your hardest to avoid discussing the subject and it is a poor imitation of gayle.

eg8r

Soflasnapper
12-13-2011, 05:09 PM
The subject appears to be that Boortz is claiming to show the entire stimulus was stupid and non-productive, by showing that something like .00000001% of it was stupid and non-productive.

Even assuming those things WERE stupid and non-productive. Which is probably not the case for all of them. Many extremely stupid sounding things turn out to be important and worthwhile once they are explained beyond a caricatured headline.

So Boortz has nothing but a couple hundred grand in waste? (Or $2 million, whatever?) Shockingly small potatoes, and it doesn't scale up.

And of course that isn't the whole of what I've said, because I've several times mentioned why the stimulus must be considered to have done some very large and impressive things in the economy.

If down 8%+ to up 3%+ on the whole gdp isn't about the hardest thing imaginable to accomplish, I don't know anything harder to do than that, at least. Turn the ENTIRE ECONOMY around by 11% in a few months?

Or consider employment. Losing 750,000 jobs a month, to now having gained over 2.5 million jobs in the private sector.

To what do you attribute these changed numbers, considering the stimulus was enacted, and then all these numbers began to change in this way? Yes, we know that correlation is not necessarily causation, but if not the stimulus, then WHAT WAS IT, according to you?

Qtec
12-13-2011, 07:11 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Release: Appropriations Bill Restores Funding for Abstinence Education



Congressman Denny Rehberg (R-MT), chairman of the House Labor, Health and Human Services and Education Appropriation Subcommittee, released the Draft Fiscal Year 2012 Labor, Health and Human Services Funding Bill today that includes a funding provision for Abstinence Education. The bill would provide $20 million dollars for competitive grants for abstinence programming by public or private entities.

</div></div>

20 M to tell people not to have sex! What a waste.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The Abstinence Education Program began in 1997, having been authorised as part of the Welfare Reform Act 1966. In 2004 the US Congress allocated more than $131 million to "abstinence" initiatives that teach middle school and high school youngsters that sexual abstinence until marriage is the best choice.

Projects that teach abstinence as the only appropriate way to approach pre-marital sex are criticised by some as leaving students less able to prevent pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases than if they had been taught all the options available to them in their sexual lives.

The dark side of abstinence
The effectiveness of Abstinence Education was put in doubt by a report published in April 2005 in the Journal of Adolescent Health, which showed that some of those who pledged abstinence indulged in other sorts of risky sexual activity instead.

Researchers from Yale and Columbia Universities studied 12,000 adolescents and found that teens pledging virginity until marriage were more likely to have oral and anal sex than other teens who didn't have intercourse. Such behaviour increased the risk of sexually transmitted diseases.

Among virgins, boys who pledged abstinence were four times more likely to have had anal sex, according to the study.

Teenagers who pledged abstinence were six times more likely to have oral sex than teens that abstained from intercourse without a pledge.

Teens who pledged abstinence were also less likely to use condoms during their first sexual experience or get tested for STDs.

</div></div>

Q

eg8r
12-13-2011, 07:59 PM
Was that part of the stimulus bill? I did not remember reading about it.

eg8r

eg8r
12-13-2011, 08:01 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The subject appears to be that Boortz is claiming </div></div>I guess I do have to spell it out for you...<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Now I already know that sofla will defend every single one of these saying each individually is nothing but a drop in the bucket compared to the whole $800B or so that was spent but hear me out...Let's just look at these "small" sums of money (when compared to the whole). Do you consider the way that money was spent better than an alternative like maybe pumping that money into the school system to give teachers raises, hire more teachers, etc?
</div></div>

eg8r

Soflasnapper
12-14-2011, 10:52 AM
Do you consider the way that money was spent better than an alternative like maybe pumping that money into the school system to give teachers raises, hire more teachers, etc?

To your entire lack of notice, evidently, about 1/3rd of the $780 billion went to exactly those purposes.

Which is why then-Gov. Charlie Crist embraced President Obama when he made a trip down here, explaining that it was the President's stimulus spending that was keeping 65,000 Florida school teachers, firemen, etc., working instead of being layed off or just fired.

So then Crist ruined his political career, and all righties swore an oath to forget this large part of the stimulus, so as to pretend they had no idea what was meant by 'saving millions of jobs.'

To more thoroughly recap, only about 1/3rd of the stimulus program went into spending for new projects and creating new jobs. About another 1/3rd went into money for the states to save their budgets and save the jobs of state employees (a key way Rick Perry balanced his budget in Texas, for example, without laying off a bunch of state employees). And about 1/3rd went into tax cuts for individuals.

Qtec
12-14-2011, 11:39 AM
<a href="http://www.recovery.gov/Transparency/fundingoverview/Pages/fundingbreakdown.aspx#ContractsGrantsLoans" target="_blank">Total Funds Allocated:
$840 Billion</a>

Its all there for anyone who can be bothered to check it out. eg8r would rather believe Boortz.

Q

eg8r
12-14-2011, 11:55 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">To your entire lack of notice, evidently, about 1/3rd of the $780 billion went to exactly those purposes.
</div></div>I guess you just don't want to discuss the subject of the thread.

eg8r

eg8r
12-14-2011, 11:56 AM
What a schmuck. I actually posted that I thought he was incorrect by giving the real numbers from recoverg.org. Are you really this stupid in all facets of your life or just when you open your mouth?

eg8r

Qtec
12-14-2011, 12:12 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">What a schmuck. I actually posted that I thought he was incorrect by giving the real numbers from recoverg.org. Are you really this stupid in all facets of your life or just when you open your mouth?

eg8r </div></div>

Not talking about the numbers at all.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">YOU: Do you consider the way that money was spent better than an alternative like <span style='font-size: 14pt'>maybe pumping that money into the school system to give teachers raises, hire more teachers,</span> etc?

Soflasnapper: To your entire lack of notice, evidently, <span style='font-size: 14pt'>about 1/3rd of the $780 billion went to exactly those purposes.</span> </div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Q: 'Its all there for anyone who can be bothered to check it out.' </div></div>

Schmuck.

Q

Soflasnapper
12-14-2011, 12:35 PM
I do not agree with this proliferation of ethnic slurs, from people I assume are of the wrong ethnicity to have these as native terms, as it were.

But if that's the game, let's bring in some variety, and use the word putz as well!

That's for openers, I'm sure we can bring in others as well.

Or for greatest accuracy and neutrality, we may simply characterize them as [ethnic slur description of a man's or woman's genitalia].

eg8r
12-14-2011, 12:42 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I do not agree with this proliferation of ethnic slurs, from people I assume are of the wrong ethnicity to have these as native terms, as it were.
</div></div>Duly noted, but who really cares anyways. Now are going to address the subject?

eg8r

eg8r
12-14-2011, 12:43 PM
You quote an example of sofla ignoring the subject of my post. Sorry schmuck but I guess you really are that stupid. The subject of the post is very specific about which monies are being discussed.

eg8r

Soflasnapper
12-14-2011, 05:47 PM
I have tried to, putz. But even as the putz that you are, you cannot explain what the putz you are talking about.

Schmuck/putz. Lingham/yoni!

(See, this is not conducive to polite conversation)

eg8r
12-14-2011, 09:27 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I have tried to, putz. But even as the putz that you are, you cannot explain what the putz you are talking about.
</div></div>It is sad to see how quickly you go down. In one post you say you don't like it and the next post you are a pro. Quite pathetic. As far as I cannot explain, it is in black and white. I even pulled out the paragraph and you could not wrap that college mind of yours around it. Do you deteriorate this fast in all your endeavours?

What makes this worse is that I called you out before you even had a chance to post and all you did was prove me right every time you opened your mouth. I wanted to talk about specific spending and I even spelled them out. I even pointed out that Boortz was using incorrect figures and you still refused to cooperate.

eg8r

Qtec
12-15-2011, 06:51 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> I do not agree with this proliferation of ethnic slurs,</div></div>

I must say, I did not know that schmuck is an ethnic slur. I thought it was Jewish for idiot.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Schmuck or shmuck in American English is a pejorative meaning an obnoxious, contemptible or detestable person, or one who is stupid or foolish. The word entered English from Yiddish, where it has similar pejorative meanings, but its original meaning in Yiddish is penis. Because of its vulgarity,[1] the word is euphemized as schmoe, which was the source of Al Capp's cartoon strip creature the shmoo.[2] Variants include schmo and shmo. </div></div>

Q

Qtec
12-15-2011, 06:52 AM
In my defence, eg8r started it!

Q..that cannot be denied.

eg8r
12-15-2011, 09:24 AM
Why do you feel the need to defend yourself? Conviction? Did daddy sofla threaten to put soap in your mouth for saying bad words? This isn't the first time you have done this so who do you blame all the other times? Is it ever your fault for anything?

Don't worry about it. sofla was kidding because he jumped in on the action himself.

eg8r

Qtec
12-15-2011, 10:24 AM
We are guilty because we followed YOUR lead.

YOU are the one who begins with the childish name calling.

My call is Qtec. You continually refer to me as Qtip, do you not? Is that not CHILDISH?

That might have been funny in kindergarten <span style='font-size: 17pt'>or as in your case, 'special school',</span> but this is an adult forum.

Try and shape up, you are getting to be embarrassing.

Q

eg8r
12-15-2011, 12:04 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">We are guilty because we followed YOUR lead.
</div></div>Then act like an adult and accept responsibility for not being able to control yourself. What a schmuck.

eg8r

Soflasnapper
12-15-2011, 06:09 PM
Lingam!

Soflasnapper
12-15-2011, 06:18 PM
Assuming you have any point stated or question asked that I have not addressed, please re-state it in a calm manner, step back from the keyboard, and no one will get hurt.

I don't see it, and wouldn't expect any sensible point from Boortz. He's a bomb thrower, and a bombastic one.

Just heard Hannity talking up a gathering of an odd assortment of folks, including Jeff Foxworthy, some others, and Boortz, for a charity night. Acknowledging Boortz as his 'old pal' or something, even Hannity said he will try to muzzle Boortz as usual, to keep the gathering family-friendly. This is what his friend says about him, sure, somewhat tongue in cheek, but still.

eg8r
12-16-2011, 07:29 AM
Boortz has been spot on correct for a long time.

eg8r

Soflasnapper
12-16-2011, 06:22 PM
And Hannity would mention muzzling him, on air, why then?

Is it because that although he's right, he's a jerk in how he expresses the truth? About half right there, IMO. More like a jerk who talks ignorant trash.

eg8r
12-17-2011, 02:58 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">And Hannity would mention muzzling him, on air, why then?

Is it because that although he's right, he's a jerk in how he expresses the truth?</div></div>Hannity will muzzle anyone just to hear himself speak. He talks over everyone. As far as whether he might want to muzzle Boortz it is probably because Boortz was going to say something that Hannity did not want to be said on his program.

eg8r

Soflasnapper
12-17-2011, 05:17 PM
Maybe that is true. Hannity loves the sound of his own voice, by my experiences listening to him.

So, back to Boortz nailing Obama. Was there something you asked I didn't answer, or some point you wanted to make again or more clearly?

The key of whether the stimulus worked is somewhat the question of what it was supposed to work to do. I'd say that taking an 8% gdp fall and turning it into a 3% gdp increase, and turning a 750k per month net loss of jobs into a 2.5 million net job increase, is approximately exactly what it was supposed to do, and therefore, did do.

If you think it was supposed to result in the greatest economy of all times, or strong economic growth numbers, or normal unemployment numbers, maybe some of those would have been possible if the recession had been ordinary, the typical business cycle recession. But since it was instead the far more rare economic meltdown recession/depression, none of that was in prospect for years to come, and this result was about the best that could be expected.

Meaning, to summarize, what should have been abundantly clear given who it is we're talking about in the first place, that Mr. Boortz has no earthly idea about what he's talking about. And why would we expect a talk show host to understand the first thing about economics? Does the man have secret training or job skill sets I should hear about before dismissing him as a typical know-nothing mouth-breathing ranter?

eg8r
12-18-2011, 07:50 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If you think it was supposed to result in...</div></div>A high of 8% UE?

Boortz is where I found the info so I gave him credit. I wanted to talk about those specific expenditures but you refused to do so.

eg8r

Soflasnapper
12-20-2011, 10:45 AM
The specifics of the expenditures are quite beside the point, and I dealt with the point.

However, as I said, many worthwhile things can be easily spun as nonsense wastes of money. Bobby Jindal had his example, when he complained about volcanic event prediction research money, just before such an event occurred affecting regional or world-wide aviation. His ridicule of this spending would have seemed correct except it so quickly came up as obviously important, within a week or so.

The cocaine monkey research is probably also valuable, assuming at least that we are interested in helping overcome human cocaine addiction. The glutamate brain cycle was the target of the research in that one, as it is thought to mirror and reflect the dopamine brain cycle, which is the key to much addiction.

Which is what I meant when I referred to a lot of this research being easily ridiculed by people who don't understand it. Is it worthwhile to understand cocaine addiction in people better, so as to help people get off that drug? Yes, in my view. Will this kind of research help? Probably or possibly. I leave it up to the researchers to know what is a good line of research or not.

I guess some people would prefer to leave it up to the small-minded, under-educated, political class, but I am certain that is a mistake.

eg8r
12-20-2011, 05:13 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The specifics of the expenditures are quite beside the point, and I dealt with the point.
</div></div>Actually they are not since that is what I wanted to talk about. Since you don't want to and want to continue to change the subject just man up and admit it.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The cocaine monkey research is probably also valuable, assuming at least that we are interested in helping overcome human cocaine addiction.</div></div>In a job creation bill? In an economy-saving bill? Maybe if we were not to our eyeballs in debt that is increasing faster than it ever has in the past. How many jobs were created from this money? I don't remember off the top of my head but I think the government said 0.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I guess some people would prefer to leave it up to the small-minded, under-educated, political class, but I am certain that is a mistake. </div></div>Nice jab but your are arguing a strawman. This is about stimulus and creating jobs NOT solving addictions. Again, 0 jobs created.

eg8r

Soflasnapper
12-20-2011, 05:40 PM
It has been remarked that if you want to create jobs, having people dig holes (maybe with backhoes and bulldozers), move the dirt over there, and then re-fill the holes, is creating jobs.

We could create more of them by making that makework be done by hand, with pickaxes and shovels and wheelbarrels, but that is a bit crazed and sadistic.

So others have noted that rather than simply do makework, we should instead use the money to get things done that are desirable in and of themselves, and not just makework. Personally, that makes more sense to me, although in extreme situations, makework can be acceptable, and a lot of what is thought to be makework, really isn't. The CCC hires went out and built infrastructure in the national parks, among other jobs, which had a utilitarian value beyond just the work.

And thinking just a bit about these things, the very most jobs could be had by buying the least material, paying everybody the lowest possible wage, doing things inefficiently, and maximizing (or minimizing) many other factors to pad up the labor required.

I would argue none of that makes great sense, even though it would be the way to maximize the numbers of jobs.

eg8r
12-20-2011, 09:44 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I would argue none of that makes great sense, even though it would be the way to maximize the numbers of jobs. </div></div>Great rant even though it has nothing to do with your last post. Basically, in a stimulus package meant to give the current economy a jump start spending money on cocaine addicted monkeys is a giant waste of money.

eg8r

Qtec
12-21-2011, 02:22 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I would argue none of that makes great sense, even though it would be the way to maximize the numbers of jobs. </div></div>Great rant even though it has nothing to do with your last post. Basically, in a stimulus package meant to give the current economy a jump start spending money on cocaine addicted monkeys is a giant waste of money.

eg8r </div></div>

What rubbish. Such an experiment would employ many people.

Q

Q

eg8r
12-21-2011, 09:54 AM
Sorry but the government disagrees with you. Actually they have already stated that it resulted in 0 jobs. Why do you continue to open your mouth when you know nothing about what is being discussed.

eg8r