|
Post by Mira on Feb 26, 2010 2:08:50 GMT -5
I am a fan of Senator Brown so far.
|
|
|
Post by big_electron on Feb 26, 2010 2:12:48 GMT -5
WTF is wrong with Ben Nelson? Republicans with their heads outside their asses, and one democrat with his head so far up his ass it's being digested.
Honestly, what do I tell the people back home in Nebraska? Which republican should they vote for?
EDIT: Could someone fill me in on the Cornhusker Kickback?
|
|
|
Post by Amaranth on Feb 26, 2010 3:10:38 GMT -5
Wow....GOP members who don't have their heads up their asses? Ironbite-who'd a thunk it? I'm kind of surprised. Especially Scott Brown, since he seems to be pissing off his fanbase.
|
|
|
Post by m52nickerson on Feb 26, 2010 7:30:30 GMT -5
EDIT: Could someone fill me in on the Cornhusker Kickback? This was the provision that Nelson got put into the Senate health care bill to secure his vote. It has the federal government paying for all of the increase funding to Medicare and Medicaid in the state of Nebraska.
|
|
|
Post by MaybeNever on Feb 26, 2010 11:07:41 GMT -5
Wow....GOP members who don't have their heads up their asses? Ironbite-who'd a thunk it? I'm kind of surprised. Especially Scott Brown, since he seems to be pissing off his fanbase. My theory is that Brown may be a double-agent.
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Feb 26, 2010 11:39:19 GMT -5
He's from a very blue state, he can't be too far right or he won't get elected again.
|
|
|
Post by Armand Tanzarian on Feb 26, 2010 12:00:00 GMT -5
He's from a very blue state, he can't be too far right or he won't get elected again. But that's the dilemma isn't it? Go right and you lose the state, go left and you lose the primary.
|
|
|
Post by Neutral Guy on Feb 26, 2010 14:04:03 GMT -5
Yeah, just like the last jobs bill from last year reduced unemployment *sarcasm*
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Feb 26, 2010 14:20:59 GMT -5
Actually, the stimulus did help. It's just a case where it didn't do enough, it should have been larger. Joseph Stiglitz, the Nobel laureate, was calling for a trillion. Romer had run simulations of the effects of stimulus packages of varying sizes: six hundred billion dollars, eight hundred billion dollars, and $1.2 trillion. The best estimate for the output gap was some two trillion dollars over 2009 and 2010. Because of the multiplier effect, filling that gap didn’t require two trillion dollars of government spending, but Romer’s analysis, deeply informed by her work on the Depression, suggested that the package should probably be more than $1.2 trillion
|
|
|
Post by Neutral Guy on Feb 26, 2010 14:24:22 GMT -5
sure, the "stimulus" helped out wall street. Which is why the stock market went up. I would be rich too if i was given many billions of dollars for free.
Unemployment rate still higher than before, which doesn't even take into consideration the people who stopped looking for work, or gave up looking for work. How much of that alleged improved unemployment rate factors in new government jobs vs private sector jobs?
Correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't that statistic sheet only describe the RATE of CHANGE of unemployment rather than the actual unemployment rate itself?
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Feb 26, 2010 14:39:05 GMT -5
Gotcha, slowing down the decline was pointless, better to let it continue to get worse, but faster! And why does it matter to the unemployed if it's work for the government or work for a company? It's still work. Also, nice job ignoring the GDP.
|
|
|
Post by Neutral Guy on Feb 26, 2010 14:50:26 GMT -5
This country has had serveral recessions before. Always came back.
In light of this, why waste the taxpayers money even further when the national debt at a record high (even before any stimuluses)?
Nice job of ignoring whether or not that rate of job decline was due to an increase of government jobs or not.
|
|
|
Post by ironbite on Feb 26, 2010 14:52:31 GMT -5
Nice job ignoring the month(?) jobs actually gained.
Ironbite-graphs are your friends there Fawkes
|
|
|
Post by Neutral Guy on Feb 26, 2010 14:54:07 GMT -5
that's not what the graph showed. It only showed a decline in the rate of losing jobs.
It does not describe the unemployment rate.
Kinda like how speed and acceleration are two different things.
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Feb 26, 2010 15:06:10 GMT -5
But before you can get positive velocity, you need to get acceleration. And one of the months did have positive job growth.
Also, Keynesian economics, NG, read up on it. The deficit means nothing in a recession. You don't worry about debt when you're trying to make ends meet. You worry about debt when you can actually save money. For somebody who claims to hate neoconservativism, you sure seem to be advocating for their economic policies. You know, the same policies that have been pushed and pushed and pushed up to and into the current recession, whereas it was Keynesian economics that allowed the US to prosper after the second world war.
|
|