Where is rmiller?

F*ck if I know. I can only assume aliens kidnapped him some time back in 2007-08 and left this pod person in his place.

Posted by mightysamurai
2009-11-16 22:20:15

Where is rmiller?

Posted by rmiller
2009-11-16 17:08:59

A fair and considered worldview. One I'm generally skeptical of, but honest people can disagree. The problem is that the administration is using these bogus numbers. The news reports are about bogus claims from a system set up to reap bogus claims. Now, whether you choose to believe that this is tantamount to lying on Mr. Obama's part is something you have to sort out for yourself.

The fact is that this metric is nothing more than a farce disguising the fact that the effects of the stimulus are really nothing like what they were promised to be. Large parts of the stimulus are not channeling money to projects that would encourage economic activity, but to projects that satisfy the political demands of various constituencies. This was something that was pointed out by many of us at the time the stimulus was being proposed. We could have gotten a lot more economic stimulus with a lot smaller bill. Again, this was something pointed out at the time.

No one can know exactly what things would have been like without the "stimulus" package but we can know that it was predicted to be absolutely necessary or unemployment would go as high as 8%. Since we're 2% past that, I'd say that it failed.

And since the multi-trillion dollar deficit, not to mention the gross and likely permanent leftist spending schemes buried in it, have caused employers, companies, gold buyers, and currency speculators to all predict massive inflation in the near future... I'd call that loss-loss.

Time will tell, but I fear things are going to get much, much worse and soon.

I've known lying Presidents, and, mighty, Obama ain't lying.

Bullshit, bullshit, and bullshit.

He lied about not raising taxes. He lied about giving civilian trials to terrorists. He lied when he said the Spendulus had no pork in it. He lied when he said the Spendulus created or saved jobs. He lied about his association with Rev. Jeremiah Wright. He lied about not wanting single-payer healthcare. He lied about having "no ties" to ACORN. He lied when he said he pushed for subprime mortgage reform (in fact he helped block Republican reform attempts). He lied about ending Don't Ask Don't Tell. He lied about pulling troops out of Iraq. He lied about putting more troops into Afghanistan. He lied about whether illegal aliens would be covered under Obamacare. He lied about the true cost of Obamacare. He lied when he said he "invented" the Stimulus Package. He lied about opposing the Born Alive Act.

At this point I think it'd be easier to name the things he hasn't lied about in some way or another.

How do you know the stimulus is failing?

This is how I know:

http://michaelscomments.wordpress.com/2009/11/0...

What would our economy have looked like without a stimulous?

According to the Congressional Budget Office, we would have been better off doing nothing at all.

Educate me....where did taxes go up?

Raised taxes on cigarettes and alcohol which primarily targets the poor. Don't think that's a tax because you can choose to avoid the products? You can choose to avoid income, and avoid those taxes, too. He raised taxes on everyone - and the insurance takeover plan raises them even more. Pray it doesn't pass.

I believe that what is REALLY dragging down our economy now are:

1. Obama scaring the BeJesus out of people with his relentless Great Depression threats.

2. The threat of "Healthcare Reform" and its impact on people's disposable income.

3. The threat of "Cap and Trade" taxes and its impact on businesses.

4. The threat of permanent energy shortages in the not-to-distant future as a result of Obama's fantasies that "wind and solar" can possibly replace petroleum and coal and our primary power sources.

5. The threat that Obama's Incredible Deficits will destroy the dollar.

Other than that, everything about Obamanomics is just great.

What would our economy have looked like without a stimulous?

Posted by rmiller
2009-11-16 20:18:02

The deficit would be smaller. As unemployment continues to rise, all that stimulus money is a waste. Most people who participated in Cash for Union Votes are unaware that they will have to report the assistance on their taxes, so the refund injection into the economy won't happen as much this year.

Obamateur, making Jimmy Carter look like George Washington for 10 months. Did Nixon mention to plunging dollar? Thanks Barry.

How do you know the stimulus is failing? What would our economy have looked like without a stimulous?
Posted by rmiller
2009-11-16 20:18:02

Well, according to Obama... unemployment would be somewhere around (only) 8 percent.

Next question?

How do you know the stimulus is failing? What would our economy have looked like without a stimulous?
Posted by rmiller
2009-11-16 20:18:02



How do i know the stimulous is failing? THere havent been any economic indicators that say otherwise. In fact, they continue to spiral down. What would our economy look like without it? Probably better. THere would be hundreds of billions less debt, troubled businesses would be gone, and investors and owners accross the usa would be less scared of another obama back hand.

Oh, and Obama quite deliberately allowed Bush's tax cuts to "expire." I call that a tax increase.

Educate me....where did taxes go up?

Admittedly....I missed it....
Posted by rmiller
2009-11-16 20:15:09

Dude, admittedly Obama is too utterly detached from his own Healthcare proposals to actually make any specific proposals himself, but he wants to see passage of Pelosi's bill requiring THOUSANDS of DOLLARS worth of (constitutionally dubious) "Individual MANDATE" on individuals requiring them to buy health insurance. That's pretty much a TAX.

Have you forgotten George Stephanopolis reading the definition of a "tax" to Obama, straight from the dictionary?

Also, check the news today: all the news is that next year Obama will seek "revenue enhancements." I think he means, TAXES.

And what is CAP & TRADE, EXCEPT a the most titanic tax in the history of the United States?

Everyone knows that a trillion dollar deficits can't continue annually forever, as present projections show them. And no one expects Obama to do the right things, i.e., dismantle the Department of Education, the Department of Energy, and the Department of Veterans Affairs, and impose drastic entitlement cuts. So unless the man is psychotic, what do you THINK he intends to do, beyond the other things I listed?

Anyway, just for giggles, check out Charles Krauthammer mocking The One, calling him "the Baby Jesus" after Obama laughably called himself the "First Pacific President":


http://www.youtube.com/user/mushyduck

hahaha.....it’s all in the interpretation mighty, all in the interpretation.
That stimulous isnt failing, its just taking a long time to work.
Posted by tblrk2006
2009-11-16 19:34:37

hahaha, yourself. Bluster is not an arguement. How do you know the stimulus is failing? What would our economy have looked like without a stimulous?

Obama said he wouldn't raise taxes on the Middle Class by a solitary dime. Not one dime.
He lied. Just flat out lied.
Posted by CoolCzech
2009-11-16 20:00:33

Educate me....where did taxes go up?

Admittedly....I missed it....

I've known lying Presidents, and, mighty, Obama ain't lying.

Time for you to get a grip.
Posted by rmiller
2009-11-16 18:59:10


rmiller, please.

Obama said he wouldn't raise taxes on the Middle Class by a solitary dime. Not one dime.

He lied. Just flat out lied.

or the way you interprate the world,
Posted by rmiller
2009-11-16 18:59:10


hahaha.....it’s all in the interpretation mighty, all in the interpretation.

That stimulous isnt failing, its just taking a long time to work.

But I wonder if you would have the same passion if we had had a President McCain?

I didn't vote for him, and in no way would I defend him if he pushed this stimulus crap and lied about it. I can't stand the guy, but I'm pretty sure he'd have opposed the "stimulus" package and wouldn't have tried it, at least.

And Obama lies constantly. He lied about not taxing people. He lies about the jobs created. He lies about health care. You don't want to beleive he's lying but you know better - unless you've so insulated yourself from anything negative about the man and surrounded yourself with people who agree with you about him that you simply are not even aware of what's going on.

You're here, at least. That suggests you should know, if you've been paying attention. He's a politician. They lie. They all lie.

What's the difference? The difference is Obama is flat-out lying to cover the fact that his vaunted "Stimulus" failed to do what he claimed and has arguably made the problem worse. Is any of this getting through to you? Obama is LYING about the effects of his "Stimulus" package and you're here trying to pretend there's nothing wrong with that for some reason.
Posted by mightysamurai
2009-11-16 18:52:07

The last time I encountered a President flat out lying is Mr. Nixon....Mighty, you are flat out mistaken. President Obama may not agree with your idealogy, or the way you interprate the world, but you are totally wrong when you claim that Pres. Obama is lying.

I've known lying Presidents, and, mighty, Obama ain't lying.

Time for you to get a grip.

Others might take a moment to consider what we say.

Consider what? All you've done is spout gibberish in the vain hope that you'll stumble across an argument you can use to defend the Obama administration.

So my question is....what's the difference? The USA is faced with a very severe economic crisis.

See what I mean about incoherence and nonsensicality?

What's the difference? The difference is Obama is flat-out lying to cover the fact that his vaunted "Stimulus" failed to do what he claimed and has arguably made the problem worse. Is any of this getting through to you? Obama is LYING about the effects of his "Stimulus" package and you're here trying to pretend there's nothing wrong with that for some reason.

That's your interpretation of those who might deign to disagree with you.

You keep telling yourself that, Mr. Miller.

osted by mightysamurai
2009-11-16 18:13:40

That's your interpretation of those who might deign to disagree with you.

Others might take a moment to consider what we say.

The federal government spends more in every state than they take in. That's why we have a multi-trillion dollar debt and climbing.

The point of this post is simply that the Obama Administration's lines about creating and saving jobs is a lie; they haven't created any jobs and the jobs they've "saved" were only saved temporarily and in much smaller numbers than they claim.Posted by Christopher_Taylor
2009-11-16 18:03:58

I can agree with what you are saying...

But I wonder if you would have the same passion if we had had a President McCain?

I suspect you would.

So my question is....what's the difference? The USA is faced with a very severe economic crisis.

Would a President McCain have made a difference?

This seems unlike you.

Really? Because it seems very much like him to me. Just like D-Vega, Rmiller has been on a downward slide ever since the '08 campaign. But whereas D-Vega has simply become a shameless whore for the Obama administration, Rmiller has become increasingly incoherent and nonsensical (interspaced with brief periods of being a shameless whore for the Obama administration).

Your first map seems to show where jobs might be created. Then claim those jobs are bogus.

Your second link seems to point out where jobs might be created...

...What in the name of Almighty Cthulhu are you talking about?

Neither link says anything even approaching what you just said. Did you even read them at all?

The federal government spends more in every state than they take in. That's why we have a multi-trillion dollar debt and climbing.

The point of this post is simply that the Obama Administration's lines about creating and saving jobs is a lie; they haven't created any jobs and the jobs they've "saved" were only saved temporarily and in much smaller numbers than they claim.

That against over 10% unemployment means that this administration is failing in its most basic and desired task: to do something about the economy. Things are worse, much worse, than the Obama team said they'd be if the "stimulus" package had not passed.

President noob has failed, again.

Are you seriously trying to argue that this sort of dishonesty in the reporting of "jobs saved" is legitimate? That it isn't something that should embarass those making these claims?
Posted by Bill_Dalasio
2009-11-16 16:28:37

I'm not trying to argue 'jobs saved'.

No one, including this administration, should be arguing such a position.

I did argue that Missourians who are complaining about the largesse of the fed gov't might ought to think twice about the balance of federal tax dollars collected and spent in that state.

I doubt that our gov't can save jobs...only the American people can do that...

Mr. Dalasio...I will say to you, because I think you are a fair poster...

I do think that the free market has shown more vulnerability to manipulation than its advocates have wanted to admit, and I do think the gov't regulation of free markets is not the bain that those who advocate for free markets claim.

That does not mean that I want 'gov't control' of the markets. That's an oxymoron.

I just don't think the market solves all social conundrums, nor does the gov't.

It always seems to be a process of negotiation.

rmiller,

This seems unlike you. You've usually had a fairly healthy respect for honesty and integrity in what is being said. Are you seriously trying to argue that this sort of dishonesty in the reporting of "jobs saved" is legitimate? That it isn't something that should embarass those making these claims?

I realize that you supported Obama and probably have a little emotionally vested in his success. But, are you really going to let that investment blind you to BS?

This map is fantastic. My favorite so far? That the California State University saved 26,000 jobs because of the stimulus. That would be over half of the entire employment of the university, and they have admitted that they would not have laid off half of their staff if there had been no stimulus.

The gall of the socialists is so amazing. They would kill their own mothers if they thought it would lead one step closer to their Communist utopia.

Posted by rmiller
2009-11-16 15:30:30

"That would be true...except for the fact that the fed gov't spends money more in Missouri than it collects."

No, the Fed gov't wastes more money that it collects. In the case of the stimulus, the Administration misjudged the state of the economy and bungled the estimated effect of the stimulus on the nation's employment; they overstated the number of jobs that have been created as a result of the stimulus; and now we find out they are blatantly lying about what jobs were supposedly created, and they were so careless about those lies that they are easily discovered by bloggers.

"That does throw a crimp into the arguement."

Only in the Administration's arguments, and their blind supporters like you.

So now they're jobless AND broke, not just jobless.

Posted by Georgiana
2009-11-16 15:09:58

That would be true...except for the fact that the fed gov't spends money more in Missouri than it collects.

That does throw a crimp into the arguement.

Still...one has to wonder, why are the show-me staters complaining. Don't they know that they vote for less fed gov't interferrence in their lives?

Posted by rmiller
2009-11-16 14:45:43


"show-me staters" are complaining because, against their will, the fed gov't DID interfere, spending billions of their tax dollars on a stimulus that didn't deliver the promised jobs. So now they're jobless AND broke, not just jobless.

Funny how you seem to equate job creation with local politics. Your first map seems to show where jobs might be created. Then claim those jobs are bogus.

Your second link seems to point out where jobs might be created...

"But that is dubious, since the chart also lists the "00 Congressional District" and a few other oddly numbered ones, but not every State House District. And no "00" District exists for the State House."

I don't know too much about Missouri politics....but I do know about national politics...

Missouri may not have benefitted from ANY job creation from a stimuluous package.

Still...one has to wonder, why are the show-me staters complaining. Don't they know that they vote for less fed gov't interferrence in their lives?

Aren't they capable of overcoming federal neglect?

Oh yes....i heard a lengthy bit on the "jobs created or saved" numbers that team obama has used. Most of them are highly bogus.