Republicans' jobs legislation

[PeshakJang]

That would be evidence that their projections were wrong, not that their policy was wrong. You realize that, right?

That's what he was pointing out. They projected that their policies would keep unemployment below 8%, when in fact it caused it to rise above 10%.

It's amazing how you keep insisting we implement policy based on their projections, even with such a glaring example of how wrong they are... By your own admission.

 

[fskimospy]

So...

If I looked back at all the "forum lefties" back in 2010 responding to the GOP resurgence noting the trend that the opposing party of the President wins in the following election - I won't see your name amongst those commenting?

I know it was commented a lot. And so do you.

Wait, what? Either you didn't understand what I wrote or I don't understand what you're writing now.

My point in this thread is explicitly that the opposing party generally picks up seats in the midterm election. I don't think I made a single post saying that I believed it was likely that the GOP wouldn't pick up some seats in the 2010 election, but you're more than welcome to go search for one.

If before the 2010 election people were commenting that the party out of power was likely to pick up seats, they were saying the correct thing.

 

[fskimospy]

That's what he was pointing out. They projected that their policies would keep unemployment below 8%, when in fact it caused it to rise above 10%.

It's amazing how you keep insisting we implement policy based on their projections, even with such a glaring example of how wrong they are... By your own admission.

Where did I insist that we implement policy based on White House projections?

 

[CPA]

That would be evidence that their projections were wrong, not that their policy was wrong. You realize that, right?

So, based on your logic, they should redo the projection and roll out the same crappy policy.

 

[fskimospy]

So, based on your logic, they should redo the projection and roll out the same crappy policy.

Huh? This thread is getting filled up with baffling interpretations of simple statements pretty quickly.

I said nothing about policy preference in that statement, I merely pointed out the incontrovertible fact that a chart comparing projections to reality serves as evidence by which to measure the quality of the projection, not the quality of the policy.

Since you asked though, we should have engaged in a much larger stimulus overall. Probably close to double what we did. Additionally, we should have removed most of the tax cut provisions from it and replaced it with direct spending instead. So no, a different policy, but in the same direction.

 

[PeshakJang]

Huh? This thread is getting filled up with baffling interpretations of simple statements pretty quickly.

I said nothing about policy preference in that statement, I merely pointed out the incontrovertible fact that a chart comparing projections to reality serves as evidence by which to measure the quality of the projection, not the quality of the policy.

So when the Bush admin said Iraq would only cost a few billion... That was just a bad projection, not bad policy, right? Glad you finally came around.

 

[fskimospy]

So when the Bush admin said Iraq would only cost a few billion... That was just a bad projection, not bad policy, right? Glad you finally came around.

This is getting seriously stupid. Do you really need these things explained to you?

Policies can be good or bad.
Projections can be right or wrong.

The graph showed how the projections were wrong. It did not contain evidence to show that the policy was bad. Therefore, the graph can only be used to judge the quality of projections, not the quality of policy. In and of itself this does not mean that the policy must therefore be good, just that it is not providing evidence either way.

Hope this clears things up for you.

 

[PeshakJang]

This is getting seriously stupid. Do you really need these things explained to you?

Policies can be good or bad.
Projections can be right or wrong.

The graph showed how the projections were wrong. It did not contain evidence to show that the policy was bad. Therefore, the graph can only be used to judge the quality of projections, not the quality of policy. In and of itself this does not mean that the policy must therefore be good, just that it is not providing evidence either way.

Hope this clears things up for you.

The same exact reasoning you use to say that the projections were wrong can be used to say the policy was wrong. Your logic is so asinine it's ridiculous.

Nothing in that graph shows that the projections were wrong. Therefore, the graph can only be used to judge the quality of the policy. From only the information contained in the graph, you cannot infer that the projections were inaccurate. This is the same logic you are using.

From that chart, there is just as much evidence, if not more, to infer that the specific policy caused the massive increase beyond the projections, and that the projections were completely accurate. You have presented no reasoned argument as to why that is not the case... You're simply falling back on Obama's favorite talking point.. "it would have been worse", knowing full well that there is NO way to prove this.

 

[fskimospy]

The same exact reasoning you use to say that the projections were wrong can be used to say the policy was wrong. Your logic is so asinine it's ridiculous.

Nothing in that graph shows that the projections were wrong. Therefore, the graph can only be used to judge the quality of the policy. From only the information contained in the graph, you cannot infer that the projections were inaccurate. This is the same logic you are using.

From that chart, there is just as much evidence, if not more, to infer that the specific policy caused the massive increase beyond the projections, and that the projections were completely accurate. You have presented no reasoned argument as to why that is not the case... You're simply falling back on Obama's favorite talking point.. "it would have been worse", knowing full well that there is NO way to prove this.

This cannot be a serious post. If it is, you need to go back to school.

You just wrote 'nothing in that graph shows that the projections were wrong' when describing a graph showing that the projections were wrong.

lol.

 

[BoberFett]

This cannot be a serious post. If it is, you need to go back to school.

You just wrote 'nothing in that graph shows that the projections were wrong' when describing a graph showing that the projections were wrong.

lol.

Or the graph shows the policy was wrong.

 

[fskimospy]

Or the graph shows the policy was wrong.

How?

 

[BoberFett]

How?

It merely depends on which argument you choose to believe, and is likely a partisan interpretation. Democrats believe that the projection was wrong and that unemployment would have been even higher if the legislation was not enacted. Republicans believe that the legislation itself cause the increase in unemployment.

You can play "What if" all day, but it's impossible to determine true cause and effect in a system as complex as the US economy.

 

[fskimospy]

It merely depends on which argument you choose to believe, and is likely a partisan interpretation. Democrats believe that the projection was wrong and that unemployment would have been even higher if the legislation was not enacted. Republicans believe that the legislation itself cause the increase in unemployment.

You can play "What if" all day, but it's impossible to determine true cause and effect in a system as complex as the US economy.

You really can't. First, the projection was wrong no matter what you are trying to argue. That's a simple mathematical fact. The reason why it might be wrong can in some ways be debated, but the fact that it was wrong is indisputable. That's what the graph is showing.

A second argument would be about whether the stimulus worked or not. That chart does not measure such a thing however, it just shows the effects of the stimulus relative to what the admin claimed they would be. That really doesn't say anything concretely about the stimulus at all.

Finally, I am unaware of a single credible source that believes the stimulus caused an increase in unemployment over that period.

 

[Fern]

Republicans deserve credit for bills they passed IF there's a credible case they were good jobs bills. Just saying that about any arbitrary deregulation bill isn't any evidence.

Congress basically passes only two types of bills: Regulatory and spending (I won't bother much with fluff like naming buildings after people etc.)

Regulatory bills should not be dismissed. The fed govt uses regulation to control and influence such things as jobs. It's their fundamental and most powerful tool.

Here are 4 bills that passed by the House that had bipartisan support (didn't stop Reid from tabling them though). Even officials in the Obama admin approve of these as they are trying to implement them internally (e.g., the SEC) without Congressional action. As to the latter, I wonder if they agree they are good ideas/bills but would rather not let the Repubs get any credit as they would if legislation passed.

These were passed last year by the House:

1. Small Company Capital Formation Act
H.R. 1070 - Senate has taken no action to date

2. Small Banks' Access to Capital Act
H.R. 1965 - Senate has taken no action to date

3. Entrepreneur Access to Capital Act
H.R. 2930 - Senate has taken no action to date

4. Access to Capital for Job Creators Act
H.R. 2940 - Senate has taken no action to date

BTW: This information was given to Craig in the 4th post. Yet somehow every Progressive/Dem so far has ignored it or dismissed it without so much as a single thought.

I'm sure there are other good bills in that lengthy list. E.g., this house bill - Veterans Opportunity to Work Act - is now actually law.

Fern

 

[fskimospy]

Congress basically passes only two types of bills: Regulatory and spending (I won't bother much with fluff like naming buildings after people etc.)

Regulatory bills should not be dismissed. The fed govt uses regulation to control and influence such things as jobs. It's their fundamental and most powerful tool.

Here are 4 bills that passed by the House that had bipartisan support (didn't stop Reid from tabling them though). Even officials in the Obama admin approve of these as they are trying to implement them internally (e.g., the SEC) without Congressional action. As to the latter, I wonder if they agree they are good ideas/bills but would rather not let the Repubs get any credit as they would if legislation passed.

These were passed last year by the House:

1. Small Company Capital Formation Act
H.R. 1070 - Senate has taken no action to date

2. Small Banks' Access to Capital Act
H.R. 1965 - Senate has taken no action to date

3. Entrepreneur Access to Capital Act
H.R. 2930 - Senate has taken no action to date

4. Access to Capital for Job Creators Act
H.R. 2940 - Senate has taken no action to date

BTW: This information was given to Craig in the 4th post. Yet somehow every Progressive/Dem so far has ignored it or dismissed it without so much as a single thought.

I'm sure there are other good bills in that lengthy list. E.g., this house bill - Veterans Opportunity to Work Act - is now actually law.

Fern

Those bills were all passed in November of last year. I have no idea if the Senate will choose to take them up or not, but it is not at all surprising that they havent wound their way through yet either way.

I haven't researched them on the merits, but they seem like fairly small initiatives.

 

[Craig234]

Congress basically passes only two types of bills: Regulatory and spending (I won't bother much with fluff like naming buildings after people etc.)

Regulatory bills should not be dismissed. The fed govt uses regulation to control and influence such things as jobs. It's their fundamental and most powerful tool.

Here are 4 bills that passed by the House that had bipartisan support (didn't stop Reid from tabling them though). Even officials in the Obama admin approve of these as they are trying to implement them internally (e.g., the SEC) without Congressional action. As to the latter, I wonder if they agree they are good ideas/bills but would rather not let the Repubs get any credit as they would if legislation passed.

These were passed last year by the House:

1. Small Company Capital Formation Act
H.R. 1070 - Senate has taken no action to date

2. Small Banks' Access to Capital Act
H.R. 1965 - Senate has taken no action to date

3. Entrepreneur Access to Capital Act
H.R. 2930 - Senate has taken no action to date

4. Access to Capital for Job Creators Act
H.R. 2940 - Senate has taken no action to date

BTW: This information was given to Craig in the 4th post. Yet somehow every Progressive/Dem so far has ignored it or dismissed it without so much as a single thought.

I'm sure there are other good bills in that lengthy list. E.g., this house bill - Veterans Opportunity to Work Act - is now actually law.

Fern

As I have said repeatedly, and you have ignored, supply credible evidence about the jobs they will create. You haven't even provided the summary of the bill, much less that.

Did Republicans put poison pills they know Democrats are against in as well as some job provisions to claim credit for passing something they know won't get into law?

We don't know, since you have provided basically nothing. If YOU are asserting they are legitimate jobs bills, you supply the information - what they do, how much employment?

 

[BoberFett]

First, the projection was wrong no matter what you are trying to argue. That's a simple mathematical fact. The reason why it might be wrong can in some ways be debated, but the fact that it was wrong is indisputable. That's what the graph is showing.

Which says nothing of the policy. If your initial projections are grossly incorrect, you have no basis of comparison to determine if the policy was correct. You're assuming that the policy was correct and the project was what was wrong. You have no evidence of that beyond speculation that "it would have been worse."

Let's put this in terms maybe you'll understand. If this was a conservative think tank arguing that we should eliminate greenhouse gas regulation because their projection said it would reduce temperatures, would you agree that there was no problem with the policy and it was just an incorrect projection when temperatures actually rose?

 

[Fern]

As I have said repeatedly, and you have ignored, supply credible evidence about the jobs they will create. You haven't even provided the summary of the bill, much less that.

Did Republicans put poison pills they know Democrats are against in as well as some job provisions to claim credit for passing something they know won't get into law?

We don't know, since you have provided basically nothing. If YOU are asserting they are legitimate jobs bills, you supply the information - what they do, how much employment?

Hahaha.

You should've added a 'stampy foot' icon to that post.

And keey-rist you're lazy, use google. Close down the DailyKos in your browser and wander over to the site for CFO magazine and you'll find articles on these bills.

And just who is the arbiter of what "credible evidence" is? You? Bwhuhaha.

Fern

 

[fskimospy]

Which says nothing of the policy. If your initial projections are grossly incorrect, you have no basis of comparison to determine if the policy was correct. You're assuming that the policy was correct and the project was what was wrong. You have no evidence of that beyond speculation that "it would have been worse."

Let's put this in terms maybe you'll understand. If this was a conservative think tank arguing that we should eliminate greenhouse gas regulation because their projection said it would reduce temperatures, would you agree that there was no problem with the policy and it was just an incorrect projection when temperatures actually rose?

You just proved my entire point. Thanks!

We aren't arguing here as to whether or not the stimulus was a good idea, simply that the specific chart linked provides no information as to whether the policy was a good idea or not.

 

[Craig234]

Hahaha.

You should've added a 'stampy foot' icon to that post.

And keey-rist you're lazy, use google. Close down the DailyKos in your browser and wander over to the site for CFO magazine and you'll find articles on these bills.

And just who is the arbiter of what "credible evidence" is? You? Bwhuhaha.

Fern

How ironic - you are too lazy to provide the info for your claim, and not honest enough to admit that, you attack trying to deflect your laziness. You have not proved your point.

I have an idea - since you don't like my telling you an opinion of your post IF you ever did post the info, how about you not post in my thread? I know I'd feel the quality went up.

It's obviously too much to ask you to provide any substance for your assertion.

Now, fully expecting you to be as bad as you are, I did glance at the bills.

Impression: these are small regulatory adjustments to exclude some smaller transactions from SEC regulation. Job impact? Sounds like about nothing.

You could offer evidence to the contrary - except after being invited to repeatedly you have not done so and that's likely to not change. Just your posting a false claim as usual.

In fact, these are hardly 'Republican' initiatives at all - they all passed nearly unanimously by both parties; the first two on the list are sponsored by a *Democrat*.

But hey, if Republicans want to claim their big 'jobs agenda' was to vote for a small regulatory change introduced by a Democrat, I'd give them credit.

But you still need to justify how they're effective jobs bills.

You haven't. Now go pout somewhere else than posting more baseless crap in my thread.

 

[Fern]

Only one of the four bills I listed was from a Dem. But so what? The Repubs have control. If anything it shows they can work with Dems to pass their bills they approve of.

Impression: these are small regulatory adjustments to exclude some smaller transactions from SEC regulation. Job impact? Sounds like about nothing.

Not quite.

I've worked on public offering of stock for client companies. The rules are, and have been for time, too onerous and they prevent promising companies access to capital. These bills are all designed to correct that.

If they can't get access to that capital they can't grow. If they can't grow they can't expand jobs etc. The fact that these bills got bipartisan support in the House and the Admin is trying to achieve the same ends without legislation should be ample evidence they are worthwhile.

However, I'm getting the very strong impression that the only bills most Progressive/Dems type think is a jobs bill is one that is a spending bill blowing gobs of money.

Otherwise, I think the thread title should be corrected to "What bills have the House Repubs passed that Craig234 approves of"

Fern

 

[fskimospy]

Only one of the four bills I listed was from a Dem. But so what? The Repubs have control. If anything it shows they can work with Dems to pass their bills they approve of.



Not quite.

I've worked on public offering of stock for client companies. The rules are, and have been for time, too onerous and they prevent promising companies access to capital. These bills are all designed to correct that.

If they can't get access to that capital they can't grow. If they can't grow they can't expand jobs etc. The fact that these bills got bipartisan support in the House and the Admin is trying to achieve the same ends without legislation should be ample evidence they are worthwhile.

However, I'm getting the very strong impression that the only bills most Progressive/Dems type think is a jobs bill is one that is a spending bill blowing gobs of money.

Otherwise, I think the thread title should be corrected to "What bills have the House Repubs passed that Craig234 approves of"

Fern

So on one hand you mention how these bills got strong bipartisan support, and then on the other hand say that you think progressives and Democrats only think jobs bills involve 'blowing gobs of money'. For what reason do you think the Democrats in the House voted for it then, if not for its job impact?

 

[Fern]

So on one hand you mention how these bills got strong bipartisan support, and then on the other hand say that you think progressives and Democrats only think jobs bills involve 'blowing gobs of money'. For what reason do you think the Democrats in the House voted for it then, if not for its job impact?

Clearly I'm referring to those posting here at AT P&N.

Edit: However I do admit that I don't believe those in Washington DC see regulatory reform as legitimate jobs bill. While these 4 bills can reasonably be put under the regulatory category they are no tin the nature of other bills that such as rolling back regs on certain industries. There are examples of those in the link provided in post #4.

Fern

 

[BoberFett]

You just proved my entire point. Thanks!

We aren't arguing here as to whether or not the stimulus was a good idea, simply that the specific chart linked provides no information as to whether the policy was a good idea or not.

Then we agree... I guess?

Sorry, maybe I jumped to the conclusion that you thought the policy was correct even though there was no evidence to support it.

 

[shadow9d9]

And this all seemed to start once the 'party of no' took over.

Looks like the republicans have proven that they can succeed where Obama failed for 3 years. The debate is over.

You aren't even trying.