More about the "One's" credentials. What a loser that crowd is.

[johnhp]

ummm bad.  cato?  you know who they are right?

peace

i prefer this Kato...

[Case_Closed]

tyou had the wherewithal to get obama's certifications from harvard but decided it wasn't worth it and might spoil your attempts at snark and trolling.

Again, you had to join their site and provide all kinds of required information before you could have access to their data.

I'm sure there have been plenty of liberals who did this...and they haven't posted his information online.

Why not?

BECAUSE IT DOESN'T EXIST!!!

ha ha ha!!

[Case_Closed]

Stimulus Jobs Cost $278,000 Apiece

Posted by Dave Blount at July 5, 2011 7:42 AM

Jobs are not created by government, but by the absence of government. Bureaucrats can only fabricate temporary and economically illogical positions by sucking money out of the economy that would have been used to create more numerous, permanent, and useful jobs. For example, the primary pretext for Obama's budget-busting Porkulus spree was the easing of unemployment. Sure it created jobs — at $278,000 apiece:

[T]he "Seventh Quarterly Report" on the economic impact of the "stimulus," released on Friday, July 1, provides further evidence that President Obama's economic "stimulus" did very little, if anything, to stimulate the economy, and a whole lot to stimulate the debt.
The report was written by the White House's Council of Economic Advisors, a group of three economists who were all handpicked by Obama, and it chronicles the alleged success of the "stimulus" in adding or saving jobs. The council reports that, using "mainstream estimates of economic multipliers for the effects of fiscal stimulus" (which it describes as a "natural way to estimate the effects of" the legislation), the "stimulus" has added or saved just under 2.4 million jobs — whether private or public — at a cost (to date) of $666 billion. That's a cost to taxpayers of $278,000 per job.
That's according to Obama's advisors. No doubt the actual numbers are far worse.

Any job created by the government is paid for not only by adding to the debt, but by destroying more productive jobs that the free market would produce in the private sector.

[T]he council reports that, as of two quarters ago, the "stimulus" had added or saved just under 2.7 million jobs — or 288,000 more than it has now. In other words, over the past six months, the economy would have added or saved more jobs without the "stimulus" than it has with it. In comparison to how things would otherwise have been, the "stimulus" has been working in reverse over the past six months, causing the economy to shed jobs.

If you have grandkids, ask them if they think they got their money's worth. They will spend their entire lives paying for the Worst Generation's grotesque self-indulgence in electing Barack Hussein Obama president.

http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/2011/07/stimulus-jobs-c.html

[IM2]

"Conservatives" don't know shit about economics.

[dagon]

Stimulus Jobs Cost $278,000 Apiece

Posted by Dave Blount at July 5, 2011 7:42 AM

Jobs are not created by government, but by the absence of government. Bureaucrats can only fabricate temporary and economically illogical positions by sucking money out of the economy that would have been used to create more numerous, permanent, and useful jobs. For example, the primary pretext for Obama's budget-busting Porkulus spree was the easing of unemployment. Sure it created jobs — at $278,000 apiece:

bad,  have you you researched any of david blount's credentials other than the propensity for saying moonbat alot?

peace

[dagon]

bad,  have you you researched any of david blount's credentials other than the propensity for saying moonbat alot?

peace

well, i guess at least i now know where you get a lot of your bullshit from.

peace

[Case_Closed]

well, i guess at least i now know where you get a lot of your bullshit from.

peace

I have a bottomless mine of sources for bullshit, sir.

You, on the other hand, have NO sources to support your baseless claims.

And why?

BECAUSE THERE ARE NONE!!

ha ha ha!!

[Observer]

most that have ANY clout whatsoever within their fields and the legislature.  that's why it got done.

That's not why it got done.

[dagon]

That's not why it got done.

oh i know why it's down.  i was just commenting on how it's done.  but there actually are peer-reviewed rankings and points given to things such as scholarship,  the accuracy and feasibility of predictive models etc.

basically,  can they back their shit up.

peace

[Observer]

oh i know why it's down.  i was just commenting on how it's done.  but there actually are peer-reviewed rankings and points given to things such as scholarship,  the accuracy and feasibility of predictive models etc.

basically,  can they back their shit up.

peace

What are you talking about?

[Case_Closed]

What are you talking about?

He's desperate to change the topic by typing in random words.

[dagon]

What are you talking about?

i meant i know why it's done.  since i was responding to your post it should have been obvious that it was a typo.

peace

[IM2]

BECAUSE IT DOESN'T EXIST!!!

I would think that Harvard would have long ago said something about a man who lied about running its prestigious law rewiev.

So go flush yourself and take a swim.

[Case_Closed]

I would think that Harvard would have long ago said something about a man who lied about running its prestigious law rewiev.

So go flush yourself and take a swim.

So, you've seen his transcripts.........

May I see them, please?

Thank you.

[IM2]

I  DON'T NEED TO SEE THE TRANSCRIPTS BECAUSE ANY UNIVERSITY, MUCH LESS HARVARD, WOULD HAVE LONG REFUTED OBAMAS CLAIM TO HAVE ATTENDED IF WHAT YOU CLAIM IS THE CASE.