Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="zako" data-source="post: 7618169" data-attributes="member: 629735">And how does this contradict anything I said? Look at the confidence interval size in the paper summary in the abstract. It&#039;s _wild_. Looking at the interval bounds, it&#039;s plausible to say that 0 jobs were created and 1378 thousand were lost. Looking at the opposite bounds, you could say that 900 thousand jobs were created in the public sector and 160 thousand were lost. The way I see it, without reading the rest of paper, the results are not statistically significant to make any kind of statement about the stimulus, good or bad. Also check the last sentence of the abstract. Even if the stimulus may not have created any private sector jobs, it&#039;s plausible to attribute it to the fact that many states were using stimulus money to plug in the holes in their own revenue falls due to recession.You contradict yourself here. Your article implies Saddam had no links or alliance with Al Queda or Bin Laden. There is also quite a difference between allegedly planning an alliance with terrorists for self-defense versus having to do anything with 9/11 or other Al Queda activities. As for WMDs, I have heard the argument that &quot;Saddam wanted others to think he has WMDs&quot;, but that still does not change the fact that no credible proof of a WMD program was provided by the White House before the war. Only speculations. Iraq&#039;s official stance was that they do not have WMDs and months before invasions UN inspectors were allowed into the country. Despite the damning &#039;proof&#039; that he had WMDs, they couldn&#039;t find anything and the war began anyways.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="zako, post: 7618169, member: 629735"] And how does this contradict anything I said? Look at the confidence interval size in the paper summary in the abstract. It's _wild_. Looking at the interval bounds, it's plausible to say that 0 jobs were created and 1378 thousand were lost. Looking at the opposite bounds, you could say that 900 thousand jobs were created in the public sector and 160 thousand were lost. The way I see it, without reading the rest of paper, the results are not statistically significant to make any kind of statement about the stimulus, good or bad. Also check the last sentence of the abstract. Even if the stimulus may not have created any private sector jobs, it's plausible to attribute it to the fact that many states were using stimulus money to plug in the holes in their own revenue falls due to recession. You contradict yourself here. Your article implies Saddam had no links or alliance with Al Queda or Bin Laden. There is also quite a difference between allegedly planning an alliance with terrorists for self-defense versus having to do anything with 9/11 or other Al Queda activities. As for WMDs, I have heard the argument that "Saddam wanted others to think he has WMDs", but that still does not change the fact that no credible proof of a WMD program was provided by the White House before the war. Only speculations. Iraq's official stance was that they do not have WMDs and months before invasions UN inspectors were allowed into the country. Despite the damning 'proof' that he had WMDs, they couldn't find anything and the war began anyways. [/QUOTE]

Verification