149 replies to this topic

[ChromodynamicGirl]

Do you ever back your claims with anything other than insults, unfalsifiable claims, and non-academic material?

I don't argue with religious people, and I'm not interested in convincing them of anything. But if you want to educate yourself:
http://mises.org/res...e-New-Economics

[maxwatt]

...

How can you say that Keynesianism isn't working? To be able to say that, you'd need to know what things would have looked like without intervention. All you can say is that the stimulus didn't fix all the problems, but the problems were huge. Much of the Tea Party's anger is based on a failure to recognize what a dire economic situation we were in. Had nothing been done, the economy would be dead in the water now, and we would be in the middle of a worldwide depression.

Dunno. Recessions are generally short, unless people spook the markets ...
The uncertainty Obama and his policies are creating is scaring people into putting off spending money and hiring.

But that's the thing; this isn't an ordinary recession. The only real comparison is the 1930's. It's not Obama's policies that are scaring people into putting off spending and hiring, it's the shock of what happened to their balance sheets and their need to deleverage.

Keynesianism isn't working because it hasn't been tried. For the stimulus to have worked in a classical Keynesian manner, it would have to have been twice as big, according to at least one Nobel laureate economist. But it was politically untenable. Before economic and political reactionary revisionism, those of us who came of age while memories of the Depression were fresh, recognize we've forgotten everything we learned. We are not only repeating the mistakes, we are doubling down. History repeats itself, but the second time is supposed to be farce instead of tragedy. Come to think of it, the Tea Party is a farce, sponsored by billionaires to win votes from the very people they intend to screw. Why don't they nominate a hippopotamus in the zoo, like they did in Brazil some decades ago, instead of lackwits like Sharon Angle? The hippopotamus did win a seat in the legislature....

The thirties were worse, at least so far. Maybe next year with a million foreclosures?

The usual rhetoric of Keynesians...

"Sure, the stimulus package didn't fix all the problems, but without it, things would be even worse!"

Now, if this logic was applied to things like medicine, y'all would be laughing your asses off. Replace "stimulus package" with "homeopathic medicine" and you get the point.

Maybe, just maybe, it's possible that the stimulus package actually made things worse? How can you know for sure when we don't have an alternative universe to test these assumptions? I'm sure that once the catastrophic consequences of printing billions of dollars of paper money are revealed, politicians will still be congratulating themselves, saying that they saved us -- because things could *always* be worse.

But anyone with half a brain who spends five minutes thinking about the problem should realize that the very idea of creating money out of thin air to fix monetary problems is so laughable that people who believe in it should be whacked over the head. It's a bad joke wrapped in fancy language, and unfortunately the joke is on the people.

I do not consider myself a Keynesian. I was pointing out that a classical Keynesian approach had not been tried. Their theory is when private spending plummets (recession) if public (government)spending steps in to replace it, it will at least keep people working (and eating) so other parts of the economic infrastructure don't also collapse. (The math works out, if and only if governments have build a surplus or can implement fiat currency, which would work in a single government scenario. JLL's point is well taken.) How to then get the patient off life-support is another question. Keynesian Krugman complains that Repugnican presidents from Reagan to Bush II have bankrupted the gov't with deficit spending so there is no fat available to see us through lean times. Note: we had budget surpluses under Clinton; the Democraps are the much more fiscally responsible party. The only reason to vote for them is the Repugs are mostly even worse. But that's what the Tea Party's Pupet Masters want -- destroy government by disrupting and bankrupting it. It's OK if you have your own private army, which most don't. But I digress.

The main problem with fiat currency minting money out of thin air is that it is inflationary. So is war. World War II bailed us out of the Depression because of deficit spending (did your daddy buy war bonds?). Inflation is probably the best thing you can have in a recession. Roosevelt could never get Congress to agree to enough deficit spending to jump start the economy (neither could Obama) but they were perfectly happy to fund a war.

The rate of inflation in China has been running around 8%. The Chinese implemented a massive stimulus, building new roads and high speed trains, etc. I saw highways being cut through mountains in the interior. The net result was to cut trucking time to the coast by thirty per cent. Very smart. Their other stimuli (as in education) could also be seen as investments, rather than mere spending: there will be a payback. They gain better roads, a high-speed train network at 250 miles an hour, and a lot more engineers and technically savvy workers. The investment gets paid back with increased government revenue. (Obama couldn't get nearly enough for similar investments here.) The tax rates are low, comparatively, but your business needs to make a hefty quarterly contribution to the Communist Party. But again I digress.

The stimulus/bailouts worked in the sense that they kept the financial structure from collapsing and some people working (like firefighters and police)who would have been laid off, a certain amount of highway construction and other public spending. Without that, we would be facing a thirties-type scenario with breadlines, etc. Private spending and job creation has been picking up, but it's not enough yet to make up for the loss in public spending as the stimulus funding gets used up. It isn't clear if private spending will collapse in the face of this, or limp along without becoming robust.

The smartest people I knew bought gold and buried it in their backyards. And that's the problem. Gold just sits there without creating wealth -- or employing people to do something useful while feeding themselves.

Government is like your high-school garage band. It sounds good when you're the one playing. Worse than government, is no government. Even if it's the Mafia, which is a prototypical embryonic government. Despite payoffs amounting to as much as 30% of costs, many contractors went along and even liked the situation. If brought predictability. You would pay more up front, but be spared many of the disruptions that occur in an entirely free market. Getting back to the garage band analogy: the economy is like playing a guitar - the government is the left hand, which sets the key and context, and private enterprise is the right hand, which makes the notes and plays the melody. You can't play a guitar with one hand.

Enough. I'm going out to my back yard with a shovel.....

[rwac]

Insurance costs were going up before, too. We were heading for an untenable situation any way you look at it. You're absolutely right about the penalty; it's a joke. Needs to be a lot higher in order to work well, I would think.

The old employer based health insurance system was always somewhat broken. The big question is what is going to replace it. Obamacare is merely a stepping stone towards a single payer healthcare system, it's broken by design.

The penalty being low is either a mistake or deliberate. The people who designed the healthcare bill were either incompetent and didn't expect this simple consequence, or they deliberately set out to completely break the private insurance system. You tell me which is more likely.

[niner]

Insurance costs were going up before, too. We were heading for an untenable situation any way you look at it. You're absolutely right about the penalty; it's a joke. Needs to be a lot higher in order to work well, I would think.

The old employer based health insurance system was always somewhat broken. The big question is what is going to replace it. Obamacare is merely a stepping stone towards a single payer healthcare system, it's broken by design.

The penalty being low is either a mistake or deliberate. The people who designed the healthcare bill were either incompetent and didn't expect this simple consequence, or they deliberately set out to completely break the private insurance system. You tell me which is more likely.

The insurance industry is in on this deal. I don't think it's designed to destroy them.

[maxwatt]

A camel is a horse designed by a committee. The health-care bill was a series of committee-drive compromises, cobbled together by the finest legislators money can buy.

[Loot Perish]

as a committed leftist, I support the tea party. You see, the tea party is a grassroots majority effort. It arises from the largest single bloc, a bloc that is still the majority of americans--the white working class.

You see, in order to have a certain degree of democracy, you must have a majority bloc that is relatively undivided and can act in cohesion. The only nations in the history of the world that have this are the nations of western europe, esp. denmark, sweden, norway, switz, austria, et al. These nations are highly democratic and therefore highly leftist. The most leftist nations in the history of mankind.

In order to get america to where those nations are, we have to have a single, relatively undivided white bloc and a much smaller nation. We have to break up the union, re-segregate the races, stop mass immigration.

Then once we do that, in the individual states, we can create simulations of the nations of western europe.

Realistically, we can only break up the union by defunding the federal govt. That is the primary goal of the tea party--to take money from the fed govt and give it back to the states. That is the first step to breaking up the union, to breaking the power of the elite that created the fed govt in the first place. The elite who created the fed govt wrote that the goal of the fed govt was to cripple democracy and stop leftism.

So the tea party will further leftist goals.

The tea party, if they win, will cause the fed govt to have no money and therefore be powerless. Without the fed govt to enforce the civil rights mandates and waste all our money on the war machine and corporate giveaways, the white majority in the states will re-segregate themselves from the minorities, stop mass immigration. Then once the white majority does not have to worry about their taxes going to support racial minorities, the whites in the states will increase the power of the welfare state, institute universal healthcare etc.

Tea party triumph will create sweden in the individual states.

[niner]

Racist much?

[Rational Madman]

Racist much?

Isn't this the Scientology promoting member? I seem to remember him starting a predictable "psychiatry is death" thread a while back.

[Ghostrider]

Maybe some people can bring more insight to the Tea Party's tactics as I am not an expert at this point.

It's the politics of fear.

When people are in distress, it's easy to prey upon their fears. we saw bush/cheney get away with this when they built up Iraq into a demon that it never really proved to be.

Obama is guilty of the same thing when he bashes bankers and wall street for "creating the economic mess". Tea party people like to blame immigrants or Obama for their economic woes. Obama likes to slam Bush and wall street bankers. It's all class warfare garbage using fear to gain support for their goals.

I miss the days of Jack Kemp, who was a fan of every American. He fought for inner city kids as much as he did for corporate America.

You're right Prophets. It is the politics of fear...that's what people respond to...

[Loot Perish]

Racist much?

yawn....brilliant riposte

[Loot Perish]

Racist much?

Isn't this the Scientology promoting member? I seem to remember him starting a predictable "psychiatry is death" thread a while back.

no

[david ellis]

Why?

1. Obamacare
2. Cap-and-Trade
3. Keynesian-ism isn't working.
4. Anti-free-speech bills like the DISCLOSE act.

Edit: how could I forget Cap-and-Trade!

Let's see, what does Obamacare mean in 2011? Insurance companies are limited now to 15% admin & profit for large policies. 20% for smaller policies. Plus a 50% discount on brand name drugs for Medicare Part D. And of course, 2011 is the first year that everyone can buy insurance. These seem to me important improvements that really needed doing. Pulling these pieces out of ObamaCare is going to be hard because America already likes them. Check the polls yourself. Plus, the CBO says this good stuff pays for itself.

[rwac]

Let's see, what does Obamacare mean in 2011? Insurance companies are limited now to 15% admin & profit for large policies. 20% for smaller policies. Plus a 50% discount on brand name drugs for Medicare Part D. And of course, 2011 is the first year that everyone can buy insurance. These seem to me important improvements that really needed doing. Pulling these pieces out of ObamaCare is going to be hard because America already likes them. Check the polls yourself. Plus, the CBO says this good stuff pays for itself.

Maybe. But America really dislikes Obamacare.
We understand that although some aspects of the law might be good, the law taken as a whole is not. You check the polls.

Undoing Obamacare is going to be tough, and nothing like it has been tried. The ultimate fate of Obamacare rests on the next President, and their support in Congress.

[niner]

Let's see, what does Obamacare mean in 2011? Insurance companies are limited now to 15% admin & profit for large policies. 20% for smaller policies. Plus a 50% discount on brand name drugs for Medicare Part D. And of course, 2011 is the first year that everyone can buy insurance. These seem to me important improvements that really needed doing. Pulling these pieces out of ObamaCare is going to be hard because America already likes them. Check the polls yourself. Plus, the CBO says this good stuff pays for itself.

Maybe. But America really dislikes Obamacare.
We understand that although some aspects of the law might be good, the law taken as a whole is not. You check the polls.

Undoing Obamacare is going to be tough, and nothing like it has been tried. The ultimate fate of Obamacare rests on the next President, and their support in Congress.

Well, it seems like none of us wants to dredge up reliable poll results, assuming they even exist, but my impression is that the dislike of the new health insurance law falls into two main camps: (1) People who have been misinformed about it, or otherwise don't know what they're talking about, and (2) a much smaller group of people who have a full understanding of the law and are opposed to it on ideological grounds. At any rate, I expect that the GOP will rapidly put on a show for their base, so they can say they made good on their promises, but the evil Dems stood in the way. I don't think that the GOP really wants to be known as the party that put the insurance industry bureaucrats back in the catbird's seat. Maybe it would make sense to look at what Massachusetts residents think about their state healthcare system, since they've actually had some experience with it.

[rwac]

I don't think that the GOP really wants to be known as the party that put the insurance industry bureaucrats back in the catbird's seat. Maybe it would make sense to look at what Massachusetts residents think about their state healthcare system, since they've actually had some experience with it.

Yes, the GOP wants healthcare reform too, just different from Obamacare. Restoring Status Quo Ante probably wont work.

In any case the most that the GOP can do till 2013 is block parts of it, that should be plenty of time for America to get a good look.

Hmmm, isn't Mass. much to the left of most of the US ?

Edited by rwac, 04 January 2011 - 01:19 AM.

[niner]

Hmmm, isn't Mass. much to the left of most of the US ?

They're smarter, richer, and thinner, too. But they're still people, and still Americans.

[rwac]

They're smarter, richer, and thinner, too. But they're still people, and still Americans.

Those are all reasons why they're not representative of wider America.

[rwac]

Well, it seems like none of us wants to dredge up reliable poll results, assuming they even exist, but my impression is that the dislike of the new health insurance law falls into two main camps: (1) People who have been misinformed about it, or otherwise don't know what they're talking about, and (2) a much smaller group of people who have a full understanding of the law and are opposed to it on ideological grounds.

That's merely your assumption. It's not necessary to fully understand what the law means to support or oppose it.
I imagine only a very small percentage of people understand anything at all fully, but somehow that information spreads out.

[niner]

They're smarter, richer, and thinner, too. But they're still people, and still Americans.

Those are all reasons why they're not representative of wider America.

Well, there are very few states that are 100% representative of the average of all America, but I don't think that's a good reason to toss out their experience, since it's data we need. If there was a state in the deep south that had a plan for universal coverage, I would very much want to know how it was working out for them, even if they weren't quite average. No matter where you go in America, there's more that binds us together than makes us different. Plus, I'm sure there are enough obese, impoverished dullards in MA to register an opinion.

Well, it seems like none of us wants to dredge up reliable poll results, assuming they even exist, but my impression is that the dislike of the new health insurance law falls into two main camps: (1) People who have been misinformed about it, or otherwise don't know what they're talking about, and (2) a much smaller group of people who have a full understanding of the law and are opposed to it on ideological grounds.

That's merely your assumption. It's not necessary to fully understand what the law means to support or oppose it.
I imagine only a very small percentage of people understand anything at all fully, but somehow that information spreads out.

Consider "full understanding" here to mean "adequate understanding". This raises a really interesting point about governance. Do we want a true democracy, where the opinions of the uninformed and misinformed are allowed to rule us? Or do we want a representative democracy, where a smaller number of representatives become well informed on the issue at hand, and make the decisions that best serve their constituents? The latter is what we supposedly have, however imperfect. I agree that if there is something in the law that a person simply can't countenance, they have a legitimate reason to oppose the law even if they don't understand the rest of it. However, if they have been lied to by Sarah Palin or Glenn Beck, and think that "Death Panels" are being geared up to murder their granny, and that is the problem they have with it, then I don't think their opinion should be considered, as it is wrong. Once they have the correct facts, then their opinion is as valid as that of anyone else. It is a problem that misinformed people do have the right to vote their representative out of office for the offense of casting a vote that may well be in their constituents' best interest. In my good governance dream world, their representative would convey to his constituents the reason for his vote, and attempt to correct the misinformation. Sadly, when large numbers of people are misinformed, it's easier to cast a bad vote and go with the flow. When the representative is the one who is misinformed, then a bad vote is a given. This happens more than it ought to.

[rwac]

Consider "full understanding" here to mean "adequate understanding". This raises a really interesting point about governance. Do we want a true democracy, where the opinions of the uninformed and misinformed are allowed to rule us? Or do we want a representative democracy, where a smaller number of representatives become well informed on the issue at hand, and make the decisions that best serve their constituents? The latter is what we supposedly have, however imperfect. I agree that if there is something in the law that a person simply can't countenance, they have a legitimate reason to oppose the law even if they don't understand the rest of it. However, if they have been lied to by Sarah Palin or Glenn Beck, and think that "Death Panels" are being geared up to murder their granny, and that is the problem they have with it, then I don't think their opinion should be considered, as it is wrong. Once they have the correct facts, then their opinion is as valid as that of anyone else. It is a problem that misinformed people do have the right to vote their representative out of office for the offense of casting a vote that may well be in their constituents' best interest. In my good governance dream world, their representative would convey to his constituents the reason for his vote, and attempt to correct the misinformation. Sadly, when large numbers of people are misinformed, it's easier to cast a bad vote and go with the flow. When the representative is the one who is misinformed, then a bad vote is a given. This happens more than it ought to.

And just who is to say what is 'adequate understanding' ?

What about those people who have been lied to by Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi ?
For instance, it's a pretty big lie that the healthcare law will reduce premiums.

And who will judge what the facts are ? and who will judge what the inevitable consequences of those facts are ?

This is an impossibly circular argument. The only way out is Free Speech.
At some point, you have to allow people to choose the direction, and accept the consequences.

[niner]

And just who is to say what is 'adequate understanding' ?

I'd like to think that we could agree on that. I'd say having the basic facts of a given bill correct, with no flagrant distortions.

What about those people who have been lied to by Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi ?
For instance, it's a pretty big lie that the healthcare law will reduce premiums.

Here's what PolitiFact had to say about it:

On Nov. 30, 2009, the Congressional Budget Office, or CBO, released a detailed analysis on how health insurance premiums might be affected by the Senate Democrats' health care bill. The CBO is an independent agency whose estimates for pending legislation are considered nonpartisan and rigorous.

The CBO reported that, for most people, premiums would stay about the same, or slightly decrease. This was especially true for people who get their insurance through work. (Health policy wonks call these the large group and small group markets.) People who have to go out and buy insurance on their own (the individual market) would see rates increase by 10 to 13 percent. But more than half of those people -- 57 percent, in fact -- would be eligible for subsidies to help them pay for the insurance. People who get subsidies would see their premiums drop by more than half, according to the CBO. So most people would see their premiums stay the same or potentially drop.

I don't know exactly what Obama and/or Pelosi said, but if they said something like what the CBO reported, which I think is pretty likely, then I don't think it qualifies as a "big lie". I seriously doubt that they said premiums would decrease for everyone. Politicians tend to speak pretty carefully on things like this.

And who will judge what the facts are ? and who will judge what the inevitable consequences of those facts are ?

It makes me sad that America has come to the point where we have two different versions of reality.

This is an impossibly circular argument. The only way out is Free Speech.
At some point, you have to allow people to choose the direction, and accept the consequences.

Free Speech is fine, though I am disappointed that it so often becomes Free Lies. I don't want a government of the misinformed. Until they appoint me king of the world, though, I guess I'll have to live with it.

[cathological]

In the end you get what you pay for.

[maxwatt]

In the end you get what you pay for.

If that were literally true, we'd want to pay more taxes to have better government, and gladly too.

[cathological]

<br />

<br />In the end you get what you pay for.<br />

<br />If that were literally true, we'd want to pay more taxes to have better government, and gladly too.<br />

<br /><br /><br />

And I'm sure we will soon.

[maxwatt]

<br />

<br />In the end you get what you pay for.<br />

<br />If that were literally true, we'd want to pay more taxes to have better government, and gladly too.<br />

<br /><br /><br />

And I'm sure we will soon.

We already have some of the best congressmen money can buy.

[kismet]

Consider "full understanding" here to mean "adequate understanding". This raises a really interesting point about governance. Do we want a true democracy, where the opinions of the uninformed and misinformed are allowed to rule us? Or do we want a representative democracy, where a smaller number of representatives become well informed on the issue at hand, and make the decisions that best serve their constituents? The latter is what we supposedly have, however imperfect. I agree that if there is something in the law that a person simply can't countenance, they have a legitimate reason to oppose the law even if they don't understand the rest of it. However, if they have been lied to by Sarah Palin or Glenn Beck, and think that "Death Panels" are being geared up to murder their granny, and that is the problem they have with it, then I don't think their opinion should be considered, as it is wrong. Once they have the correct facts, then their opinion is as valid as that of anyone else. It is a problem that misinformed people do have the right to vote their representative out of office for the offense of casting a vote that may well be in their constituents' best interest[...]

So true.

And just who is to say what is 'adequate understanding' ?

...and I will never understand people who deny that even in politics there is right and wrong; that you can judge based on evidence and facts.

[rwac]

And just who is to say what is 'adequate understanding' ?

...and I will never understand people who deny that even in politics there is right and wrong; that you can judge based on evidence and facts.

There is right and wrong and there are real facts, but the government can't declare it to be so.
Unless you want to create The Ministry of Truth, that is.

For instance, the politifact article niner linked to relies on the CBO analysis.
However the CBO can only analyze the bill in very specific ways, and is easy to game as such.

And Politifact itself is very partisan and is not a good source of facts.

[niner]

And just who is to say what is 'adequate understanding' ?

...and I will never understand people who deny that even in politics there is right and wrong; that you can judge based on evidence and facts.

There is right and wrong and there are real facts, but the government can't declare it to be so.
Unless you want to create The Ministry of Truth, that is.

For instance, the politifact article niner linked to relies on the CBO analysis.
However the CBO can only analyze the bill in very specific ways, and is easy to game as such.

And Politifact itself is very partisan and is not a good source of facts.

Congress has a need for true unbiased information and analysis. If the CBO isn't capable of providing that, maybe congress should fix it. Is the real problem that the CBO and Politifact don't agree with Republican Reality? Could it be that the problem is really with the latter? What's the evidence that Politifact is "very partisan"? Can you recommend a good source of facts that isn't biased?

[rwac]

Congress has a need for true unbiased information and analysis. If the CBO isn't capable of providing that, maybe congress should fix it. Is the real problem that the CBO and Politifact don't agree with Republican Reality? Could it be that the problem is really with the latter? What's the evidence that Politifact is "very partisan"? Can you recommend a good source of facts that isn't biased?

Hmmm, No. Here's an example. Do you remember the doc fix bill ?
It was necessary, because otherwise doctors would stop accepting medicare, and entirely oppose Obamacare.
That was actually removed from the Obamacare bill, because including it in HCR would make the CBO declare that HCR would increase the deficit.
Then it was passed separately. This is one example of gaming the CBO.

So the CBO was technically right, while missing the bigger picture. They couldn't possibly include the effect of some other bill on the deficit which would pass in the future, but the GOP certainly can, because they know this other bill is necessary.

Look at this and tell me politifact isn't partisan: http://www.politifac...nemployment-8-/

I don't think there exists any source of facts that isn't biased. People generally ignore (or rationalize away) facts that don't fit their worldview.

[niner]

Congress has a need for true unbiased information and analysis. If the CBO isn't capable of providing that, maybe congress should fix it. Is the real problem that the CBO and Politifact don't agree with Republican Reality? Could it be that the problem is really with the latter? What's the evidence that Politifact is "very partisan"? Can you recommend a good source of facts that isn't biased?

Hmmm, No. Here's an example. Do you remember the doc fix bill ?
It was necessary, because otherwise doctors would stop accepting medicare, and entirely oppose Obamacare.
That was actually removed from the Obamacare bill, because including it in HCR would make the CBO declare that HCR would increase the deficit.
Then it was passed separately. This is one example of gaming the CBO.

So the CBO was technically right, while missing the bigger picture. They couldn't possibly include the effect of some other bill on the deficit which would pass in the future, but the GOP certainly can, because they know this other bill is necessary.

But the doc fix is done now, so it doesn't change if HCR is repealed. Thus, the CBO number for cost of repeal would seem to be good. Either side can dice up legislation to make the important part look better, but that doesn't mean that a given CBO number is wrong.

Look at this and tell me politifact isn't partisan: http://www.politifac...nemployment-8-/

Ok, I looked at it, and I don't see anything biased about it. In fact, it exposes the truth behind a claim I've heard countless times from the right, that Obama "promised" that the stimulus would cap unemployment at 8%. I figured he must have said something like that. Silly me. You'd think I'd learn by now that every word out of Sean Hannity's mouth needs to be fact checked. Here's the gist of it:

This is a claim with staying power. In fact, we first dealt with a similar claim a little more than a year ago when House Republican Whip Eric Cantor said, "We were promised. The president said we would keep unemployment under 8.5 percent (if the stimulus passed)." Since then, it has become frequent conservative talking point -- cited repeatedly by Fox's Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck and others. So we thought it was worth revisiting.

First, we could find no instance of anyone in the administration directly making such a public pledge. Rather, it comes via a Jan. 9, 2009, report called "The Job Impact of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan" from Christina Romer, chairwoman of the president's Council of Economic Advisers, and Jared Bernstein, the vice president's top economic adviser.

Their report projected that the stimulus plan proposed by Obama would create 3 million to 4 million jobs by the end of 2010. The report also included a chart predicting unemployment rates with and without the stimulus. Without the stimulus (the baseline), unemployment was projected to hit about 8.5 percent in 2009 and then continue rising to a peak of about 9 percent in 2010. With the stimulus, they predicted the unemployment rate would peak at just under 8 percent in 2009.

As Will rightly noted, it went higher. The unemployment rate peaked around 10 percent in late 2009 and is now around 9.5 percent. And Will is also right that the cost of the stimulus rose dramatically.

But what we saw from the administration in January 2009 was a projection, not a promise. And it was a projection that came with heavy disclaimers.

"It should be understood that all of the estimates presented in this memo are subject to significant margins of error," the report states. "There is the more fundamental uncertainty that comes with any estimate of the effects of a program. Our estimates of economic relationships and rules of thumb are derived from historical experience and so will not apply exactly in any given episode. Furthermore, the uncertainty is surely higher than normal now because the current recession is unusual both in its fundamental causes and its severity."

There's also a footnote that goes along with the chart that states: "Forecasts of the unemployment rate without the recovery plan vary substantially. Some private forecasters anticipate unemployment rates as high as 11% in the absence of action."

The administration has acknowledged its projections were wrong.

I don't see where the bias is here. What I see is Republicans twisting the facts about a projection that was given with ample warning that it was only a projection, and PolitiFact pointing it out. I'll have to stick by my contention that PolitiFact is pretty straight.

People generally ignore (or rationalize away) facts that don't fit their worldview.

they certainly do...