Where are the "saved jobs"?; Unemployment rises to 9.4% (Brown, dollars)

[yachtcare]

Originally Posted by cleanhouse

OH now they are going to "Ramp up" the recovery. and We have already made Progress?

What has been going on the last 5 months?

They've just been testing the waters, is all. Now that they see they have a formula that works....they're gonna really burn this sucker down now!

They're gonna "recover" us all the way back to the stone age.

[cleanhouse]

Originally Posted by yachtcare

They've just been testing the waters, is all. Now that they see they have a formula that works....they're gonna really burn this sucker down now!

They're gonna "recover" us all the way back to the stone age.

At that point :

[gsupstate]

Originally Posted by sanrene

Employment Situation Summary





Check out this chart; Take note - this chart was used by obama's economic team to market the stimulus. The "dots" are the actual numbers, which clearly show how wrong they are/were.



The obama-media is in full spin mode.

Hot Air » Blog Archive » Unemployment up to 9.4%

I've been wondering why these jobs promised to be created or saved by Obama have not materialized. He is well into his presidency.....too late to use the "he has only president 30 days" excuse. When is the mainstream media going to hold Obama's feet to the fire? When is he really going to be exposed for the fraud he is?

[compJockey]

I'm sure all of you realize that even if the stimulus created/saved the high estimate from the CBO (2.3 million jobs in 2009), that won't cover for all the losses in the free market.

Now, if the government today spent and employed (22 trillion dollars, 18 million jobs) like they did in WW2 - then sure, we might expect that government spending to cover job losses.

This stimulus cost less than 5% of what we spent then, so if you think it can solve the economy's woes on its own you haven't been paying attention.

[Rggr]

Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost

Its not that people haven't tried, so I won't bother. You don't get it even at the most basic level that the package you speak of is a lot more than a "stimulus", much less expect you to know that most of it was targeted towards growth and savings in the longer term. Too complicated for y'all to have a clue.

The problem with that is that the "stimulus" was supposed to be (or at least sold as) a short term stimulus to an economic crisis. The fact that most of the spending is to come in 2010 and 2011 to resolve a 2009 crisis makes it clear that it was a bait and switch. That's like telling someone on the ER table that needs paddles to shock them back to life not to worry about it that because you're going to give them an antibiotic that should make them feel better in a week or two and more healthy for the long-term.

Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost

If tax cuts worked great, why did unemployment rate recovery post one of the mildest recessions (2001) take longer than it did during recessions? In fact, republicans were still at it over two years later, and here you're complaining after three months. Tax cuts are also a major reason for increasing budget deficits over last several year... or are deficits fine as long as it comes with "tax cuts"?.

The tax cuts did work. 9/11 also happened at about the same time and aggravated things. The tax cuts were not the problem with the deficit; huge spending was. It was not okay then, and that's a large part of why the Republicans paid at the ballot box. It should not be okay now to multiply the deficit because the guy in office is a good public speaker.

[sanrene]

I'm sure all of you realize that even if the stimulus created/saved the high estimate from the CBO

According to obama's own economic team (the graph and pdf I linked to) they are way off in their figures. According to them, the stimulus would result in lower unemployment. Should they not be called out on their gross miscalculation?

[Rocket Power]

It was stated about three months ago that things were gonna be rough this year. If things are still this bad in the next year or two, then there will be serious reasons to question our President's decision making.

It's nice to see Cons celebrating instead of coming up with any answers of their own, except for doing something that would have made things twice as bad as they are now. Typical. Are you all gonna go out and throw a party if unemployment reaches double digits?

[compJockey]

The tax cuts did work. 9/11 also happened at about the same time and aggravated things. The tax cuts were not the problem with the deficit; huge spending was. It was not okay then, and that's a large part of why the Republicans paid at the ballot box. It should not be okay now to multiply the deficit because the guy in office is a good public speaker.

We borrowed 1.6 trillion for those tax cuts.

eRiposte Economy - Economic Indicators: Bush Jobless Recovery
The recovery from the recession was weak.
If the tax cuts had worked, I would have expected a stronger recovery (see attached images).

[freedom]

Originally Posted by cleanhouse

Here is a good One

Biden: US to Ramp up Implementation of Recovery Act - Economy * US * News * Story - CNBC.com

"As much progress as we've already made, we still have a long, long way to go on the road to recovery," Biden

OH now they are going to "Ramp up" the recovery. and We have already made Progress?

What has been going on the last 5 months?

Uhhh! RAMP DOWN >>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>

[compJockey]

Originally Posted by sanrene

According to them, the stimulus would result in lower unemployment. Should they not be called out on their gross miscalculation?

If the stimulus created only a single job, the bolded sentence above would be true.