NEW Stimulus package being crafted by the Democrats (gasoline, national debt, election)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No you are still wrong.
And I'm losing interest in caring if you understand it.
if you think only $2.2B was spent, and Obama claims that its $173B, maybe they can hire you to rework the numbers and balance the deficit. I'm sure you'll find a way to make the tens of trillions in unaccounted liabilities sound like a few dollars. After all, you seem to be even smarter than Obama on accounting but cant figure out that family A taking job from family B to work 3 jobs, dont = new jobs..
have a good evening, I'll wait to hear about all of the millions of jobs created, and when its reported, you might need to call Obama because he claimed just the other day that 1/2 of the jobs lost were lost in the last few months, and they are now looking at the new stimuls package because they admit the first one failed..
if you think only $2.2B was spent, and Obama claims that its $173B, maybe they can hire you to rework the numbers and balance the deficit. I'm sure you'll find a way to make the tens of trillions in unaccounted liabilities sound like a few dollars. After all, you seem to be even smarter than Obama on accounting but cant figure out that family A taking job from family B to work 3 jobs, dont = new jobs..
have a good evening, I'll wait to hear about all of the millions of jobs created, and when its reported, you might need to call Obama because he claimed just the other day that 1/2 of the jobs lost were lost in the last few months, and they are now looking at the new stimuls package because they admit the first one failed..
Your basic information is wrong.
There's a thread about that 30,000 jobs.
You need to look that up.
Or read an article on it.
Something.
Heck, even Rush says its 16 billion (its 16 billion in contracts of which 2.2 billion has been spent).
Try to remember the stimulus is multi-year.
You are missing and misunderstanding way too much information to spend time trying to bring you up to speed.
If you do some reading and show some basic understanding, I'll chat with you again.
The "lunatics on the fringe" did. But no one listened to them because they were "delusional".
And a stopped clock is right twice a day. If the lunatics and the delusional had a better track record, they mght be taken more seriously. In this case, non-lunatics and non-delusional people had staked out the possibility that we might veer into an accelerating downward spiral. But as a policymaker, you don't react in worst-case-scenario mode until that worst case is all but upon you. It's expensive and you won't in any case have the political will behind you until then. From a statistical standpoint meanwhile, when things start happening on a daily or weekly basis and it takes up to a month to get new data that are actually good enough to use, catching a turn as it happens can become problematic at best. Those with any intention to remain within the realm of reality need to be mindful of such things. Too few are they here however who have any such intention...
Your basic information is wrong.
There's a thread about that 30,000 jobs.
You need to look that up.
Or read an article on it.
Something.
Heck, even Rush says its 16 billion (its 16 billion in contracts of which 2.2 billion has been spent).
Try to remember the stimulus is multi-year.
You are missing and misunderstanding way too much information to spend time trying to bring you up to speed.
If you do some reading and show some basic understanding, I'll chat with you again.
Yeah, stimulus was $787 Billion, not $4. I dont give a rats ass what Rush says, (why do you assume I do?) If Obamas own website says $173B has been spent, I'd believe Obama...
Given the fact that you cant add 2 + 1 togeher, or even figure out the compounded results of the affect upon the GDP, I'm not surprised that you cant add up considering they have a lot of zeros after them..
$62.5B + $47B + $63.7B = $173.2 Billion SPENT out of $787B
And a stopped clock is right twice a day. If the lunatics and the delusional had a better track record, they mght be taken more seriously. In this case, non-lunatics and non-delusional people had staked out the possibility that we might veer into an accelerating downward spiral. But as a policymaker, you don't react in worst-case-scenario mode until that worst case is all but upon you. It's expensive and you won't in any case have the political will behind you until then. From a statistical standpoint meanwhile, when things start happening on a daily or weekly basis and it takes up to a month to get new data that are actually good enough to use, catching a turn as it happens can become problematic at best. Those with any intention to remain within the realm of reality need to be mindful of such things. Too few are they here however who have any such intention...
Unlike the unapproachable track record of Obamas, with his vast history and accomplishments, wait, bad example..
Or maybe we can look to the track record of the Democrats and their success over the last several years to stop us from entering a recession, wait, another bad example.
The CBO said the recession would end by late 2009/early 2010 WITHOUT any intervention from government (stimulus).
And they said that in January 2009 when the worst effects of the recession were not yet known. From the same data, private sector consensus was still calling for 2009 unemployment to peak at 8% or just above.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanrene
They also said the stimulus would be harmful over the long haul.
No, what CBO said was that a decade down the road, there would theoretically be a loss of 0.1% to 0.3% in GDP growth because of mounting debt costs that nothing would have been done about in the meantime. This is because CBO does not forecast future Congressional actions -- it projects on the basis of current or in some cases pending legislation only. It is right-wing spinmeisters who decided that, despite the CBO-projected benefits over all those earlier years -- this tiny tail-end effect made the stimulus overall be harmful in the long run. This is an example of their saying let's find something bad to say, and then, no matter how absurd or trivial it is, that's ALL we'll say. If they can't say anything bad, they don't say anything at all.
And they said that in January 2009 when the worst effects of the recession were not yet known. From the same data, private sector consensus was still calling for 2009 unemployment to peak at 8% or just above.
Dishonest as usual.
They were selling the stimulus on the notion that the recession was the "worst since the great depression" - that seems to say they knew exactly how bad it would be, don't you think? Can't have it both ways.
The CBO said, very clearly, the amount of deficit spending was unsustainable.
I don't take any "government" predictions as even valid predictions. They always come in too optimistic.
The government does not do PREDICTIONS. You want PREDICTIONS, go see Madame Zelda. Trust me, she'll make time for you. The government and various private sector entities do PROJECTIONS. There is a world of difference that -- because they don't have any actually valid arguments to make -- right-wingers love to ignore. The projections done thus far by the Obama administration have all been within the same range as concurrent projections done by others. They have at times been on the high side of that range. That's the worst you can say.
30,000 jobs from 2.2 billion spent (of 16 billion in contracts), which is a better rate than expected.
But it still less than one percent of the stimulus.
So even though these great early reports might make it look like the stimulus will create 11 million jobs - it won't. Not directly. 3 million over the next couple of years is a conservative estimate.
Let me explain, since you completely dodged the point.
x + 1,000,000 jobs > x
x is the number of jobs we have without the stimulus
1,000,000 is a conservative estimate of the jobs created this year.
Some of you argue that x is better without the extra 1,000,000 jobs.
You're taking that estimate straight from obama - of course we should believe him, even though he has NO WAY to actually quantify the figure.
If not for hundreds of thousands of people dropping off the "looking for work" roles, the rate would be well over 10%.
You actually have to be "adding" jobs in order to count them, you know.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
