Time to Fire obama's "uniquely qualified" Economic Team (how much, dollar)

[Winter_Sucks]

Originally Posted by sanrene

It's been 18 months.

And it saved and created millions of jobs.

[sanrene]

You said this;

Originally Posted by Winter_Sucks View Post
The only bad part of the stimulus was that it is 1/3 tax cuts. Everyone knows that tax cuts are not stimulating.

You're wrong. Look at the CBO data.

[sanrene]

Originally Posted by Winter_Sucks

And it's saved and created millions of jobs.

We've LOST over 2 million since the stimulus was enacted. That is just an inescapable FACT.

Again, we've never, in the history of the US, used a metric of a "saved" job. That is a made-up construct by obama.

Open your eyes. You're being lied to, duped, bamboozled by obama.

[Winter_Sucks]

Originally Posted by sanrene

We've LOST over 2 million since the stimulus was enacted. That is just an inescapable FACT.

Again, we've never, in the history of the US, used a metric of a "saved" job. That is a made-up construct by obama.

Open your eyes. You're being lied to, duped, bamboozled by obama.

Prove that the stimulus lost jobs. The CBO said the stimulus created and saved a combined 3.3 million jobs, so if the stimulus was not enacted we would have lost 5.3 million and probably even more because the loss of jobs cycles into the loss of more jobs.

Giving state aid, which the stimulus did, helps save teacher, firefighter, and police jobs.

[Winter_Sucks]

Originally Posted by sanrene

You said this;



You're wrong. Look at the CBO data.

You're right, I should have said not as stimulating as other techniques.

[sanrene]

Originally Posted by Winter_Sucks

Prove that the stimulus lost jobs. The CBO said the stimulus created and saved a combined 3.3 million jobs, so if the stimulus was not enacted we would have lost 5.3 millions and probably even more because the loss of jobs cycles into the loss of more jobs.

Giving state aid, which the stimulus did, helps save teacher, firefighter, and police jobs.

Oh, that's easy. Since Feb of 2009, we have lost 2.4 MILLION jobs.

The CBO gave an ESTIMATE, based on certain assumptions.

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/117xx/doc...08-24-ARRA.pdf

Oh, another made up construct just for obama - jobs "funded". NEVER in the history of the US have we measured job growth like this and NEVER would the media allow Bush to get away with it.

Surely you remember last year, the jobs numbers from across the nation, the phony districts - even the man in charge of the recovery act said he couldn't certify or vouch for the numbers.

CBO has estimated the law’s impact on employment
and economic output using evidence about the effects
of previous similar policies and drawing on various
mathematical models that represent the workings of the
economy.

Increased the number of people employed by between
1.4 million and 3.3 million, and

Nice gap. And therein lies the problem. NO WAY to quantify the number.

Seriously, READ it for yourself and learn something.

Pay particular attention to this section;

Measuring ARRA’s Impact Using
Economic Models and Historical Data

[Loveshiscountry]

Originally Posted by Sirros

It was not entirely the dollar quantity. It was the allocation of said dollar quantity.

The stimulus could have been done in a much more advanatgeous manner for the people who really needed it.

Once again government has proven THEY don't know what to do with MY money. Quit relying on the Federal government for economic help, they have proven time and time again that they are not very effective.

[Winter_Sucks]

Originally Posted by sanrene

Oh, that's easy. Since Feb of 2009, we have lost 2.4 MILLION jobs.

The CBO gave an ESTIMATE, based on certain assumptions.

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/117xx/doc...08-24-ARRA.pdf

Oh, another made up construct just for obama - jobs "funded". NEVER in the history of the US have we measured job growth like this and NEVER would the media allow Bush to get away with it.

Surely you remember last year, the jobs numbers from across the nation, the phony districts - even the man in charge of the recovery act said he couldn't certify or vouch for the numbers.





Nice gap. And therein lies the problem. NO WAY to quantify the number.

Seriously, READ it for yourself and learn something.

Pay particular attention to this section;

Measuring ARRA’s Impact Using
Economic Models and Historical Data

No stimulus, another 3.3 million people would be out of a job.

[SilverOne]

Shadow Government Statistics : Home Page

Employment and Unemployment August 6th, 2010

• Re-Intensifying Depression Foreshadows Great Crises • July Payrolls Fell 131,000, Gained 12,000 Ex-Census Layoffs • June's 100,000 Ex-Census Payroll Gain Revised to 4,000 • July Employment Dropped by 159,000 (Household Survey) • July Unemployment: 9.5% (U.3), 16.5% (U.6), 21.7%

U6 shows 21.7% unemployment if you go by the old math that was used before the life, death models were changed to drop the numbers

[ambient]

Originally Posted by sanrene

Gee, we've never had to do that before obama was in office, trying to prove something that is impossible, from both sides.

Can YOU prove that without the wasted $1 trillion of stimulus, things would have been much worse?

We've never had that kind of qualifier, ever before. The reason for it now is to try and blow some smoke to save obama and the dems behinds.

Remember, there were plenty of people, economists, posters, politicians, pundits that WARNED the administration of exactly, precisely what has HAPPENED.

Welcome to the real world, where complex phenomena cannot always be 100% "proven". This actually happens more often than Rush Limbaugh might lead you to believe. Your political ideology may like to think in terms of simple black and white absolutes (simpler for the masses), but the real world does not always work that way. In fact, most debates of consequential policy revolve around opportunity cost, which can rarely be proven.

By the way, Bush asked us to do something similar with the Iraq war when he asked us to commit to a decade of costly colonialism under the argument that non-intervention would lead to some much worse outcome. Can you "prove" that?

Just because one can't prove the qualifier does not mean that it isn't the right intellectual way to look at the issue. It IS absolutely the right way to look at it.

I never said that I could prove that things would have been much worse without the government actions; no one truly can. But I think there is a compelling case to be made for it if you just consider, for instance, the path the financial sector was on in the second half of 2009. If you extrapolate where that would have ended up, I think it would have literally reverberated throughout the global economy like a falling domino set, causing serious short-term solvency issues in small and large companies. The effect of that on unemployment would have been disastrous, and I don't think it's a stretch to say that it would have happened - regardless of who was in office. I would argue that this was the first piece of the economic fire that had to be actively put out.

There are always various talking heads who WARN against anything that is on the table. I would wager while some of them have actually put together a real independent thought, most are just regurgitating their dogmatic rhetoric based on some similar faulty, overly simplistic reasoning - which they have to do since they have a vested interest in spreading their partisan ideology (I'm sure we can all name a few of these people...).