CBO Finds 3.7 Million Jobs Created by Stimulus

Yurt said:
:palm:

yes i did. good lord. you can't even construct a proper sentence and now you can't remember my answer.
Click to expand...

Seriously...how can you claim it was "debated & dismissed," if you have no idea at all how the CBO arrives at the #'s?

It's embarassing. Not as bad as bravs & the broken legs thing, but pretty bad.
 
Onceler said:
Any plan that created millions of jobs isn't a fail.
Click to expand...

actually it could be, if the same money spent more wisely would have resulted in tens of millions of jobs.....is it not true that much of the money was distributed to states and that they used the money to balance their budgets?.....is it not true that much of the money financed pork barrel projects that had been rejected by Congress in previous sessions?.....is it not true that much of the money was spent on construction jobs that lasted a single season?.......

yes, some created jobs......$3m went to a factory here in town that makes the batteries for the Chevy Volt......actually, my son starts work there this month......but those kind of jobs took from January, 2009 until now to begin.....since the WH needed instant results to survive they spent most of the money on things that could be seen......like keeping superfluous teachers on the payroll for another year.....like erecting orange construction barrels along hundreds of miles of interstate highway with big green signs saying the funds came from the stimulus.......
 
Did cbo say how much per job? It was a huge fail stinking pile of democrat wish list pawned off as stimulus. Ie solyndra!
Child please
 
David St. Hubbins said:
That's awesome. Here's a chart. SF thinks we were better off at the end of 2008 than we are now. Why does anyone take him seriously?

Prior to the stimulus, the United States experienced the worst quarter of economic contraction since 1958.
Click to expand...

That is awesome. Dung once again proves he either can not read or that he just loves creating strawmen.

show us Dung.... where did I state we were better off than we were at the 'end of 2008'? Where Dung?

Also dipshit... we were talking about the UNEMPLOYMENT situation. Not GDP. Do you understand the difference between unemployment and GDP dipshit? Do you?
 
Superfreak said:
That is awesome. Dung once again proves he either can not read or that he just loves creating strawmen.

show us Dung.... where did I state we were better off than we were at the 'end of 2008'? Where Dung?
Click to expand...

Right there in that post of yours that I quoted:

I disagree with the assessment that we are better off today than we were prior to the stimulus. I think we are right about where we were. The stimulus prevented it from getting worse. But it didn't make things better.
Click to expand...

The stimulus was enacted in the first quarter of 2009 and began to take effect in the second quarter of 2009. According to my calendar, prior to the stimulus was the fourth quarter of 2008 and the first quarter of 2009.


Superfreak said:
Also dipshit... we were talking about the UNEMPLOYMENT situation. Not GDP. Do you understand the difference between unemployment and GDP dipshit? Do you?
Click to expand...

I didn't see any qualification on your assessment of where we were and took it at its face as a statement about the overall economy, not specifically unemployment. Moreover, the stimulus wasn't just about unemployment but was about jump-starting an economy that was tanking hard so assessing it's impact by looking solely at unemployment is silly.

Additionally, you do understand the relationship between GDP and employment don't you? And you do understand that employment is a lagging indicator don't you? And that the huge declines in GDP in the fourth quarter of 2008 and first quarter of 2009, before the stimulus, would result in huge increases in unemployment in the months thereafter? Now, you can argue that the stimulus didn't make any of that better than it otherwise would have been if you want to, but that's fucking stupid.
 
Onceler said:
Any plan that created millions of jobs isn't a fail. If anything w/ the 8.5%, they underestimated how many jobs would continue to be lost, which is mostly outside of the control of the stimulus itself.

It's funny that you can never restrict your critique of it to just the measure itself. You start bringing in inflation, and housing, and all kinds of other factors. And then, when that fails, you say that whoever you're speaking with is saying "the economy is great!"

You were wrong, as you were about TARP. And, as we all know by now, you will never, never admit that.
Click to expand...

Tell us.... did you make the same comment to Dung when he started talking about GDP? No, because he is a fellow worshipper of the messiah.
 
Superfreak said:
That is awesome. Dung once again proves he either can not read or that he just loves creating strawmen.

show us Dung.... where did I state we were better off than we were at the 'end of 2008'? Where Dung?

Also dipshit... we were talking about the UNEMPLOYMENT situation. Not GDP. Do you understand the difference between unemployment and GDP dipshit? Do you?
Click to expand...

Do you ever call Damo out when he claims I was saying "the economy is great!" Do you ever call him out for bringing up inflation & housing & the unemployment rate, when all we're talking about is the stimulus?

No. Because you both have ODS.
 
David St. Hubbins said:
Right there in that post of yours that I quoted:
The stimulus was enacted in the first quarter of 2009 and began to take effect in the second quarter of 2009. According to my calendar, prior to the stimulus was the fourth quarter of 2008 and the first quarter of 2009.
Click to expand...

Well hell Dung, prior to the stimulus was actually 1998, so by golly, since that was prior to the stimulus that must be what I was referring to. Right? We just take whatever period we want as long as it was prior?

You are such a fucking hack.

I didn't see any qualification on your assessment of where we were and took it at its face as a statement about the overall economy, not specifically unemployment. Moreover, the stimulus wasn't just about unemployment but was about jump-starting an economy that was tanking hard so assessing it's impact by looking solely at unemployment is silly.
Click to expand...

LMAO.... the topic we were discussion was UNEMPLOYMENT you dolt. Do I have to qualify that I am still discussing the same issue every time I comment? you fucking hack.

Additionally, you do understand the relationship between GDP and employment don't you? And you do understand that employment is a lagging indicator don't you? And that the huge declines in GDP in the fourth quarter of 2008 and first quarter of 2009, before the stimulus, would result in huge increases in unemployment in the months thereafter? Now, you can argue that the stimulus didn't make any of that better than it otherwise would have been if you want to, but that's fucking stupid.
Click to expand...

You do understand that even the CBO stated that it wasn't sure if the jobs 'saved/created' by the stimulus would have come back regardless of the stimulus? There is no way to be sure given that we can't jump to Earth 2.1 and see what would have happened.

you fucking hack.
 
Onceler said:
Do you ever call Damo out when he claims I was saying "the economy is great!" Do you ever call him out for bringing up inflation & housing & the unemployment rate, when all we're talking about is the stimulus?

No. Because you both have ODS.
Click to expand...

Please point to the post in which he claimed you said that.

Thanks.
 
Superfreak said:
Please point to the post in which he claimed you said that.

Thanks.
Click to expand...

He says that or some variant of it whenever we discuss the stimulus. Thanks for noticing.

And you yourself took it a step further with your "chanting" claim earlier on this thread.

Neither of you can discuss the stimulus rationally, without exaggerating & shifting the goalposts. It has been noted.
 
Yurt said:
i didn't even catch that, thanks. isn't this the saved or created schtick....

way to go on posting current stuff nigel...lol
Click to expand...

That's not the point. The CBO projected a gain, the question now is how close the projection got.

There's nothing wrong with posting an older article if it ties into the current situation.
 
Superfreak said:
Well hell Dung, prior to the stimulus was actually 1998, so by golly, since that was prior to the stimulus that must be what I was referring to. Right? We just take whatever period we want as long as it was prior?

You are such a fucking hack.
Click to expand...

Riiiight. Such a fucking hack to construe "prior to the stimulus" as the period immediately prior to the stimulus. Tool.


Superfreak said:
LMAO.... the topic we were discussion was UNEMPLOYMENT you dolt. Do I have to qualify that I am still discussing the same issue every time I comment? you fucking hack.

You do understand that even the CBO stated that it wasn't sure if the jobs 'saved/created' by the stimulus would have come back regardless of the stimulus? There is no way to be sure given that we can't jump to Earth 2.1 and see what would have happened.

you fucking hack.
Click to expand...


None of that nonsense is responsive to my post. Your claim is ridiculous. Pretending that even the anemic economic growth we have right now is about the same as an 8.9% quarterly drop in GDP followed by a 6.7% quarterly GDP drop is lunacy. I understand that you might be a little embarrassed by it, but no need to lash out like a child.
 
Onceler said:
He says that or some variant of it whenever we discuss the stimulus. Thanks for noticing.

And you yourself took it a step further with your "chanting" claim earlier on this thread.

Neither of you can discuss the stimulus rationally, without exaggerating & shifting the goalposts. It has been noted.
Click to expand...

Please point to the post in which he did so in this thread.

As for discussing it rationally, you are being quite absurd. There are no moving goalposts for me, there is no exaggeration. But since you appear to be 'seeing' things... do point to which of my posts on the topic you think I am doing so and we can discuss.
 
David St. Hubbins said:
Riiiight. Such a fucking hack to construe "prior to the stimulus" as the period immediately prior to the stimulus. Tool.
Click to expand...

so you just 'construed' that I was magically referring to the previous quarter? Why not previous year? Or decade? You just went with a period that would make my statement appear to be extreme.

Even though in reading this thread you can see clearly that I have been discussing employment. When you KNOW that employment data comes out monthly. When you can see that I have been discussing unemployment in terms of not only what it was at the time of the stimulus being signed... which was FEBRUARY of 2009, but also with regards to the unemployment comparison from when the stimulus bill started to have an effect... which was (as you stated) in the summer of 2009. Yet despite all of that.... you decided that you would just 'construe' that I meant the previous quarter?

Like I said... you are a fucking hack.

None of that nonsense is responsive to my post. Your claim is ridiculous. Pretending that even the anemic economic growth we have right now is about the same as an 8.9% quarterly drop in GDP followed by a 6.7% quarterly GDP drop is lunacy. I understand that you might be a little embarrassed by it, but no need to lash out like a child.
Click to expand...

ROFLMAO... Again you fucking hack.... NOWHERE.... and I do mean NOWHERE.... did I pretend/claim/state that GDP now is about the same as it was during the collapse. NOWHERE.

Now AGAIN, you fucking hack, my comments were on where UNEMPLOYMENT was.... NOT GDP. AGAIN, you fucking hack, do you understand the difference between unemployment and GDP? You do know they aren't the same thing..... right?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top