That is quite simply absurd. There was not a positive change in employment. Only a fucking idiot would think that there was.
They projected a decrease of that amount compared to what baseline?
I did not look at it solely based on unemployment. I stated quite clearly things would have been worse without it. But from an employment standpoint, it could have been far better had they put the money to work, rather than sit on 75% of it for a year and counting.
My point there was that net jobs were NOT 'CREATED'. It is absolutely absurd to suggest they were when the unemployment rate kept going up. NET JOBS were LOST. The argument of how many were 'saved' is certainly up for dispute because it is damn near impossible to track as the administration has shown.
Also, I am not looking at unemployment in the 'abstract'. I am looking at it in the absolute. Full employment is considered to be 5% unemployment. But to be fair to the stimulus, the better comparison would be to look at the rate at the time the package was passed and compare it to now. Also, you could compare the projections at the time as to where unemployment would go to where it actually went.
Why in the hell would anyone use 12% as a baseline? Why not just say 100%, cause that way you could always look good?