Again the CBO says the stim pack worked

Please provide any links showing that Obama was dissatisfied with the bill and unhappy to sign it.
 
It is a LIE to make the claim that it was the same bill the projection was made on.

Is the Times article writter infallable?


Why did he make the mistake of thinking this was teh same bill the projections was made on?

Is he fallabele or infallable?
 
Last edited:
It wont be long before you can NOT ignore the results of the stim pack

What results? The CBO is required to use a formula that assumes that so much money spent equals a job. Unfortunately, all the jobs seem to have gone to people that make highway signs. I don't know who does that in most states, but in Texas every single highway sign is made by prisoners who get paid $0.00 to make those signs.

Just something to think about.
 
Nope , it was numbers provided by people who recieved the stim money and their reports of jobs coming from it.
 
The Stimulus package was sold to the public being an spending initiative that would prevent unemployment from going over 8%. It didn't.

With hindsight (i.e. better data) it's clear that the unemployment rate was already at 8.2% before the stimulus passed and at 8.6% a few days after it passed.

Are you admitting it was a failure before it started?
 
;)

Just because it was from summer 09 ( a month after the recession ended btw) doesn’t mean it doesn’t contain some interesting snippets, like;

the President rejected calls for a second stimulus package, saying the current stimulus needs more time to work, since only a small fraction of the money has been spent.

Read more: Barack Obama's Stimulus Plan: Failing by Its Own Measure - TIME


The logic for those that are a) honest and b) can grok logic and English means- he was banking on the stimulus playing out….and NOW that is has played out…..9.1%.

Yes unemployment is 9.1%, what would it have been without the stimulus? Or are you arguing that a stimulus was needed and President Obama's was just too small?


It's only 9.1% because the government no longer counts 3.6M people who have given up looking for work due to LACK OF JOBS. If they were counted, U3 Unemployment would be 11.2%

A shrinking Labor Force Participation Rate is a very damaging way to lower unemployment.

Just sayin'.

And how many presidents have used that calculation instead of the one we use now?
 
The Stimulus package was sold to the public being an spending initiative that would prevent unemployment from going over 8%. It didn't.

With hindsight (i.e. better data) it's clear that the unemployment rate was already at 8.2% before the stimulus passed and at 8.6% a few days after it passed.

Are you admitting it was a failure before it started?

No hes pointing out facts.

you just ignore them like the fact that the bill that projection was made on never even passed
 
If you want to claim they think everything's peachy now, you get to provide proof.

;)

Just because it was from summer 09 ( a month after the recession ended btw) doesn’t mean it doesn’t contain some interesting snippets, like;

the President rejected calls for a second stimulus package, saying the current stimulus needs more time to work, since only a small fraction of the money has been spent.

Read more: Barack Obama's Stimulus Plan: Failing by Its Own Measure - TIME


The logic for those that are a) honest and b) can grok logic and English means- he was banking on the stimulus playing out….and NOW that is has played out…..9.1%.

Yes unemployment is 9.1%, what would it have been without the stimulus?

I have answered you 3 times, ask me again I and I am gonna neg rep ur ass so help me Christ.

Or are you arguing that a stimulus was needed and President Obama's was just too small?

no I am arguing now that your capacity to ingest logical is faulty.
 
Stim Pack - was that a reference to my favorite video game of all time, Fallout?
 
;)

Just because it was from summer 09 ( a month after the recession ended btw) doesn’t mean it doesn’t contain some interesting snippets, like;

the President rejected calls for a second stimulus package, saying the current stimulus needs more time to work, since only a small fraction of the money has been spent.

Read more: Barack Obama's Stimulus Plan: Failing by Its Own Measure - TIME


The logic for those that are a) honest and b) can grok logic and English means- he was banking on the stimulus playing out….and NOW that is has played out…..9.1%.

Yes unemployment is 9.1%, what would it have been without the stimulus? Or are you arguing that a stimulus was needed and President Obama's was just too small?


It's only 9.1% because the government no longer counts 3.6M people who have given up looking for work due to LACK OF JOBS. If they were counted, U3 Unemployment would be 11.2%

A shrinking Labor Force Participation Rate is a very damaging way to lower unemployment.

Just sayin'.

You didn't answer the questions:

Yes unemployment is 9.1% (11.2%), what would it have been without the stimulus? Or are you arguing that a stimulus was needed and President Obama's was just too small?
 
Yes unemployment is 9.1%, what would it have been without the stimulus? Or are you arguing that a stimulus was needed and President Obama's was just too small?


It's only 9.1% because the government no longer counts 3.6M people who have given up looking for work due to LACK OF JOBS. If they were counted, U3 Unemployment would be 11.2%

A shrinking Labor Force Participation Rate is a very damaging way to lower unemployment.

Just sayin'.

You didn't answer the questions:

Yes unemployment is 9.1% (11.2%), what would it have been without the stimulus? Or are you arguing that a stimulus was needed and President Obama's was just too small?

Your question has been answered directly several times in different threads. What will you get out of this answer here that you didnt get in the other places?
 
It's only 9.1% because the government no longer counts 3.6M people who have given up looking for work due to LACK OF JOBS. If they were counted, U3 Unemployment would be 11.2%

A shrinking Labor Force Participation Rate is a very damaging way to lower unemployment.

Just sayin'.

You didn't answer the questions:

Yes unemployment is 9.1% (11.2%), what would it have been without the stimulus? Or are you arguing that a stimulus was needed and President Obama's was just too small?

Your question has been answered directly several times in different threads. What will you get out of this answer here that you didnt get in the other places?

I haven't placed this question in several different threads. If you don't want to answer the question, then move along.
 
Nope , it was numbers provided by people who recieved the stim money and their reports of jobs coming from it.

You really want to go there? Because I can show how those numbers created jobs that do not exists in congressional districts that do not exist.
 

Forum List

Back
Top