Again the CBO says the stim pack worked

[Flopper]

If it had worked the un employment would not be at 9.1. Hello? Shovel ready?





My ass.

If it hadn't worked unemployment would be 11%.

CBO: Unemployment would have topped 11% without stimulus - On Politics: Covering the US Congress, Governors, and the 2010 Election - USATODAY.com

 

[WillowTree]

If it had worked the un employment would not be at 9.1. Hello? Shovel ready?





My ass.

If it hadn't worked unemployment would be 11%.

CBO: Unemployment would have topped 11% without stimulus - On Politics: Covering the US Congress, Governors, and the 2010 Election - USATODAY.com

Full circle jerk huh?

 

[The Rabbi]

If it had worked the un employment would not be at 9.1. Hello? Shovel ready?





My ass.

If it hadn't worked unemployment would be 11%.

CBO: Unemployment would have topped 11% without stimulus - On Politics: Covering the US Congress, Governors, and the 2010 Election - USATODAY.com

Except we've already determined the CBO bases their pronouncements on assumptions that X dollars of gov't spending yield Y number of jobs "saved or created."
That is bunk.

 

[boedicca]

A report card on the economic stimulus - St. Petersburg Times



To back up that claim, the council's report cited four independent analyses. These estimates were by the Congressional Budget Office, an independent agency that does the number-crunching for Congress, as well by three private-sector economic-analysis firms. Here's what those groups found:

• CBO: Between 800,000 jobs and 2.4 million jobs.

• IHS/Global Insight: 1.25 million jobs

• Macroeconomic Advisers: 1.06 million jobs

• Moody's economy.com: 1.59 million jobs

The Reagan Recovery resulted in over 7 Million Net New Jobs in it's first 23 months. Obama's "Recover" (and I use the term loosely) has resulted in a NET LOSS of 2.5M.

You can spin the CBO score however you want, but 2.5M LESS PEOPLE HAVE JOBS NOW THAN WHEN OBAMA TOOK OFFICE.

 

[boedicca]

If it had worked the un employment would not be at 9.1. Hello? Shovel ready?





My ass.

If it hadn't worked unemployment would be 11%.

CBO: Unemployment would have topped 11% without stimulus - On Politics: Covering the US Congress, Governors, and the 2010 Election - USATODAY.com

Unemployment IS over 11% now. The only reason it's counted as 9.1% is because 3.6M people have QUIT LOOKING FOR WORK DUE TO LACK OF JOB CREATION.

 

[WillowTree]

Here's the answer to the question.. "Are We Better off than We Were Four Years Ago?"


Un employment 9.1%

Food prices skyrocketing

Oil prices skyrocketing

Housing Values plummeting


We have banned energy production


We are engaged in three wars..









Not NO but HELL NO.. We are not better off than we were four years ago. demonRats SUCJK

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Is the UAW better off now that it was 4 years ago?

 

[Truthmatters]

If it had worked the un employment would not be at 9.1. Hello? Shovel ready?





My ass.

If it hadn't worked unemployment would be 11%.

CBO: Unemployment would have topped 11% without stimulus - On Politics: Covering the US Congress, Governors, and the 2010 Election - USATODAY.com

Except we've already determined the CBO bases their pronouncements on assumptions that X dollars of gov't spending yield Y number of jobs "saved or created."
That is bunk.

Nope ,you are ignoring that the report I supplied in the OP was done using the current number of reported Jobs by the people doing the hiring.

 

[boedicca]

If it hadn't worked unemployment would be 11%.

CBO: Unemployment would have topped 11% without stimulus - On Politics: Covering the US Congress, Governors, and the 2010 Election - USATODAY.com

Except we've already determined the CBO bases their pronouncements on assumptions that X dollars of gov't spending yield Y number of jobs "saved or created."
That is bunk.

Nope ,you are ignoring that the report I supplied in the OP was done using the current number of reported Jobs by the people doing the hiring.

Then how do you explain how their are 2.5M less people working now than when Obama took office?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

It’s sad and telling that the right wants to see the economic recovery stall and millions of Americans continue to suffer all for mere partisan political gain.

 

[The Rabbi]

If it hadn't worked unemployment would be 11%.

CBO: Unemployment would have topped 11% without stimulus - On Politics: Covering the US Congress, Governors, and the 2010 Election - USATODAY.com

Except we've already determined the CBO bases their pronouncements on assumptions that X dollars of gov't spending yield Y number of jobs "saved or created."
That is bunk.

Nope ,you are ignoring that the report I supplied in the OP was done using the current number of reported Jobs by the people doing the hiring.

Which I demonstrated was fraudulent and over-stated.

Are you going to rehash the same crap over and over?

 

[boedicca]

It’s sad and telling that the right wants to see the economic recovery stall and millions of Americans continue to suffer all for mere partisan political gain.

It's sad and telling that the Left keeps spinning epic unemployment and rising inflation as success.

 

[Wiseacre]

Go ask an unemployed person who's been looking for work for 2 freakin' years and tell him the stimulus bill worked. I'm guessing an asskickin' would be in your immediate future.

Look, it's one thing when the president tries to get the Olympi games for Chicago and fails. No big deal, right? But when you spend 862 billion dollars of taxpayer money that we didn't have and this is the end result, well claiming it worked is kinda hard. I guess what bugs people like me the most is that it was done way too quickly, wasn't well planned or executed, and wasn't as effecive as it might have been. The perception was that there were earmarks to payback political favors instead of spending that money in an economically sound and responsible manner. Yes, all that is an opinion on my part, shared by a lot of people, not all of whom are on the right. Poll numbers for how Obama is handling the economy bear that out.

 

[edthecynic]

So now we see that the Left and fellow travelers have no response other than to deny the goals laid out for the stimulus and to declare the stimulus worked because, who knows what would have happened otherwise.

I know that over 9% unemployment, paltry job creation, weak GDP growth under 2% and deficits approaching 90% of GDP are failures for any policy. Almost any result woudl be better than that. And voters will agree. No one wants to be told "it could ahve been a lot worse." That's bullshit. They want to see what you've done with your 3 years in office, supermajorities in the Congress, and trillions in budgets. The answer is not pretty.

Yet he will still win reelection, because his opponents created the mess and don't have a solution to fix it.

And Obama has had 3 years with supermajorities and hasn't fixed it? That's supposed to make people vote for him?

This lie is even better than your Reagan's UE would be 7% or less when it was 10.1% at this same time in his first term.

Obama never had 60 votes in the Senate and only had 59 votes plus Lieberman from July 7, 2009 to Feb 4, 2010. 7 months is 3 years to Mindless CON$. I bet you are not the least bit ashamed about your complete fabrications.

 

[boedicca]

This lie is even better than your Reagan's UE would be 7% or less when it was 10.1% at this same time in his first term.

Obama never had 60 votes in the Senate and only had 59 votes plus Lieberman from July 7, 2009 to Feb 4, 2010. 7 months is 3 years to Mindless CON$. I bet you are not the least bit ashamed about your complete fabrications.

That's not the proper comparison. The recession under Reagan ended in November 1982. Unemployment peaked at 10.8%, and dropped to 7.2% two years later, with an increase in the Labor Force Participation Rate.

We are two years into the Obama Recovery, and unemployment is 9.1%. It would be over 11% if the Labor Force Participation Rate had not dropped due to 3.6M GIVING UP LOOKING FOR WORK.

 

[edthecynic]

A report card on the economic stimulus - St. Petersburg Times



To back up that claim, the council's report cited four independent analyses. These estimates were by the Congressional Budget Office, an independent agency that does the number-crunching for Congress, as well by three private-sector economic-analysis firms. Here's what those groups found:

• CBO: Between 800,000 jobs and 2.4 million jobs.

• IHS/Global Insight: 1.25 million jobs

• Macroeconomic Advisers: 1.06 million jobs

• Moody's economy.com: 1.59 million jobs

The Reagan Recovery resulted in over 7 Million Net New Jobs in it's first 23 months. Obama's "Recover" (and I use the term loosely) has resulted in a NET LOSS of 2.5M.

You can spin the CBO score however you want, but 2.5M LESS PEOPLE HAVE JOBS NOW THAN WHEN OBAMA TOOK OFFICE.

UE went from 7.2% before ETRA was passed to 10.1% 23 months later. How exactly could UE jump 2.9% if 7 million NET NEW JOBS were created??????????????????????

 

[Meister]

Yet he will still win reelection, because his opponents created the mess and don't have a solution to fix it.

And Obama has had 3 years with supermajorities and hasn't fixed it? That's supposed to make people vote for him?

This lie is even better than your Reagan's UE would be 7% or less when it was 10.1% at this same time in his first term.

Obama never had 60 votes in the Senate and only had 59 votes plus Lieberman from July 7, 2009 to Feb 4, 2010. 7 months is 3 years to Mindless CON$. I bet you are not the least bit ashamed about your complete fabrications.

It's not like Lieberman didn't vote along with democrat political lines over 90% of the time. Hell, the Blue Dogs didn't have that kind of record with their party. You're really splitting hairs to make a point, Ed.

 

[boedicca]

A report card on the economic stimulus - St. Petersburg Times



To back up that claim, the council's report cited four independent analyses. These estimates were by the Congressional Budget Office, an independent agency that does the number-crunching for Congress, as well by three private-sector economic-analysis firms. Here's what those groups found:

• CBO: Between 800,000 jobs and 2.4 million jobs.

• IHS/Global Insight: 1.25 million jobs

• Macroeconomic Advisers: 1.06 million jobs

• Moody's economy.com: 1.59 million jobs

The Reagan Recovery resulted in over 7 Million Net New Jobs in it's first 23 months. Obama's "Recover" (and I use the term loosely) has resulted in a NET LOSS of 2.5M.

You can spin the CBO score however you want, but 2.5M LESS PEOPLE HAVE JOBS NOW THAN WHEN OBAMA TOOK OFFICE.

UE went from 7.2% before ETRA was passed to 10.1% 23 months later. How exactly could UE jump 2.9% if 7 million NET NEW JOBS were created??????????????????????

Your question is completely incoherent. Learn to read. I said the Reagan Recovery, which began after the recession ended in November 1982. Obama's recovery began after the recession ended in June 2009. Those are the comparable starting points for comparison.

In the 23 months after 1981-1982 election ended in November 1982, the economy generated 7M new jobs. Total non-farm employment was @ 88.8M in November 1982. In October 1984, it had incrased to 95.6M. The increase is actually 6.8M (I rounded up). Unemployment in November 1982 was 10.8%; by the time of the election in November 1984, it had decreased to 7.2%.

Look it up for yourself at bls.gov.

 

[edthecynic]

And Obama has had 3 years with supermajorities and hasn't fixed it? That's supposed to make people vote for him?

This lie is even better than your Reagan's UE would be 7% or less when it was 10.1% at this same time in his first term.

Obama never had 60 votes in the Senate and only had 59 votes plus Lieberman from July 7, 2009 to Feb 4, 2010. 7 months is 3 years to Mindless CON$. I bet you are not the least bit ashamed about your complete fabrications.

It's not like Lieberman didn't vote along with democrat political lines over 90% of the time. Hell, the Blue Dogs didn't have that kind of record with their party. You're really splitting hairs to make a point, Ed.

So even if you count Lieberman, there were only 60 votes for 7 months and I'M the one splitting hairs when I say 7 months is 3 years to CON$.
BRILLIANT!

 

[Truthmatters]

Except we've already determined the CBO bases their pronouncements on assumptions that X dollars of gov't spending yield Y number of jobs "saved or created."
That is bunk.

Nope ,you are ignoring that the report I supplied in the OP was done using the current number of reported Jobs by the people doing the hiring.

Which I demonstrated was fraudulent and over-stated.

Are you going to rehash the same crap over and over?

Do you realise the size of the problem you posted about?

Its was like 4,200 jobs.

That has been fixed and the problems that caused the miscount have been fixed years ago.

You just pretend that the two year old story means no jobs can be counted.

You are patently dishonset and a tool of the right wing.