CBO: extending unemployment benefits creates 19,000 jobs per billion dollar stimulus

[Clementine]

If they had repealed Obamacare after everyone found out what was in the law, they probably would have saved or created 19,000,000 jobs at least and it wouldn't have cost the tax payers a dime. Too bad that saving the middle class isn't on their agenda.

 

[The Rabbi]

So when a republican president is in office he has nothing to do with the UE numbers when they are low.
And when Obama is president and the UE number drops a tenth of a point it's all because of Obama...

I'm glad that has been clarified....

Well here's the difference. Much of the job growth under Obama can be directly attributed to The Recovery Act. As pathetic as the job growth under Bush was, I still attribute the minor growth to his tax cuts. However, given how small the growth was, it had very little to do with the unemployment rate.

And let's not forget the financial crisis happened under his watch. We lost million of jobs in his last few months and millions more in Obama's first few. It wasn't until the recovery act that the massive job loss rate turned to job growth.

So Obama didnt pass the recovery act but gets the credit for the worst job creation post recession ever while Bush was totally responsible for the meltdown.
Billy, you are a class A moron, sir. Congratulations!

 

[Billy000]

So when a republican president is in office he has nothing to do with the UE numbers when they are low.
And when Obama is president and the UE number drops a tenth of a point it's all because of Obama...

I'm glad that has been clarified....

So when a republican president is in office he has nothing to do with the UE numbers when they are low.
And when Obama is president and the UE number drops a tenth of a point it's all because of Obama...

I'm glad that has been clarified....

Well here's the difference. Much of the job growth under Obama can be directly attributed to The Recovery Act. As pathetic as the job growth under Bush was, I still attribute the minor growth to his tax cuts. However, given how small the growth was, it had very little to do with the unemployment rate.

And let's not forget the financial crisis happened under his watch. We lost million of jobs in his last few months and millions more in Obama's first few. It wasn't until the recovery act that the massive job loss rate turned to job growth.

So Obama didnt pass the recovery act but gets the credit for the worst job creation post recession ever while Bush was totally responsible for the meltdown.
Billy, you are a class A moron, sir. Congratulations!

The Recovery Act was Obama's you dumbass.

 

[The Rabbi]

So when a republican president is in office he has nothing to do with the UE numbers when they are low.
And when Obama is president and the UE number drops a tenth of a point it's all because of Obama...

I'm glad that has been clarified....

Well here's the difference. Much of the job growth under Obama can be directly attributed to The Recovery Act. As pathetic as the job growth under Bush was, I still attribute the minor growth to his tax cuts. However, given how small the growth was, it had very little to do with the unemployment rate.

And let's not forget the financial crisis happened under his watch. We lost million of jobs in his last few months and millions more in Obama's first few. It wasn't until the recovery act that the massive job loss rate turned to job growth.

So Obama didnt pass the recovery act but gets the credit for the worst job creation post recession ever while Bush was totally responsible for the meltdown.
Billy, you are a class A moron, sir. Congratulations!

The Recovery Act was Obama's you dumbass.

Obama didnt pass the Recovery Act.
Billy, don't be a zero.

 

[Billy000]

So when a republican president is in office he has nothing to do with the UE numbers when they are low.
And when Obama is president and the UE number drops a tenth of a point it's all because of Obama...

I'm glad that has been clarified....

So Obama didnt pass the recovery act but gets the credit for the worst job creation post recession ever while Bush was totally responsible for the meltdown.
Billy, you are a class A moron, sir. Congratulations!

The Recovery Act was Obama's you dumbass.

Obama didnt pass the Recovery Act.
Billy, don't be a zero.

He was responsible for Its creation you dumbass. My god you are stupid.

 

[Meister]

I disagree because we've seen just how ineffective supply side has been. Before the Bush tax cuts expired revenue as a percentage of GDP was at its lowest point in history. We should have saw massive job growth during Bush's presidency but we didn't. Not even close. Job growth under Bush was pathetic.

For most of Bush's tenure, the unemployment numbers were between 4-5%. Most of those were people who weren't going to work no matter what. Just who were you going to get to fill the positions?

Bush had nothing to do with the lower unemployment rate.

This is deflection on your behalf. The point is that Bush had 4-5% unemployment for the most part of his tenure....hence the low job creation.

 

[Billy000]

For most of Bush's tenure, the unemployment numbers were between 4-5%. Most of those were people who weren't going to work no matter what. Just who were you going to get to fill the positions?

Bush had nothing to do with the lower unemployment rate.

This is deflection on your behalf. The point is that Bush had 4-5% unemployment for the most part of his tenure....hence the low job creation.

Gee and what happened in sept of 0'8?

Don't be a tool about this.

 

[S.J.]

So when a republican president is in office he has nothing to do with the UE numbers when they are low.
And when Obama is president and the UE number drops a tenth of a point it's all because of Obama...

I'm glad that has been clarified....

Well here's the difference. Much of the job growth under Obama can be directly attributed to The Recovery Act. As pathetic as the job growth under Bush was, I still attribute the minor growth to his tax cuts. However, given how small the growth was, it had very little to do with the unemployment rate.

And let's not forget the financial crisis happened under his watch. We lost million of jobs in his last few months and millions more in Obama's first few. It wasn't until the recovery act that the massive job loss rate turned to job growth.

So Obama didnt pass the recovery act but gets the credit for the worst job creation post recession ever while Bush was totally responsible for the meltdown.
Billy, you are a class A moron, sir. Congratulations!

The Recovery Act was Obama's you dumbass.

When is the recovery gonna start?

 

[Meister]

Bush had nothing to do with the lower unemployment rate.

This is deflection on your behalf. The point is that Bush had 4-5% unemployment for the most part of his tenure....hence the low job creation.

Gee and what happened in sept of 0'8?

Don't be a tool about this.

Are you finding it hard to stay on the topic that YOU and I were discussing?
Again, deflection on your behalf.

 

[birddog]

So when a republican president is in office he has nothing to do with the UE numbers when they are low.
And when Obama is president and the UE number drops a tenth of a point it's all because of Obama...

I'm glad that has been clarified....

Well here's the difference. Much of the job growth under Obama can be directly attributed to The Recovery Act. As pathetic as the job growth under Bush was, I still attribute the minor growth to his tax cuts. However, given how small the growth was, it had very little to do with the unemployment rate.

And let's not forget the financial crisis happened under his watch. We lost million of jobs in his last few months and millions more in Obama's first few. It wasn't until the recovery act that the massive job loss rate turned to job growth.

Bullshit! Obama has accomplished nothing but greatly increasing the debt! Count the ones who have quit looking for work. The economy really went bad in the Fall of 2008 when it was obvious Obama was going to be elected! Geeez!

 

[Billy000]

So when a republican president is in office he has nothing to do with the UE numbers when they are low.
And when Obama is president and the UE number drops a tenth of a point it's all because of Obama...

I'm glad that has been clarified....

So Obama didnt pass the recovery act but gets the credit for the worst job creation post recession ever while Bush was totally responsible for the meltdown.
Billy, you are a class A moron, sir. Congratulations!

The Recovery Act was Obama's you dumbass.

When is the recovery gonna start?

It already did. Steady job creation since early 2009.

 

[Billy000]

This is deflection on your behalf. The point is that Bush had 4-5% unemployment for the most part of his tenure....hence the low job creation.

Gee and what happened in sept of 0'8?

Don't be a tool about this.

Are you finding it hard to stay on the topic that YOU and I were discussing?
Again, deflection on your behalf.

What happened to the massive job creation Bush promised from his ridiculous tax cuts?

 

[Billy000]

So when a republican president is in office he has nothing to do with the UE numbers when they are low.
And when Obama is president and the UE number drops a tenth of a point it's all because of Obama...

I'm glad that has been clarified....

Well here's the difference. Much of the job growth under Obama can be directly attributed to The Recovery Act. As pathetic as the job growth under Bush was, I still attribute the minor growth to his tax cuts. However, given how small the growth was, it had very little to do with the unemployment rate.

And let's not forget the financial crisis happened under his watch. We lost million of jobs in his last few months and millions more in Obama's first few. It wasn't until the recovery act that the massive job loss rate turned to job growth.

Bullshit! Obama has accomplished nothing but greatly increasing the debt! Count the ones who have quit looking for work. The economy really went bad in the Fall of 2008 when it was obvious Obama was going to be elected! Geeez!

Oh my god you are a willfully ignorant pile of garbage.

 

[Meister]

Gee and what happened in sept of 0'8?

Don't be a tool about this.

Are you finding it hard to stay on the topic that YOU and I were discussing?
Again, deflection on your behalf.

What happened to the massive job creation Bush promised from his ridiculous tax cuts?

Why can't you stay on topic? You stated that Bush had terrible job growth. My reply to you was that UE was in the 4-5% for most of his tenure. I stated that most of the 4-5% were those who refused to work. Therefore, who was going to fill those jobs?

You've been dancing around our discussion ever since.

 

[Billy000]

Are you finding it hard to stay on the topic that YOU and I were discussing?
Again, deflection on your behalf.

What happened to the massive job creation Bush promised from his ridiculous tax cuts?

Why can't you stay on topic? You stated that Bush had terrible job growth. My reply to you was that UE was in the 4-5% for most of his tenure. I stated that most of the 4-5% were those who refused to work. Therefore, who was going to fill those jobs?

You've been dancing around our discussion ever since.

Until you prove that claim, why should I give a shit? You are just making shit up.

 

[Meister]

What happened to the massive job creation Bush promised from his ridiculous tax cuts?

Why can't you stay on topic? You stated that Bush had terrible job growth. My reply to you was that UE was in the 4-5% for most of his tenure. I stated that most of the 4-5% were those who refused to work. Therefore, who was going to fill those jobs?

You've been dancing around our discussion ever since.

Until you prove that claim, why should I give a shit? You are just making shit up.

Deflection once again. Have a good evening, son.

 

[Avorysuds]

What happened to the massive job creation Bush promised from his ridiculous tax cuts?

Why can't you stay on topic? You stated that Bush had terrible job growth. My reply to you was that UE was in the 4-5% for most of his tenure. I stated that most of the 4-5% were those who refused to work. Therefore, who was going to fill those jobs?

You've been dancing around our discussion ever since.

Until you prove that claim, why should I give a shit? You are just making shit up.

If you didn't work under Bush you flat out did not want to be working. Bush was a horrid President, even on the economy as he did many progressive policies that lead to a crash. However, the 4-5% UE under Bush was pretty accurate as he didn't have 400,000 people dropping off UE every month that stop getting counted as UE like Obama does. The UE rate under Obama is almost impossible to find out because they have fudged every number possible... basically, Obama and his admin have lied so much we have no idea where the fuck anything actually is.

 

[Londoner]

How many jobs does a dollar of taxes or government borrowing destroy?

We didn't get out of the Great Depression until government borrowed over 100% of GDP to ramp up war manufacturing. The resulting government jobs put nearly everyone to work. And guess what happened as a result? Answer: since everyone had money to spend on "Main Street, the Capitalist had an incentive to invest, produce and add jobs, which put even more consumers in the economy, which incentivized even greater investment and job growth, which jump started a cycle that saw multi-decades of economic growth, including the 50s and 60s, which had greater growth than the Supply Side boom in the 80s & 90s, which boom was artificial because it was over-reliant on the expansion of credit to consumers. Regarding our WWII-government-borrowing which stimulated massive economic growth, please note: we could have built the bombs and dumped them into the ocean AND the economic growth would have been the same: tons of people with jobs and as a direct result, the needed purchasing power to stimulate Main Street job growth. FYI: the resulting economic growth also lead to increased revenue and, as a result, allowed us to pay down the massive deficit.

Military Keynesianism (WWII war spending) demonstrated the power of deficit spending during a recessionary cycle. This institutionalized Keynesianism as the primary monetary tool until it was over-applied in the 70s and lead to terrible inflation, followed by stagflation.

How many jobs does a dollar of taxes or government borrowing destroy?

Do you know how many jobs Ronald Reagan created through massive government spending/borrowing? Do you know how many government jobs Reagan assed to the economy. It was/is unprecedented. Don't take my word for it. Research - and this is just a small piece - the defense related industries in just Orange and San Diego County. Do you know how many government jobs Reagan created in just these two counties? Do you know how many workers-cum-consumers these government jobs put on the respective "Main Streets" of these counties? Reagan was a master Keynesian. He used Government jobs to put more spenders in the stores of capitalists - and it fucking worked.

(I remember when all the Lefties cheered as Clinton, in our post Cold War euphoria, started closing military bases all over the country. He destroyed a few small towns that depended on Marines with spending money. Turn off FOX News. The creation of government jobs has always been a powerful "Main Street" stimulus. And the Presidency of Ronald Reagan proves it. Camp Pendleton is a small city of Government Jobs in North San Diego County. Do you know how much the Marines spend at small businesses in that county? One day you are going to wake up and realize that Government Jobs, until the GOP forced Obama to cut them via sequester, were responsible for massive economic growth. Again: people with have money to go into stores and buy shit. When people buy lots of shit from the capitalist, the economy grows. And when the economy grows, there is more revenue to pay for the cost of government jobs. Again, study the Reagan presidency to see how it is done.)

That requires people to save money, not spend it.

Have you ever heard of the paradox of thrift? Spending is sacrosanct in the empire of consumption. Do you know how many shopping malls we have? Do you know how many workers (consumers) those shopping malls employ? Do you know what happens to those shopping malls when everybody saves and doesn't buy the dog shit at Best Buy?

As I already explained, saving creates job. Every dollar not sent to Washington means productive people put money in the bank and other people invest it.

You are insane. Government (taxation) has played a MASSIVE role on the investment side, which means you need a less FOX'IAN theory of government spending. Satellite technology came largely out of the Cold War Pentagon and NASA budgets (i.e., government spending). Do you know how many private sector corporations make MASSIVE profits because of satellite technology? You need a better understanding of the advanced industrial infrastructure upon which the market depends. Just for the sake of your own credibility, you should understand how much money government poured into Boeing and commercial aviation (again through the defense budget) - and how much profit was built on top of it.

Son, if you look our last two multi-decade growth spurts -- 50s-60s & 80s-90s -- you will see massive government funded investment in commercial technology (mostly defense related), along with an insane number of government workers, all of whom had good paying jobs which allowed them to spend like crazy on "Main Street" so that our small businesses could keep hiring.

Every major capitalist economy has been heavily state dependent. All profit makers have been heavily state dependent. This is why our most successful corporations have built lobbying empires in Washington DC. Do you have any fucking idea how much subsidy-money our largest, most successful corporations get from government? Have you ever researched the amount of assistance John Galt actually gets? These same profit makers own your media sources. And they have taken advantage of the fact that you are not educated enough to understand how much government spending goes into their pockets.

Giving money to parasites only creates government dependents.

Agree 100%. Some people on welfare are corrupt parasites, much like some of our politicians. But many of those people want to work. Problem is, they live in a world where there are 3 million unemployed but only 1 million available jobs. The Reagan Family accepted assistance during the Great Depression. Ronald Reagan and his jobless father were not parasites, they just lived during a time when there was not enough work for those who wanted to work. FDR gave them help until the economy started to grow and add jobs - and then the Reagan's transitioned from welfare to productive citizens ... to President of the United States of America. FDR calls it an investment in the American People.

Dude, in the long history of our nation, we have given trillions of dollars to countries like Saudi Arabia, Iran and Iraq. Maybe we should dial some of that back and invest in our own citizens. We just need people like you to stop hating them.

 

[bluecoller-eddy]

bripat9643 Post # 4
How many jobs does a dollar of taxes or government borrowing destroy?

Do you have any studies showing how many jobs the Roosevelt,Trueman, or Clinton
tax increases cost the economy?

Of course you don't. Because the economy thrived after those tax increases.

You lie, because that's what republicans do.

bripat9643 Post # 4
What makes the CBO qualified to make any such determination?

Because they are career economists who get their information from real government
statistics. They don't use anything from Rush limbaugh.

bripat9643 Post # 4
Right, if you think 12 years of unemployment over 15% is a "great success."

6-10-2010
Independent Research

http://www.siena.edu/uploadedfiles/...nity_page/sri/independent_research/Presidents 2010 Rank by Category.pdf


A 2010 Siena poll of 238 Presidential scholars

---------------Overall---6. Handling ---13. Domestic ------18
---------------Rank------of U.S. -------Accomplishments ---Intelligence
-------------------------Economy -------------------------------------

F. Roosevelt ---1 ---------1 --------------3 ---------------10
Clinton -------13 ---------3 -------------10 ----------------9
Truman ---------9 ---------6 --------------7 ---------------17
Reagan --------18 --------21 -------------23 ---------------36
G.W. Bush -----39 --------42 -------------38 ---------------42
Harding -------41 --------39 -------------40 ---------------43

The red-state knuckle dragger's worship Harding.

238 Presidential scholars rate Harding as the third worst president,
and F. Roosevelt as the very best of 43 presidents.

238 Presidential scholars rate F.Roosevelt as the very best at Handling the
Economy,Harding as the fifth worst.

238 Presidential scholars rate Harding as the only president dumber than G.W. Bush.
But then the red-state knuckle dragger's worship stupidity.

Seems to be a difference of opinion?
Lets examine the evidence.
What is recorded in the United States of America's official budget records is-

Historical Tables | The White House

Table 1.1—Summary of Receipts, Outlays, and Surpluses or Deficits (-): 1789–2016

In 1916, the last peacetime year before WW 1
federal receipts were 761 million dollars and
federal spending was 713 million dollars.
We then had a rather expensive war and our spending went to 18,493
Million dollars in 1919. Wilson cut this to 6,358 Million in 1920.

In the next five years Harding and Coolidge reduced the war time spending to
2,942 million dollars. Four hundred and thirteen percent more than in pre-war 1916.
A 413% spending INCREASE in 9 years. --This is a republican cut!!

By 1925 revenues were reduced from there war time highs to 3,641 million dollars
A four hundred and seventy eight percent more than in pre-war 1916.
A 478% revenue INCREASE in 9 years. --This is a republican cut!!

Republicans are shameless liars.

What do presidential scholars see when they look at the F.D.R.s economy.

GDP 1958 prices ---page 224 ----F 1-5 --F 31
http://www2.census.gov/prod2/statcomp/documents/CT1970p1-07.pdf

GDP --1958 Dollars
1921 ---127.8
1929 ---203.6
8 years + 59.3%

1933 ---141.5
1941 ---263.7
8 years ----+86.3%

Brain-dead Reagan
2005 Dollars
1980 ___5,839.0 __
1988 ___7,613.9 __+30.4%

GDP grew very well in the 1920s. Probably due to a four fold increase in
government spending after 1916.

However the 86% increase in the gdp during F.D.R.s first 2 terms was the
fastest 8 year economic growth in American history.
--The fastest growth in 8 years.----------PERIOD ---END OF STORY. --

Almost Three times faster than brain-dead Reagan's recovery!

Employment ---- page 126 D ---1--110
http://www2.census.gov/prod2/statcomp/documents/CT1970p1-05.pdf

Employment
1921 --26,618
1929 --35,666
8 years –+9,048 ------+34.0%

1933 --27,962
1941 --41,250
8 years --+13,288-----+47.5%

Brain-dead Reagan
Top Picks (Most Requested Statistics) : U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

Total Nonfarm Employment - CES0000000001

Jan 1981 ---91,031
Jan 1989 --107,133
8 years ----16,102 ---+17.7%

During F.D.R.s first 2 terms the economy grew by 13 million new jobs.
Four million MORE than during the roaring twenty's.
The 47.5% increase is the fastest 8 year job increase in American history.
The F.D.R.economy holds the record for fastest job growth. -END OF STORY.

Almost three times faster than Brain-dead Reagan's 17% increase.

This is why 238 presidential scholars say that F.D.R. was the BEST
president in the handling of the American economy.

F.D.R. Absolutely stomped the sh*t out of the all of the supply side economic records.
That's irrefutable HISTORY.

For Republicans, Lying is a way of life.

-------Bluecoller--the grumpy old kraut -----

 

[The Rabbi]

Bush had nothing to do with the lower unemployment rate.

This is deflection on your behalf. The point is that Bush had 4-5% unemployment for the most part of his tenure....hence the low job creation.

Gee and what happened in sept of 0'8?

Don't be a tool about this.

You mean after 7 years of low unemployment and steady growth? The economy melted down once Democrats took control of Congress. Like always happens.