Millions out of work - a crumbling infrastructure - I have an idea!

[Rshermr]

So, here is the question that I asked Oldstyle. This is the THIRD TIME. Rational question, oldstyle. Right on the subject of this thread. So, here it is again. My guess is you will avoid it again. As you did the first time, and the second time.

Quote:
Lets look at a couple posts back, when you said that the number of jobs created or saved was estimated to be only about 3 million at most. So how did you come up with that number, oldstyle. Because the numbers were NEVER that. They were over 11 million on the upper end.
So, Oldstyle, how did you get it that wrong? I can see only three possibilities:
1. Now, did you believe what you said?? Then you were just stupid. Because you were incapable of reading that those numbers were for a quarter. Right there in the paragraph stated by the CBO. Are you that incompetent, Oldstyle?
2. Did you get them from a bat shit crazy con web site?? Lots of them out there saying untrue crap, just like you.
3. Did you lie?? Well, obviously if you were not stupid and did not use bat shit crazy con web sites, then you lied. And, Oldstyle, I believe you lied. Pretty obvious, actually.
That was post number 441. Looks to me that you were wrong. Question is where did you get the numbers you were wrong with?? Pretty obvious lie, oldstyle. I can provide more, and we can do the same. When I am wrong I admit it. But I do not lie. You just lie, and lie, and lie, and lie. And move on. Because you do not have the integrity to address your lie, or whatever it is. But since this is really, really hard to explain, oldstyle, you are simply trying to ignore it.

And, as expected, Oldstyle ignored the question. When I am wrong, I admit it. When you are wrong, you run from it. Because in your case, you lied, oldstyle. Again.

 

[Oldstyle]

The only liar that I've seen in this string is you, Rshermr. You're the one who's trying to pass themselves off as an expert on economics because you taught the subject in college...only your story about doing so as an undergraduate is so far fetched that by itself it would strain your credibility...but then you come here and post some of the most idiotic things about economics I've ever seen on the board...things that nobody who REALLY understood economics would ever say. You can't even compose a halfway literate post without your "secretary" proofing it for you...just another part of your strange little fantasy world. I'm of the opinion that the closest you ever came to college was driving by a campus somewhere.

 

[Oldstyle]

And once again you decline to provide an example of another Administration other than Obama's that used the "jobs saved" economic statistic to pad their jobs numbers. You're a joke...

 

[Rshermr]

So, Oldstyle asks the question from his favorite con website:

I ask you for about the fourth time to show me another Administration that used "jobs saved" as an economic number.

Well, Oldstyle, here is another news flash for you. First, your question is not important. If you think about it, the question is, as I have said before, not whether a job is created or saved. They end up doing the same thing to the unemployment rate, and to workers trying to make a living. And as I said, the numbers have been discussed since I was an econ major nearly 5 decades ago. Now, some cons want to attack the jobs saved part of things, and by a COMPLETE COINCIDENCE Oldstyle wants proof that the current pres did not make this stat up. Here is the thing, Oldstyle, in some economies jobs saved are important to understand. The great depression was one. This is another. So, below is a link to a 1995 reference to jobs saved.

When you fail to do so perhaps you'd like to explain why THIS Administration DID create that statistic if it wasn't to obscure the poor numbers on job creation?

This admin did not create the stat. Your reasoning is typical of someone who is reading con dogma.
And the numbers come from the BLS and CBO. Which, my poor ignorant con tool, are you now saying is trying to obscure numbers. Any proof, Oldstyle? Or just the normal con dogma? You are questioning data currently used by these agencies, which are respected by nearly all parties. Except really really really bat shit crazy con tools like you. You do not like the numbers, so you attack the sources. Classy, Oldstyle. Again, NO INTEGRITY.

The BLS has been keeping track of jobs saved for decades. Here is a 1995 report brom the BLS. Anyone who is telling you this is new is lying to you. Go give them shit, and stop bugging me to educate you.

"214,000 jobs were saved in the apparel industry due to the Multi-Fiber Arrangement, at a cost to consumers of $46,000 annually per job.ls"
http://www.bls.gov/mlr/1995/08/art6full.pdf

Now that you have that bit of con dogma exposed for what it is, how about getting back to the subject of this thread. And how about YOU look for the subjects you are questioning.

 

[Rshermr]

And once again you decline to provide an example of another Administration other than Obama's that used the "jobs saved" economic statistic to pad their jobs numbers. You're a joke...

See above, dipshit. You could have done this yourself, if you would just take the time to understand google.

 

[Rshermr]

The only liar that I've seen in this string is you, Rshermr. You're the one who's trying to pass themselves off as an expert on economics because you taught the subject in college...only your story about doing so as an undergraduate is so far fetched that by itself it would strain your credibility...but then you come here and post some of the most idiotic things about economics I've ever seen on the board...things that nobody who REALLY understood economics would ever say. You can't even compose a halfway literate post without your "secretary" proofing it for you...just another part of your strange little fantasy world. I'm of the opinion that the closest you ever came to college was driving by a campus somewhere.

So, is that your effort to say why you lied about the numbers you provided for job creation. I take your lack of willingness to answer the question as admission that you lied. Because there is no other reason to avoid answering.

 

[Rshermr]

So, maybe we should look at another of your lies, Oldstyle. Since you will not fess up to the last one. You said in post 394:

You're STILL trying to use the Clinton economy as a template for what we face now and it's the height of absurdity. Clinton was able to raise taxes BECAUSE of the Dot Com Boom...he did not make the Dot Com Boom HAPPEN because he raised taxes. Clinton also had a GOP led House that forced him to cut spending. Every time you trot the notion out that Clinton caused a boom by raising taxes and try to "sell it" as a solution to what we face now, the only thing you convince me of is that I'm 100% correct when I say that you're full of shit when you claim to have taught economics

So, here is analysis from Bruce Bartlett.

"Republicans are adamant that taxes on the ultra-wealthy must not rise to the level they were at during the Clinton administration, as President Obama favors, lest economic devastation result. But they have a problem – the 1990s were the most prosperous era in recent history. This requires Republicans to try to rewrite the economic history of that decade.

In early 1993, Bill Clinton asked Congress to raise the top statutory tax rate to 39.6 percent from 31 percent, along with other tax increases. Republicans and their allies universally predicted that nothing good would come of it. They even said that it would have no impact on the deficit.

Ronald Reagan himself was enlisted to make the case the day after President Clinton unveiled his program. Writing in The New York Times, the former president said, “Taxes have never succeeded in promoting economic growth. More often than not, they have led to economic downturns.”

Of course, Reagan himself raised taxes 11 times between 1982 and 1988, increasing taxes by $133 billion a year, or 2.6 percent of the gross domestic product, by his last year in office. Presumably he supported these measures because he thought they would raise growth; otherwise he could have vetoed them.

Speaking before the Heritage Foundation’s board on April 16, 1993, former Representative Jack Kemp, Republican of New York, predicted budgetary failure from the Clinton plan. “Will raising taxes reduce the deficit?’ he asked. “No, it will weaken our economy and increase the deficit.”

Conservative economists were often quite specific about exactly what the negative impact of the president’s plan would be. On May 8, The New York Times interviewed several. John Mueller, a Wall Street consultant, said inflation would rise to “at least 5 percent within the next two or three years.”

In fact, the inflation rate did not rise at all until 1996 and then went up to 3.3 percent before falling to 1.7 percent in 1997 and 1.6 percent in 1998.

In the same article, the economist John Rutledge also saw higher inflation from the Clinton plan and said it would raise the deficit. “Look for a higher, not lower, deficit if the Clinton package passes Congress,” he said.

According to the Congressional Budget Office, the federal budget deficit fell every year of the Clinton administration, from $290 billion in 1992 to $255 billion in 1993, $203 billion in 1994, $164 billion in 1995, $107 billion in 1996, and $22 billion in 1997. In 1998, there was a budget surplus of $69 billion, which rose to $126 billion in 1999 and $236 billion in 2000 before it was dissipated by huge tax cuts during the George W. Bush administration.

Among the most detailed economic analyses of the negative impact of the Clinton plan was one made by the economist Gary Robbins in August 1993. He predicted that G.D.P. would be $244.4 billion lower in 1998 compared with the C.B.O. baseline. He did not provide the baseline figure, so I looked it up. In its January 1993 projection, the budget office put G.D.P. at $7,953 billion in 1998. Subtracting Mr. Robbins’s estimate of the economic cost of the Clinton plan yields an estimated G.D.P. of $7,709 billion in 1998.

If one goes to the government Web site where the G.D.P. figures appear and looks up the one for 1998, one finds that it was $8,793 billion. Thus Mr. Robbins was off by more than $1 trillion. G.D.P. was 14 percent higher than he predicted.

Nevertheless, Republicans continue to rely upon Mr. Robbins’s estimates of the effects of the economic impact of tax cuts, which always show hugely positive effects from tax cuts. Recently, he was the author of the 9-9-9 tax plan put forward by Herman Cain as he sought the Republican presidential nomination last year.

In my posts on May 22, 2012, and Nov. 22, 2011, I presented other data on the positive economic consequences of President Clinton’s high-tax policies compared with the poor economic consequences of President Bush’s low-tax policies. Nevertheless, it is conservative dogma that we need more policies like President Bush’s and must not, under any circumstances, replicate President Clinton’s policies.

However, there are still a few people around old enough to remember the 1990s and 2000s. Even without looking up government statistics, they know that the 1990s were a time when the economy boomed, while the 2000s were a period of economic stagnation.

This has created a problem for Republicans, leading to economic revisionism."

Bruce Bartlett: The Clinton Tax Challenge for Republicans - NYTimes.com

And, as I proved to you, the .com bubble did not start till at least a year and a half past the Clinton tax increase. So, Oldstyle, lies again. And though I proved you lied, there was no apology, and no admitting you were wrong. Odd, eh. Just on to the next lie.

 

[Oldstyle]

So, Oldstyle asks the question from his favorite con website:

I ask you for about the fourth time to show me another Administration that used "jobs saved" as an economic number.

Well, Oldstyle, here is another news flash for you. First, your question is not important. If you think about it, the question is, as I have said before, not whether a job is created or saved. They end up doing the same thing to the unemployment rate, and to workers trying to make a living. And as I said, the numbers have been discussed since I was an econ major nearly 5 decades ago. Now, some cons want to attack the jobs saved part of things, and by a COMPLETE COINCIDENCE Oldstyle wants proof that the current pres did not make this stat up. Here is the thing, Oldstyle, in some economies jobs saved are important to understand. The great depression was one. This is another. So, below is a link to a 1995 reference to jobs saved.

When you fail to do so perhaps you'd like to explain why THIS Administration DID create that statistic if it wasn't to obscure the poor numbers on job creation?

This admin did not create the stat. Your reasoning is typical of someone who is reading con dogma.
And the numbers come from the BLS and CBO. Which, my poor ignorant con tool, are you now saying is trying to obscure numbers. Any proof, Oldstyle? Or just the normal con dogma? You are questioning data currently used by these agencies, which are respected by nearly all parties. Except really really really bat shit crazy con tools like you. You do not like the numbers, so you attack the sources. Classy, Oldstyle. Again, NO INTEGRITY.

The BLS has been keeping track of jobs saved for decades. Here is a 1995 report brom the BLS. Anyone who is telling you this is new is lying to you. Go give them shit, and stop bugging me to educate you.

"214,000 jobs were saved in the apparel industry due to the Multi-Fiber Arrangement, at a cost to consumers of $46,000 annually per job.ls"
http://www.bls.gov/mlr/1995/08/art6full.pdf

Now that you have that bit of con dogma exposed for what it is, how about getting back to the subject of this thread. And how about YOU look for the subjects you are questioning.

Now THAT is just plain pathetic, Rshermr! Seriously, dude...that's your example of another Administration using "jobs saved" as an economic statistic? You obviously Googled the term and looked for ANYTHING that used the words "jobs saved" prior to this Administration and THAT was all you could find. Face it, "Tommy"...the Obama Administration bent the truth as much as you do and once again you're "polishing the turd".

Polish That Turd - Jobs Report - The Daily Show with Jon Stewart - 06/04/12 - Video Clip | Comedy Central

 

[Rshermr]

So, Oldstyle asks the question from his favorite con website:

I ask you for about the fourth time to show me another Administration that used "jobs saved" as an economic number.

Well, Oldstyle, here is another news flash for you. First, your question is not important. If you think about it, the question is, as I have said before, not whether a job is created or saved. They end up doing the same thing to the unemployment rate, and to workers trying to make a living. And as I said, the numbers have been discussed since I was an econ major nearly 5 decades ago. Now, some cons want to attack the jobs saved part of things, and by a COMPLETE COINCIDENCE Oldstyle wants proof that the current pres did not make this stat up. Here is the thing, Oldstyle, in some economies jobs saved are important to understand. The great depression was one. This is another. So, below is a link to a 1995 reference to jobs saved.

When you fail to do so perhaps you'd like to explain why THIS Administration DID create that statistic if it wasn't to obscure the poor numbers on job creation?

This admin did not create the stat. Your reasoning is typical of someone who is reading con dogma.
And the numbers come from the BLS and CBO. Which, my poor ignorant con tool, are you now saying is trying to obscure numbers. Any proof, Oldstyle? Or just the normal con dogma? You are questioning data currently used by these agencies, which are respected by nearly all parties. Except really really really bat shit crazy con tools like you. You do not like the numbers, so you attack the sources. Classy, Oldstyle. Again, NO INTEGRITY.

The BLS has been keeping track of jobs saved for decades. Here is a 1995 report brom the BLS. Anyone who is telling you this is new is lying to you. Go give them shit, and stop bugging me to educate you.

"214,000 jobs were saved in the apparel industry due to the Multi-Fiber Arrangement, at a cost to consumers of $46,000 annually per job.ls"
http://www.bls.gov/mlr/1995/08/art6full.pdf

Now that you have that bit of con dogma exposed for what it is, how about getting back to the subject of this thread. And how about YOU look for the subjects you are questioning.

Now THAT is just plain pathetic, Rshermr! Seriously, dude...that's your example of another Administration using "jobs saved" as an economic statistic? You obviously Googled the term and looked for ANYTHING that used the words "jobs saved" prior to this Administration and THAT was all you could find. Face it, "Tommy"...the Obama Administration bent the truth as much as you do and once again you're "polishing the turd".

Polish That Turd - Jobs Report - The Daily Show with Jon Stewart - 06/04/12 - Video Clip | Comedy Central

Got it, Oldstyle. You are sticking with the jobs saved subject. Using a comedian for a source. Not the CBO or the DLS. Got it. You are a con tool, and that is what they do. By the way, there are hundreds of old references to jobs saved by both the CBO and BLS. But nice try. Sticking with the statements of those bat shit crazy con tool web sites, eh Oldstyle. Just like always.

And, of course, you have declined to respond to two cases where you have been caught lying. One, the posting where you tried to convince someone that the CBO was wrong about the way they measured the stimulus, and that they only said a maximum of about 3M jobs had been created. You were CAUGHT, and do not want to address your lie. Got it. Even though I provided the CBO statement that the maximum was over 11M jobs created. Got it.

Second, you stated that the Clinton tax increase was not the cause of jobs created and a great economy during his administration. And the Bartlett article completely destroyed that lie, Oldstyle. And I provided you proof that the .com bubble was not happening when the tax increase and stimulus started, as you had claimed in another lie. You were Caught, Oldstyle. And you have declined to address your lie. Got it, Oldstyle.

Got it Oldstyle. You simply lie and move on. Just like all cons. You never go back and address your lies when you are CAUGHT. Got it Oldstyle, you are simply a con tool.

 

[Oldstyle]

So, Oldstyle asks the question from his favorite con website:


Well, Oldstyle, here is another news flash for you. First, your question is not important. If you think about it, the question is, as I have said before, not whether a job is created or saved. They end up doing the same thing to the unemployment rate, and to workers trying to make a living. And as I said, the numbers have been discussed since I was an econ major nearly 5 decades ago. Now, some cons want to attack the jobs saved part of things, and by a COMPLETE COINCIDENCE Oldstyle wants proof that the current pres did not make this stat up. Here is the thing, Oldstyle, in some economies jobs saved are important to understand. The great depression was one. This is another. So, below is a link to a 1995 reference to jobs saved.



This admin did not create the stat. Your reasoning is typical of someone who is reading con dogma.
And the numbers come from the BLS and CBO. Which, my poor ignorant con tool, are you now saying is trying to obscure numbers. Any proof, Oldstyle? Or just the normal con dogma? You are questioning data currently used by these agencies, which are respected by nearly all parties. Except really really really bat shit crazy con tools like you. You do not like the numbers, so you attack the sources. Classy, Oldstyle. Again, NO INTEGRITY.

The BLS has been keeping track of jobs saved for decades. Here is a 1995 report brom the BLS. Anyone who is telling you this is new is lying to you. Go give them shit, and stop bugging me to educate you.

"214,000 jobs were saved in the apparel industry due to the Multi-Fiber Arrangement, at a cost to consumers of $46,000 annually per job.ls"
http://www.bls.gov/mlr/1995/08/art6full.pdf

Now that you have that bit of con dogma exposed for what it is, how about getting back to the subject of this thread. And how about YOU look for the subjects you are questioning.

Now THAT is just plain pathetic, Rshermr! Seriously, dude...that's your example of another Administration using "jobs saved" as an economic statistic? You obviously Googled the term and looked for ANYTHING that used the words "jobs saved" prior to this Administration and THAT was all you could find. Face it, "Tommy"...the Obama Administration bent the truth as much as you do and once again you're "polishing the turd".

Polish That Turd - Jobs Report - The Daily Show with Jon Stewart - 06/04/12 - Video Clip | Comedy Central

Got it, Oldstyle. You are sticking with the jobs saved subject. Using a comedian for a source. Not the CBO or the DLS. Got it. You are a con tool, and that is what they do. By the way, there are hundreds of old references to jobs saved by both the CBO and BLS. But nice try. Sticking with the statements of those bat shit crazy con tool web sites, eh Oldstyle. Just like always.

And, of course, you have declined to respond to two cases where you have been caught lying. One, the posting where you tried to convince someone that the CBO was wrong about the way they measured the stimulus, and that they only said a maximum of about 3M jobs had been created. You were CAUGHT, and do not want to address your lie. Got it. Even though I provided the CBO statement that the maximum was over 11M jobs created. Got it.

Second, you stated that the Clinton tax increase was not the cause of jobs created and a great economy during his administration. And the Bartlett article completely destroyed that lie, Oldstyle. And I provided you proof that the .com bubble was not happening when the tax increase and stimulus started, as you had claimed in another lie. You were Caught, Oldstyle. And you have declined to address your lie. Got it, Oldstyle.

Got it Oldstyle. You simply lie and move on. Just like all cons. You never go back and address your lies when you are CAUGHT. Got it Oldstyle, you are simply a con tool.

I'm still waiting to see your example of another Administration that used "jobs saved" in their economic numbers, "Tommy". Now you say that there are "hundreds" of references to that but for some unknown reason you can't provide one? This isn't hard stuff. Just show me other Administrations that were going with a combination of jobs created and jobs saved.

Only a complete idiot thinks that tax increases somehow stimulate an economy...just one more example of why I think your story about teaching college level economics is such a complete and utter joke. Your "proof" is an obviously slanted article from...that bastion of liberal thought...The New York Times? You get more amusing with each post.

 

[pinqy]

By the way, there are hundreds of old references to jobs saved by both the CBO and BLS. .

Not by BLS. "Jobs saved" is not an objective determination and is not used in any report. Your earlier cite was for an article in the Monthly Labor Review by a former BLS employee. It in no way represents an official BLS position or report. A search for "jobs saved" on the BLS website showed one hit, from another MLR article. "Jobs lost" on the other hand, had 10 pages of results.

Jobs Saved is political talk. The CBO can use it because they are a political organiztion (bi-partisan, but still involved in political policy).

 

[Oldstyle]

By the way, there are hundreds of old references to jobs saved by both the CBO and BLS. .

Not by BLS. "Jobs saved" is not an objective determination and is not used in any report. Your earlier cite was for an article in the Monthly Labor Review by a former BLS employee. It in no way represents an official BLS position or report. A search for "jobs saved" on the BLS website showed one hit, from another MLR article. "Jobs lost" on the other hand, had 10 pages of results.

Jobs Saved is political talk. The CBO can use it because they are a political organiztion (bi-partisan, but still involved in political policy).

Rshermr...has been attempting to polish this turd for a week now and it's shiny but it's still a turd.

As I've said all along...there is only one reason for coming up with a new economic statistic...jobs saved...that's what you do when your stimulus failed to create the jobs that you predicted and you need to muddy the issue. The Obama Administration did just that...and a compliant main stream media let them get away with it.

 

[pinqy]

By the way, there are hundreds of old references to jobs saved by both the CBO and BLS. .

Not by BLS. "Jobs saved" is not an objective determination and is not used in any report. Your earlier cite was for an article in the Monthly Labor Review by a former BLS employee. It in no way represents an official BLS position or report. A search for "jobs saved" on the BLS website showed one hit, from another MLR article. "Jobs lost" on the other hand, had 10 pages of results.

Jobs Saved is political talk. The CBO can use it because they are a political organiztion (bi-partisan, but still involved in political policy).

Rshermr...has been attempting to polish this turd for a week now and it's shiny but it's still a turd.

As I've said all along...there is only one reason for coming up with a new economic statistic...jobs saved...that's what you do when your stimulus failed to create the jobs that you predicted and you need to muddy the issue. The Obama Administration did just that...and a compliant main stream media let them get away with it.

"jobs saved" is neither a new concept nor a statistic. The CBO used the phrase back in 1985 in a report about PROTECTING THE TEXTILE AND APPAREL INDUSTRIES
The concept has been around forever. It's not an objective measure and requires a lot of assumptions, but it's hardly an idea the Obama administration made up.

 

[Oldstyle]

Not by BLS. "Jobs saved" is not an objective determination and is not used in any report. Your earlier cite was for an article in the Monthly Labor Review by a former BLS employee. It in no way represents an official BLS position or report. A search for "jobs saved" on the BLS website showed one hit, from another MLR article. "Jobs lost" on the other hand, had 10 pages of results.

Jobs Saved is political talk. The CBO can use it because they are a political organiztion (bi-partisan, but still involved in political policy).

Rshermr...has been attempting to polish this turd for a week now and it's shiny but it's still a turd.

As I've said all along...there is only one reason for coming up with a new economic statistic...jobs saved...that's what you do when your stimulus failed to create the jobs that you predicted and you need to muddy the issue. The Obama Administration did just that...and a compliant main stream media let them get away with it.

"jobs saved" is neither a new concept nor a statistic. The CBO used the phrase back in 1985 in a report about PROTECTING THE TEXTILE AND APPAREL INDUSTRIES
The concept has been around forever. It's not an objective measure and requires a lot of assumptions, but it's hardly an idea the Obama administration made up.

My point, Pinqy...is that the Obama Administration was the first to try and replace jobs created with jobs created and saved. Doing so not because it was a better measure of what was going on with jobs but because it confused the issue. It's something that you do when you can't "sell" the real numbers.

 

[Rshermr]

Now THAT is just plain pathetic, Rshermr! Seriously, dude...that's your example of another Administration using "jobs saved" as an economic statistic? You obviously Googled the term and looked for ANYTHING that used the words "jobs saved" prior to this Administration and THAT was all you could find. Face it, "Tommy"...the Obama Administration bent the truth as much as you do and once again you're "polishing the turd".

Polish That Turd - Jobs Report - The Daily Show with Jon Stewart - 06/04/12 - Video Clip | Comedy Central

Got it, Oldstyle. You are sticking with the jobs saved subject. Using a comedian for a source. Not the CBO or the DLS. Got it. You are a con tool, and that is what they do. By the way, there are hundreds of old references to jobs saved by both the CBO and BLS. But nice try. Sticking with the statements of those bat shit crazy con tool web sites, eh Oldstyle. Just like always.

And, of course, you have declined to respond to two cases where you have been caught lying. One, the posting where you tried to convince someone that the CBO was wrong about the way they measured the stimulus, and that they only said a maximum of about 3M jobs had been created. You were CAUGHT, and do not want to address your lie. Got it. Even though I provided the CBO statement that the maximum was over 11M jobs created. Got it.

Second, you stated that the Clinton tax increase was not the cause of jobs created and a great economy during his administration. And the Bartlett article completely destroyed that lie, Oldstyle. And I provided you proof that the .com bubble was not happening when the tax increase and stimulus started, as you had claimed in another lie. You were Caught, Oldstyle. And you have declined to address your lie. Got it, Oldstyle.

Got it Oldstyle. You simply lie and move on. Just like all cons. You never go back and address your lies when you are CAUGHT. Got it Oldstyle, you are simply a con tool.

I'm still waiting to see your example of another Administration that used "jobs saved" in their economic numbers, "Tommy". Now you say that there are "hundreds" of references to that but for some unknown reason you can't provide one? This isn't hard stuff. Just show me other Administrations that were going with a combination of jobs created and jobs saved.

Only a complete idiot thinks that tax increases somehow stimulate an economy...just one more example of why I think your story about teaching college level economics is such a complete and utter joke. Your "proof" is an obviously slanted article from...that bastion of liberal thought...The New York Times? You get more amusing with each post.

So Oldstyle says:

I'm still waiting to see your example of another Administration that used "jobs saved" in their economic numbers, "Tommy". Now you say that there are "hundreds" of references to that but for some unknown reason you can't provide one? This isn't hard stuff. Just show me other Administrations that were going with a combination of jobs created and jobs saved.

Well, Oldstyle, I am still waiting for you to address the lies that you have used in your posts. I identified them, you are avoiding them. When are you going to explain where you got the 3M jobs gained number??? It was a lie, you are cornered, and you are staying away from your lie, eh, Oldstyle. No integrity.


So, Oldstyle, in trying to mask his lies about the Clinton administration, does the conservative twist:

Only a complete idiot thinks that tax increases somehow stimulate an economy..

We have discussed this multiple times. And you are now ignoring it again. No one believes in raising taxes to directly stimulate an economy. You know that. The issue is the stimulative spending that the raised taxes pay for. Ah, so you do not believe in stimulative spending, eh? No one believes in that?? Well, obviously that is untrue. Reagan did. Used it a Great deal. And apparently you disagree with Bruce Bartlett. Who is Bartlett? You know who he is, but for grins: Bruce Reeves Bartlett (b. October 11, 1951, in Ann Arbor, Michigan) is an American historian whose area of expertise is supply-side economics. He served as a domestic policy adviser to President Ronald Reagan and as a Treasury official under President George H. W. Bush.
Bruce Bartlett - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Most economists strongly believe in stimulative spending. Who does not? A few republican economists who are still pushing supply side economics, and a majority of republicans. All of whom are well paid to be against tax increases. And of course, Oldstyle,

So, you, Oldstyle, a dishwasher, believe you know what the ecomomists and officials of the Clinton admin did not know. Really, Oldstyle, back to your dishes.

Your "proof" is an obviously slanted article from...that bastion of liberal thought...The New York Times? You get more amusing with each post.

Oh, yeah, I should have remembered. The article that appeared in the NY times was not written by them. But to oldstyle, anything to the left of FOX is a bastion of liberal thought. Sorry, Oldstyle, if you have your way there will be bat shit crazy con web sites that should be believed, and all of those left wing sites that can not be believed. You know. Like the Wn. Post, NY Times, and other sites. Because, Oldstyle, you are a con tool. And a joke.

Not going to address your lies, are you, now, oldstyle???

 

[Rshermr]

By the way, there are hundreds of old references to jobs saved by both the CBO and BLS. .

Not by BLS. "Jobs saved" is not an objective determination and is not used in any report. Your earlier cite was for an article in the Monthly Labor Review by a former BLS employee. It in no way represents an official BLS position or report. A search for "jobs saved" on the BLS website showed one hit, from another MLR article. "Jobs lost" on the other hand, had 10 pages of results.

Jobs Saved is political talk. The CBO can use it because they are a political organiztion (bi-partisan, but still involved in political policy).

Rshermr...has been attempting to polish this turd for a week now and it's shiny but it's still a turd.

As I've said all along...there is only one reason for coming up with a new economic statistic...jobs saved...that's what you do when your stimulus failed to create the jobs that you predicted and you need to muddy the issue. The Obama Administration did just that...and a compliant main stream media let them get away with it.

So, Pinqy, here is what I remember. From a long time ago, in the late 1960's and early 70's labor economics classes and macro economics classes. Employment was always the biggest single issue to measure the economic well being. Yes, deficit was important, but smaller then and it only got better with high employment. And yes, GNP was important, but tended to follow employment levels.

So, creation of jobs and full employment was important. But those few times that employment levels were bad, say over 7%, there were concerns and discussions of how to save jobs. Because, jobs saved was equal to jobs created as far as unemployment was concerned. From an economic policy, it was as important to stop job losses as it was to create new jobs.

So I remember even 50 years ago discussing jobs saved as a periodic number. I do not remember where it was kept track of, but obviously the CBO did not exist, so it was not them. Todays attack on the jobs saved number is to me stupid. Both saved and created need to be taken into account, and both need to be part of economic policy.

For example, losing the auto industry would have cost jobs. We can argue the number, but "experts" seem to agree it was over 1M jobs. Experts also pretty much universally agree that not saving that industry may well have moved us into a depression. So, we can all argue the point, but the reasoning is obviously sound. Ignoring jobs saved and job saving opportunities is just plain stupid.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

And apparently you disagree with Bruce Bartlett. Who is Bartlett?

Bruce Bartlett: "A study by Obama administration economists Christina Romer and Jared Bernstein predicts that the stimulus plan being debated in Congress will raise the gross domestic product by $1.57 for every $1 spent.

Such a multiplier effect has been heavily criticized by a number of top economists, including John Taylor of Stanford, Gary Becker and Eugene Fama of the University of Chicago and Greg Mankiw and Robert Barro of Harvard. The gist of their argument is that the government cannot expand the economy through deficit spending because it has to borrow the funds in the first place, thus displacing other economic activities. In the end, the government has simply moved around economic activity without increasing it in the aggregate."

 

[pinqy]

Not by BLS. "Jobs saved" is not an objective determination and is not used in any report. Your earlier cite was for an article in the Monthly Labor Review by a former BLS employee. It in no way represents an official BLS position or report. A search for "jobs saved" on the BLS website showed one hit, from another MLR article. "Jobs lost" on the other hand, had 10 pages of results.

Jobs Saved is political talk. The CBO can use it because they are a political organiztion (bi-partisan, but still involved in political policy).

Rshermr...has been attempting to polish this turd for a week now and it's shiny but it's still a turd.

As I've said all along...there is only one reason for coming up with a new economic statistic...jobs saved...that's what you do when your stimulus failed to create the jobs that you predicted and you need to muddy the issue. The Obama Administration did just that...and a compliant main stream media let them get away with it.

So, Pinqy, here is what I remember. From a long time ago, in the late 1960's and early 70's labor economics classes and macro economics classes. Employment was always the biggest single issue to measure the economic well being. Yes, deficit was important, but smaller then and it only got better with high employment. And yes, GNP was important, but tended to follow employment levels.

So, creation of jobs and full employment was important. But those few times that employment levels were bad, say over 7%, there were concerns and discussions of how to save jobs. Because, jobs saved was equal to jobs created as far as unemployment was concerned. From an economic policy, it was as important to stop job losses as it was to create new jobs.

Jobs Created can be measured..it's simply the positive change in the jobs level (and jobs are not the same as employment). And jobs lost is the negative change in the jobs level. But jobs saved is the number of jobs that (theoretically) would have been lost, but weren't. You can't objectively measure that. You can attribute fewer jobs lost to a political policy or an externality etc, but those are estimates based on deviation from a prediction.

That can be useful when evaluating policy, but it's not statistics and it's not the job of a statistical agency.

So I remember even 50 years ago discussing jobs saved as a periodic number. I do not remember where it was kept track of, but obviously the CBO did not exist, so it was not them. Todays attack on the jobs saved number is to me stupid. Both saved and created need to be taken into account, and both need to be part of economic policy.

I don't see how it could be a regularly published number. The problem with "jobs saved" is that you can neither confirm nor refute it as it's purely hypothetical. That's the problem with projections and predictions...for example the Obama administration projected that without the stimulus the UE rate would go over 10% and with it would stay under 8%. Well, in reality it reached 10% and took a while to get below 8%. So were the initial projections off, or was the effect of the stimulus less than expected, or both? You can't MEASURE it, only theorize based on known factors.

For example, losing the auto industry would have cost jobs. We can argue the number, but "experts" seem to agree it was over 1M jobs. Experts also pretty much universally agree that not saving that industry may well have moved us into a depression. So, we can all argue the point, but the reasoning is obviously sound. Ignoring jobs saved and job saving opportunities is just plain stupid.

It is perfectly legitimate to claim "jobs saved" in cases like the auto industry bailout (though it's not possible to know what would have happened). But to try to put a precise number and equate it with the actual measurement of new jobs is a little sketchy.

 

[Rshermr]

Rshermr...has been attempting to polish this turd for a week now and it's shiny but it's still a turd.

As I've said all along...there is only one reason for coming up with a new economic statistic...jobs saved...that's what you do when your stimulus failed to create the jobs that you predicted and you need to muddy the issue. The Obama Administration did just that...and a compliant main stream media let them get away with it.

So, Pinqy, here is what I remember. From a long time ago, in the late 1960's and early 70's labor economics classes and macro economics classes. Employment was always the biggest single issue to measure the economic well being. Yes, deficit was important, but smaller then and it only got better with high employment. And yes, GNP was important, but tended to follow employment levels.

So, creation of jobs and full employment was important. But those few times that employment levels were bad, say over 7%, there were concerns and discussions of how to save jobs. Because, jobs saved was equal to jobs created as far as unemployment was concerned. From an economic policy, it was as important to stop job losses as it was to create new jobs.

Jobs Created can be measured..it's simply the positive change in the jobs level (and jobs are not the same as employment). And jobs lost is the negative change in the jobs level. But jobs saved is the number of jobs that (theoretically) would have been lost, but weren't. You can't objectively measure that. You can attribute fewer jobs lost to a political policy or an externality etc, but those are estimates based on deviation from a prediction.

That can be useful when evaluating policy, but it's not statistics and it's not the job of a statistical agency.

So I remember even 50 years ago discussing jobs saved as a periodic number. I do not remember where it was kept track of, but obviously the CBO did not exist, so it was not them. Todays attack on the jobs saved number is to me stupid. Both saved and created need to be taken into account, and both need to be part of economic policy.

I don't see how it could be a regularly published number. The problem with "jobs saved" is that you can neither confirm nor refute it as it's purely hypothetical. That's the problem with projections and predictions...for example the Obama administration projected that without the stimulus the UE rate would go over 10% and with it would stay under 8%. Well, in reality it reached 10% and took a while to get below 8%. So were the initial projections off, or was the effect of the stimulus less than expected, or both? You can't MEASURE it, only theorize based on known factors.

For example, losing the auto industry would have cost jobs. We can argue the number, but "experts" seem to agree it was over 1M jobs. Experts also pretty much universally agree that not saving that industry may well have moved us into a depression. So, we can all argue the point, but the reasoning is obviously sound. Ignoring jobs saved and job saving opportunities is just plain stupid.

It is perfectly legitimate to claim "jobs saved" in cases like the auto industry bailout (though it's not possible to know what would have happened). But to try to put a precise number and equate it with the actual measurement of new jobs is a little sketchy.

Right. But that is why the CBO has rather wide ranges around their projections. So the numbers are between something like 3M and over 11M jobs saved or created. And yet those numbers are important. In a really bad economy, where we were potentially on the verge of unemployment numbers reaching close to 20% or more, it is imparative that you have some major effort made toward stopping job losses.
You can measure some pretty easily. Government jobs, for instance, can be identified. From there, it is looking at jobs that were about to go away for a variety of reasons. But to say the CBO is cooking the books in some way, as some have, is not accurate or usefull.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

In a really bad economy, where we were potentially on the verge of unemployment numbers reaching close to 20% or more, it is imparative that you have some major effort made toward stopping job losses.

yes like raising taxes so people spend less and employers need fewer employees???? Good thinking as usual!!

Then you can spend the new taxes to create temporary make work liberal jobs that soon enough disappear leaving the make-workers even less employable thanks to the mal investment!

see why we are positive a liberal will be slow??








You can measure some pretty easily. Government jobs, for instance, can be identified. From there, it is looking at jobs that were about to go away for a variety of reasons. But to say the CBO is cooking the books in some way, as some have, is not accurate or usefull.[/QUOTE]