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

[CrusaderFrank]

Deany, since only 6% of scientists are Republicans, will you admit that it's almost a virtual certainty that the crumbled infrastructure was built by Democrats ?

 

[Oldstyle]

So, Oldstyle says the following:

Kindly explain a few things, Rshermr...if the stimulus really DID work, then why did unemployment go up?

Because, old economic genius, unemployment does not ever go down immediately. You see, oldstyle, it takes a while to spend the money. If you look, you will see that the stimulus was approved in 2009 but that very little of the stimulus was spent then. Most of it was spent in 2010, with a good deal more spent in 2011 and 2012, And unemployment did go down.
Here is all you need to know about the distribution of the stimulus:
Recovery.gov - Tracking the Money
If you care to see the actual facts, you will notice that there are still stimulus dollars being spent.
Second, the stimulus was too small. Way too small. And of the $800B in stimulus, less than $500B was in spending. the rest was in the form of tax cuts, which had very little stimulative value.

If the stimulus really DID work, then why did the Obama Administration have to invent a new economic statistic "jobs saved" to hide the fact that the stimulus that you SAY worked...actually didn't!

Wow. Great con tool talking point. But pure drivel.

Here, Oldstyle, if you ever need the facts on unemployment, this is a good site to find the info:
Historical Unemployment Rates in the United States

If you took the cost of the stimulus and divided it by the amount of jobs that were REALLY created? The cost per job is so ridiculously outlandish that you really have to be "out there" to call the stimulus a success.

Yes, well, what is that sentence, Oldstyle? Your opinion, or did you get it from the bat shit crazy con web sites that you normally cruse. Your opinion, if that is what it is, is totally against what economists believe, and different than what the CBO analysis say.

The CBO crunches whatever numbers it is GIVEN. If you give it bullshit to crunch...you'll get crunchy bullshit. It's still bullshit.

Wow. So those analysts and economists that work for the CBO do nothing. Just take numbers and crunch them. so all of that stuff the CBO says about gathering and analyzing, is, according to you untrue. Damn, Oldstyle. Gives us a conundrum, eh. Should we believe you, or the CBO. My money is on the CBO.
The really funny thing is that both republicans and democrats quote the cbo when it is in their favor. The con tool web sites do the same. But, being a true con tool, you attack the source of the information. Because, as usual, you have no integrity.
And, as usual, you have no source for your accusations. Because, if you did, they would be partial republican sites. And, if you do not use impartial sites at all, then you can say anything that you want. But it is just your opinion. And you know how much I value your opinion.

So let me see if I've got this straight?

You put into place a stimulus plan that promises to keep unemployment from going up...but when you implement it unemployment goes up substantially...stays up for YEARS and only gradually returns to just about where you started from before you spent the 870 billion in stimulus dollars...but you STILL call that a success?

Ah yes...the old progressive refrain..."the stimulus failed only because it wasn't BIG enough!" And how do we KNOW this? Because progressive economists promise us that's the case...the same progressive economists that botched the stimulus in the first place! It's basically saying..."Yeah, I know I totally crashed the family car, Mom and Dad...but if you let me drive the brand new one that's even faster...I PROMISE that I'll do better!!!"

The fact that the Obama Administration had to invent a brand new economic term isn't "drivel" or a "talking point". It's an observation. The reason you don't want to discuss it is obvious...there IS no reason for inventing that new statistic if you were in fact creating new jobs. The ONLY reason for using it is to disguise the fact that your stimulus ISN'T creating jobs. The Obama Administration came up with "jobs created or saved" because they didn't want anyone to see how few jobs they HAD created. You know it...so do I...and calling it "drivel" only underscores how much of an "inconvenient truth" it is to you progressives.

There is an actual cost per job created estimate out there for the stimulus, Rshermr but you'll never see it quoted by a liberal because it's a staggering number...the kind of number that makes people shake their heads and say 'No wonder our government is all fucked up!'

I don't think you really understand what the function of the CBO "is". They are not an information "gathering" body. They take the statistics that they are GIVEN and try to give an accurate estimation of what result will occur from a proposed fiscal policy. If the politicians give them bogus information then their estimations will reflect that and if you're naive enough to think that politicians don't play that game then we need to talk.

 

[daveman]

This is the part where Rshermr will pretend to refute your post by linking those leftist circle-jerk studies that "prove" conservatives are dumb.

 

[Oldstyle]

As long as Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi have those big D's next to their names I'm having a hard time seeing the validity of that argument, Dave! There are plant forms that are smarter than Joe and Nancy.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

That's what happens when you design structures using the feelings of steel and concrete.

if its crumbling what are 320 million Americans using today?? How many bridges fell today how many died?. Perhaps its just another liberal attempt to tax and spend?

COLLAPSING BRIDGES IN THE UNITED STATES

How many does it take before it becomes an "issue" to the right wing? Is there a set amount? When you drive over an old bridge with your family, is there ever a "hint" of suspicion there could be a safety issue? What would it take?

if its crumbling what are 320 million Americans using today?? How many bridges fell today; how many died?. Perhaps its yet another liberal attempt to tax and spend?

 

[Oldstyle]

if its crumbling what are 320 million Americans using today?? How many bridges fell today how many died?. Perhaps its just another liberal attempt to tax and spend?

COLLAPSING BRIDGES IN THE UNITED STATES

How many does it take before it becomes an "issue" to the right wing? Is there a set amount? When you drive over an old bridge with your family, is there ever a "hint" of suspicion there could be a safety issue? What would it take?

if its crumbling what are 320 million Americans using today?? How many bridges fell today; how many died?. Perhaps its yet another liberal attempt to tax and spend?

This the game that Washington tries to pull...they pass taxes on gasoline with the promise that money will go towards maintaining our highway system. Now who can argue against THAT? But then they raid the tax money that's supposed to go towards road and bridge repair and divert that to whatever new government program they feel we need. Then when the bridges and roads fall into disrepair they tell us that they need ADDITIONAL taxes to take care of this "shocking" state of affairs. It's akin to your kid spending the five bucks you gave him for gas to put in the family mower on a new video game and then telling you that you need to hire a lawn service because the grass is too high for him to mow with your mower.

 

[Oddball]

That's what happens when you design structures using the feelings of steel and concrete.

if its crumbling what are 320 million Americans using today?? How many bridges fell today how many died?. Perhaps its just another liberal attempt to tax and spend?

COLLAPSING BRIDGES IN THE UNITED STATES

How many does it take before it becomes an "issue" to the right wing? Is there a set amount? When you drive over an old bridge with your family, is there ever a "hint" of suspicion there could be a safety issue? What would it take?

Maybe if 100% of the fuel taxes collected (after the AFSCME bureaucrats are all kept in cushy upper-middle class comfort of course) went to roads and bridges, instead of bicycle paths, "light rail" trolley boondoggles and other hair-fairy urban mass transit scams so beloved by lolberal knuckleheads like you, maybe there'd be a whole lot less of that "crumbling infrastructure" thingy that y'all snivel about so often.

Something to think (a stretch, I know) about.

 

[Oldstyle]

But gee, Oddball...light rail and bike trails are "eco-sexy"...bridge repair isn't!

Just like Solyndra was "eco-sexy" and Big Coal isn't...

 

[Toro]

But gee, Oddball...light rail and bike trails are "eco-sexy"...bridge repair isn't!

Just like Solyndra was "eco-sexy" and Big Coal isn't...

Big Coal isn't anything-sexy.

 

[Rshermr]

So, looks like Oldstyle is posting a lot of opinion again. Oldstyle had two college econ courses, and now considers himself an economics expert. So he does not feel the need to post any links to back up his drivel. So, lets look at oldstyle's attempt at economic rationality:
So let me see if I've got this straight?

You put into place a stimulus plan that promises to keep unemployment from going up...but when you implement it unemployment goes up substantially...stays up for YEARS and only gradually returns to just about where you started from before you spent the 870 billion in stimulus dollars...but you STILL call that a success?

Oldstyle, this is simply too easy. Just simple con tool dogma. I gave you the link to see where to look, but you did not. So, lets see if you can understand. Getting a bill past to reduce unemployment does nothing in and of itself to reduce unemployment. You must spend the stimulus money, and the hiring related to that has to happen. Now, if you believe that the spending and hiring began immediately, you would be wrong. But then, you really do not believe that, oldstyle. You are simply posting dogma.
The bill was signed in mid Feb of 2009. No spending occured under this act until late August 2009. Now, Oldstyle, you know that Obama came into office at the end of January, of 2009. The unemployment rate was riseing at a very high rate. Takes a while, as you should know, to turn that around.
Then, very little stimulus spending happened in 2009. The majority occured in 2010. So, of course it took a while for the stimulus to have much impact.Let me provide you with a link, which I gave you above, but which apparently you chose not to look at. I suppose the bat shit crazy con tool web sites you prefer are more to your liking. But oldsyle, you see, this link in not partial. Your sites ARE. Then you say the unemployment rate went up substantially, which is untrue. If you would have looked at the data in the link I provided, you would know that. Unemployment was getting higher by a large amount when Obama took office. The stimulus started spending in August of 2009, and by October the high point in the unemployment rate was reached. It has been going down ever since. So, simply another lie from you, Oldstyle. Easily proven. Simply go to this link, which I provided you before:
http://www.davemanuel.com/historical-unemployment-rates-in-the-united-states.php
Recovery.gov - Tracking the Money
So, as opposed to unemployment going up for years, it started down in October of 2009. By the end of the great republican crash of 2008, umemployment had reached 10.2%. In October. Get it yet, oldstyle. You are lying, and you know you are lying. And I know that you do not believe that $870B in stimulus was spent. The stimulus was set at $840B. Of which $ 770B has been used so far. Of that $770B. $290B were tax cuts demanded by republicans. And which have done nothing to speak of to help the situation. So says the CBO. You would be more believeable if you did not continually lie. The stimulus, after you remove the tax cuts, was really only $480B.

Ah yes...the old progressive refrain..."the stimulus failed only because it wasn't BIG enough!" And how do we KNOW this? Because progressive economists promise us that's the case...the same progressive economists that botched the stimulus in the first place! It's basically saying..."Yeah, I know I totally crashed the family car, Mom and Dad...but if you let me drive the brand new one that's even faster...I PROMISE that I'll do better!!!"

Your opinion, only. And completely wrong, of course. Economists in general said, at the time of the stimulus bill, that it would not be large enough. The stimulus worked, provably. And those who limited it's effectiveness were conservative repubs who demanded tax cuts.

The fact that the Obama Administration had to invent a brand new economic term isn't "drivel" or a "talking point". It's an observation. The reason you don't want to discuss it is obvious...there IS no reason for inventing that new statistic if you were in fact creating new jobs. The ONLY reason for using it is to disguise the fact that your stimulus ISN'T creating jobs. The Obama Administration came up with "jobs created or saved" because they didn't want anyone to see how few jobs they HAD created. You know it...so do I...and calling it "drivel" only underscores how much of an "inconvenient truth" it is to you progressives.

Sorry, what you said above proves what I have said time after time. You are economically illiterate and only post con dogma. Jobs saved is nothing new. It was mentioned, for instance, by the reagan team when they attempted to spend stimulatively to get beyond the near 11% unemployment rate they had to deal with. That jobs saved is a concern to all economists, and that you do not understand that, is a bit amazing. You may be interested in trying to explain why a created job is more valuable than a saved job. Truth is, there is non in terms of decreasing the unemployment rate. Is this starting to make sense, or is it simply to complex for you? Let me make it simple for you, Oldstyle. Lets say the stimulus creates 5000 jobs and the unemployment rate decreases by half a point. So, 5000 people are employed that would not have been without the stimulus.
Now lets say the stimulus saves 5000 jobs by keeping those people employed. Without the stimulus there would have been 5000 less jobs, and the unemployment would have been half a point higher.
Really simple, oldstyle, and to think this is something new simply proves you are intellectually incapable of critical thought.

There is an actual cost per job created estimate out there for the stimulus, Rshermr but you'll never see it quoted by a liberal because it's a staggering number...the kind of number that makes people shake their heads and say 'No wonder our government is all fucked up!'

Right, Oldstyle. And it is so impressive that you can provide no link to an impartial source that defines that number. Because, of course, you are off trolling in con tool web sites, and do not want to use them as sources since they make you look like what you are, oldstyle, a con tool. Just like always. Lets see you back up the "staggering number". I think you will not, because you know that I can disprove it.

I don't think you really understand what the function of the CBO "is". They are not an information "gathering" body. They take the statistics that they are GIVEN and try to give an accurate estimation of what result will occur from a proposed fiscal policy. If the politicians give them bogus information then their estimations will reflect that and if you're naive enough to think that politicians don't play that game then we need to talk.

Let me define naive for you. Anyone who believes that the cbo simply takes data from POLITICIANS is naive. Or, more directly, a con tool. Here is a very complete discussion on what the cbo does. Nowhere in this article does it suggest it ever takes data from Politicians.
Ezra Klein - What Does the Congressional Budget Office Do? An Interview With Doug Elmendorf.

The CBO says the following about what it does;
"CBO's work follows processes specified in the Congressional Budget Act of 1974"
CBO | our processes
If you look at this link, you will see exactly what they are required to do. And you will see exactly why I said that your statement defines naive. And oldstyle, relative to our need to talk, i see no reason untill 1. You understand what conversation requires, most notably an effort at truth, and 2. That you bring forward statements that are not so proveably untrue.
It has been interesting to see cons attack a number of impartial government sources. Sources which have been used by both parties for many years. And sources that have never been questioned before. But in every case, they have been because cons do not like the analysis provided. But, oldstyle, only con tools like you actually believe the attacks.

 

[Rshermr]

But gee, Oddball...light rail and bike trails are "eco-sexy"...bridge repair isn't!

Just like Solyndra was "eco-sexy" and Big Coal isn't...

And here, we see another perfect example of oldstyle being what he is , a con tool The post has no rational reason, but is simply con dogma. That is all it takes to make oldstyle happy. Juvenile, ignorant meaningless posts, with dogma from his favorite con tool bat shit crazy web sites.
Way to go, Oldstyle. Another profound post.

 

[Rshermr]

COLLAPSING BRIDGES IN THE UNITED STATES

How many does it take before it becomes an "issue" to the right wing? Is there a set amount? When you drive over an old bridge with your family, is there ever a "hint" of suspicion there could be a safety issue? What would it take?

if its crumbling what are 320 million Americans using today?? How many bridges fell today; how many died?. Perhaps its yet another liberal attempt to tax and spend?

This the game that Washington tries to pull...they pass taxes on gasoline with the promise that money will go towards maintaining our highway system. Now who can argue against THAT? But then they raid the tax money that's supposed to go towards road and bridge repair and divert that to whatever new government program they feel we need. Then when the bridges and roads fall into disrepair they tell us that they need ADDITIONAL taxes to take care of this "shocking" state of affairs. It's akin to your kid spending the five bucks you gave him for gas to put in the family mower on a new video game and then telling you that you need to hire a lawn service because the grass is too high for him to mow with your mower.

That would be, Oldstyle, your opinion. And, of course, it just happens to line up perfectly with the bat shit crazy web sites you spend your time with. But, Oldstyle, do you EVER, EVER, EVER have any links to prove your drivel. And yes, Oldstyle, it is drivel. Because, you see, you have no proof of anything you say. As usual. Dipshit.

 

[Unkotare]

Make-work projects DON'T work.

 

[Oldstyle]

So, looks like Oldstyle is posting a lot of opinion again. Oldstyle had two college econ courses, and now considers himself an economics expert. So he does not feel the need to post any links to back up his drivel. So, lets look at oldstyle's attempt at economic rationality:
So let me see if I've got this straight?

You put into place a stimulus plan that promises to keep unemployment from going up...but when you implement it unemployment goes up substantially...stays up for YEARS and only gradually returns to just about where you started from before you spent the 870 billion in stimulus dollars...but you STILL call that a success?

Oldstyle, this is simply too easy. Just simple con tool dogma. I gave you the link to see where to look, but you did not. So, lets see if you can understand. Getting a bill past to reduce unemployment does nothing in and of itself to reduce unemployment. You must spend the stimulus money, and the hiring related to that has to happen. Now, if you believe that the spending and hiring began immediately, you would be wrong. But then, you really do not believe that, oldstyle. You are simply posting dogma.
The bill was signed in mid Feb of 2009. No spending occured under this act until late August 2009. Now, Oldstyle, you know that Obama came into office at the end of January, of 2009. The unemployment rate was riseing at a very high rate. Takes a while, as you should know, to turn that around.
Then, very little stimulus spending happened in 2009. The majority occured in 2010. So, of course it took a while for the stimulus to have much impact.Let me provide you with a link, which I gave you above, but which apparently you chose not to look at. I suppose the bat shit crazy con tool web sites you prefer are more to your liking. But oldsyle, you see, this link in not partial. Your sites ARE. Then you say the unemployment rate went up substantially, which is untrue. If you would have looked at the data in the link I provided, you would know that. Unemployment was getting higher by a large amount when Obama took office. The stimulus started spending in August of 2009, and by October the high point in the unemployment rate was reached. It has been going down ever since. So, simply another lie from you, Oldstyle. Easily proven. Simply go to this link, which I provided you before:
Historical Unemployment Rates in the United States
Recovery.gov - Tracking the Money
So, as opposed to unemployment going up for years, it started down in October of 2009. By the end of the great republican crash of 2008, umemployment had reached 10.2%. In October. Get it yet, oldstyle. You are lying, and you know you are lying. And I know that you do not believe that $870B in stimulus was spent. The stimulus was set at $840B. Of which $ 770B has been used so far. Of that $770B. $290B were tax cuts demanded by republicans. And which have done nothing to speak of to help the situation. So says the CBO. You would be more believeable if you did not continually lie. The stimulus, after you remove the tax cuts, was really only $480B.

Ah yes...the old progressive refrain..."the stimulus failed only because it wasn't BIG enough!" And how do we KNOW this? Because progressive economists promise us that's the case...the same progressive economists that botched the stimulus in the first place! It's basically saying..."Yeah, I know I totally crashed the family car, Mom and Dad...but if you let me drive the brand new one that's even faster...I PROMISE that I'll do better!!!"

Your opinion, only. And completely wrong, of course. Economists in general said, at the time of the stimulus bill, that it would not be large enough. The stimulus worked, provably. And those who limited it's effectiveness were conservative repubs who demanded tax cuts.


Sorry, what you said above proves what I have said time after time. You are economically illiterate and only post con dogma. Jobs saved is nothing new. It was mentioned, for instance, by the reagan team when they attempted to spend stimulatively to get beyond the near 11% unemployment rate they had to deal with. That jobs saved is a concern to all economists, and that you do not understand that, is a bit amazing. You may be interested in trying to explain why a created job is more valuable than a saved job. Truth is, there is non in terms of decreasing the unemployment rate. Is this starting to make sense, or is it simply to complex for you? Let me make it simple for you, Oldstyle. Lets say the stimulus creates 5000 jobs and the unemployment rate decreases by half a point. So, 5000 people are employed that would not have been without the stimulus.
Now lets say the stimulus saves 5000 jobs by keeping those people employed. Without the stimulus there would have been 5000 less jobs, and the unemployment would have been half a point higher.
Really simple, oldstyle, and to think this is something new simply proves you are intellectually incapable of critical thought.

There is an actual cost per job created estimate out there for the stimulus, Rshermr but you'll never see it quoted by a liberal because it's a staggering number...the kind of number that makes people shake their heads and say 'No wonder our government is all fucked up!'

Right, Oldstyle. And it is so impressive that you can provide no link to an impartial source that defines that number. Because, of course, you are off trolling in con tool web sites, and do not want to use them as sources since they make you look like what you are, oldstyle, a con tool. Just like always. Lets see you back up the "staggering number". I think you will not, because you know that I can disprove it.

I don't think you really understand what the function of the CBO "is". They are not an information "gathering" body. They take the statistics that they are GIVEN and try to give an accurate estimation of what result will occur from a proposed fiscal policy. If the politicians give them bogus information then their estimations will reflect that and if you're naive enough to think that politicians don't play that game then we need to talk.

Let me define naive for you. Anyone who believes that the cbo simply takes data from POLITICIANS is naive. Or, more directly, a con tool. Here is a very complete discussion on what the cbo does. Nowhere in this article does it suggest it ever takes data from Politicians.
Ezra Klein - What Does the Congressional Budget Office Do? An Interview With Doug Elmendorf.

The CBO says the following about what it does;
"CBO's work follows processes specified in the Congressional Budget Act of 1974"
CBO | our processes
If you look at this link, you will see exactly what they are required to do. And you will see exactly why I said that your statement defines naive. And oldstyle, relative to our need to talk, i see no reason untill 1. You understand what conversation requires, most notably an effort at truth, and 2. That you bring forward statements that are not so proveably untrue.
It has been interesting to see cons attack a number of impartial government sources. Sources which have been used by both parties for many years. And sources that have never been questioned before. But in every case, they have been because cons do not like the analysis provided. But, oldstyle, only con tools like you actually believe the attacks.

Are you REALLY back trying to lecture about economics? Still pretending to have taught the subject at the college level...even though you were an undergrad? LOL Did you forget what happened the last time you tried this, Rshermr? I mean it's one thing to CLAIM to be an expert in a subject but another all together when you're asked to back that claim up with knowledge.

All your bluster about "dogma"? It's what people resort to that can't argue a viewpoint.

If you'll recall the REASON that Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi insisted on large infrastructure job spending be included in the Obama Stimulus was that there were so many "shovel ready" jobs that would be quickly created. Or have you forgotten that Pelosi promised that 400,000 jobs would be created immediately following the passage of the stimulus they were asking for and that the stimulus would create 4 million jobs in total? So tell me, Rshermr...what HAPPENED to those 400,000 immediate jobs? Was Nancy lying to us? You just stated in you rambling dissertation that no stimulus spending took place in 2009 yet the Obama Stimulus was passed Feb. 17th of that year. So what happened to all the shovel ready jobs? The truth is...anyone that knows anything about how government contracts are bid and decided knows that it's a slow, time consuming process. So which is it, Rshermr? Is Nancy Pelosi THAT stupid or did she flat out lie?

You want me to give a link to what each job created by the Obama Stimulus cost? Well lets use the VERY vague numbers that your buddies over at the CBO churned out on just that topic, little buddy! The CBO estimated that the stimulus created between 1.4 million and 3.3 million jobs. So let's take those figures and divide them into the 780 billion that we know we had to spend on the stimulus. With the 1.4 million figure, jobs cost us a whopping $557,142 each! With the 3.3 million figure those same jobs cost us $236,363 each! Now did you STILL want to make the case that was money well spent? The truth is...we could have taken that 780,000 billion and divided it among the approx. 11.1 million unemployed people back in 2009 and given each of them $70,000! Gee, think THAT might have stimulated the economy just a bit? Hard to get your head around a number as staggeringly large as what Barry, Harry and Nancy essentially frittered away with little to show for it...isn't it? But YOU don't find that to be "staggering"...do you? Which makes you one of the dumber people on this site.

 

[Rshermr]

So, looks like Oldstyle is posting a lot of opinion again. Oldstyle had two college econ courses, and now considers himself an economics expert. So he does not feel the need to post any links to back up his drivel. So, lets look at oldstyle's attempt at economic rationality:
So let me see if I've got this straight?

You put into place a stimulus plan that promises to keep unemployment from going up...but when you implement it unemployment goes up substantially...stays up for YEARS and only gradually returns to just about where you started from before you spent the 870 billion in stimulus dollars...but you STILL call that a success?

Oldstyle, this is simply too easy. Just simple con tool dogma. I gave you the link to see where to look, but you did not. So, lets see if you can understand. Getting a bill past to reduce unemployment does nothing in and of itself to reduce unemployment. You must spend the stimulus money, and the hiring related to that has to happen. Now, if you believe that the spending and hiring began immediately, you would be wrong. But then, you really do not believe that, oldstyle. You are simply posting dogma.
The bill was signed in mid Feb of 2009. No spending occured under this act until late August 2009. Now, Oldstyle, you know that Obama came into office at the end of January, of 2009. The unemployment rate was riseing at a very high rate. Takes a while, as you should know, to turn that around.
Then, very little stimulus spending happened in 2009. The majority occured in 2010. So, of course it took a while for the stimulus to have much impact.Let me provide you with a link, which I gave you above, but which apparently you chose not to look at. I suppose the bat shit crazy con tool web sites you prefer are more to your liking. But oldsyle, you see, this link in not partial. Your sites ARE. Then you say the unemployment rate went up substantially, which is untrue. If you would have looked at the data in the link I provided, you would know that. Unemployment was getting higher by a large amount when Obama took office. The stimulus started spending in August of 2009, and by October the high point in the unemployment rate was reached. It has been going down ever since. So, simply another lie from you, Oldstyle. Easily proven. Simply go to this link, which I provided you before:
Historical Unemployment Rates in the United States
Recovery.gov - Tracking the Money
So, as opposed to unemployment going up for years, it started down in October of 2009. By the end of the great republican crash of 2008, umemployment had reached 10.2%. In October. Get it yet, oldstyle. You are lying, and you know you are lying. And I know that you do not believe that $870B in stimulus was spent. The stimulus was set at $840B. Of which $ 770B has been used so far. Of that $770B. $290B were tax cuts demanded by republicans. And which have done nothing to speak of to help the situation. So says the CBO. You would be more believeable if you did not continually lie. The stimulus, after you remove the tax cuts, was really only $480B.


Your opinion, only. And completely wrong, of course. Economists in general said, at the time of the stimulus bill, that it would not be large enough. The stimulus worked, provably. And those who limited it's effectiveness were conservative repubs who demanded tax cuts.


Sorry, what you said above proves what I have said time after time. You are economically illiterate and only post con dogma. Jobs saved is nothing new. It was mentioned, for instance, by the reagan team when they attempted to spend stimulatively to get beyond the near 11% unemployment rate they had to deal with. That jobs saved is a concern to all economists, and that you do not understand that, is a bit amazing. You may be interested in trying to explain why a created job is more valuable than a saved job. Truth is, there is non in terms of decreasing the unemployment rate. Is this starting to make sense, or is it simply to complex for you? Let me make it simple for you, Oldstyle. Lets say the stimulus creates 5000 jobs and the unemployment rate decreases by half a point. So, 5000 people are employed that would not have been without the stimulus.
Now lets say the stimulus saves 5000 jobs by keeping those people employed. Without the stimulus there would have been 5000 less jobs, and the unemployment would have been half a point higher.
Really simple, oldstyle, and to think this is something new simply proves you are intellectually incapable of critical thought.



Right, Oldstyle. And it is so impressive that you can provide no link to an impartial source that defines that number. Because, of course, you are off trolling in con tool web sites, and do not want to use them as sources since they make you look like what you are, oldstyle, a con tool. Just like always. Lets see you back up the "staggering number". I think you will not, because you know that I can disprove it.

I don't think you really understand what the function of the CBO "is". They are not an information "gathering" body. They take the statistics that they are GIVEN and try to give an accurate estimation of what result will occur from a proposed fiscal policy. If the politicians give them bogus information then their estimations will reflect that and if you're naive enough to think that politicians don't play that game then we need to talk.

Let me define naive for you. Anyone who believes that the cbo simply takes data from POLITICIANS is naive. Or, more directly, a con tool. Here is a very complete discussion on what the cbo does. Nowhere in this article does it suggest it ever takes data from Politicians.
Ezra Klein - What Does the Congressional Budget Office Do? An Interview With Doug Elmendorf.

The CBO says the following about what it does;
"CBO's work follows processes specified in the Congressional Budget Act of 1974"
CBO | our processes
If you look at this link, you will see exactly what they are required to do. And you will see exactly why I said that your statement defines naive. And oldstyle, relative to our need to talk, i see no reason untill 1. You understand what conversation requires, most notably an effort at truth, and 2. That you bring forward statements that are not so proveably untrue.
It has been interesting to see cons attack a number of impartial government sources. Sources which have been used by both parties for many years. And sources that have never been questioned before. But in every case, they have been because cons do not like the analysis provided. But, oldstyle, only con tools like you actually believe the attacks.

So, oldstyle, being a con tool, has more opinion to state{

All your bluster about "dogma"? It's what people resort to that can't argue a viewpoint.

Oldstyule, what dogma is my poor con tool, is information that is repeated by tools that comes from some sourse with an agenda. A viewpoint is often dogma. It is pretty much always dogma in your case. It is very, very seldom accompanied by any proof. Sound familiar, oldstyle. Just opinion. And you know how much I value your opinion.

If you'll recall the REASON that Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi insisted on large infrastructure job spending be included in the Obama Stimulus was that there were so many "shovel ready" jobs that would be quickly created. Or have you forgotten that Pelosi promised that 400,000 jobs would be created immediately following the passage of the stimulus they were asking for and that the stimulus would create 4 million jobs in total? So tell me, Rshermr...what HAPPENED to those 400,000 immediate jobs? Was Nancy lying to us? You just stated in you rambling dissertation that no stimulus spending took place in 2009 yet the Obama Stimulus was passed Feb. 17th of that year. So what happened to all the shovel ready jobs? The truth is...anyone that knows anything about how government contracts are bid and decided knows that it's a slow, time consuming process. So which is it, Rshermr? Is Nancy Pelosi THAT stupid or did she flat out lie?

Perhaps, Oldstyle, since you are such an expert on this subject, at least in your own puny mind, you can provide some proof of what you are saying. And perhaps you can tell us how many jobs were created in the first year of the stimulus. Remember, Reagan told us that he would bring down the unemployment rate from 7.5% and increase gov revenue immediately. But it took over a year to drive the unemployment rate to 10.8% and to drive the deficit upward so fast that they had to use non supply side methods to get things back under control Takes a bit of time, which you appreciated with reagan in another post you made, but you want things to happen immediately with this admin. Odd, eh. And relative to what Pelosi or any other politician said, I really do not care. Why is it that you are so interested?

You want me to give a link to what each job created by the Obama Stimulus cost? Well lets use the VERY vague numbers that your buddies over at the CBO churned out on just that topic, little buddy! The CBO estimated that the stimulus created between 1.4 million and 3.3 million jobs. So let's take those figures and divide them into the 780 billion that we know we had to spend on the stimulus. With the 1.4 million figure, jobs cost us a whopping $557,142 each! With the 3.3 million figure those same jobs cost us $236,363 each! Now did you STILL want to make the case that was money well spent? The truth is...we could have taken that 780,000 billion and divided it among the approx. 11.1 million unemployed people back in 2009 and given each of them $70,000! Gee, think THAT might have stimulated the economy just a bit? Hard to get your head around a number as staggeringly large as what Barry, Harry and Nancy essentially frittered away with little to show for it...isn't it? But YOU don't find that to be "staggering"...do you? Which makes you one of the dumber people on this site.

Staggering, no, not really. Bullshit, yes. I do indeed. The amount of money spent was not $780B but $480B. You continually forget that the rest was tax decreases. It is really hard to spend tax decreases. So, you should first find out how many jobs were likely created over the period to date. So, were the 1.1 million jobs to 3.3M jobs over the entire period or just for one year, hot shot? Kind of seems to me that you forgot to provide a link. And are jobs still being created, or has it all stopped. And since you are still making fun of the CBO, why should anyone take you seriously anyway. If you have any proof, of anything you say, anything at all, bring it on. But for now, all I see is dogma. And your opinion. And you know how much I respect your opinion.

So, let me try to educate you on stimulus. Though I think educating a closed mind is a waste of time. But here goes.
Stimulus spending is, in fact, spending to create jobs in a bad economy. It is like priming a pump. So, lets say you do something useful, like bringing broadband to an area where it does not exist. And lets say that the project requires 1000 new employees to do the work. And you pay each $50,000. So, each year you pay those employees $50M. Now, over a couple of years, you will have paid them twice that, and so on. With me so far, oh great con tool. Now, every year, those employees spend most of their income. So, after taxes and savings, lets say they spend $40K each. That total of $40M is spent in the local economy, causing more hiring. Because demand is increased. That $40M increases hiring, that hiring increases hiring, and so forth. Pretty soon the economy is doing much better. So, what is the multiplier (the multiplier is understood in economic theory and taught everywhere and is well documented, but cons like to pretend it does not exist). It may be that that original $40M will create jobs paying $250M per year, year after year. Soon, those original 1000 will finish their project, and will not be required to be on the gov payroll. But since the economy is moving, they will be hired elsewhere.
Do you yet see why the exact cost of the stimulus is not really all that important? I didn't think so. Because your mind is closed. But Reagans economic team understood.
So, if you want to see what the real cost per employee is, bring on the real numbers. But don't waste my time with your home spun economic theory, and your opinions. they simply waste my time.
So, there you go, oldstyle. You just got educated by one of the dumbest people you know, in your opinion. And you got your bullshit shoved back down your throat. Really, oldstyle, every time you try this, you end up looking like an idiot. I am sure you will be back with some more dogma that you believe to be profound, and it will have the same result. by the way, dipshit, had you noticed that the unemployment rate just keeps on declining. Even with every effort by your party to block any job creation bills. did you happen to notice the election. Are you learning anything yet. Or is it just too comforting to simply believe what you want to believe? And to continue being a dumb con tool.

 

[Rshermr]

Make-work projects DON'T work.

thanks for your opinion. Next.

 

[Unkotare]

Make-work projects DON'T work.

thanks for your opinion. Next.

And who the fuck are YOU again?

 

[The Rabbi]

Make-work projects DON'T work.

thanks for your opinion. Next.

And who the fuck are YOU again?

Hey, he's got a degree in Economic and an MBA!! Bwahaha.

 

[Oldstyle]

Make-work projects DON'T work.

thanks for your opinion. Next.

And who the fuck are YOU again?

Rshermr maintains that he actually TAUGHT economics at the college level...and get this...he did so as an undergrad! What's REALLY amazing is that he managed to teach economics but didn't know that one of John Maynard Keynes economic principles was not raising taxes in a slow economy. In short...Rshermr is a "poser". He's the kind of person that goes on the internet and pretends he's something he's not...one can only assume because he's such a loser in real life. THAT is who the fuck he is!

 

[Skull Pilot]

In the USA we have a daily average of 8,750,000 barrels of gasoline or 367.5 million gallons a day. That's over 134 billion gallons a year

How much gasoline does the United States consume? - FAQ - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

The federal gas tax is 18.4 cents per gallon annually that's 24.7 billion collected in gas taxes. BTW that does not included diesel fuel which is taxed at 24.4 cents per gallon.

Where has all that money gone that our roads are "crumbling"