US Jobless claims fall to 4 decade low

[AntonToo]

Bush would own the economic downturn in 2007 and 2008. Let's remember however that George W. Bush warned Congress that we had things going on in the housing markets that had the potential to be devastating to the economy and his concern was pooh poohed by the likes of Christopher Dodd and Barney Frank. Let's also remember that Bush is the one who set up TARP...arguably the thing that had the most positive influence on stabilizing the economy in 2008 and 2009.

How can we remember that which is a fabrication?

Bush administration NEVER recognized real estate bubble and denied problems until it became near comic.

Bush denies U.S. economy in recession

But yes, TARP was initiated under Bush, for which I give him full credit, but was also supported and administered by Obama once he was in office.

As for the ARRA? With all due respect, Antontoo...if the Obama Stimulus had worked as promised...the Obama Administration wouldn't have had to use "Jobs created and saved" to hide how few net new jobs their programs actually created.

I've asked Rshermr for weeks now to give me the economic formula that was used to determine "Jobs Saved" if it's REALLY a viable number and for weeks he's ducked answering that question. Why he's doing so is obvious...there is no such formula. They basically pulled that number out of their posteriors.

You don't understand macroeconomic limitations - there is no way to isolate ARRA effects from the rest of the economy. There is no "ACTUALLY CREATED" known because that's not something that is possible to track once you get into secondary and tertiary effects. Best we have are estimates by economists, estimates that show (unsurprisingly) that 800 billion did not simply vanish into thin air as conservatives laughably claim.

This is what unemployment would look like without ARRA TARP and QE according to some studies.

The Financial Crisis: Lessons for the Next One | Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

Setting the Record Straight: Six Years of Unheeded Warnings for GSE Reform

When

Over the past six years, the President and his Administration have not only warned of the systemic consequences of failure to reform GSEs but also put forward thoughtful plans to reduce the risk that either Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac would encounter such difficulties. In fact, it was Congress that flatly rejected President Bush's call more than five years ago to reform the GSEs. Over the years, the President's repeated attempts to reform the supervision of these entities were thwarted by the legislative maneuvering of those who emphatically denied there were problems with the GSEs.

2001

• April: The Administration's FY02 budget declares that the size of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is "a potential problem," because "financial trouble of a large GSE could cause strong repercussions in financial markets, affecting Federally insured entities and economic activity." (2002 Budget Analytic Perspectives, pg. 142)

2002

• May: The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) calls for the disclosure and corporate governance principles contained in the President's 10-point plan for corporate responsibility to apply to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. (OMB Prompt Letter to OFHEO, 5/29/02)

2003

• February: The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO) releases a report explaining that unexpected problems at a GSE could immediately spread into financial sectors beyond the housing market.
  
  
• September: Then-Treasury Secretary John Snow testifies before the House Financial Services Committee to recommend that Congress enact "legislation to create a new Federal agency to regulate and supervise the financial activities of our housing-related government sponsored enterprises" and set prudent and appropriate minimum capital adequacy requirements.
  
  
• September: Then-House Financial Services Committee Ranking Member Barney Frank (D-MA) strongly disagrees with the Administration's assessment, saying "these two entities – Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac – are not facing any kind of financial crisis … The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing." (Stephen Labaton, "New Agency Proposed To Oversee Freddie Mac And Fannie Mae," The New York Times, 9/11/03)
  
  
• October: Senator Thomas Carper (D-DE) refuses to acknowledge any necessity for GSE reforms, saying "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." (Sen. Carper, Hearing of Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, 10/16/03)
  
  
• November: Then-Council of the Economic Advisers (CEA) Chairman Greg Mankiw explains that any "legislation to reform GSE regulation should empower the new regulator with sufficient strength and credibility to reduce systemic risk." To reduce the potential for systemic instability, the regulator would have "broad authority to set both risk-based and minimum capital standards" and "receivership powers necessary to wind down the affairs of a troubled GSE." (N. Gregory Mankiw, Remarks At The Conference Of State Bank Supervisors State Banking Summit And Leadership, 11/6/03)

2004

• February: The President's FY05 Budget again highlights the risk posed by the explosive growth of the GSEs and their low levels of required capital and calls for creation of a new, world-class regulator: "The Administration has determined that the safety and soundness regulators of the housing GSEs lack sufficient power and stature to meet their responsibilities, and therefore … should be replaced with a new strengthened regulator." (2005 Budget Analytic Perspectives, pg. 83)
  
  
• February: Then-CEA Chairman Mankiw cautions Congress to "not take [the financial market's] strength for granted." Again, the call from the Administration was to reduce this risk by "ensuring that the housing GSEs are overseen by an effective regulator." (N. Gregory Mankiw, Op-Ed, "Keeping Fannie And Freddie's House In Order," Financial Times, 2/24/04)
  
  
• April: Rep. Frank ignores the warnings, accusing the Administration of creating an "artificial issue." At a speech to the Mortgage Bankers Association conference, Rep. Frank said "people tend to pay their mortgages. I don't think we are in any remote danger here. This focus on receivership, I think, is intended to create fears that aren't there." ("Frank: GSE Failure A Phony Issue," American Banker, 4/21/04)
  
  
• June: Then-Treasury Deputy Secretary Samuel Bodman spotlights the risk posed by the GSEs and calls for reform, saying "We do not have a world-class system of supervision of the housing government sponsored enterprises (GSEs), even though the importance of the housing financial system that the GSEs serve demands the best in supervision to ensure the long-term vitality of that system. Therefore, the Administration has called for a new, first class, regulatory supervisor for the three housing GSEs: Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the Federal Home Loan Banking System." (Samuel Bodman, House Financial Services Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations Testimony, 6/16/04)

2005

• April: Then-Secretary Snow repeats his call for GSE reform, saying "Events that have transpired since I testified before this Committee in 2003 reinforce concerns over the systemic risks posed by the GSEs and further highlight the need for real GSE reform to ensure that our housing finance system remains a strong and vibrant source of funding for expanding homeownership opportunities in America … Half-measures will only exacerbate the risks to our financial system." (Secretary John W. Snow, "Testimony Before The U.S. House Financial Services Committee," 4/13/05)
  
  
• July: Then-Minority Leader Harry Reid rejects legislation reforming GSEs, "while I favor improving oversight by our federal housing regulators to ensure safety and soundness, we cannot pass legislation that could limit Americans from owning homes and potentially harm our economy in the process." ("Dems Rip New Fannie Mae Regulatory Measure," United Press International, 7/28/05)

2007

• August: President Bush emphatically calls on Congress to pass a reform package for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, saying "first things first when it comes to those two institutions. Congress needs to get them reformed, get them streamlined, get them focused, and then I will consider other options." (President George W. Bush, Press Conference, the White House, 8/9/07)
  
  
• August: Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Chairman Christopher Dodd ignores the President's warnings and calls on him to "immediately reconsider his ill-advised" position. (Eric Dash, "Fannie Mae's Offer To Help Ease Credit Squeeze Is Rejected, As Critics Complain Of Opportunism," The New York Times, 8/11/07)
  
  
• December: President Bush again warns Congress of the need to pass legislation reforming GSEs, saying "These institutions provide liquidity in the mortgage market that benefits millions of homeowners, and it is vital they operate safely and operate soundly. So I've called on Congress to pass legislation that strengthens independent regulation of the GSEs – and ensures they focus on their important housing mission. The GSE reform bill passed by the House earlier this year is a good start. But the Senate has not acted. And the United States Senate needs to pass this legislation soon." (President George W. Bush, Discusses Housing, the White House, 12/6/07)

2008

• February: Assistant Treasury Secretary David Nason reiterates the urgency of reforms, saying "A new regulatory structure for the housing GSEs is essential if these entities are to continue to perform their public mission successfully." (David Nason, Testimony On Reforming GSE Regulation, Senate Committee On Banking, Housing And Urban Affairs, 2/7/08)
  
  
• March: President Bush calls on Congress to take action and "move forward with reforms on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. They need to continue to modernize the FHA, as well as allow State housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to homeowners to refinance their mortgages." (President George W. Bush, Remarks To The Economic Club Of New York, New York, NY, 3/14/08)
  
  
• April: President Bush urges Congress to pass the much needed legislation and "modernize Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. [There are] constructive things Congress can do that will encourage the housing market to correct quickly by … helping people stay in their homes." (President George W. Bush, Meeting With Cabinet, the White House, 4/14/08)
  
  
• May: President Bush issues several pleas to Congress to pass legislation reforming Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac before the situation deteriorates further.
  • "Americans are concerned about making their mortgage payments and keeping their homes. Yet Congress has failed to pass legislation I have repeatedly requested to modernize the Federal Housing Administration that will help more families stay in their homes, reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to ensure they focus on their housing mission, and allow state housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to refinance sub-prime loans." (President George W. Bush, Radio Address, 5/3/08)
    
    
  • "[T]he government ought to be helping creditworthy people stay in their homes. And one way we can do that – and Congress is making progress on this – is the reform of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. That reform will come with a strong, independent regulator." (President George W. Bush, Meeting With The Secretary Of The Treasury, the White House, 5/19/08)
    
    
  • "Congress needs to pass legislation to modernize the Federal Housing Administration, reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to ensure they focus on their housing mission, and allow State housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to refinance subprime loans." (President George W. Bush, Radio Address, 5/31/08)
• June: As foreclosure rates continued to rise in the first quarter, the President once again asks Congress to take the necessary measures to address this challenge, saying "we need to pass legislation to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac." (President George W. Bush, Remarks At Swearing In Ceremony For Secretary Of Housing And Urban Development, Washington, D.C., 6/6/08)
  
  
• July: Congress heeds the President's call for action and passes reform legislation for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as it becomes clear that the institutions are failing.
  
  
• September: Democrats in Congress forget their previous objections to GSE reforms, as Senator Dodd questions "why weren't we doing more, why did we wait almost a year before there were any significant steps taken to try to deal with this problem? … I have a lot of questions about where was the administration over the last eight years." (Dawn Kopecki, "Fannie Mae, Freddie 'House Of Cards' Prompts Takeover," Bloomberg, 9/9/08)

Copy-pasted rightwing bullshit that has little to do with general market failures the lead to Great Recession. (No it wasn't the GSEs that "spread risk to rest of market")

Why else would his administration be talking about how they got "broadsided" by real estate collapse instead of talking about how right they were all along?

Bush administration oversaw vast loosening of banking leveraging regulations, urged GSEs in 2003 to "keep up with private market" in buying up sub-prime-backed securities, pushed "Ownership society" initiatives and advocated exotic mortgages with variable interest rates to consumers.

I'm not going to be blaming recesion on Bush, but a claim that his administration has foreseen the finance and real estate collapse and tried to do something about it, this with six years of Republican majority is a ridiculous right winger fantasy.

 

[Oldstyle]

Bush would own the economic downturn in 2007 and 2008. Let's remember however that George W. Bush warned Congress that we had things going on in the housing markets that had the potential to be devastating to the economy and his concern was pooh poohed by the likes of Christopher Dodd and Barney Frank. Let's also remember that Bush is the one who set up TARP...arguably the thing that had the most positive influence on stabilizing the economy in 2008 and 2009.

How can we remember that which is a fabrication?

Bush administration NEVER recognized real estate bubble and denied problems until it became near comic.

Bush denies U.S. economy in recession

But yes, TARP was initiated under Bush, for which I give him full credit, but was also supported and administered by Obama once he was in office.

As for the ARRA? With all due respect, Antontoo...if the Obama Stimulus had worked as promised...the Obama Administration wouldn't have had to use "Jobs created and saved" to hide how few net new jobs their programs actually created.

I've asked Rshermr for weeks now to give me the economic formula that was used to determine "Jobs Saved" if it's REALLY a viable number and for weeks he's ducked answering that question. Why he's doing so is obvious...there is no such formula. They basically pulled that number out of their posteriors.

You don't understand macroeconomic limitations - there is no way to isolate ARRA effects from the rest of the economy. There is no "ACTUALLY CREATED" known because that's not something that is possible to track once you get into secondary and tertiary effects. Best we have are estimates by economists, estimates that show (unsurprisingly) that 800 billion did not simply vanish into thin air as conservatives laughably claim.

This is what unemployment would look like without ARRA TARP and QE according to some studies.

The Financial Crisis: Lessons for the Next One | Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

Setting the Record Straight: Six Years of Unheeded Warnings for GSE Reform

When

Over the past six years, the President and his Administration have not only warned of the systemic consequences of failure to reform GSEs but also put forward thoughtful plans to reduce the risk that either Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac would encounter such difficulties. In fact, it was Congress that flatly rejected President Bush's call more than five years ago to reform the GSEs. Over the years, the President's repeated attempts to reform the supervision of these entities were thwarted by the legislative maneuvering of those who emphatically denied there were problems with the GSEs.

2001

• April: The Administration's FY02 budget declares that the size of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is "a potential problem," because "financial trouble of a large GSE could cause strong repercussions in financial markets, affecting Federally insured entities and economic activity." (2002 Budget Analytic Perspectives, pg. 142)

2002

• May: The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) calls for the disclosure and corporate governance principles contained in the President's 10-point plan for corporate responsibility to apply to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. (OMB Prompt Letter to OFHEO, 5/29/02)

2003

• February: The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO) releases a report explaining that unexpected problems at a GSE could immediately spread into financial sectors beyond the housing market.
  
  
• September: Then-Treasury Secretary John Snow testifies before the House Financial Services Committee to recommend that Congress enact "legislation to create a new Federal agency to regulate and supervise the financial activities of our housing-related government sponsored enterprises" and set prudent and appropriate minimum capital adequacy requirements.
  
  
• September: Then-House Financial Services Committee Ranking Member Barney Frank (D-MA) strongly disagrees with the Administration's assessment, saying "these two entities – Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac – are not facing any kind of financial crisis … The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing." (Stephen Labaton, "New Agency Proposed To Oversee Freddie Mac And Fannie Mae," The New York Times, 9/11/03)
  
  
• October: Senator Thomas Carper (D-DE) refuses to acknowledge any necessity for GSE reforms, saying "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." (Sen. Carper, Hearing of Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, 10/16/03)
  
  
• November: Then-Council of the Economic Advisers (CEA) Chairman Greg Mankiw explains that any "legislation to reform GSE regulation should empower the new regulator with sufficient strength and credibility to reduce systemic risk." To reduce the potential for systemic instability, the regulator would have "broad authority to set both risk-based and minimum capital standards" and "receivership powers necessary to wind down the affairs of a troubled GSE." (N. Gregory Mankiw, Remarks At The Conference Of State Bank Supervisors State Banking Summit And Leadership, 11/6/03)

2004

• February: The President's FY05 Budget again highlights the risk posed by the explosive growth of the GSEs and their low levels of required capital and calls for creation of a new, world-class regulator: "The Administration has determined that the safety and soundness regulators of the housing GSEs lack sufficient power and stature to meet their responsibilities, and therefore … should be replaced with a new strengthened regulator." (2005 Budget Analytic Perspectives, pg. 83)
  
  
• February: Then-CEA Chairman Mankiw cautions Congress to "not take [the financial market's] strength for granted." Again, the call from the Administration was to reduce this risk by "ensuring that the housing GSEs are overseen by an effective regulator." (N. Gregory Mankiw, Op-Ed, "Keeping Fannie And Freddie's House In Order," Financial Times, 2/24/04)
  
  
• April: Rep. Frank ignores the warnings, accusing the Administration of creating an "artificial issue." At a speech to the Mortgage Bankers Association conference, Rep. Frank said "people tend to pay their mortgages. I don't think we are in any remote danger here. This focus on receivership, I think, is intended to create fears that aren't there." ("Frank: GSE Failure A Phony Issue," American Banker, 4/21/04)
  
  
• June: Then-Treasury Deputy Secretary Samuel Bodman spotlights the risk posed by the GSEs and calls for reform, saying "We do not have a world-class system of supervision of the housing government sponsored enterprises (GSEs), even though the importance of the housing financial system that the GSEs serve demands the best in supervision to ensure the long-term vitality of that system. Therefore, the Administration has called for a new, first class, regulatory supervisor for the three housing GSEs: Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the Federal Home Loan Banking System." (Samuel Bodman, House Financial Services Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations Testimony, 6/16/04)

2005

• April: Then-Secretary Snow repeats his call for GSE reform, saying "Events that have transpired since I testified before this Committee in 2003 reinforce concerns over the systemic risks posed by the GSEs and further highlight the need for real GSE reform to ensure that our housing finance system remains a strong and vibrant source of funding for expanding homeownership opportunities in America … Half-measures will only exacerbate the risks to our financial system." (Secretary John W. Snow, "Testimony Before The U.S. House Financial Services Committee," 4/13/05)
  
  
• July: Then-Minority Leader Harry Reid rejects legislation reforming GSEs, "while I favor improving oversight by our federal housing regulators to ensure safety and soundness, we cannot pass legislation that could limit Americans from owning homes and potentially harm our economy in the process." ("Dems Rip New Fannie Mae Regulatory Measure," United Press International, 7/28/05)

2007

• August: President Bush emphatically calls on Congress to pass a reform package for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, saying "first things first when it comes to those two institutions. Congress needs to get them reformed, get them streamlined, get them focused, and then I will consider other options." (President George W. Bush, Press Conference, the White House, 8/9/07)
  
  
• August: Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Chairman Christopher Dodd ignores the President's warnings and calls on him to "immediately reconsider his ill-advised" position. (Eric Dash, "Fannie Mae's Offer To Help Ease Credit Squeeze Is Rejected, As Critics Complain Of Opportunism," The New York Times, 8/11/07)
  
  
• December: President Bush again warns Congress of the need to pass legislation reforming GSEs, saying "These institutions provide liquidity in the mortgage market that benefits millions of homeowners, and it is vital they operate safely and operate soundly. So I've called on Congress to pass legislation that strengthens independent regulation of the GSEs – and ensures they focus on their important housing mission. The GSE reform bill passed by the House earlier this year is a good start. But the Senate has not acted. And the United States Senate needs to pass this legislation soon." (President George W. Bush, Discusses Housing, the White House, 12/6/07)

2008

• February: Assistant Treasury Secretary David Nason reiterates the urgency of reforms, saying "A new regulatory structure for the housing GSEs is essential if these entities are to continue to perform their public mission successfully." (David Nason, Testimony On Reforming GSE Regulation, Senate Committee On Banking, Housing And Urban Affairs, 2/7/08)
  
  
• March: President Bush calls on Congress to take action and "move forward with reforms on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. They need to continue to modernize the FHA, as well as allow State housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to homeowners to refinance their mortgages." (President George W. Bush, Remarks To The Economic Club Of New York, New York, NY, 3/14/08)
  
  
• April: President Bush urges Congress to pass the much needed legislation and "modernize Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. [There are] constructive things Congress can do that will encourage the housing market to correct quickly by … helping people stay in their homes." (President George W. Bush, Meeting With Cabinet, the White House, 4/14/08)
  
  
• May: President Bush issues several pleas to Congress to pass legislation reforming Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac before the situation deteriorates further.
  • "Americans are concerned about making their mortgage payments and keeping their homes. Yet Congress has failed to pass legislation I have repeatedly requested to modernize the Federal Housing Administration that will help more families stay in their homes, reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to ensure they focus on their housing mission, and allow state housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to refinance sub-prime loans." (President George W. Bush, Radio Address, 5/3/08)
    
    
  • "[T]he government ought to be helping creditworthy people stay in their homes. And one way we can do that – and Congress is making progress on this – is the reform of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. That reform will come with a strong, independent regulator." (President George W. Bush, Meeting With The Secretary Of The Treasury, the White House, 5/19/08)
    
    
  • "Congress needs to pass legislation to modernize the Federal Housing Administration, reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to ensure they focus on their housing mission, and allow State housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to refinance subprime loans." (President George W. Bush, Radio Address, 5/31/08)
• June: As foreclosure rates continued to rise in the first quarter, the President once again asks Congress to take the necessary measures to address this challenge, saying "we need to pass legislation to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac." (President George W. Bush, Remarks At Swearing In Ceremony For Secretary Of Housing And Urban Development, Washington, D.C., 6/6/08)
  
  
• July: Congress heeds the President's call for action and passes reform legislation for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as it becomes clear that the institutions are failing.
  
  
• September: Democrats in Congress forget their previous objections to GSE reforms, as Senator Dodd questions "why weren't we doing more, why did we wait almost a year before there were any significant steps taken to try to deal with this problem? … I have a lot of questions about where was the administration over the last eight years." (Dawn Kopecki, "Fannie Mae, Freddie 'House Of Cards' Prompts Takeover," Bloomberg, 9/9/08)

Copy-pasted rightwing bullshit that has little to do with general market failures the lead to Great Recession. (No it wasn't the GSEs that "spread risk to rest of market")

Why else would his administration be talking about how they got "broadsided" by real estate collapse instead of talking about how right they were all along?

Bush administration oversaw vast loosening of banking leveraging regulations, urged GSEs in 2003 to "keep up with private market" in buying up sub-prime-backed securities, pushed "Ownership society" initiatives and advocated exotic mortgages with variable interest rates to consumers.

A claim that his administration has foreseen the finance and real estate collapse is a ridiculous right winger fantasy.

What exactly do you take exception with that was "copy-pasted"?

 

[Oldstyle]

Rshermr came up with his "conditions" when he couldn't come up with the formula he swore existed. Oh, but that was after he gave me "A-B=Jobs Saved" but refused to say what A or B represented. I call him Georgie after George Costanza. Rshermr pretends to be have a degree in economics and George Costanza pretends to be an architect.

Rshermr came up with his "conditions" when he couldn't come up with the formula he swore existed. Oh, but that was after he gave me "A-B=Jobs Saved" but refused to say what A or B represented. I call him Georgie after George Costanza. Rshermr pretends to be have a degree in economics and George Costanza pretends to be an architect.

Just more of your worthless juvenile "humor", os. Waste of everyone's time. Oldstyle works to end threads. By posting nothing but lies and drivel, and mostly conservative talking points, complete with no links of any kind. And no, the condition was put with the statement of what it would take to get the formula the first time I offered him the formula. Just another lie by os. Funny thing is, it does not bother OS to lie at all. AND, he does not think people notice he lies.

I'll put it to Antontoo...do you think a formula exists for determining "Jobs Saved" and if so, why has Rshermr not provided it? I say it's because he discovered that there is no such formula. He's lying about his condition thing just like he lies about most things here. Did you notice that he's decided not to answer my question about the two different agreements on climate change? Poor little Georgie...he can't help trying to pretend he knows things that he doesn't have a clue about and then he has to try and bluster his way out with lies.

 

[AntonToo]

My point was that so few jobs were created by the ARRA that the Obama Administration came up with "jobs saved" not to give a better picture of what was taking place but to obscure what had taken place. As you said yourself it's a number that's impossible to verify...which is why it works for politicians trying to cover their asses.

Just because it's impossible to know for sure doesn't mean we shouldn't go with best estimates available and it doesn't mean administration obscured something.

You say "so few jobs"...well ok, why don't you tell us how many jobs YOU, non-economist, think 800 billion dollar spending created in 2009-2014 period.

 

[AntonToo]

I'll put it to Antontoo...do you think a formula exists for determining "Jobs Saved" and if so, why has Rshermr not provided it? I say it's because he discovered that there is no such formula. He's lying about his condition thing just like he lies about most things here. Did you notice that he's decided not to answer my question about the two different agreements on climate change? Poor little Georgie...he can't help trying to pretend he knows things that he doesn't have a clue about and then he has to try and bluster his way out with lies.

Yea I'm going to go fetch you formulas...right now master..right away.

I gave you the estimates on stimulus effects from economists. You gave me NOTHING except obvious economic misunderstandings and meaningless assertions like "so few jobs". As I see it you have no leg to stand on, no formulas required.

 

[Oldstyle]

My point was that so few jobs were created by the ARRA that the Obama Administration came up with "jobs saved" not to give a better picture of what was taking place but to obscure what had taken place. As you said yourself it's a number that's impossible to verify...which is why it works for politicians trying to cover their asses.

Just because it's impossible to know for sure doesn't mean we shouldn't go with best estimates available and it doesn't mean administration obscured something.

You say "so few jobs"...well ok, why don't you tell us how many jobs YOU, non-economist, think 800 billion dollar spending created in 2009-2014 period.

As you yourself stated earlier...it's impossible to put a hard number on the number of jobs that a stimulus program created. All you can really do is report how many jobs were created period. The Obama Administration didn't DO that though...did they? No, they went with how many jobs were created or saved...letting them hide the poor job creation numbers behind a "jobs created or saved " number that they were free to call whatever they felt like because there is no way to verify it.

 

[Oldstyle]

I'll put it to Antontoo...do you think a formula exists for determining "Jobs Saved" and if so, why has Rshermr not provided it? I say it's because he discovered that there is no such formula. He's lying about his condition thing just like he lies about most things here. Did you notice that he's decided not to answer my question about the two different agreements on climate change? Poor little Georgie...he can't help trying to pretend he knows things that he doesn't have a clue about and then he has to try and bluster his way out with lies.

Yea I'm going to go fetch you formulas...right now..right away.

I gave you the estimates on stimulus effects from economists. You gave me NOTHING except obvious economic misunderstandings and meaningless assertions like "so few jobs".

I'm not sending you to "fetch" anything, Antontoo! I wouldn't send someone to fetch something that I know doesn't exist. Doing so would be like sending someone into a round room and telling them to pee in the corner. My point...once again...is that the "Jobs created or saved" is something that was totally made up out of thin air to fit whatever political narrative the White House was pushing at the time.

 

[AntonToo]

As you yourself stated earlier...it's impossible to put a hard number on the number of jobs that a stimulus program created. All you can really do is report how many jobs were created period.

NO YOU CAN'T BECAUSE CORRELATION DOES NOT EQUAL CAUSATION. This is what you don't seem to understand.

It's is not a de-merit to ARRA that recession was much deeper than originally anticipated.

What you CAN most reasonably report are estimated effects of Stimulus and other policies estimated by economists.

Here it is again:

 

[Oldstyle]

I'll put it to Antontoo...do you think a formula exists for determining "Jobs Saved" and if so, why has Rshermr not provided it? I say it's because he discovered that there is no such formula. He's lying about his condition thing just like he lies about most things here. Did you notice that he's decided not to answer my question about the two different agreements on climate change? Poor little Georgie...he can't help trying to pretend he knows things that he doesn't have a clue about and then he has to try and bluster his way out with lies.

Yea I'm going to go fetch you formulas...right now master..right away.

I gave you the estimates on stimulus effects from economists. You gave me NOTHING except obvious economic misunderstandings and meaningless assertions like "so few jobs". As I see it you have no leg to stand on, no formulas required.

2016 Jobs Reports
MONTH JOBS (Final Report) JOBS (Original Estimate) COMMENTS
Jan 168,000 151,000 The fastest growing areas were health care, retail, and construction.
Feb 233,000 242,000 Retail, health care and construction boosted growth. Mining and manufacturing lost jobs.
March 208,000 215,000 Losses in manufacturing and mining nearly offset gains in retail, health care and cons
April 123,000 160,000 Gains in health care and banking offset losses in mining, the government and retail.


2015: 2.744 million jobs created
MONTH JOBS (Final Report) JOBS (Original Estimate) COMMENTS
Jan 221,000 257,000 The fastest growing areas were health care, retail and construction.
Feb 265,000 295,000 Health care, retail and construction added the most jobs.
Mar 84,000 126,000 Temp jobs were the only hopeful sign.
Apr 251,000 223,000 Strong growth in health care, construction and temp help.
May 273,000 280,000 Health care, retail and hotels/restaurants grew the most.
Jun 228,000 223,000 Health care and retail trade added the most jobs.
Jul 277,000 215,000 Retail trade and health care were the biggest contributors.
Aug 150,000 173,000 Manufacturing lost jobs due to the strong dollar's impact on exports.
Sep 149,000 142,000 Mining (the oil industry) and manufacturing lost jobs.
Oct 295,000 271,000 Health care, leisure and hospitality, and retail contributed to growth
Nov 280,000 211,000 Construction, health care, and retail spurred growth.
Dec 271,000 292,000 Health care, construction, and leisure/hospitality added the most jobs.


2014: 3.015 million jobs created
MONTH JOBS CREATED (Final) JOBS CREATED (Original) COMMENTS
Jan 187,000 133,000 The Dow rose 165 points on the strong job gains.
Feb 168,000 175,000 Winter storms limited job creation.
Mar 272,000 192,000 Jobs gains exceeded estimates.
Apr 310,000 288,000 Job gains were across the board except for information technology.
May 213,000 217,000 Health care, leisure and transportation added jobs while IT lost them.
Jun 306,000 288,000 Retail, health care, leisure, government and IT added.
Jul 232,000 202,000 Lower than expectations but still a solid gain. Increases were in health care, retail, and hotels/restaurants.
Aug 218,000 142,000 Health care and construction added the most jobs, while retail, auto manufacturing and IT lost jobs.
Sep 286,000 248,000 Retailers added jobs for back-to-school. Leisure (hotels, restaurants, bars) and health care also added.
Oct 200,000 214,000 Retailers added workers for Halloween. Leisure and health care also added jobs. Only IT reduced.
Nov 331,000 321,000 The biggest gain in nearly 3 years, thanks to retailers that added jobs for Black Friday. Other strong areas were health care, leisure, and IT.
Dec 292,000 252,000

2013: 2.311 million jobs created
MONTH JOBS CREATED (Final) JOBS CREATED (Original) COMMENTS
Jan 190,000 157,000
Feb 311,000 236,000 Growth due to construction and retail trade.
Mar 135,000 88,000 Disappointing jobs report blamed on weather and retail layoffs.
Apr 192,000 165,000 The strong report sent the Dow above 15,000.
May 218,000 175,000 Dow rose 200 points. Housing added jobs.
Jun 146,000 195,000
Jul 140,000 162,000 Most growth in low-paying retail and restaurants.
Aug 269,000 169,000 Job gains were in low-paying retail and restaurant sectors.
Sep 185,000 143,000 Investors cheered because the Fed would keep monetary policy loose.
Oct 189,000 204,000 The government shutdown delayed the survey allowing more businesses to report.
Nov 291,000 203,000 Across-the-board job growth.
Dec 45,000 71,000 Job losses were across the board, mainly from poor holiday sales.

2012: 2.149 million jobs created
MONTH JOBS ADDED (Final) JOBS ADDED (Original) COMMENTS
Jan 338,000 243,000 Most job growth was in business services, hospitality, and manufacturing
Feb 257,000 227,000 Business growth made everyone think the economy had finally healed.
Mar 239,000 120,000 Poor growth across the board, and retail shed jobs.
Apr 75,000 115,000 Two sectors weren't doing well -- construction and government. Housing was hampered by foreclosures, and government was cutting budgets.
May 115,000 65,000 Seasonal weakness sent the Dow down 275 points.
Jun 87,000 80,000 The Dow dropped 180 points on the poor jobs report.
Jul 143,000 163,000 The Dow gained 217 points on the strong report.
Aug 190,000 96,000
Sep 181,000 114,000 Former GE CEO Jack Welch was suspicious that so many jobs were added right before the Presidential election. It's explained here.
Oct 132,000 171,000 The strong jobs report came out a week before the election. Data was collected before Superstorm Sandy hit.
Nov 149,000 146,000 The storm devastated New York, but didn't affect national jobs numbers.
Dec 243,000 155,000 Uncertainty over the fiscal cliff forced businesses hire less.

2011: 2.087 million jobs created
MONTH JOBS ADDED (Final) JOBS ADDED (Original) COMMENTS
Jan 42,000 36,000 The economy had 984,000 more jobs than the year before.
Feb 188,000 192,000 Manufacturing jobs were up 189,000 year-over-year.
Mar 225,000 216,000
Apr 346,000 244,000
May 73,000 54,000 The poor jobs report sent the Dow and dollar down, and gold up.
Jun 235,000 18,000 The dismal jobs report panicked investors.
Jul 70,000 117,000 The Dow dropped 400 points despite job gains.
Aug 107,000 0 Astonishingly, absolutely no jobs were created, giving urgency to Obama's jobs speech the following week.
Sep 246,000 103,000 The economy added 2 million since the low point in February 2010, but was still down 6.7 million jobs since the high in January 2008.
Oct 202,000 80,000
Nov 146,000 120,000 Strong retail sales boosted job growth.
Dec 207,000 200,000 The economy added 1.6 million jobs in 2011

2010: 1.066 million jobs created
MONTH JOBS ADDED (Final) JOBS ADDED (Original) COMMENTS
Jan 28,000 18,000 52,000 temporary jobs were added, of which 9,000 were for the Census.There were 4 million fewer jobs than the year before.
Feb -69,000 -50,000 The economy had 3.2 million fewer jobs than February 2009. The Census added 15,000 temporary jobs, boosting the 48,000 temp jobs made available.
Mar 163,000 156,000 There were 2.3 million fewer jobs, and 633,000 fewer manufacturing jobs, than a year earlier.
Apr 243,000 290,000 The Census added 63,000 temp jobs, and manufacturing added 44,000 jobs. But there's still 1.3 million fewer jobs than the year before.
May 522,000 431,000 The Census added 411,000 temp jobs.
Jun -133,000 -125,000 The Census laid off 225,000 temp workers.
Jul -70,000 -121,000 The Census laid off 143,000, but business hiring was up by 71,000 jobs.
Aug -34,000 -31,000 There were 130.3 million jobs, a gain of 229,000 jobs in the past year and the first y-o-y job GAIN in 26 months.
Sep -52,000 -91,000 There were 130.2 million jobs, 344,000 more than the year earlier.
Oct 257,000 150,000 The economy had 829,000 more jobs than the year before.
Nov 123,000 39,000 There were 842,000 more jobs than the year before.
Dec 88,000 103,000 Businesses added 117,000 jobs, but government laid off 10,000.

2009: 5.070 million jobs lost
MONTH JOBS ADDED (Final)
JOBS ADDED (Original)

COMMENTS

Jan

-791,000

-598,000

The economy lost 2.4 million jobs, including 1 million manufacturing jobs, in the past 12 months.
Feb

-703,000

-651,000

4.1 million jobs, including 1.2 million in manufacturing, were lost Y-O-Y.
Mar

-823,000

-663,000

4.8 million jobs lost Y-O-Y, the most since the 2001 recession.
April -686,000 -611,000 There were 5.3 million fewer jobs than a year before.
May

-351,000

-345,000

Manufacturing was hit especially hard, as 1.6 million were lost Y-O-Y.
June

-470,000

-450,000

There were 5.4 million fewer jobs than the year before, including 1.6 million in manufacturing, Health care added 34,000 jobs.
July

-329,000

-247,000

There were 6 million fewer jobs than the prior July, including 1.67 manufacturing jobs.
Aug

-212,000

N.A.

The economy lost 6.2 million jobs YOY, including 1.6 million in manufacturing.
Sep -219,000 N.A. The economy was down just 6 million jobs.
Oct -200,000 N.A. There were now 5.8 million fewer jobs than last year.
Nov -6,000 N.A. 4.8 million jobs were lost in the past 12 months.
Dec -279,000 N.A. 4.2 million jobs were lost in 2009. This trend has been improving since July, when the economy was down 6 million jobs. Also, manufacturing was down 1.3 million jobs in the past 12 months -- better than in June.

2008: 3.569 million jobs lost
MONTH JOBS ADDED (Final) JOBS ADDED (Original) COMMENTS
Jan 15,000 -17,000 .6% growth over last year, but manufacturing lost 2.7% jobs.
Feb -87,000 -63,000 .4% growth over last year, while manufacturing lost 3% of its jobs.
March -78,000 -80,000 This was the worst monthly job loss since the last recession, and a mere .18% gain in the last year. The last time year-over-year job growth trended down this severely was in 2001, which led to 29 months of job losses.
April -210,000 -20,000 There were only .18% more jobs, and 3.38% fewer manufacturing jobs, than in April 2007
May -185,000 -49,000 Year-over-year, employment declined .11%. This was the first time there was a decline in year-over-year jobs since 2003, the end of the last recession. There were 3.55% fewer manufacturing jobs.
June -165,000 -62,000 Employment was down from the prior year.
July -209,000 -51,000 In the last year 150,000 jobs were lost, a .37% decline.
Aug -266,000 -84,000 Employment declined .5% during the year.
Sep -452,000 -159,000 Employment declined .64% during the year.
Oct -473,000 -240,000 There were 1.5 million fewer jobs than last year.
Nov -769,000 -533,000 In the last 12 months, 1.9 million jobs were lost -- 604,000 were in manufacturing.
Dec -695,000 -524,000 Employment declined by 2.5 million jobs, faster than in the 2001 recession, which never lost more than 2.1 million jobs in any 12-month period.

As you yourself stated earlier...it's impossible to put a hard number on the number of jobs that a stimulus program created. All you can really do is report how many jobs were created period.

NO YOU CAN'T BECAUSE CORRELATION DOES NOT EQUAL CAUSATION. This is what you don't seem to understand.

It's is not a de-merit to ARRA that recession was much deeper than originally anticipated.

What you CAN most reasonably report are estimated effects of Stimulus and other policies estimated by economists.

Here it is again:

You keep posting that same graph of "estimates" put forth by proponents of big government stimulus spending, Antontoo...the only line that counts is the bottom one...the top line is an estimate and I think you'll be the first to admit that estimates being thrown around at that point were anything but accurate.

 

[AntonToo]

2016 Jobs Reports
MONTH JOBS (Final Report) JOBS (Original Estimate) COMMENTS
Jan 168,000 151,000 The fastest growing areas were health care, retail, and construction.

WTF do economic estimates and revisions have to do with stimulus effects?

Answer: NOTHING.

No, 800 billion of spending did not vanish and no 800 billion did not cause loss of jobs and downward revisions by CBO. To say it did is blatant economic ignorance.

 

[Oldstyle]

Your problem is that I have a rather good memory and I remember what the narrative was BEFORE the stimulus...that if we spent the money we would "cap" unemployment at 8%! Then when the stimulus didn't perform at anywhere near that projection...the narrative was changed to what was shown on your "graph"...that if we hadn't spent the money we'd be up over 15%. Gee, what a great job by Barry and his minions to keep it just below 10%!

The "revisions" you speak of are how the Obama White House revised the narrative.

 

[AntonToo]

Your problem is that I have a rather good memory

No, the problem is that you are a two-bit politico grossly ignorant of economic basics .

 

[Oldstyle]

Your problem is that I have a rather good memory

No, the problem is that you are a two-bit politico grossly ignorant of economic basics .

Gee, we've reached the name calling stage so fast, Anton? Don't have a come back for what I pointed out...do you? Hard to argue with what you know deep down is the straight skinny, isn't it!

Georgie resorts to calling me a "dishwasher" when he gets schooled. Did you want to go that route too?

 

[Oldstyle]

I'm curious, Anton...do you know what an "economic school of thought" is?

 

[AntonToo]

Gee, we've reached the name calling stage so fast, Anton? Don't have a come back for what I pointed out...do you? Hard to argue with what you know deep down is the straight skinny, isn't it!

Well no, actually we've very carefully established both political bias and deep ignorance of economics on your side.

I've refuted your points, even if you cannot seem to understand it and keep recycling same already-addressed nonsense.

 

[Oldstyle]

You've "refuted" my contention that your graph is nothing more than a reset of the narrative that the stimulus would keep unemployment levels below 8% to a NEW narrative that the stimulus would keep unemployment from reaching 15%? Really? When exactly did that take place?

 

[AntonToo]

You've "refuted" my contention that your graph is nothing more than a reset of the narrative that the stimulus would keep unemployment levels below 8% to a NEW narrative that the stimulus would keep unemployment from reaching 15%? Really? When exactly did that take place?

Yes really because ACTUAL is BASELINE + STIMULUS EFFECTS

Stimulus effect did not get revised - BASELINE did, because it wasn't possible to know how deep the recession was before recession happened.

To not understand this is to not understand basic economics.

 

[Oldstyle]

You've "refuted" my contention that your graph is nothing more than a reset of the narrative that the stimulus would keep unemployment levels below 8% to a NEW narrative that the stimulus would keep unemployment from reaching 15%? Really? When exactly did that take place?

Yes really because ACTUAL is BASELINE + STIMULUS EFFECTS

Stimulus effect did not get revised - BASELINE did, because it wasn't possible to know how deep the recession was before recession happened.

To not understand this is to not understand basic economics.

That's basic bullshit, Anton! Christina Romer told us all that passing the Obama Stimulus would prevent unemployment from going over 8%. Changing the BASELINE was what the Obama Administration did to change the narrative! When you promise unemployment of under 8% and it goes to 10%...you look bad. When you change the BASELINE and state that your stimulus kept unemployment from going to 15% you suddenly look good! Well, you do if you're dealing with a really naive audience!

 

[Oldstyle]

That was the great thing about the entire "Jobs created or saved" from a political standpoint. You could get whatever number you felt like simply by changing the BASELINE! You didn't have to deal with a static number like "Jobs created" that had to have some basis in reality...you could make it up as you went because there is no way on God's green earth you can verify "Jobs Saved"!

 

[AntonToo]

You've "refuted" my contention that your graph is nothing more than a reset of the narrative that the stimulus would keep unemployment levels below 8% to a NEW narrative that the stimulus would keep unemployment from reaching 15%? Really? When exactly did that take place?

Yes really because ACTUAL is BASELINE + STIMULUS EFFECTS

Stimulus effect did not get revised - BASELINE did, because it wasn't possible to know how deep the recession was before recession happened.

To not understand this is to not understand basic economics.

That's basic bullshit, Anton! Christina Romer told us all that passing the Obama Stimulus would prevent unemployment from going over 8%. Changing the BASELINE was what the Obama Administration did to change the narrative! When you promise unemployment of under 8% and it goes to 10%...you look bad. When you change the BASELINE and state that your stimulus kept unemployment from going to 15% you suddenly look good! Well, you do if you're dealing with a really naive audience!

AGAIN - Cristina Romer was simply taking incorrect baseline estimate of mild recession and adding stimulus effect to it.

To say that ARRA caused the revision in baseline to a deep recession is just stupid by your own admission that stimulus must have at very least made a few jobs.