US Jobless claims fall to 4 decade low

[Rshermr]

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.

Ah. I would not make that accusation without at least an expert source. Again. As usual. No one, me boy, knew where the ue rate was going. That it went to just over 10% was not a real surprise to actual economists, but seems to be a surprise to you that it could have been so difficult to predict.
In addition, organizations like the cbo suggested that it could have gone considerably higher. But then, you, having had two classes in economics suggest you have the answers. Which are, strangely, the same as the bat shit crazy con talking points. what a coincidence.
Relative to your use of pet words for the president, just more proof of your lack of integrity or class. But it is funny, on the other hand, that you create a recession, going toward being a depression, to a new president and blame the new president for it.
Then, you have the loosing presidents political leaders meet on the night of the new pres' inauguration and determine that no republican will allow that new president to enact new efforts to tame the very recession they have created. And in practice that they voted against every effort that president and his party brought forward, and brought none forward themselves. Only a fool would believe that was ethical. Only a fool would say that was not un-American, in the effects it had on the workers of this country. Only a fool like you.

Gee, all those left wing talking points in one post as you whine about "bat shit crazy con talking points"? You don't even realize what a joke you are most of the time...do you, Georgie?

So, you say that, but you know I am correct on each and every point I made. Totally. Want to argue one?

Please, me boy, since you claim I am posting left wing talking points, tell me what they were, and let me know where I found them. Because, as you know, there is not a web site organizing and maintaining those talking points, like there is for Con talking points. Just go to conservativetalkingpoints.com and there they are, all stored, organized, and kept current. Because cons like you love to be told what to believe and say. You are part of the 25% of the population who do not want to have to think for yourself. And love to be told what to believe.
But no such web site for left wing talking points site, me boy. Because while cons like you like to be told what to believe and say, left wingers will not put up with that. Because we have the capability to actually think for ourselves. But good try.

Run out of things to say? Me? You could only hope, little buddy! I'm having to much fun roasting your poser behind!
Your right. I meant to say "cogent things to say".
Sorry, I am not your buddy. I do not even like you. I prefer friends that have some class, and integrity. which lets you out.
And do not talk about my behind. You seem to often have excess interest in mens behinds. Really creepy.
You do have a problem with being delusional, me boy. You have roasting no one, except yourself. Though you are way to stupid to see what you are doing and how irrational others see you to be. Your delusion causes you to feel like you are winning arguments when you are being destroyed. Sad.

 

[Rshermr]

Speaking of which...you STILL haven't explained your lie that Obama never negotiated a deal with China! You didn't think I forgot did you?

You are, technically, known as a fucking liar. I told you plainly. You are simply proving that you are a lying con troll. I keep trying to educate you, but it just does not take.
If you have any proof of Obama negotiating a deal with China, bring it forward. But you do not, as I already proved, and you know better. Lying piece of crap

 

[Faun]

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

When

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.

I see you're still lying about that. How sad.

 

[Faun]

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!

They never promised the unemployment rate would remain under 8%.

Do you EVER stop lying, ya lying con tool??

From the plan the administration presented...

It should be understood that all of the estimates presented in this memo are subject to significant margins of error.​

They were estimates, not promises. Their plan was presented in a 14 page document; 2 of which were the title and ToC. Contained within the remaining 12 pages, the word, estimate, appeared 24 times.

Furthermore, the unemployment rate was already over 8% by the time ARRA was passed and began being implemented. So who knows how you rightards think that plan could keep unemployment under 8% when it was already over 8% before the first dollar from it was even spent?

 

[Faun]

Interesting...I just went back through every post I made since you joined the conversation and I didn't find a single one in which I said that the stimulus created "just a few jobs" yet you're quoting me as if I did! So did I miss that, Anton? Or are you making stuff up?

Do you ever stop lying, ya con tool? EVER??

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.

 

[AntonToo]

You seem fixated on this whole "just a few jobs" thing, Anton. I do believe that I posted a rather large listing of all the jobs created for a number of years. I don't recall saying that just a few jobs were created since that would be absurd. When you spend 800 Billion you're going to create jobs!

You did say it - "Obama is obscuring the fact that so few jobs were created", but now that you admit it clearly sticks of absurd it doesn't even matter.

800 billion is REASONABLY going to create A LOT of jobs, even if it does it inefficiently, so you have little basis to deny proffessional estimates and that is what we REASONABLY should go with.

So lets circle back to your original statement I was replying to:

You were saying that Obama owns Great Recession because he didn't have any policies to improve economy.

Now, having admited that yes he had policies and they resulted in significant Jobs and GDP improvement, do you agree that your statement was incorrect?

My point...a point which you seem unable to address...is that the "Jobs Saved" number was created and used by the Obama Administration not to provide the American people with a better idea of how the stimulus was working...but as a means of hiding how badly it worked.

This is what gives away your un-yelding politico instinct, but you have to understand something - what politicians say and how they say it does not change economic facts. Obama saying one thing or another does not change ARRA or TART or ACA effects - so why do you keep talking about it?

But since you keep doing that I may as well explain the politics of delivering economic numbers to layman. They, like you for much of this thread have trouble understanding that economy is large and bare ACTUALS cannot be used to understand policy effect.

Obama's administration already gave Republicans the talking points about how "Stimulus promised 8% unemployment but it is 10%!!!" even though the reason for revision as much more severe recession (DUH!). But in politics whenever you start going beyond silly one liners and explaining sound, but slightly more complex ideas you are losing the debate.

If Administration would come out and say "Stimulus created a million jobs" that gives Republicans the stupid one liner "Obama says stimulus made million jobs but since it's passage we are ACTUALLY down 3 million!" So instead of "created" administration switched to "saved" as in "Stimulus saved a million jobs so we lost 3 million instead of 4 million", but that is POLITICS because to the two words are underlied by very same economic facts and are without an actual difference.

 

[Faun]

US economy adds a whopping 287,000 jobs

Yeah, baby! ^^^ That's ^^^ what I'm talkin' about.



76th consecutive month of continuous job growth in the private sector.

Unprecedented.

 

[AntonToo]

US economy adds a whopping 287,000 jobs

Yeah, baby! ^^^ That's ^^^ what I'm talkin' about.



76th consecutive month of continuous job growth in the private sector.

Unprecedented.

Daang, I expected it to be around 180K, but economy knocks it out of the park and easily makes up for May,s o we are back on track and conservative doom-glooming is again shown wrong.

 

[Oldstyle]

Interesting...I just went back through every post I made since you joined the conversation and I didn't find a single one in which I said that the stimulus created "just a few jobs" yet you're quoting me as if I did! So did I miss that, Anton? Or are you making stuff up?

Do you ever stop lying, ya con tool? EVER??

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.

Wow...are you ever an idiot! Someone claims I said "just a few jobs"...I reply by saying that I don't remember saying that and now you claim that I'm lying because I said "few net new jobs"? You do realize those two things are not the same...right? I was misquoted. If you weren't a lying sack of you know what...YOU'D ADMIT THAT! But that's not how you and Georgie operate...is it!

 

[Oldstyle]

You seem fixated on this whole "just a few jobs" thing, Anton. I do believe that I posted a rather large listing of all the jobs created for a number of years. I don't recall saying that just a few jobs were created since that would be absurd. When you spend 800 Billion you're going to create jobs!

You did say it - "Obama is obscuring the fact that so few jobs were created", but now that you admit it clearly sticks of absurd it doesn't even matter.

800 billion is REASONABLY going to create A LOT of jobs, even if it does it inefficiently, so you have little basis to deny proffessional estimates and that is what we REASONABLY should go with.

So lets circle back to your original statement I was replying to:

You were saying that Obama owns Great Recession because he didn't have any policies to improve economy.

Now, having admited that yes he had policies and they resulted in significant Jobs and GDP improvement, do you agree that your statement was incorrect?

My point...a point which you seem unable to address...is that the "Jobs Saved" number was created and used by the Obama Administration not to provide the American people with a better idea of how the stimulus was working...but as a means of hiding how badly it worked.

This is what gives away your un-yelding politico instinct, but you have to understand something - what politicians say and how they say it does not change economic facts. Obama saying one thing or another does not change ARRA or TART or ACA effects - so why do you keep talking about it?

But since you keep doing that I may as well explain the politics of delivering economic numbers to layman. They, like you for much of this thread have trouble understanding that economy is large and bare ACTUALS cannot be used to understand policy effect.

Obama's administration already gave Republicans the talking points about how "Stimulus promised 8% unemployment but it is 10%!!!" even though the reason for revision as much more severe recession (DUH!). But in politics whenever you start going beyond silly one liners and explaining sound, but slightly more complex ideas you are losing the debate.

If Administration would come out and say "Stimulus created a million jobs" that gives Republicans the stupid one liner "Obama says stimulus made million jobs but since it's passage we are ACTUALLY down 3 million!" So instead of "created" administration switched to "saved" as in "Stimulus saved a million jobs so we lost 3 million instead of 4 million", but that is POLITICS because to the two words are underlied by very same economic facts and are without an actual difference.

You seem fixated on this whole "just a few jobs" thing, Anton. I do believe that I posted a rather large listing of all the jobs created for a number of years. I don't recall saying that just a few jobs were created since that would be absurd. When you spend 800 Billion you're going to create jobs!

You did say it - "Obama is obscuring the fact that so few jobs were created", but now that you admit it clearly sticks of absurd it doesn't even matter.

800 billion is REASONABLY going to create A LOT of jobs, even if it does it inefficiently, so you have little basis to deny proffessional estimates and that is what we REASONABLY should go with.

So lets circle back to your original statement I was replying to:

You were saying that Obama owns Great Recession because he didn't have any policies to improve economy.

Now, having admited that yes he had policies and they resulted in significant Jobs and GDP improvement, do you agree that your statement was incorrect?

My point...a point which you seem unable to address...is that the "Jobs Saved" number was created and used by the Obama Administration not to provide the American people with a better idea of how the stimulus was working...but as a means of hiding how badly it worked.

This is what gives away your un-yelding politico instinct, but you have to understand something - what politicians say and how they say it does not change economic facts. Obama saying one thing or another does not change ARRA or TART or ACA effects - so why do you keep talking about it?

But since you keep doing that I may as well explain the politics of delivering economic numbers to layman. They, like you for much of this thread have trouble understanding that economy is large and bare ACTUALS cannot be used to understand policy effect.

Obama's administration already gave Republicans the talking points about how "Stimulus promised 8% unemployment but it is 10%!!!" even though the reason for revision as much more severe recession (DUH!). But in politics whenever you start going beyond silly one liners and explaining sound, but slightly more complex ideas you are losing the debate.

If Administration would come out and say "Stimulus created a million jobs" that gives Republicans the stupid one liner "Obama says stimulus made million jobs but since it's passage we are ACTUALLY down 3 million!" So instead of "created" administration switched to "saved" as in "Stimulus saved a million jobs so we lost 3 million instead of 4 million", but that is POLITICS because to the two words are underlied by very same economic facts and are without an actual difference.

Why would my statement be incorrect? If the Obama Stimulus had created "significant jobs" then they wouldn't have had to use "Jobs created or saved"! If the Stimulus had done what was promised they OBVIOUSLY wouldn't have had to try and mislead the American people with a made up statistic!

The reason I say that Barack Obama owns The Great Recession is because of the choices that he made...both with how the stimulus money was spent and with the legislation that he pushed...namely ObamaCare and Cap & Trade both of which had negative effects on the economy and job creation.

 

[AntonToo]

Wow...are you ever an idiot! Someone claims I said "just a few jobs"...I reply by saying that I don't remember saying that and now you claim that I'm lying because I said "few net new jobs"? You do realize those two things are not the same...right? I was misquoted. If you weren't a lying sack of you know what...YOU'D ADMIT THAT! But that's not how you and Georgie operate...is it!

Oldstyle maybe you are lying or maybe you have dishonesty so firmly ingrained in how you think you don't even notice it.

But fact remains that what you talked about ARRA creating few jobs

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.

But then you agreed that saying that ARRA created few jobs is ridiculous.

The rest is tomato-tomahtoing - if it wasn't few jobs you should not have talked about it in those terms.

 

[AntonToo]

Why would my statement be incorrect? If the Obama Stimulus had created "significant jobs" then they wouldn't have had to use "Jobs created or saved"! If the Stimulus had done what was promised they OBVIOUSLY wouldn't have had to try and mislead the American people with a made up statistic!

The reason I say that Barack Obama owns The Great Recession is because of the choices that he made...both with how the stimulus money was spent and with the legislation that he pushed...namely ObamaCare and Cap & Trade both of which had negative effects on the economy and job creation.

...except I just explained why this is false.

You posting a response that that was already thoroughly disputed at length in the post you quoted makes me think that you either don't read or don't understand.

 

[Oldstyle]

"If Administration would come out and say "Stimulus created a million jobs" that gives Republicans the stupid one liner "Obama says stimulus made million jobs but since it's passage we are ACTUALLY down 3 million!" So instead of "created" administration switched to "saved" as in "Stimulus saved a million jobs so we lost 3 million instead of 4 million", but that is POLITICS because to the two words are underlied by very same economic facts and are without an actual difference."

So what you're basically admitting is the Obama Administration misled the American people by "switching" from created (which was the previous standard but would have looked terrible because of how many jobs were created) to saved (which allowed them to plug in whatever number they felt like)? But that's OK in your view because it's part of the "politics of delivering economics to layman"...which I assume means spinning a number that ignorant people will accept?

 

[Oldstyle]

Wow...are you ever an idiot! Someone claims I said "just a few jobs"...I reply by saying that I don't remember saying that and now you claim that I'm lying because I said "few net new jobs"? You do realize those two things are not the same...right? I was misquoted. If you weren't a lying sack of you know what...YOU'D ADMIT THAT! But that's not how you and Georgie operate...is it!

Oldstyle maybe you are lying or maybe you have dishonesty so firmly ingrained in how you think you don't even notice it.

But fact remains that what you talked about ARRA creating few jobs

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.

But then you agreed that saying that ARRA created few jobs is ridiculous.

The rest is tomato-tomahtoing - if it wasn't few jobs you should not have talked about it in those terms.

Please don't say you're quoting me, Anton and then not use my words. It's dishonest.

 

[AntonToo]

"If Administration would come out and say "Stimulus created a million jobs" that gives Republicans the stupid one liner "Obama says stimulus made million jobs but since it's passage we are ACTUALLY down 3 million!" So instead of "created" administration switched to "saved" as in "Stimulus saved a million jobs so we lost 3 million instead of 4 million", but that is POLITICS because to the two words are underlied by very same economic facts and are without an actual difference."

So what you're basically admitting is the Obama Administration misled the American people by "switching" from created (which was the previous standard but would have looked terrible because of how many jobs were created) to saved (which allowed them to plug in whatever number they felt like)? But that's OK in your view because it's part of the "politics of delivering economics to layman"...which I assume means spinning a number that ignorant people will accept?

It is NOT MISLEADING, it stating VERY SAME ECONOMIC NUMBERS A DIFFERENT WAY.

There is NO ACTUAL DIFFERENCE between saying that Stimulus saved 1 million jobs or Stimulus created 1 million jobs. Both are based on job effects estimates by economists.

Why can't you understand this simple concept?

 

[Oldstyle]

Why would my statement be incorrect? If the Obama Stimulus had created "significant jobs" then they wouldn't have had to use "Jobs created or saved"! If the Stimulus had done what was promised they OBVIOUSLY wouldn't have had to try and mislead the American people with a made up statistic!

The reason I say that Barack Obama owns The Great Recession is because of the choices that he made...both with how the stimulus money was spent and with the legislation that he pushed...namely ObamaCare and Cap & Trade both of which had negative effects on the economy and job creation.

...except I just explained why this is false.

You posting a response that that was already thoroughly disputed at length in the post you quoted makes me think that you either don't read or don't understand.

You just explained why and how the Obama Administration misled the American people. Why you think that disputes what I said...I have no idea!

 

[AntonToo]

Please don't say you're quoting me, Anton and then not use my words. It's dishonest.

WTF? I DIRECTLY QUOTED YOU.

I'm starting to believe that there is some sort of mental deficiency going on here.

 

[Oldstyle]

"If Administration would come out and say "Stimulus created a million jobs" that gives Republicans the stupid one liner "Obama says stimulus made million jobs but since it's passage we are ACTUALLY down 3 million!" So instead of "created" administration switched to "saved" as in "Stimulus saved a million jobs so we lost 3 million instead of 4 million", but that is POLITICS because to the two words are underlied by very same economic facts and are without an actual difference."

So what you're basically admitting is the Obama Administration misled the American people by "switching" from created (which was the previous standard but would have looked terrible because of how many jobs were created) to saved (which allowed them to plug in whatever number they felt like)? But that's OK in your view because it's part of the "politics of delivering economics to layman"...which I assume means spinning a number that ignorant people will accept?

It is NOT MISLEADING, it stating VERY SAME ECONOMIC NUMBERS A DIFFERENT WAY.

There is NO ACTUAL DIFFERENCE between saying that Stimulus saved 1 million jobs or Stimulus created 1 million jobs. Both are based on job effects estimates by economists.

Why can't you understand this simple concept?

Because that's not what they DID...is it! Instead of saying they created 1 million jobs...they said they saved 3 million. Why can't you understand THAT simple concept!

 

[AntonToo]

Because that's not what they DID...is it! Instead of saying they created 1 million jobs...they said they saved 3 million. Why can't you understand THAT simple concept!

THEY SAID WHATEVER ECONOMIC ESTIMATE SAID.

"1 million" is just an EXAMPLE NUMBER I used.

Obama’s Stimulus Generated Up to 3.3 Million Jobs, CBO Says

President Barack Obama’s stimulus package may have created or saved as many as 3.3 million jobs last quarter and lowered the unemployment rate by as much as 1.8 percentage points, the Congressional Budget Office said.

Now, 3 million is perhaps on the rosy side of estimates, but administration didn't simply make numbers up, they are real economic estimates.

 

[Oldstyle]

Because that's not what they DID...is it! Instead of saying they created 1 million jobs...they said they saved 3 million. Why can't you understand THAT simple concept!

THEY SAID WHATEVER ECONOMIC ESTIMATE SAID.

"1 million" is just an EXAMPLE NUMBER I used.

Obama’s Stimulus Generated Up to 3.3 Million Jobs, CBO Says

President Barack Obama’s stimulus package may have created or saved as many as 3.3 million jobs last quarter and lowered the unemployment rate by as much as 1.8 percentage points, the Congressional Budget Office said.

Now, 3 million is perhaps on the rosy side of estimates, but administration didn't simply make numbers up, they are real economic estimates.

3 million is the number that was CREATED by the Obama Administration.

You just claimed that there was no actual difference between jobs created and jobs saved...which is laughable.