US Jobless claims fall to 4 decade low

[Oldstyle]

Read the article and it will explain to you what's "wrong" with the claim that 640,000 jobs were created or saved!

I read the article and still don't know what your complaint is. If you think their numbers were wrong, where does the article say that? It does indicate coming up with a number can be difficult but I don't see any other numbers in their indicating the numbers posted were wrong.

Pair that article stating that the government was having difficulty coming up with correct numbers with the article that shows how government used accounting "tricks" to make it appear that many more jobs had been created than actually were, Faun! My main purpose for including it however is the quote stating that you can't find the term "jobs saved" in any economics text book because quite frankly it hadn't existed before the Obama Administration coined it to obscure how many jobs were actually created by the Obama Stimulus!

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

I already showed you the Bush administration used the term. So yes, not only had it existed -- but it was used by the previous president.

Your lying aside, you offered nothing to discount that 640,000 figure, so the only conclusion I can reach is that it probably is within range of how many jobs were created and/or saved.

Dude, there is a HUGE difference between what you showed the Bush Administration using and how the Obama Administration used "Jobs created and saved" to hide how few jobs their stimulus ended up creating. Your attempt to show that the Bush Administration used a phrase somewhat like jobs saved fell flat when you tried it the first time. It was laughably bad! Now you bring it back? Like it's going to be better now?

As to whether the 640,000 created or saved is "within range"? Of course it is you buffoon! The entire reason for USING "created or saved" is that you can name any number you want to because there is ZERO way of determining the "saved" part! It always used to amaze me that ANYONE would fall for the bullshit that the Obama people were putting out but after listening to you...I realize that they accurately assessed the gullibility of their supporters to a T!

"...fell flat when you tried it the first time."

It's hysterical how you say that as though I require your approval.

Just like last time, you claimed the term had never been used before Obama, I showed you Bush used it.

And guess what...? I still don't need your acceptance of that for it to be true.

God but you're pathetic...you really think someone using the expression "save jobs" is the same thing as someone basing a job creation statistic on "jobs saved"? Bush did NOT use "jobs saved" and you're an idiot for trying to say that he did!

 

[Oldstyle]

What's ludicrous, Anton is your contention that there is essentially no difference between jobs created and jobs saved!

Because from economic estimate perspective it DOESN'T.

You don't understand this point because you don't understand anything about how an estimate works.

So to get you thinking about that I'll give you an exercise:

Suppose I, an African prince, wire you $100,000 out of the kindness of my heart. Tell me, how many jobs would this cause? Would these jobs be created or saved?

What is an "economic estimate perspective", Anton? LOL Let me guess...you're one of those people that thinks if you get "wordy" you can make stupid sound intelligent?

 

[Oldstyle]

Wonderful! Since you contend that the numbers the Obama Administration came up with for "Jobs Saved" are legitimate and un-made-up...you should have no problem at all providing the formula that was used to arrive at those numbers...right?

You folks on the left keep declaring that "Jobs Saved" is a verifiable number...yet none of you can give me the formula that one would use to arrive at that "verified" total! There's a reason for that, Anton and it's because the numbers aren't legitimate...it's because they were manufactured. Obama's economists plugged in whatever number of jobs saved that they needed to make the jobs created number look acceptable...called the fiction that they'd created "Jobs Created or Saved" and sold it to a gullible public.

Wonderful! Since you contend that the numbers the Obama Administration came up with for "Jobs Saved" are not legitimate and made-up...you should have no problem at all providing a source with economic credentials and that is impartial to back up your allegations.

You folks on the right keep declaring that "Jobs Saved" is an un-verifiable number...you keep asking for a formula you say does not exist. Any concept of how stupid that makes you look?Now oldstyle says "There's a reason for that, Anton and it's because the numbers aren't legitimate...it's because they were manufactured. Obama's economists plugged in whatever number of jobs saved that they needed to make the jobs created number look acceptable...called the fiction that they'd created "Jobs Created or Saved" and sold it to a gullible public." But Oldstyle can find no source to prove his accusations. And they remain just the argument of a ignorant food services employee and ignorant con troll. Makes oldstyle a total waste of space.

"The trillion dollar 'stimulus' isn't working, and no amount of phony statistics can change that," said House Republican Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio. OK. You could not find a further right source. Let me see what Ried has to say. Nah. I have integrity. Dipshit."The president and his economic team promised the 'stimulus' would create jobs 'immediately' and unemployment would stay below 8%. But America has lost more than three million jobs since then, and the unemployment rate is nearing double digits."
Posting republican political officials means nothing, me boy. We are al used to their 24/7/365 attacks.

Boehner also pointed to a memo from Carnegie Mellon professor Allan Meltzer, who said that the White House is misleading the nation by saying the Recovery Act has saved jobs.
"Visiting Scholar at the American Enterprise Institute"
The Arena: - Allan Meltzer Bio
So, you have no idea what an impartial source is, do you, Oldstyle?

"One can search economic textbooks forever without finding a concept called 'jobs saved,' " wrote Meltzer, who served as an economic adviser under President Ronald Reagan. "It doesn't exist for good reason: how can anyone know that his or her job has been saved?"Stimulus creates 640,000 jobs - White House says - Oct. 30, 2009
Thank you, me boy, for proving my point. You stay in the bat shit crazy sites and use conservative sources and call them impartial. Because you are a lying con troll. No surprise, and nothing learned. Just Oldstyle being what he is.
In the face of multiple economic groups that are considered impartial, Oldstyle picks quotes from a republican past speaker of the house. Because he could not find a more partial source. Except he then picked a quote from Allan Meltzer, a visiting professor at the american enterprise institute., and well know con. Great, oldstyle, thanks for proving me correct and showing what you are. Which is, of course, a JOKE.

You disagree with Meltzer? So YOU must have seen the term "jobs saved" when you were studying Economics...correct, Georgie? Would you care to quote an Economics text book that does mention "jobs saved"?

Oh, wait...I keep forgetting you didn't actually read any Economics text books or go to any classes...you just PRETENDED to!

I would never read stuff rom a partial source. That is your style not mind.
Relative to jovs saved, you lost that argument big time. Five impartial economics organizations to you, a ignorant food services employee. Nothing you can do, me boy. Partial sources and writers as sources really make you look like the fool you are. And your personal attacks are just boring. You have long since proven to all that you are a liar.

Nah. No reason to respond to a pair of con trolls. Just a con economist and lies and personal attacks from Olstyle. Same old thing.[/QUOTE]

I notice you backed off calling Felix Salmon a second rate journalist, Georgie! He actually knows more about economics than you could ever dream of. You can tell that simply from reading his analysis of the economic statistics that the Obama Administration were using. You might also take note that Salmon is a staunch Keynesian not some far right ideologue as you seem to claim. He believes in Government spending to buoy economies but that doesn't mean he's buying the line of bullshit that the Obama Administration was putting out with "jobs saved".

 

[Oldstyle]

You three are sad tonight...where is the vaunted "intellect" that you liberals are supposed to possess? It certainly isn't on display here!

 

[Oldstyle]

Oh, it created jobs...

And yet you posted article arguing it didn't create jobs, so we must go with option 2 - you are saying blatantly contradictory things but are not even conscious of it.

Oh for god's sake, Anton...you know EXACTLY what I'm claiming and it WASN'T that the Obama Stimulus didn't create any jobs...

If that's what you believe then why did you post article that in it's title heading states that stimulus didn't make any jobs?

Can you answer that question?

If you can show me the article that has a title stating the stimulus didn't make any jobs I'd be happy to!

And your "exercise" with the African Prince is about as stupid as your contention that jobs saved and jobs created are the same thing! $100,000 as "stimulus" might create zero jobs or it might create thousands...that would entirely depend on what was done with the money.

 

[sealybobo]

I read the article and still don't know what your complaint is. If you think their numbers were wrong, where does the article say that? It does indicate coming up with a number can be difficult but I don't see any other numbers in their indicating the numbers posted were wrong.

Pair that article stating that the government was having difficulty coming up with correct numbers with the article that shows how government used accounting "tricks" to make it appear that many more jobs had been created than actually were, Faun! My main purpose for including it however is the quote stating that you can't find the term "jobs saved" in any economics text book because quite frankly it hadn't existed before the Obama Administration coined it to obscure how many jobs were actually created by the Obama Stimulus!

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

I already showed you the Bush administration used the term. So yes, not only had it existed -- but it was used by the previous president.

Your lying aside, you offered nothing to discount that 640,000 figure, so the only conclusion I can reach is that it probably is within range of how many jobs were created and/or saved.

Dude, there is a HUGE difference between what you showed the Bush Administration using and how the Obama Administration used "Jobs created and saved" to hide how few jobs their stimulus ended up creating. Your attempt to show that the Bush Administration used a phrase somewhat like jobs saved fell flat when you tried it the first time. It was laughably bad! Now you bring it back? Like it's going to be better now?

As to whether the 640,000 created or saved is "within range"? Of course it is you buffoon! The entire reason for USING "created or saved" is that you can name any number you want to because there is ZERO way of determining the "saved" part! It always used to amaze me that ANYONE would fall for the bullshit that the Obama people were putting out but after listening to you...I realize that they accurately assessed the gullibility of their supporters to a T!

"...fell flat when you tried it the first time."

It's hysterical how you say that as though I require your approval.

Just like last time, you claimed the term had never been used before Obama, I showed you Bush used it.

And guess what...? I still don't need your acceptance of that for it to be true.

God but you're pathetic...you really think someone using the expression "save jobs" is the same thing as someone basing a job creation statistic on "jobs saved"? Bush did NOT use "jobs saved" and you're an idiot for trying to say that he did!

Bush used Clinton's surplus and gave Obama deficits

 

[Rshermr]

Ph

The Myth of the Multiplier
Why the stimulus package hasn't reduced unemployment

Oldstyle you have said previously that you agree that it is ludicrous to suggest that 800 billion could be spent without making some jobs.

You now post an opinion making this ludicrous claim.

So I'm just curious, did you change your mind and decide to go with ludicrous or are you so dysfunctional that this blatant contradiction to common sense didn't even register in your one-thing-at-a-time mind?

Oh, it created jobs...I think the CBO said it cost something like $240,000 for each job that the Obama Stimulus created? That kind of encompasses "ludicrous" AND "dysfunctional"...don't you think?

You think. Really, me boy. Is that it? You think? But you forget. You lie.
What is ludicrous is:
1. The great republican recession of 2008 and it's 10% unemployment rate.
2. Loosing over 600,000 jobs per month in 2008.
3. Saying that when job losses slowed and stopped that there were no jobs saved.
4, Making proclamations about economics when you are a food services employee.
5. Suggesting you are highly economics knowledgeable when you have had only 2 undergraduate econ classes.
6. Spending time after time after time lying and making uncalled for personal attacks.
7. letting the great republican recession of 2008 go on without corrective stimulus measures.
9. The Republican congress meeting and stating that they would cause anything Obama did to fail.
10 The Republican congress voting against every measure that Obama's team brought forward to fix the mess of the Great Republican Recession.
11. The Republican congress doing nothing at all to pass a bill or bills to mitigate the damage being done by the Great Republican Recession.

Want more?

 

[Oldstyle]

Ph

The Myth of the Multiplier
Why the stimulus package hasn't reduced unemployment

Oldstyle you have said previously that you agree that it is ludicrous to suggest that 800 billion could be spent without making some jobs.

You now post an opinion making this ludicrous claim.

So I'm just curious, did you change your mind and decide to go with ludicrous or are you so dysfunctional that this blatant contradiction to common sense didn't even register in your one-thing-at-a-time mind?

Oh, it created jobs...I think the CBO said it cost something like $240,000 for each job that the Obama Stimulus created? That kind of encompasses "ludicrous" AND "dysfunctional"...don't you think?

You think. Really, me boy. Is that it? You think? But you forget. You lie.
What is ludicrous is:
1. The great republican recession of 2008 and it's 10% unemployment rate.
2. Loosing over 600,000 jobs per month in 2008.
3. Saying that when job losses slowed and stopped that there were no jobs saved.
4, Making proclamations about economics when you are a food services employee.
5. Suggesting you are highly economics knowledgeable when you have had only 2 undergraduate econ classes.
6. Spending time after time after time lying and making uncalled for personal attacks.
7. letting the great republican recession of 2008 go on without corrective stimulus measures.
9. The Republican congress meeting and stating that they would cause anything Obama did to fail.
10 The Republican congress voting against every measure that Obama's team brought forward to fix the mess of the Great Republican Recession.
11. The Republican congress doing nothing at all to pass a bill or bills to mitigate the damage being done by the Great Republican Recession.

Want more?

You know what, Georgie...for someone who's always whining about "talking points"...you sure do know every single progressive talking point!

Do I want to hear more? Nah, I'm good! I would like to hear what the economic formula was that the Obama Administration used to determine "jobs saved" though!

 

[Oldstyle]

Pair that article stating that the government was having difficulty coming up with correct numbers with the article that shows how government used accounting "tricks" to make it appear that many more jobs had been created than actually were, Faun! My main purpose for including it however is the quote stating that you can't find the term "jobs saved" in any economics text book because quite frankly it hadn't existed before the Obama Administration coined it to obscure how many jobs were actually created by the Obama Stimulus!

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

I already showed you the Bush administration used the term. So yes, not only had it existed -- but it was used by the previous president.

Your lying aside, you offered nothing to discount that 640,000 figure, so the only conclusion I can reach is that it probably is within range of how many jobs were created and/or saved.

Dude, there is a HUGE difference between what you showed the Bush Administration using and how the Obama Administration used "Jobs created and saved" to hide how few jobs their stimulus ended up creating. Your attempt to show that the Bush Administration used a phrase somewhat like jobs saved fell flat when you tried it the first time. It was laughably bad! Now you bring it back? Like it's going to be better now?

As to whether the 640,000 created or saved is "within range"? Of course it is you buffoon! The entire reason for USING "created or saved" is that you can name any number you want to because there is ZERO way of determining the "saved" part! It always used to amaze me that ANYONE would fall for the bullshit that the Obama people were putting out but after listening to you...I realize that they accurately assessed the gullibility of their supporters to a T!

"...fell flat when you tried it the first time."

It's hysterical how you say that as though I require your approval.

Just like last time, you claimed the term had never been used before Obama, I showed you Bush used it.

And guess what...? I still don't need your acceptance of that for it to be true.

God but you're pathetic...you really think someone using the expression "save jobs" is the same thing as someone basing a job creation statistic on "jobs saved"? Bush did NOT use "jobs saved" and you're an idiot for trying to say that he did!

Bush used Clinton's surplus and gave Obama deficits

Bush definitely did burn through money, Sealy! No question about that. Kind of what happens when you've got something like 9/11 happening and the war that followed.

I'm curious...how do you think Barry compares to W. when it comes to deficits? Do you really want to have that discussion?

 

[Rshermr]

Read the article and it will explain to you what's "wrong" with the claim that 640,000 jobs were created or saved!

I read the article and still don't know what your complaint is. If you think their numbers were wrong, where does the article say that? It does indicate coming up with a number can be difficult but I don't see any other numbers in their indicating the numbers posted were wrong.

Pair that article stating that the government was having difficulty coming up with correct numbers with the article that shows how government used accounting "tricks" to make it appear that many more jobs had been created than actually were, Faun! My main purpose for including it however is the quote stating that you can't find the term "jobs saved" in any economics text book because quite frankly it hadn't existed before the Obama Administration coined it to obscure how many jobs were actually created by the Obama Stimulus!

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

I already showed you the Bush administration used the term. So yes, not only had it existed -- but it was used by the previous president.

Your lying aside, you offered nothing to discount that 640,000 figure, so the only conclusion I can reach is that it probably is within range of how many jobs were created and/or saved.

Dude, there is a HUGE difference between what you showed the Bush Administration using and how the Obama Administration used "Jobs created and saved" to hide how few jobs their stimulus ended up creating. Your attempt to show that the Bush Administration used a phrase somewhat like jobs saved fell flat when you tried it the first time. It was laughably bad! Now you bring it back? Like it's going to be better now?

As to whether the 640,000 created or saved is "within range"? Of course it is you buffoon! The entire reason for USING "created or saved" is that you can name any number you want to because there is ZERO way of determining the "saved" part! It always used to amaze me that ANYONE would fall for the bullshit that the Obama people were putting out but after listening to you...I realize that they accurately assessed the gullibility of their supporters to a T
!

![/QUOTE]
CBO Refutes Republicans: Stimulus Saved Or Created 600,000-1.6 Million Jobs
CBO Refutes Republicans: Stimulus Saved Or Created 600,000-1.6 Million Jobs
That was back in 2009.
So, I fish, religiously Steelhead and salmon, and trout. And I am an expert at what they look like. And they look like you as they flop about on a dock dying. You lost this battle long ago. Your sad efforts to push con agenda is just that. SAD.

 

[sealybobo]

Ph

The Myth of the Multiplier
Why the stimulus package hasn't reduced unemployment

Oldstyle you have said previously that you agree that it is ludicrous to suggest that 800 billion could be spent without making some jobs.

You now post an opinion making this ludicrous claim.

So I'm just curious, did you change your mind and decide to go with ludicrous or are you so dysfunctional that this blatant contradiction to common sense didn't even register in your one-thing-at-a-time mind?

Oh, it created jobs...I think the CBO said it cost something like $240,000 for each job that the Obama Stimulus created? That kind of encompasses "ludicrous" AND "dysfunctional"...don't you think?

You think. Really, me boy. Is that it? You think? But you forget. You lie.
What is ludicrous is:
1. The great republican recession of 2008 and it's 10% unemployment rate.
2. Loosing over 600,000 jobs per month in 2008.
3. Saying that when job losses slowed and stopped that there were no jobs saved.
4, Making proclamations about economics when you are a food services employee.
5. Suggesting you are highly economics knowledgeable when you have had only 2 undergraduate econ classes.
6. Spending time after time after time lying and making uncalled for personal attacks.
7. letting the great republican recession of 2008 go on without corrective stimulus measures.
9. The Republican congress meeting and stating that they would cause anything Obama did to fail.
10 The Republican congress voting against every measure that Obama's team brought forward to fix the mess of the Great Republican Recession.
11. The Republican congress doing nothing at all to pass a bill or bills to mitigate the damage being done by the Great Republican Recession.

Want more?

You know what, Georgie...for someone who's always whining about "talking points"...you sure do know every single progressive talking point!

Do I want more? Nah, I'm good! I would like to hear what the economic formula was that the Obama Administration used to determine "jobs saved" though!

You wouldn't understand. Just like bush and trump don't understand the formula.

The formula is 75% goes to the rich and 25% to us. But bush and trumpanomics gives us 10% and the rich 90%.

Dont think the Republicans obstruction hasn't benefitted the rich. They'll blame Obama when talking to poor people but fact is the rich did great. Why isn't it trickling down?

 

[sealybobo]

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

I already showed you the Bush administration used the term. So yes, not only had it existed -- but it was used by the previous president.

Your lying aside, you offered nothing to discount that 640,000 figure, so the only conclusion I can reach is that it probably is within range of how many jobs were created and/or saved.

Dude, there is a HUGE difference between what you showed the Bush Administration using and how the Obama Administration used "Jobs created and saved" to hide how few jobs their stimulus ended up creating. Your attempt to show that the Bush Administration used a phrase somewhat like jobs saved fell flat when you tried it the first time. It was laughably bad! Now you bring it back? Like it's going to be better now?

As to whether the 640,000 created or saved is "within range"? Of course it is you buffoon! The entire reason for USING "created or saved" is that you can name any number you want to because there is ZERO way of determining the "saved" part! It always used to amaze me that ANYONE would fall for the bullshit that the Obama people were putting out but after listening to you...I realize that they accurately assessed the gullibility of their supporters to a T!

"...fell flat when you tried it the first time."

It's hysterical how you say that as though I require your approval.

Just like last time, you claimed the term had never been used before Obama, I showed you Bush used it.

And guess what...? I still don't need your acceptance of that for it to be true.

God but you're pathetic...you really think someone using the expression "save jobs" is the same thing as someone basing a job creation statistic on "jobs saved"? Bush did NOT use "jobs saved" and you're an idiot for trying to say that he did!

Bush used Clinton's surplus and gave Obama deficits

Bush definitely did burn through money, Sealy! No question about that. Kind of what happens when you've got something like 9/11 happening and the war that followed.

I'm curious...how do you think Barry compares to W. when it comes to deficits? Do you really want to have that discussion?

If only bush didn't hand him a mess we'd know what was actually his spending. The biggest is probably the aca.

 

[Oldstyle]

Ph

The Myth of the Multiplier
Why the stimulus package hasn't reduced unemployment

Oldstyle you have said previously that you agree that it is ludicrous to suggest that 800 billion could be spent without making some jobs.

You now post an opinion making this ludicrous claim.

So I'm just curious, did you change your mind and decide to go with ludicrous or are you so dysfunctional that this blatant contradiction to common sense didn't even register in your one-thing-at-a-time mind?

Oh, it created jobs...I think the CBO said it cost something like $240,000 for each job that the Obama Stimulus created? That kind of encompasses "ludicrous" AND "dysfunctional"...don't you think?

You think. Really, me boy. Is that it? You think? But you forget. You lie.
What is ludicrous is:
1. The great republican recession of 2008 and it's 10% unemployment rate.
2. Loosing over 600,000 jobs per month in 2008.
3. Saying that when job losses slowed and stopped that there were no jobs saved.
4, Making proclamations about economics when you are a food services employee.
5. Suggesting you are highly economics knowledgeable when you have had only 2 undergraduate econ classes.
6. Spending time after time after time lying and making uncalled for personal attacks.
7. letting the great republican recession of 2008 go on without corrective stimulus measures.
9. The Republican congress meeting and stating that they would cause anything Obama did to fail.
10 The Republican congress voting against every measure that Obama's team brought forward to fix the mess of the Great Republican Recession.
11. The Republican congress doing nothing at all to pass a bill or bills to mitigate the damage being done by the Great Republican Recession.

Want more?

You know what, Georgie...for someone who's always whining about "talking points"...you sure do know every single progressive talking point!

Do I want more? Nah, I'm good! I would like to hear what the economic formula was that the Obama Administration used to determine "jobs saved" though!

You wouldn't understand. Just like bush and trump don't understand the formula.

The formula is 75% goes to the rich and 25% to us. But bush and trumpanomics gives us 10% and the rich 90%.

Dont think the Republicans obstruction hasn't benefitted the rich. They'll blame Obama when talking to poor people but fact is the rich did great. Why isn't it trickling down?

I'm curious once more, Sealy...do you know who did better under Barack Obama...the rich or the poor? Did you really want to have THAT discussion?

 

[Andylusion]

Pair that article stating that the government was having difficulty coming up with correct numbers with the article that shows how government used accounting "tricks" to make it appear that many more jobs had been created than actually were, Faun! My main purpose for including it however is the quote stating that you can't find the term "jobs saved" in any economics text book because quite frankly it hadn't existed before the Obama Administration coined it to obscure how many jobs were actually created by the Obama Stimulus!

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

I already showed you the Bush administration used the term. So yes, not only had it existed -- but it was used by the previous president.

Your lying aside, you offered nothing to discount that 640,000 figure, so the only conclusion I can reach is that it probably is within range of how many jobs were created and/or saved.

Dude, there is a HUGE difference between what you showed the Bush Administration using and how the Obama Administration used "Jobs created and saved" to hide how few jobs their stimulus ended up creating. Your attempt to show that the Bush Administration used a phrase somewhat like jobs saved fell flat when you tried it the first time. It was laughably bad! Now you bring it back? Like it's going to be better now?

As to whether the 640,000 created or saved is "within range"? Of course it is you buffoon! The entire reason for USING "created or saved" is that you can name any number you want to because there is ZERO way of determining the "saved" part! It always used to amaze me that ANYONE would fall for the bullshit that the Obama people were putting out but after listening to you...I realize that they accurately assessed the gullibility of their supporters to a T!

"...fell flat when you tried it the first time."

It's hysterical how you say that as though I require your approval.

Just like last time, you claimed the term had never been used before Obama, I showed you Bush used it.

And guess what...? I still don't need your acceptance of that for it to be true.

God but you're pathetic...you really think someone using the expression "save jobs" is the same thing as someone basing a job creation statistic on "jobs saved"? Bush did NOT use "jobs saved" and you're an idiot for trying to say that he did!

Bush used Clinton's surplus and gave Obama deficits

Well you are wrong. But there is no point in explaining how things work to a partisan bigot.

 

[Rshermr]

Ph

The Myth of the Multiplier
Why the stimulus package hasn't reduced unemployment

Oldstyle you have said previously that you agree that it is ludicrous to suggest that 800 billion could be spent without making some jobs.

You now post an opinion making this ludicrous claim.

So I'm just curious, did you change your mind and decide to go with ludicrous or are you so dysfunctional that this blatant contradiction to common sense didn't even register in your one-thing-at-a-time mind?

Oh, it created jobs...I think the CBO said it cost something like $240,000 for each job that the Obama Stimulus created? That kind of encompasses "ludicrous" AND "dysfunctional"...don't you think?

You think. Really, me boy. Is that it? You think? But you forget. You lie.
What is ludicrous is:
1. The great republican recession of 2008 and it's 10% unemployment rate.
2. Loosing over 600,000 jobs per month in 2008.
3. Saying that when job losses slowed and stopped that there were no jobs saved.
4, Making proclamations about economics when you are a food services employee.
5. Suggesting you are highly economics knowledgeable when you have had only 2 undergraduate econ classes.
6. Spending time after time after time lying and making uncalled for personal attacks.
7. letting the great republican recession of 2008 go on without corrective stimulus measures.
9. The Republican congress meeting and stating that they would cause anything Obama did to fail.
10 The Republican congress voting against every measure that Obama's team brought forward to fix the mess of the Great Republican Recession.
11. The Republican congress doing nothing at all to pass a bill or bills to mitigate the damage being done by the Great Republican Recession.

Want more?

You know what, Georgie...for someone who's always whining about "talking points"...you sure do know every single progressive talking point!

Do I want more? Nah, I'm good! I would like to hear what the economic formula was that the Obama Administration used to determine "jobs saved" though!

Here is the thing. There is a site you are very aware of called conservativetalkingpoints.org. And it has THOUSANDS of categorized con talking points they proudly suggest you use. There is not any such site for liberals. Because we do not like to be told what to say, or believe. The opposite of cons.
That must be hard for you to understand, being a con tool. And believing what you are told to believe.

The formula? You did not keep your word. You lied. Did not meet the condition you agreed to. So no, me boy, fuck you.unemployment rate

What's ludicrous, Anton is your contention that there is essentially no difference between jobs created and jobs saved!

What's ludicrous is that you are so stupid that you can not understand that a saved job is the same, from an unemployment point of view, as a created job. You have to be brain dead to not understand that, but then, it is oldstyle. He is indeed brain dead.

 

[sealybobo]

Ph

Oldstyle you have said previously that you agree that it is ludicrous to suggest that 800 billion could be spent without making some jobs.

You now post an opinion making this ludicrous claim.

So I'm just curious, did you change your mind and decide to go with ludicrous or are you so dysfunctional that this blatant contradiction to common sense didn't even register in your one-thing-at-a-time mind?

Oh, it created jobs...I think the CBO said it cost something like $240,000 for each job that the Obama Stimulus created? That kind of encompasses "ludicrous" AND "dysfunctional"...don't you think?

You think. Really, me boy. Is that it? You think? But you forget. You lie.
What is ludicrous is:
1. The great republican recession of 2008 and it's 10% unemployment rate.
2. Loosing over 600,000 jobs per month in 2008.
3. Saying that when job losses slowed and stopped that there were no jobs saved.
4, Making proclamations about economics when you are a food services employee.
5. Suggesting you are highly economics knowledgeable when you have had only 2 undergraduate econ classes.
6. Spending time after time after time lying and making uncalled for personal attacks.
7. letting the great republican recession of 2008 go on without corrective stimulus measures.
9. The Republican congress meeting and stating that they would cause anything Obama did to fail.
10 The Republican congress voting against every measure that Obama's team brought forward to fix the mess of the Great Republican Recession.
11. The Republican congress doing nothing at all to pass a bill or bills to mitigate the damage being done by the Great Republican Recession.

Want more?

You know what, Georgie...for someone who's always whining about "talking points"...you sure do know every single progressive talking point!

Do I want more? Nah, I'm good! I would like to hear what the economic formula was that the Obama Administration used to determine "jobs saved" though!

You wouldn't understand. Just like bush and trump don't understand the formula.

The formula is 75% goes to the rich and 25% to us. But bush and trumpanomics gives us 10% and the rich 90%.

Dont think the Republicans obstruction hasn't benefitted the rich. They'll blame Obama when talking to poor people but fact is the rich did great. Why isn't it trickling down?

I'm curious once more, Sealy...do you know who did better under Barack Obama...the rich or the poor? Did you really want to have THAT discussion?

No because I'll have to explain everything that's happened the last 60 years that led us to where we are and it's been all GOP vs American middle class. Sure Clinton signed NAFTA but don't try blaming Democrats wheen it was you guys who pushed us to free trade.

It's like blaming hillary for Iraq when bush is the one who lied us to war

 

[Oldstyle]

Dude, there is a HUGE difference between what you showed the Bush Administration using and how the Obama Administration used "Jobs created and saved" to hide how few jobs their stimulus ended up creating. Your attempt to show that the Bush Administration used a phrase somewhat like jobs saved fell flat when you tried it the first time. It was laughably bad! Now you bring it back? Like it's going to be better now?

As to whether the 640,000 created or saved is "within range"? Of course it is you buffoon! The entire reason for USING "created or saved" is that you can name any number you want to because there is ZERO way of determining the "saved" part! It always used to amaze me that ANYONE would fall for the bullshit that the Obama people were putting out but after listening to you...I realize that they accurately assessed the gullibility of their supporters to a T!

"...fell flat when you tried it the first time."

It's hysterical how you say that as though I require your approval.

Just like last time, you claimed the term had never been used before Obama, I showed you Bush used it.

And guess what...? I still don't need your acceptance of that for it to be true.

God but you're pathetic...you really think someone using the expression "save jobs" is the same thing as someone basing a job creation statistic on "jobs saved"? Bush did NOT use "jobs saved" and you're an idiot for trying to say that he did!

Bush used Clinton's surplus and gave Obama deficits

Bush definitely did burn through money, Sealy! No question about that. Kind of what happens when you've got something like 9/11 happening and the war that followed.

I'm curious...how do you think Barry compares to W. when it comes to deficits? Do you really want to have that discussion?

If only bush didn't hand him a mess we'd know what was actually his spending. The biggest is probably the aca.

President's are given cards to play that are left over from the President who came before...it's the nature of the job. Clinton left office with an economy headed towards recession. Bush left office with two wars going on and a recession in full force. Obama is about to leave office with a global battle going on with ISIS, racial divisions at home and a weak economy.

Just between you and me, Sealy? By the time Barack Obama leaves office he may very well have spent more money than every other President before him combined! It's hard to spin that in such a way that it makes him look good...know what I mean?

 

[sealybobo]

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

I already showed you the Bush administration used the term. So yes, not only had it existed -- but it was used by the previous president.

Your lying aside, you offered nothing to discount that 640,000 figure, so the only conclusion I can reach is that it probably is within range of how many jobs were created and/or saved.

Dude, there is a HUGE difference between what you showed the Bush Administration using and how the Obama Administration used "Jobs created and saved" to hide how few jobs their stimulus ended up creating. Your attempt to show that the Bush Administration used a phrase somewhat like jobs saved fell flat when you tried it the first time. It was laughably bad! Now you bring it back? Like it's going to be better now?

As to whether the 640,000 created or saved is "within range"? Of course it is you buffoon! The entire reason for USING "created or saved" is that you can name any number you want to because there is ZERO way of determining the "saved" part! It always used to amaze me that ANYONE would fall for the bullshit that the Obama people were putting out but after listening to you...I realize that they accurately assessed the gullibility of their supporters to a T!

"...fell flat when you tried it the first time."

It's hysterical how you say that as though I require your approval.

Just like last time, you claimed the term had never been used before Obama, I showed you Bush used it.

And guess what...? I still don't need your acceptance of that for it to be true.

God but you're pathetic...you really think someone using the expression "save jobs" is the same thing as someone basing a job creation statistic on "jobs saved"? Bush did NOT use "jobs saved" and you're an idiot for trying to say that he did!

Bush used Clinton's surplus and gave Obama deficits

Well you are wrong. But there is no point in explaining how things work to a partisan bigot.

I agree pal. You ain't convincing anyone

 

[Oldstyle]

Ph
Oh, it created jobs...I think the CBO said it cost something like $240,000 for each job that the Obama Stimulus created? That kind of encompasses "ludicrous" AND "dysfunctional"...don't you think?

You think. Really, me boy. Is that it? You think? But you forget. You lie.
What is ludicrous is:
1. The great republican recession of 2008 and it's 10% unemployment rate.
2. Loosing over 600,000 jobs per month in 2008.
3. Saying that when job losses slowed and stopped that there were no jobs saved.
4, Making proclamations about economics when you are a food services employee.
5. Suggesting you are highly economics knowledgeable when you have had only 2 undergraduate econ classes.
6. Spending time after time after time lying and making uncalled for personal attacks.
7. letting the great republican recession of 2008 go on without corrective stimulus measures.
9. The Republican congress meeting and stating that they would cause anything Obama did to fail.
10 The Republican congress voting against every measure that Obama's team brought forward to fix the mess of the Great Republican Recession.
11. The Republican congress doing nothing at all to pass a bill or bills to mitigate the damage being done by the Great Republican Recession.

Want more?

You know what, Georgie...for someone who's always whining about "talking points"...you sure do know every single progressive talking point!

Do I want more? Nah, I'm good! I would like to hear what the economic formula was that the Obama Administration used to determine "jobs saved" though!

You wouldn't understand. Just like bush and trump don't understand the formula.

The formula is 75% goes to the rich and 25% to us. But bush and trumpanomics gives us 10% and the rich 90%.

Dont think the Republicans obstruction hasn't benefitted the rich. They'll blame Obama when talking to poor people but fact is the rich did great. Why isn't it trickling down?

I'm curious once more, Sealy...do you know who did better under Barack Obama...the rich or the poor? Did you really want to have THAT discussion?

No because I'll have to explain everything that's happened the last 60 years that led us to where we are and it's been all GOP vs American middle class. Sure Clinton signed NAFTA but don't try blaming Democrats wheen it was you guys who pushed us to free trade.

It's like blaming hillary for Iraq when bush is the one who lied us to war

OK...if the GOP has been against the Middle Class then I would assume that the Middle Classes' lot improved dramatically under the almost eight years that Barack Obama has been President? Did you want to have THAT discussion?

 

[Rshermr]

Ph

Oldstyle you have said previously that you agree that it is ludicrous to suggest that 800 billion could be spent without making some jobs.

You now post an opinion making this ludicrous claim.

So I'm just curious, did you change your mind and decide to go with ludicrous or are you so dysfunctional that this blatant contradiction to common sense didn't even register in your one-thing-at-a-time mind?

Oh, it created jobs...I think the CBO said it cost something like $240,000 for each job that the Obama Stimulus created? That kind of encompasses "ludicrous" AND "dysfunctional"...don't you think?

You think. Really, me boy. Is that it? You think? But you forget. You lie.
What is ludicrous is:
1. The great republican recession of 2008 and it's 10% unemployment rate.
2. Loosing over 600,000 jobs per month in 2008.
3. Saying that when job losses slowed and stopped that there were no jobs saved.
4, Making proclamations about economics when you are a food services employee.
5. Suggesting you are highly economics knowledgeable when you have had only 2 undergraduate econ classes.
6. Spending time after time after time lying and making uncalled for personal attacks.
7. letting the great republican recession of 2008 go on without corrective stimulus measures.
9. The Republican congress meeting and stating that they would cause anything Obama did to fail.
10 The Republican congress voting against every measure that Obama's team brought forward to fix the mess of the Great Republican Recession.
11. The Republican congress doing nothing at all to pass a bill or bills to mitigate the damage being done by the Great Republican Recession.

Want more?

You know what, Georgie...for someone who's always whining about "talking points"...you sure do know every single progressive talking point!

Do I want more? Nah, I'm good! I would like to hear what the economic formula was that the Obama Administration used to determine "jobs saved" though!

You wouldn't understand. Just like bush and trump don't understand the formula.

The formula is 75% goes to the rich and 25% to us. But bush and trumpanomics gives us 10% and the rich 90%.

Dont think the Republicans obstruction hasn't benefitted the rich. They'll blame Obama when talking to poor people but fact is the rich did great. Why isn't it trickling down?

I'm curious once more, Sealy...do you know who did better under Barack Obama...the rich or the poor? Did you really want to have THAT discussion?

I will debate that, me boy. But it will not end well for you. Later.