US Jobless claims fall to 4 decade low

[Oldstyle]

Felix Salmon
How the government fudges job statistics
By Felix Salmon
February 17, 2010
In the Marketplace letters segment yesterday, Representative Peter DeFazio (D-Oregon) took issue with me saying that infrastructure investment is an extremely expensive way of creating jobs and "costs a good $200,000 per job". Just as well I didn't use the $1 million figure here, which I stand by, and which was fact-checked by the Atlantic! " data-share-img="" data-share="twitter,facebook,linkedin,reddit,google,mail" data-share-count="false">
Tags:
employment
In the Marketplace letters segment yesterday, Representative Peter DeFazio (D-Oregon) took issue with me saying that infrastructure investment is an extremely expensive way of creating jobs and “costs a good $200,000 per job”. Just as well I didn’t use the $1 million figure here, which I stand by, and which was fact-checked by the Atlantic!

The host, Kai Ryssdal, had no time to read out the letter in full, but has allowed me to reprint it:

Dear Mr. Ryssdal:

I have always enjoyed your show and have enjoyed past opportunities to discuss issues as your guest. However, I was distressed last Friday to hear a purported expert guest, Reuters blogger Felix Salmon, state with great certainty that infrastructure investment is an inefficient jobs creator because those jobs are so expensive to create. To back up his argument he claimed that it costs $200,000 to create one infrastructure job. However, he provided no source for this claim and you failed to challenge his assertion.

The Council of Economic Advisors has estimated that $92,000 in direct government spending creates one job-year, regardless of the sector of the economy. The U.S. Department of Transportation, arguably the most knowledgeable government agency when it comes to transportation spending and the resulting job creation, states that an investment of $35,941 creates one infrastructure-related job. Those two confirmable estimates are a far cry from the dubious $200,000-per-job claim from Mr. Salmon. Unfortunately Mr. Salmon’s assertion went unchallenged while the other guest, Heidi Moore of The Big Money, seemed to tacitly agree with him.

I am particularly sensitive about this issue since the AP ran an article last month on an “analysis” by AP reporters that used incomplete information to draw inaccurate and misleading conclusions about the success of the transportation infrastructure component of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA). The article claimed that “a surge in spending on roads and bridges has had no effect on local unemployment ” based on the reporters’ finding that “local unemployment rates rose and fell regardless of how much stimulus money Washington poured out for transportation.” However, instead of examining the impact of ARRA’s transportation investment on jobs in the transportation industry – an appropriate comparison – the reporters compared the transportation funding, which comprised only 6 percent of spending in the Recovery Act, to the overall unemployment rate. This led to a specious conclusion and ignores the fact that transportation projects funded by ARRA have created or sustained more than 250,000 direct, on-project jobs, with payroll expenditures of $1.3 billion.

I continue to support infrastructure investment as both a justified investment that future generations will benefit from as well as one of the most efficient creators of jobs, contrary to the beliefs of purported experts like Mr. Salmon and the so-called investigative reporters from the AP. I hope you will set the record straight. If you would like to discuss this further you can contact me directly at [redacted].

Sincerely,

Peter A. DeFazio, M.C.

Chairman, Subcommittee on Highways and Transit

(In case you were wondering, the “M.C.” just means Member of Congress.)

I have no dog in DeFazio’s fight with the AP. But his attacks on me are just plain wrong. Infrastructure investments are simply not “one of the most efficient creators of jobs”, no matter how much DeFazio might want them to be, and the sources he cites to back up that claim don’t support it.

What’s at issue here is a ratio: I’m talking about dollars per job created. To get that number, you take the number of dollars spent, and divide it by the number of jobs created. DeFazio, by contrast, subtly tries to change the denominator when he says that “$92,000 in direct government spending creates one job-year”: he’s taking dollars, dividing by jobs created, and then dividing again by the number of years that each job is expected to last.

In the real world, of course, if you spend $300,000 to create a job which lasts three years, then that’s one job created with your $300,000, not three jobs. Only in DC would people attempt to claim that their $300,000 had created three “job-years”.

What’s more, the $92,000 estimate covers government spending in general, not just infrastructure spending. Infrastructure spending gets you low bang for the buck, in terms of job creation, compared to other kinds of spending — my example on the show was arts subsidies. A lot of government spending goes on creating new federal jobs: you get much more job creation per buck that way than you do building infrastructure.

And if you look at the CEA report, you’ll see that it carefully fudges the difference between jobs created, on the one hand, and jobs saved, on the other; in fact, it seems to used “created” and “created or saved” as synonyms. So if you’ve had a job for years, and you’re still in that job, you can still be counted in these job-creation statistics if the government somehow determines that you might not be in that job had the stimulus bill not passed.

The fact is that if you move away from vague country-level statistics and start drilling down to the actual number of jobs created by actual infrastructure projects, you never get anywhere near $92,000 per job. For instance, have a look at the job-creation statistics on this page.

A 5-mile stretch of highway, costing $50 million, creates a total of 79 jobs. That’s over $600,000 per job. Even if you divide that by two on the grounds that it’s a two-year project, that’s still $300,000 per job-year. In railways, a $15 million investment creates 12 jobs — that’s $1.25 million per job, and it’s a one-year project.

I’ve seen similar numbers surrounding hospitals, and higher numbers surrounding nuclear power stations — basically, infrastructure investment is an incredibly inefficient way of creating jobs.

But what of DeFazio’s $35,941 figure? I finally tracked it down to here — a report which does not say that spending $35,941 “creates one infrastructure-related job”. Again, it’s talking job-years, not jobs, but more importantly, it says this:

The FHWA analysis refers to jobs supported by highway investments, this includes ‘new jobs’ to the extent unemployed labor is hired; ‘better jobs’ as currently employed workers move into jobs with better compensation and/or full time positions; and ‘sustained jobs’ as current employees are retained with the expenditure.

This is an even looser definition than “created or saved” — it also includes substantially everybody who just gets a promotion as well, along with that ill-defined definition of “sustained jobs”, comprising people who just stay in the same job they’ve had all along.

Finally, what is DeFazio talking about when he says that “transportation projects funded by ARRA have created or sustained more than 250,000 direct, on-project jobs, with payroll expenditures of $1.3 billion”? Simple division here would seem to imply that each worker is earning no more than $5,200 a year, which can’t be right. But again, look at the footnotes — specifically in this report, which is the source of DeFazio’s statistic:

Consistent with the U.S. Department of Transportation’s reporting requirements, the number of direct jobs is based on direct, on-project full-time-equivalent (FTE) job months. One person working full time or two people working one-half time for one month represents one FTE job month. FTE job months are calculated by dividing cumulative job hours created or sustained by 173 hours (40 hours per week times 52 weeks divided by 12 months = 173 hours).

Yes, for the purposes of this report, the government has calculated the number of jobs created by taking the number of hours worked and dividing by 173. If you pay a man to wield a shovel for one year, working 40 hours a week, then hey, you’ve created 12 jobs! If you pay him overtime, and he works 60 hours a week, then you’ve created 18 jobs! If he keeps on working at that pace for three years, then you’re up to 54 jobs! All from one man earning one paycheck.

So it’s not just DeFazio, then: everybody in the government seems to be happy fudging job-creation statistics, especially by using job-years or even job-months rather than actual jobs, and also by eliding the distinction between jobs created, on the one hand, and jobs improved or saved, on the other. That’s worth remembering, next time you hear a politician kvelling about how the government is creating millions of new jobs.
How the government fudges job statistics

So at least oldstyle is consistent. Here he picks a source who is a pretty small time journalist. No economists for oldstyle. He chooses to pick sources with as little economic background as himself. That is, basically NONE.What a stupid source. Just like the poster.

The American Statistical Association presented Salmon with the 2010 Excellence in Statistical Reporting Award "for his body of work, which exemplifies the highest standards of scientific reporting. His insightful use of statistics as a tool to understanding the world of business and economics, areas that are critical in today's economy, sets a new standard in statistical investigative reporting."

Yeah, he doesn't know anything about economics, Georgie! He only worked for Nouriel Roubini! Does that name ring a bell? You know...the guy who was a senior economist on Bill Clinton's Council of Economic Advisers? Duh?[

did you think that statistical reporting is economics, me boy. Look the two up, it may help you. As his bio says, he is a writer. Not an economist. No matter how badly you want him to be. And, me boy, if I work for a historian, does that make me a historian. As you say, DUH! Dipshit. So that is five economic organizations well respected by repubs and dems, against ZERO economists for you. That is, me boy, certain proof that you LOOSE.
So, seriously, can you tell me, does stupid hurt?

What I "think" is that in order to do statistical reporting on economics, one would need to understand it as well. His bio says that he has a Masters in Art History actually with an Honors concentration in Mathematics. What better authority on the viability of an economic statistic, such as "jobs saved", than an expert in statistical reporting who has worked for one of the more esteemed economists of our time, Nouriel Roubini? You have to deride him as a "small time journalist" because you can't refute what he's stated.

 

[Oldstyle]

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?

Every president spent more than every other president. Bush did that too.

Bush also created Isis. Invading Iraq. Imagine if Clinton or Obama did such a thing. Oh my

Actually, Bush did not create ISIS. It was well documented that all the top leadership of AQI, were all captured or killed off, by 2010. It was Obama, or the Iraqi government, or more likely both, that released all the ISIS leadership from detention camps, and allowed them to build back up AQI and change into what we now know is Islamic State.

Actually, wrong again. I hate to keep correcting you but actually it was Reagan and the cheap GOP. Did you see Charlie Wilson's war? True story

Too bad Charlie Wilson was a Democrat! True story!

 

[Oldstyle]

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.

Every single aspect of any part of society is built on the history that came before it.

If excuse making was an Olympic sport, you and left-wingers like you would win so many Gold metals, you'd have to build your own vault.

The claim that Obama is exempt from the blame or credit of every bad action he has taken, because of actions that happened before he came into office, then equally you can't claim Clinton had anything to do with the 1990s. After all, if it hadn't been for the taxes and spending policies that came about before him, he wouldn't have had the budget he did.

If Bush Sr had not handed Clinton a growing economy and expanding government revenue, then we would know what he was actually spending in the 1990s.

You are trying to selectively apply your double standards on Obama, while exempting all the presidents before him, who were judged on their actions while in office, not given a universal pass by blaming everything on the president before.

Honestly, it's a very childish an immature argument, one I would expect more on an elementary school playground, rather than a forum for adults.

You can trash every president the same way you trash Obama. I can show you facts on how bush Tom delay Dennis hastert and their cohorts destroyed the middle class and widened the gap between rich and poor.

If Obama tried fixing it you cried class warfare

What did Obama do to try and "fix" the gap between rich and poor? Other than talk about it a lot! His agenda certainly didn't help the Middle Class. They're the ones who will end up paying for the ACA. That isn't the GOP screwing them over...that's you liberals!

No one liked pre existing condition. We need nationalized healthcare. Some things shouldn't be privatized

I notice you didn't address my point that the Middle Class will bear the brunt of paying for the ACA. They were begging Washington to reform healthcare so that their costs would be affordable. They didn't get that though...what they got was the ACA, which provides heavily subsidized healthcare for the poor and for those who have preexisting conditions and passes that cost onto the backs of the Middle Class. The Democrats have totally screwed the Middle Class with the ACA.

 

[Faun]

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!

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

Bush used that term to push his CAFTA policy.

Again, your acceptance is not actually needed. Here's more examples for you to ignore...

Transcript of Remarks by Agriculture Secretary Ann M. Veneman regarding National Homeownership Month Kennett Square, PA - June 23, 2004

"Our Rural Development programs also help communities with infrastructure such as electricity, water and telecommunications and with economic development assistance. We have estimated that our rural development programs have saved or created more than 500,000 jobs just since the Bush Administration took office in January of 2001. Recently we have seen more positive numbers showing that the U.S. economy created nearly a quarter of a million jobs last month alone for a total of 1 million jobs created in the last three months and about 1.5 million jobs in the past nine months.​

JOHANNS ANNOUNCES INVESTMENT OF $9.2 MILLION IN BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT FUNDS FOR RURAL AMERICA

"I applaud the local community leadership for their efforts to secure these investments, which are needed to create economic opportunities and improve the quality of life available in their community," said Johanns. "These funds are part of the Bush Administration's ongoing efforts to spur economic development in rural areas and will help save or create more than 1,800 jobs."​

USDA ANNOUNCES $19.75 MILLION IN RURAL BUSINESS LOANS, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT LOANS AND GRANTS

"These funds will help support local economic development agencies, finance infrastructure improvements, establish low-interest revolving loan funds, and help jurisdictions implement regional business and community development plans," Dorr said. "The funding announced today is expected to save or create more than 2,300 jobs in 20 states."​

so g'head, ya lying con tool. Tell the forum again how the term was never used before Obama became president. That's 4 examples I gave you (one in the past and 3 more now).

 

[Faun]

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

Your lack of understanding the bitch-slapping you're taking is quite entertaining. Keep it up.

 

[Faun]

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.

So Bush was lying then when he said he was giving people back their money in the form of rebates because there was a surplus?

 

[Faun]

"...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?

Oh? Post the numbers you think might show Obama spending more than every president before him combined...... this ought to be interesting.

 

[Faun]

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?

Do you want to have the discussion about Mitch McConnell record filibuster and Jon boehner obstruction and teabaggers?

Do I want to have that discussion? Yes

You mean GOP opposition during the first years when Democrats controlled the Oval Office, the House and the Senate? All that political power, Sealy and all they managed to give us was the Obama Stimulus that spent 825 Billion and created so few jobs they had to use jobs saved to hide how bad it was...and the Affordable Care Act...a piece of legislation so poorly written that the Democrats had to lie to the American people to get it passed and bribe their own politicians with political pay offs to get them to vote for it. Is that what you're talking about?

That they saved any jobs during Bush's Great Recession is a miracle itself. We were bled 1 million jobs in January, 2009 alone. All total, as many as some 3 million jobs were saved or created during those first two years.We had a net loss of some 4 million jobs those two years. Without Obama's stimulus, we could have lost as many as 7 million jobs; which would have been even more devastating to the nation. Funny thing is -- had that happened, you lying con tools would then be marching at the White House with pitch forks and torches, demanding to know why Obama didn't do something about it.

 

[Faun]

"...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.

Every single aspect of any part of society is built on the history that came before it.

If excuse making was an Olympic sport, you and left-wingers like you would win so many Gold metals, you'd have to build your own vault.

The claim that Obama is exempt from the blame or credit of every bad action he has taken, because of actions that happened before he came into office, then equally you can't claim Clinton had anything to do with the 1990s. After all, if it hadn't been for the taxes and spending policies that came about before him, he wouldn't have had the budget he did.

If Bush Sr had not handed Clinton a growing economy and expanding government revenue, then we would know what he was actually spending in the 1990s.

You are trying to selectively apply your double standards on Obama, while exempting all the presidents before him, who were judged on their actions while in office, not given a universal pass by blaming everything on the president before.

Honestly, it's a very childish an immature argument, one I would expect more on an elementary school playground, rather than a forum for adults.

Even had Bush41 not passed on a growing economy to Clinton, the economy would have still flourished under Clinton. Bush41 turned the economy around by raising taxes. Clinton raised taxes even more and the economy boomed. The tax hikes were not the only cause. he dawn of the dot-com bubble also fueled the economy. But that wasn't until the mid 90's.

 

[Andylusion]

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.

Every single aspect of any part of society is built on the history that came before it.

If excuse making was an Olympic sport, you and left-wingers like you would win so many Gold metals, you'd have to build your own vault.

The claim that Obama is exempt from the blame or credit of every bad action he has taken, because of actions that happened before he came into office, then equally you can't claim Clinton had anything to do with the 1990s. After all, if it hadn't been for the taxes and spending policies that came about before him, he wouldn't have had the budget he did.

If Bush Sr had not handed Clinton a growing economy and expanding government revenue, then we would know what he was actually spending in the 1990s.

You are trying to selectively apply your double standards on Obama, while exempting all the presidents before him, who were judged on their actions while in office, not given a universal pass by blaming everything on the president before.

Honestly, it's a very childish an immature argument, one I would expect more on an elementary school playground, rather than a forum for adults.

You can trash every president the same way you trash Obama. I can show you facts on how bush Tom delay Dennis hastert and their cohorts destroyed the middle class and widened the gap between rich and poor.

If Obama tried fixing it you cried class warfare

My point was that you have a double standard. When something good happens, you claim it was due to president X. When something bad happens, oh it wasn't him, it was the guy that hasn't been in office for 8 years.

Beyond that, with how utterly ignorant the left is at economics, I highly doubt you can post such information. But by all means try.

 

[Andylusion]

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?

Do you want to have the discussion about Mitch McConnell record filibuster and Jon boehner obstruction and teabaggers?

Do I want to have that discussion? Yes

You mean GOP opposition during the first years when Democrats controlled the Oval Office, the House and the Senate? All that political power, Sealy and all they managed to give us was the Obama Stimulus that spent 825 Billion and created so few jobs they had to use jobs saved to hide how bad it was...and the Affordable Care Act...a piece of legislation so poorly written that the Democrats had to lie to the American people to get it passed and bribe their own politicians with political pay offs to get them to vote for it. Is that what you're talking about?

That they saved any jobs during Bush's Great Recession is a miracle itself. We were bled 1 million jobs in January, 2009 alone. All total, as many as some 3 million jobs were saved or created during those first two years.We had a net loss of some 4 million jobs those two years. Without Obama's stimulus, we could have lost as many as 7 million jobs; which would have been even more devastating to the nation. Funny thing is -- had that happened, you lying con tools would then be marching at the White House with pitch forks and torches, demanding to know why Obama didn't do something about it.

You do know that without any government intervention at all, the economy would recover? In the 1920s, the government made no attempt whatsoever to fix the economy from a much steeper recession than 2008, and the economy recovered without any government program at all.

In 1930, under Hoover, the government intervened at every level of the economy, and the result was a great depression.

In 2001, Bush faced a recession and did very little. The economy recovered.

In 2008 and 2009, Bush and then Obama, intervened heavily into the economy, and we had the great recession with what is now known as the slowest recoveries since the Great Depression.

Government didn't save jobs. No evidence of that whatsoever. If anything, government hindered the recovery.

 

[AntonToo]

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?

Do you want to have the discussion about Mitch McConnell record filibuster and Jon boehner obstruction and teabaggers?

Do I want to have that discussion? Yes

You mean GOP opposition during the first years when Democrats controlled the Oval Office, the House and the Senate? All that political power, Sealy and all they managed to give us was the Obama Stimulus that spent 825 Billion and created so few jobs they had to use jobs saved to hide how bad it was...and the Affordable Care Act...a piece of legislation so poorly written that the Democrats had to lie to the American people to get it passed and bribe their own politicians with political pay offs to get them to vote for it. Is that what you're talking about?

That they saved any jobs during Bush's Great Recession is a miracle itself. We were bled 1 million jobs in January, 2009 alone. All total, as many as some 3 million jobs were saved or created during those first two years.We had a net loss of some 4 million jobs those two years. Without Obama's stimulus, we could have lost as many as 7 million jobs; which would have been even more devastating to the nation. Funny thing is -- had that happened, you lying con tools would then be marching at the White House with pitch forks and torches, demanding to know why Obama didn't do something about it.

You do know that without any government intervention at all, the economy would recover? In the 1920s, the government made no attempt whatsoever to fix the economy from a much steeper recession than 2008, and the economy recovered without any government program at all.

In 1930, under Hoover, the government intervened at every level of the economy, and the result was a great depression.

In 2001, Bush faced a recession and did very little. The economy recovered.

In 2008 and 2009, Bush and then Obama, intervened heavily into the economy, and we had the great recession with what is now known as the slowest recoveries since the Great Depression.

Government didn't save jobs. No evidence of that whatsoever. If anything, government hindered the recovery.

Another day, another conservative making another fucking stupid argument that expansionary policies caused deepening of recession.

Andy, you say lefties do not understand economics? Tell me, what economic understanding lead you to believe that stabilization of financial sector and spending 800 billion dollars not only DIDN'T grow economy, but made it worse?

The biggest stimulus of all time was World War 2, which caused gigantic government spending, huge debt increase and oh by the way, the end of the Great Depression period and fundamental transformation of American economy.

 

[sealybobo]

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.

Every single aspect of any part of society is built on the history that came before it.

If excuse making was an Olympic sport, you and left-wingers like you would win so many Gold metals, you'd have to build your own vault.

The claim that Obama is exempt from the blame or credit of every bad action he has taken, because of actions that happened before he came into office, then equally you can't claim Clinton had anything to do with the 1990s. After all, if it hadn't been for the taxes and spending policies that came about before him, he wouldn't have had the budget he did.

If Bush Sr had not handed Clinton a growing economy and expanding government revenue, then we would know what he was actually spending in the 1990s.

You are trying to selectively apply your double standards on Obama, while exempting all the presidents before him, who were judged on their actions while in office, not given a universal pass by blaming everything on the president before.

Honestly, it's a very childish an immature argument, one I would expect more on an elementary school playground, rather than a forum for adults.

You can trash every president the same way you trash Obama. I can show you facts on how bush Tom delay Dennis hastert and their cohorts destroyed the middle class and widened the gap between rich and poor.

If Obama tried fixing it you cried class warfare

My point was that you have a double standard. When something good happens, you claim it was due to president X. When something bad happens, oh it wasn't him, it was the guy that hasn't been in office for 8 years.

Beyond that, with how utterly ignorant the left is at economics, I highly doubt you can post such information. But by all means try.

You know this tactic very well. Anything Clinton did well you credited Reagan bush or luck of timing.

But you can't seriously say either bush handed Clinton or Obama anything good.

So then you give newt or Paul Ryan credit instead. You are laughable talking about economics

Your problem is that you are wrong on so many levels. Sort of like you suggesting bush was winning the Iraq war when he turned it over to Obama. No ones buying your spin

 

[AntonToo]

Even had Bush41 not passed on a growing economy to Clinton, the economy would have still flourished under Clinton. Bush41 turned the economy around by raising taxes. Clinton raised taxes even more and the economy boomed. The tax hikes were not the only cause. he dawn of the dot-com bubble also fueled the economy. But that wasn't until the mid 90's.

No, they didn't turn around the economy by increasing taxes, which is a contractionary policy.

What they turned around was DEFICITS with higher receipts from increased taxes and tech/finance driven economic boom.

 

[AntonToo]

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

stupid fuc...ahem, yes sure buddy:

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

Where exactly does it say no jobs were created in that title?
You do realize that unemployment and job creation are two very different things...right? Oh, you don't?

You are a complete moron - and believe, me I don't say it lightly or out of spite, but out of lack of any other words to explain how you end up consistently posting such ridiculous nonsense.

YES idiot, it actually DOES say that and goes on to make all kinds of false economic arguments about how this 800+ billion spending is not actually helping economy. Starting from the stupid "they promised 8% unemployment but it turned out higher, so stimulus didn't work", claims of "crowding out effects" (in the middle of Great Recession no less!) and re-payment cost (while there wasn't any repaying or even meaningful interest on debt incurred).


I've seen A LOT of stupid, but you are easily making top 3 specimen on that list. Congratulations.

 

[Faun]

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?

Do you want to have the discussion about Mitch McConnell record filibuster and Jon boehner obstruction and teabaggers?

Do I want to have that discussion? Yes

You mean GOP opposition during the first years when Democrats controlled the Oval Office, the House and the Senate? All that political power, Sealy and all they managed to give us was the Obama Stimulus that spent 825 Billion and created so few jobs they had to use jobs saved to hide how bad it was...and the Affordable Care Act...a piece of legislation so poorly written that the Democrats had to lie to the American people to get it passed and bribe their own politicians with political pay offs to get them to vote for it. Is that what you're talking about?

That they saved any jobs during Bush's Great Recession is a miracle itself. We were bled 1 million jobs in January, 2009 alone. All total, as many as some 3 million jobs were saved or created during those first two years.We had a net loss of some 4 million jobs those two years. Without Obama's stimulus, we could have lost as many as 7 million jobs; which would have been even more devastating to the nation. Funny thing is -- had that happened, you lying con tools would then be marching at the White House with pitch forks and torches, demanding to know why Obama didn't do something about it.

You do know that without any government intervention at all, the economy would recover? In the 1920s, the government made no attempt whatsoever to fix the economy from a much steeper recession than 2008, and the economy recovered without any government program at all.

In 1930, under Hoover, the government intervened at every level of the economy, and the result was a great depression.

In 2001, Bush faced a recession and did very little. The economy recovered.

In 2008 and 2009, Bush and then Obama, intervened heavily into the economy, and we had the great recession with what is now known as the slowest recoveries since the Great Depression.

Government didn't save jobs. No evidence of that whatsoever. If anything, government hindered the recovery.

No, I don't know that and neither do you. For all you know, both the Great Depression and Great Recession would have lasted longer than they had without government intervention. No one knows; so spare me your biased conservative revisionism. Which is meaningless anyway as ignorant since Republicans engineered both economic disasters. You'll excuse me if I reject the remedy from the very same folks who caused the mess to begin with. And no one put this better than Donald Trump himself...

 

[Rshermr]

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?

Do you want to have the discussion about Mitch McConnell record filibuster and Jon boehner obstruction and teabaggers?

Do I want to have that discussion? Yes

You mean GOP opposition during the first years when Democrats controlled the Oval Office, the House and the Senate? All that political power, Sealy and all they managed to give us was the Obama Stimulus that spent 825 Billion and created so few jobs they had to use jobs saved to hide how bad it was...and the Affordable Care Act...a piece of legislation so poorly written that the Democrats had to lie to the American people to get it passed and bribe their own politicians with political pay offs to get them to vote for it. Is that what you're talking about?

That they saved any jobs during Bush's Great Recession is a miracle itself. We were bled 1 million jobs in January, 2009 alone. All total, as many as some 3 million jobs were saved or created during those first two years.We had a net loss of some 4 million jobs those two years. Without Obama's stimulus, we could have lost as many as 7 million jobs; which would have been even more devastating to the nation. Funny thing is -- had that happened, you lying con tools would then be marching at the White House with pitch forks and torches, demanding to know why Obama didn't do something about it.

You do know that without any government intervention at all, the economy would recover? In the 1920s, the government made no attempt whatsoever to fix the economy from a much steeper recession than 2008, and the economy recovered without any government program at all.

In 1930, under Hoover, the government intervened at every level of the economy, and the result was a great depression.

In 2001, Bush faced a recession and did very little. The economy recovered.

In 2008 and 2009, Bush and then Obama, intervened heavily into the economy, and we had the great recession with what is now known as the slowest recoveries since the Great Depression.

Government didn't save jobs. No evidence of that whatsoever. If anything, government hindered the recovery.

But you are stupid. You are not an economist. And you are posting lies. So, any proof. It is untrue that a downturn is a downturn. The 1920's recession was no big deal, lasting under 18 months and was caused by a surplus of labor resulting from soldiers returning home from wwII. And, me boy, there were efforts by the gov to fix the mess.
You post about the great depression with more lies. The great depression started in 1929, and through 1933 nothing was done to speak of by the gov. Over 4 years of republicans happily watching the unemployed suffer. And that, me boy, worked great if you like to see human suffering. The unemployment rate went from 3% to 25% before meaningful gov efforts started. Over 22% increase in less than 5 years. Jesus, you are a tool. And no other recession you mentioned was anything like as major as the great republican depression of 1929. And, me boy, it decreased from 25% to 4% in 9 years. Fastest decline in history. With one exception, which was when republicans stopped stimulus spending in 1926 with disastrous results. But, FDR got the economy back on track a year later when he resumed stimulus spending. Dipshit.
The great recession of 2007 was a different story. It was a full fledged aggregate demand recession, heading downhill toward depression, when efforts were made to slow it down by the President, and supported by George W. Bush for the short time he was still in office. It was loosing jobs at the rate of 500,000 to 800,000 per month. And you lyingly say that no jobs were saved by the stimulus. But here is the deal, dipshit. Nearly all economists disagree with you. And the CBO stated plainly that the Stimulus saved millions of jobs and saved us, most probably, from a depression. Your words are hollow, me poor ignorant con troll. It is you or the CBO. And like almost everyone, my money is on the cbo.

Oh, and me boy, you conveniently forgot the 1982 recession of Ronald Reagan, created when he cut domestic programs after his famous tax cut. Then, in a near panic, he raised taxes 11 times and spent stimulativly like a drunken sailor. Tripled the national debt. Spent more than all previous president combined. And, turned the economy from a serious depression to better days.
You should try the truth some day. It will set you free.

Now, why don't you scurry back to your bat shit crazy con web sites and look for more con talking points, like a good con rat.

 

[AntonToo]

Oh, and me boy, you conveniently forgot the 1982 recession of Ronald Reagan, created when he cut domestic programs after his famous tax cut. Then, in a near panic, he raised taxes 11 times and spent stimulativly like a drunken sailor. Tripled the national debt. Spent more than all previous president combined. And, turned the economy from a serious depression to better days.
You should try the truth some day. It will set you free.

Now, why don't you scurry back to your bat shit crazy con web sites and look for more con talking points, like a good con rat.

Early 80 recession is usually attributed to tightening of monetary policy (high interest rates) by the Fed under Carter appointed (and Reagan supported) Volcker. This policy was pursued to break the cycle of high inflation that plagued the 70s. Once the inflation subdued interest rates were brought down and economy kicked into high gear aided by tech, big government spending and tax-cuts that caused tripling of national debt.

 

[Rshermr]

Even had Bush41 not passed on a growing economy to Clinton, the economy would have still flourished under Clinton. Bush41 turned the economy around by raising taxes. Clinton raised taxes even more and the economy boomed. The tax hikes were not the only cause. he dawn of the dot-com bubble also fueled the economy. But that wasn't until the mid 90's.

No, they didn't turn around the economy by increasing taxes, which is a contractionary policy.

What they turned around was DEFICITS with higher receipts from increased taxes and tech/finance driven economic boom.

The clinton years were not problematic at the time. While tax increases themselves do not help an economy, in these particular days they seem necessary to politicians who want to spend stimulativly. And spending was a great part of the economy of clinton. The .com bubble was a stimulus, also. And every living politician loved it. But in the end, as with all bubbles, it was destructive when it burst. I lived it, in the middle working for a infant company trying to go public. And watching the nut cases with the money investing in anything with.com attached to the name. And believing that the boom would last forever, whether there was actual value in the companies or not.
But, still, it was interesting to end up with a surplus for a while.

 

[Oldstyle]

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?

Do you want to have the discussion about Mitch McConnell record filibuster and Jon boehner obstruction and teabaggers?

Do I want to have that discussion? Yes

You mean GOP opposition during the first years when Democrats controlled the Oval Office, the House and the Senate? All that political power, Sealy and all they managed to give us was the Obama Stimulus that spent 825 Billion and created so few jobs they had to use jobs saved to hide how bad it was...and the Affordable Care Act...a piece of legislation so poorly written that the Democrats had to lie to the American people to get it passed and bribe their own politicians with political pay offs to get them to vote for it. Is that what you're talking about?

That they saved any jobs during Bush's Great Recession is a miracle itself. We were bled 1 million jobs in January, 2009 alone. All total, as many as some 3 million jobs were saved or created during those first two years.We had a net loss of some 4 million jobs those two years. Without Obama's stimulus, we could have lost as many as 7 million jobs; which would have been even more devastating to the nation. Funny thing is -- had that happened, you lying con tools would then be marching at the White House with pitch forks and torches, demanding to know why Obama didn't do something about it.

You do know that without any government intervention at all, the economy would recover? In the 1920s, the government made no attempt whatsoever to fix the economy from a much steeper recession than 2008, and the economy recovered without any government program at all.

In 1930, under Hoover, the government intervened at every level of the economy, and the result was a great depression.

In 2001, Bush faced a recession and did very little. The economy recovered.

In 2008 and 2009, Bush and then Obama, intervened heavily into the economy, and we had the great recession with what is now known as the slowest recoveries since the Great Depression.

Government didn't save jobs. No evidence of that whatsoever. If anything, government hindered the recovery.

Another day, another conservative making another fucking stupid argument that expansionary policies caused deepening of recession.

Andy, you say lefties do not understand economics? Tell me, what economic understanding lead you to believe that stabilization of financial sector and spending 800 billion dollars not only DIDN'T grow economy, but made it worse?

The biggest stimulus of all time was World War 2, which caused gigantic government spending, huge debt increase and oh by the way, the end of the Great Depression period and fundamental transformation of American economy.

Georgie loves to point out that I've only taken two Econ classes in college, Anton...which is true. One of those classes however was taught by the great Thomas Sowell at Amherst College and in that class Professor Sowell refuted the "myth" that FDR ended The Great Depression with Keynesian spending. He's written extensively on the topic. Perhaps you should read some of his material for a different viewpoint on what caused the end of The Great Depression?