US Jobless claims fall to 4 decade low

[Andylusion]

Actually that's not even true. The "stimulus" of World War 2, did not end the great depression at all. There are basically only two real data points used by pro-stimulus economists, to support this particular narrative.

First, they claim that unemployment went down. Did it go down? Sure.
Second, they use the increase in GDP. Did GDP increase? Yes.

But does that mean anything has improved? No.

YES, OF COURSE IT DOES. Those are the very statistics DEFINE good economy. They are what separates recessions from growth periods.

When you have a job, you have means to sustain your own and your family's needs - of course that's a good thing, especially considering how poor the safety net programs were at that time.

Further, this effort has radically changed manufacture industries in US like auto and flight as well as make for giant leaps in computational sciences and application. And when soldiers were coming back GI Bill expanded access to education so they can have a follow up career.

So let's round up all the men and ship them off to war again, and say our economy is amazing.

Let's ration everything, reduce the standard of living, and claim we're advancing our economy.

By your logic, we could regress to third world status, have everyone employed, and eating minimal food, and as long as the numbers are higher, we're doing fantastic.

Reminds me of the Soviet Union, that while reporting ever greater advances, was marching towards economic collapse. In 1982, Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr after visiting the Soviet Union said "Those in the US who think the Soviet Union is on the verge of Social and Economic collapse... Are only kidding themselves.".

 

[AntonToo]

So let's round up all the men and ship them off to war again, and say our economy is amazing.

Let's ration everything, reduce the standard of living, and claim we're advancing our economy.

By your logic, we could regress to third world status, have everyone employed, and eating minimal food, and as long as the numbers are higher, we're doing fantastic.

Reminds me of the Soviet Union, that while reporting ever greater advances, was marching towards economic collapse. In 1982, Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr after visiting the Soviet Union said "Those in the US who think the Soviet Union is on the verge of Social and Economic collapse... Are only kidding themselves.".

I have a better (much better) idea - stop the silly historic revisionism, stop reading politico fluff and spend more time reading up on economics from economists who have some pride in their profession.

 

[Andylusion]

So let's round up all the men and ship them off to war again, and say our economy is amazing.

Let's ration everything, reduce the standard of living, and claim we're advancing our economy.

By your logic, we could regress to third world status, have everyone employed, and eating minimal food, and as long as the numbers are higher, we're doing fantastic.

Reminds me of the Soviet Union, that while reporting ever greater advances, was marching towards economic collapse. In 1982, Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr after visiting the Soviet Union said "Those in the US who think the Soviet Union is on the verge of Social and Economic collapse... Are only kidding themselves.".

I have a better (much better) idea - stop the silly historic revisionism, stop reading politico fluff and spend more time reading up on economics from economists who have some pride in their profession.

Robert Higgs earned a Ph.D. in Economics from the Johns Hopkins University and has held teaching positions at the University of Washington, Lafayette College, and Seattle University. He has also been a visiting scholar at Oxford University and Stanford University. He held a visiting professorship at the University of Economics, Prague in 2006, and has supervised dissertations in the Ph.D. program at Universidad Francisco Marroquín, where he is currently an honorary professor of economics and history.

Without having real information supporting your position, I'll take his opinion, and that of the economists which have said the same thing, over some random internet poster.

 

[AntonToo]

Robert Higgs earned a Ph.D. in Economics from the Johns Hopkins University and has held teaching positions at the University of Washington, Lafayette College, and Seattle University. He has also been a visiting scholar at Oxford University and Stanford University. He held a visiting professorship at the University of Economics, Prague in 2006, and has supervised dissertations in the Ph.D. program at Universidad Francisco Marroquín, where he is currently an honorary professor of economics and history.

Without having real information supporting your position, I'll take his opinion, and that of the economists which have said the same thing, over some random internet poster.

And mrs.Poppins was a nanny. What the fuck is your point?

You made your argument why you don't think war effort improved economy, I explained to you why your point didn't make any sense. You proceeded to tell me about how wonderful mr.Higgs is. Tool much?

 

[Rshermr]

So let's round up all the men and ship them off to war again, and say our economy is amazing.

Let's ration everything, reduce the standard of living, and claim we're advancing our economy.

By your logic, we could regress to third world status, have everyone employed, and eating minimal food, and as long as the numbers are higher, we're doing fantastic.

Reminds me of the Soviet Union, that while reporting ever greater advances, was marching towards economic collapse. In 1982, Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr after visiting the Soviet Union said "Those in the US who think the Soviet Union is on the verge of Social and Economic collapse... Are only kidding themselves.".

I have a better (much better) idea - stop the silly historic revisionism, stop reading politico fluff and spend more time reading up on economics from economists who have some pride in their profession.

Robert Higgs earned a Ph.D. in Economics from the Johns Hopkins University and has held teaching positions at the University of Washington, Lafayette College, and Seattle University. He has also been a visiting scholar at Oxford University and Stanford University. He held a visiting professorship at the University of Economics, Prague in 2006, and has supervised dissertations in the Ph.D. program at Universidad Francisco Marroquín, where he is currently an honorary professor of economics and history.

Without having real information supporting your position, I'll take his opinion, and that of the economists which have said the same thing, over some random internet poster.

So, you want to use a Libertarian, who is a student and believer in the Austrian School of Economics, along with being a proponent of the New Institutional Economics and Buchanons Public Choice. Wow. Another far, far right nut case. And crooked as can be.
Here is the Source Watch report on the clown:
Robert Higgs

Robert Higgs is Senior Fellow in Political Economy for The Independent Institute (which took over the rump of the Cash for Comments Economists Network, and also the Editor of the Institute’s quarterly journal The Independent Review. The Independent Institute took over fronting the Cash for Comments Economists Network when its leader, Robert D Tollisonwas exposed as a tobacco shill, and its organiser, James M Savarese was transferred over to work on union bribery though the tobacco industry's Labor Management Committee. Higgs was only a minor lobbyist from the viewpoint of the network operations (although he clearly worked for the tobacco industry in other ways)

Higgs received his Ph.D. in economics from Johns Hopkins University, and he has taught at the University of Washington, Lafayette College, Seattle University, and the University of Economics, Prague. He has been a visiting scholar at Oxford University and Stanford University, and a fellow for the Hoover Institution and the National Science Foundation.

"Dr. Higgs is the editor of The Independent Institute books The Challenge of Liberty, Re-Thinking Green, Hazardous to Our Health? and Arms, Politics, and the Economy, plus the volume Emergence of the Modern Political Economy.
GMU is George Washington University, the Koch run college.
He is both an economic historian and libertarian economist who combines material from the GMU Public Choice Society, the New Institutional economics, and the Austrian Hayek/Mises school of economics. In general he promotes an extreme form of free-market deregulations, in political, legal theory and public policy.

"His authored books include Neither Liberty Nor Safety, Depression, War, and Cold War; Politická ekonomie strachu (The Political Economy of Fear, in Czech), Resurgence of the Warfare State; Against Leviathan, The Transformation of the American Economy 1865-1914; Competition and Coercion, and Crisis and Leviathan. A contributor to numerous scholarly volumes, he is the author of more than 100 articles and reviews in academic journals.

"Dr. Higgs has spoken at more than 100 colleges and universities and at the meetings of such professional organizations as the Economic History Association, Western Economic Association, Population Association of America, Southern Economic Association, International Economic History Congress, Public Choice Society, International Studies Association, Cliometric Society, Allied Social Sciences Association, American Political Science Association, American Historical Association, and others." [1]

The question is how many of these articles were written for poisoning and polluting corporations and industry advocacy organizations. We know that a significant number were written for the tobacco industry.
Robert Higgs - SourceWatch

Wow. Wonder if you would ever use an impartial source. Nah. Of course not, dipshit.

 

[Oldstyle]

What's laughable is Millard's claim that Sowell is only free to spout his claims because he's supported by a right wing think tank! I hate to break this to you, Anton but he was saying the same things back in the 70's when he was a college professor at Amherst.

Was he calling people Nazis back then too?

Look, if all you got to point to when it comes to question of economics is a rightwing hack who used to be an economist at a university 35 years ago then you really don't have much.

Thomas Sowell is a "rightwing hack"?

LOL

"After his discharge, Sowell worked a civil service job in Washington, D.C. and attended night classes at Howard University, a historically black college. His high scores on the College Board exams and recommendations by two professors helped him gain admission to Harvard University, where he graduated magna cum laude in 1958 with a Bachelor of Arts degree in economics.[4][8] He earned a Master's degree from Columbia University the following year." Wiki And then went on to receive a Phd from the University of Chicago!

"Sowell has taught economics at Howard University, Rutgers, Cornell, Brandeis University, Amherst College, and UCLA." Wiki

So all of these distinguished institutions hired a rightwing hack as a professor? Harvard, Columbia and the University of Chicago graduated a "hack"?

Yup. That would be the case. Institutions always look to hire a few from the dark side.
And, Sowell was not a "Amhurst" professor, as your list recognizes. He was at amhurst for about a year as a writer, and visiting professor.

You're right, Georgie...Thomas Sowell was not an "Amhurst" professor...he was an Amherst professor! Sowell was there for one semester and I was lucky enough to take one of his classes.

Hire from the dark side? Oh, you mean like Elizabeth Warren? Careful...little buddy your racist is showing!

 

[Oldstyle]

When Barry took office the national debt was I believe at around 10.8 trillion? When he leaves office it's estimated that the national debt will be over 20 trillion dollars. THAT is what I'm referring to.

I had a hunch that's what you were referring to. I just wanted you to confirm before I point out how rightarded you are.

That's "debt," not "spending," as you moronically claimed.

And while debt is the accumulation of spending excessive of revenues -- debt is not spending. As of now, Obama has increased the debt 83% (100% needed to add more debt than all other presidents combined). Bush increased it 86% and Reagan increased it 187% (well more than every president before him combined).

In terms of "spending" more than every president before him combined, Obama is not even close. Especially when using real figures.

So yes, you really are dumber than you appear. <smh>

Debt is not spending? Interesting concept. How do you incur debt without spending?

The deficit, or national debt, can occur with no spending. It is really so simple that I am surprised that even an idiot like you can not understand.
Lets say you have a banking account. Now, the change in that account can occur in two ways. You can spend it. Or you can stop putting in deposits. Got that simple idea, me boy.
Now, the deficit or surplus is made up that way. If you spend more than you take in, you get a larger deficit. Like every republican has for the past 50 years. You can decrease the deficit in two ways:1. Decrease spending, or 2. Increase revenues. If you decrease spending and increase revenues enough, you can create a surplus. Look it up. You can increase the deficit by doing the opposite.
The national debt, me boy, will ALWAYS increase when unemployment is high. As, for instance, when Reagan created a high unemployment level in 1982. Or with the great republican recession of 2008 when the ue rate went to 10%.

It is so simple that even a third degree equivalent person like you should be able to understand it. Though I know you would rather just lie.
Here are the spending numbers by president: (You know, the ones you do not want to talk about)
s
Now, I know graphs are pretty difficult for your stunted brain. But just try to understand that moving downward is less, moving upward is more. To simplify, the red bars represent republicans, and MORE spending. The Blue represents democrats, and LESS spending.

Interesting graph, Georgie! I love how W. gets all of 2009 on his plate.Yes, well that would be because spending is always part of a president's budget. So, I know this is too complicated for you, but 2009 was part of the George W. budget. And you are welcome for the education. When was Obama elected again? Same as always, elected the year before he took office. And always responsible for his budget that goes for the year after he leaves. Same for all the presidents, me boy. Most know that. Again you show how little you know about economics. I also love that your graph shows Ronald Reagan spending less than Bill Clinton for most of his time in office. I thought you claimed Ronnie was that big spender and Slick Willie wasn't?
I made no claim about Cinton. And I see you using another insulting name for a US President. Just proving your lack of class and integrity. You just lie, and lie, and lie. And continue to prove you are stupid. thanks for that. It's always fun to have you play.

So, another lesson for you, OS. Did you notice the National Debt became a Surplus under Clinton, before George W. gave it away? But still, Clinton raised spending. Because, again, the change in the National Debt is the total of receipts less spending. So, clinton managed to make receipts greater than spending.
Are you confused about other things? Perhaps I can help.

Oh God, now you think the National Debt became a surplus under Clinton? Every time I think you can't post something dumber than what you've already posted, Georgie...you out do yourself!

 

[Rshermr]

What's laughable is Millard's claim that Sowell is only free to spout his claims because he's supported by a right wing think tank! I hate to break this to you, Anton but he was saying the same things back in the 70's when he was a college professor at Amherst.

Was he calling people Nazis back then too?

Look, if all you got to point to when it comes to question of economics is a rightwing hack who used to be an economist at a university 35 years ago then you really don't have much.

Thomas Sowell is a "rightwing hack"?

LOL

"After his discharge, Sowell worked a civil service job in Washington, D.C. and attended night classes at Howard University, a historically black college. His high scores on the College Board exams and recommendations by two professors helped him gain admission to Harvard University, where he graduated magna cum laude in 1958 with a Bachelor of Arts degree in economics.[4][8] He earned a Master's degree from Columbia University the following year." Wiki And then went on to receive a Phd from the University of Chicago!

"Sowell has taught economics at Howard University, Rutgers, Cornell, Brandeis University, Amherst College, and UCLA." Wiki

So all of these distinguished institutions hired a rightwing hack as a professor? Harvard, Columbia and the University of Chicago graduated a "hack"?

Yup. That would be the case. Institutions always look to hire a few from the dark side.
And, Sowell was not a "Amhurst" professor, as your list recognizes. He was at amhurst for about a year as a writer, and visiting professor.

You're right, Georgie...Thomas Sowell was not an "Amhurst" professor...he was an Amherst professor! Sowell was there for one semester and I was lucky enough to take one of his classes.

Hire from the dark side? Oh, you mean like Elizabeth Warren? Careful...little buddy your racist is showing!

Really, me boy. When I say hire from the dark side, I have the confidence that no one but a stupid con troll would equate that to a race of people. But shows more of your makeup. A southern con troll. Eh.

 

[Rshermr]

I had a hunch that's what you were referring to. I just wanted you to confirm before I point out how rightarded you are.

That's "debt," not "spending," as you moronically claimed.

And while debt is the accumulation of spending excessive of revenues -- debt is not spending. As of now, Obama has increased the debt 83% (100% needed to add more debt than all other presidents combined). Bush increased it 86% and Reagan increased it 187% (well more than every president before him combined).

In terms of "spending" more than every president before him combined, Obama is not even close. Especially when using real figures.

So yes, you really are dumber than you appear. <smh>

Debt is not spending? Interesting concept. How do you incur debt without spending?

The deficit, or national debt, can occur with no spending. It is really so simple that I am surprised that even an idiot like you can not understand.
Lets say you have a banking account. Now, the change in that account can occur in two ways. You can spend it. Or you can stop putting in deposits. Got that simple idea, me boy.
Now, the deficit or surplus is made up that way. If you spend more than you take in, you get a larger deficit. Like every republican has for the past 50 years. You can decrease the deficit in two ways:1. Decrease spending, or 2. Increase revenues. If you decrease spending and increase revenues enough, you can create a surplus. Look it up. You can increase the deficit by doing the opposite.
The national debt, me boy, will ALWAYS increase when unemployment is high. As, for instance, when Reagan created a high unemployment level in 1982. Or with the great republican recession of 2008 when the ue rate went to 10%.

It is so simple that even a third degree equivalent person like you should be able to understand it. Though I know you would rather just lie.
Here are the spending numbers by president: (You know, the ones you do not want to talk about)
s
Now, I know graphs are pretty difficult for your stunted brain. But just try to understand that moving downward is less, moving upward is more. To simplify, the red bars represent republicans, and MORE spending. The Blue represents democrats, and LESS spending.

Interesting graph, Georgie! I love how W. gets all of 2009 on his plate.Yes, well that would be because spending is always part of a president's budget. So, I know this is too complicated for you, but 2009 was part of the George W. budget. And you are welcome for the education. When was Obama elected again? Same as always, elected the year before he took office. And always responsible for his budget that goes for the year after he leaves. Same for all the presidents, me boy. Most know that. Again you show how little you know about economics. I also love that your graph shows Ronald Reagan spending less than Bill Clinton for most of his time in office. I thought you claimed Ronnie was that big spender and Slick Willie wasn't?
I made no claim about Cinton. And I see you using another insulting name for a US President. Just proving your lack of class and integrity. You just lie, and lie, and lie. And continue to prove you are stupid. thanks for that. It's always fun to have you play.

So, another lesson for you, OS. Did you notice the National Debt became a Surplus under Clinton, before George W. gave it away? But still, Clinton raised spending. Because, again, the change in the National Debt is the total of receipts less spending. So, clinton managed to make receipts greater than spending.
Are you confused about other things? Perhaps I can help.

Oh God, now you think the National Debt became a surplus under Clinton? Every time I think you can't post something dumber than what you've already posted, Georgie...you out do yourself!

And here you have been telling us what an important guy you are. But really, you just proof check stuff. We paid minimum wage for that function. But thanks, dipshit.
So, three posts by oldstyle. Two proofing checks, and one stupid statement regarding race. Got it, oldstyle. You are, I am sure, afraid to post economics because you do not want your posts shoved back down your stupid throat. Good idea. Keep to the stuff you have some ability to do, and away from economics. Much more safe for con trolls.
And, what the hell. Everyone has learned you are a simpleton food services guy with no ability to carry on a conversation, just an ability to lie like crazy.

 

[Oldstyle]

What's laughable is Millard's claim that Sowell is only free to spout his claims because he's supported by a right wing think tank! I hate to break this to you, Anton but he was saying the same things back in the 70's when he was a college professor at Amherst.

Was he calling people Nazis back then too?

Look, if all you got to point to when it comes to question of economics is a rightwing hack who used to be an economist at a university 35 years ago then you really don't have much.

Thomas Sowell is a "rightwing hack"?

LOL

"After his discharge, Sowell worked a civil service job in Washington, D.C. and attended night classes at Howard University, a historically black college. His high scores on the College Board exams and recommendations by two professors helped him gain admission to Harvard University, where he graduated magna cum laude in 1958 with a Bachelor of Arts degree in economics.[4][8] He earned a Master's degree from Columbia University the following year." Wiki And then went on to receive a Phd from the University of Chicago!

"Sowell has taught economics at Howard University, Rutgers, Cornell, Brandeis University, Amherst College, and UCLA." Wiki

So all of these distinguished institutions hired a rightwing hack as a professor? Harvard, Columbia and the University of Chicago graduated a "hack"?

Yup. That would be the case. Institutions always look to hire a few from the dark side.
And, Sowell was not a "Amhurst" professor, as your list recognizes. He was at amhurst for about a year as a writer, and visiting professor.

You're right, Georgie...Thomas Sowell was not an "Amhurst" professor...he was an Amherst professor! Sowell was there for one semester and I was lucky enough to take one of his classes.

Hire from the dark side? Oh, you mean like Elizabeth Warren? Careful...little buddy your racist is showing!

Really, me boy. When I say hire from the dark side, I have the confidence that no one but a stupid con troll would equate that to a race of people. But shows more of your makeup. A southern con troll. Eh.

I'm from Massachusetts. Doh!

 

[Oldstyle]

Debt is not spending? Interesting concept. How do you incur debt without spending?

The deficit, or national debt, can occur with no spending. It is really so simple that I am surprised that even an idiot like you can not understand.
Lets say you have a banking account. Now, the change in that account can occur in two ways. You can spend it. Or you can stop putting in deposits. Got that simple idea, me boy.
Now, the deficit or surplus is made up that way. If you spend more than you take in, you get a larger deficit. Like every republican has for the past 50 years. You can decrease the deficit in two ways:1. Decrease spending, or 2. Increase revenues. If you decrease spending and increase revenues enough, you can create a surplus. Look it up. You can increase the deficit by doing the opposite.
The national debt, me boy, will ALWAYS increase when unemployment is high. As, for instance, when Reagan created a high unemployment level in 1982. Or with the great republican recession of 2008 when the ue rate went to 10%.

It is so simple that even a third degree equivalent person like you should be able to understand it. Though I know you would rather just lie.
Here are the spending numbers by president: (You know, the ones you do not want to talk about)
s
Now, I know graphs are pretty difficult for your stunted brain. But just try to understand that moving downward is less, moving upward is more. To simplify, the red bars represent republicans, and MORE spending. The Blue represents democrats, and LESS spending.

Interesting graph, Georgie! I love how W. gets all of 2009 on his plate.Yes, well that would be because spending is always part of a president's budget. So, I know this is too complicated for you, but 2009 was part of the George W. budget. And you are welcome for the education. When was Obama elected again? Same as always, elected the year before he took office. And always responsible for his budget that goes for the year after he leaves. Same for all the presidents, me boy. Most know that. Again you show how little you know about economics. I also love that your graph shows Ronald Reagan spending less than Bill Clinton for most of his time in office. I thought you claimed Ronnie was that big spender and Slick Willie wasn't?
I made no claim about Cinton. And I see you using another insulting name for a US President. Just proving your lack of class and integrity. You just lie, and lie, and lie. And continue to prove you are stupid. thanks for that. It's always fun to have you play.

So, another lesson for you, OS. Did you notice the National Debt became a Surplus under Clinton, before George W. gave it away? But still, Clinton raised spending. Because, again, the change in the National Debt is the total of receipts less spending. So, clinton managed to make receipts greater than spending.
Are you confused about other things? Perhaps I can help.

Oh God, now you think the National Debt became a surplus under Clinton? Every time I think you can't post something dumber than what you've already posted, Georgie...you out do yourself!

And here you have been telling us what an important guy you are. But really, you just proof check stuff. We paid minimum wage for that function. But thanks, dipshit.
So, three posts by oldstyle. Two proofing checks, and one stupid statement regarding race. Got it, oldstyle. You are, I am sure, afraid to post economics because you do not want your posts shoved back down your stupid throat. Good idea. Keep to the stuff you have some ability to do, and away from economics. Much more safe for con trolls.
And, what the hell. Everyone has learned you are a simpleton food services guy with no ability to carry on a conversation, just an ability to lie like crazy.

Strange how a "simpleton food services guy" knows that Bill Clinton didn't turn the National Debt into a surplus...but you don't have a clue! You keep babbling on about wanting to discuss economics, Georgie...but every time you try to do that you say something REALLY stupid like that!

 

[Oldstyle]

Proof check? What are you babbling about now, Georgie?

proof check

Definitions
Sorry, no definitions found.

Etymologies
Sorry, no etymologies found.

 

[Markle]

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

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

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

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

Why can't you understand this simple concept?

Just like saying there is no difference between an apple and an artichoke. You're quite a joke.

 

[Markle]

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

...WTF is wrong with you?

I just showed that the number came from CBO, so wtf makes you think you can just turm around and claim that it was created by the administration???

You are seriously insane.

The CBO takes the numbers that it is given and crunches them to give an estimate. When you give them skewed numbers then you will get a skewed estimate. Which is exactly the way the Obama Administration used the CBO.

You're 100% correct.

The CBO is nothing more than a bloated, $5.00 calculator. The agency requesting the analysis provides all the numbers, ALL THE NUMBERS. They provide the growth rate, interest rate, number of people involved etc., etc., etc.. They cannot change one thing, nothing. They can't say that a 5% GDP rate for the next five years is crazy so we're changing it to 2% Ten million young, healthy people will not join, it will be more like four million.

It is no different than all computers. GIGO! Garbage In, Garbage Out.

 

[Markle]

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

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

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

The Obama administration used the term saved or create from the very first day they released their plan to the public. You are lying (again) when you claim they only added "saved" as an after thought because you think they created just a few new jobs.

You've been shown this before so for you to claim it again is nothing short of you bald-faced lying.... again.

First administration in history to make up the term and even THEY won't explain how it is supposed to be found.

 

[Markle]

Still pushing the false narrative that Reagan was a "tax and spend" Republican, Georgie?

Speaking of spending.... I'm still waiting to see the numbers you're referencing when you said Obama is on track to spend more than every prior president combined.....

When Barry took office the national debt was I believe at around 10.8 trillion? When he leaves office it's estimated that the national debt will be over 20 trillion dollars. THAT is what I'm referring to.

I had a hunch that's what you were referring to. I just wanted you to confirm before I point out how rightarded you are.

That's "debt," not "spending," as you moronically claimed.

And while debt is the accumulation of spending excessive of revenues -- debt is not spending. As of now, Obama has increased the debt 83% (100% needed to add more debt than all other presidents combined). Bush increased it 86% and Reagan increased it 187% (well more than every president before him combined).

In terms of "spending" more than every president before him combined, Obama is not even close. Especially when using real figures.

So yes, you really are dumber than you appear. <smh>

Debt is not spending? Interesting concept. How do you incur debt without spending?

The deficit, or national debt, can occur with no spending. It is really so simple that I am surprised that even an idiot like you can not understand.
Lets say you have a banking account. Now, the change in that account can occur in two ways. You can spend it. Or you can stop putting in deposits. Got that simple idea, me boy.
Now, the deficit or surplus is made up that way. If you spend more than you take in, you get a larger deficit. Like every republican has for the past 50 years. You can decrease the deficit in two ways:1. Decrease spending, or 2. Increase revenues. If you decrease spending and increase revenues enough, you can create a surplus. Look it up. You can increase the deficit by doing the opposite.
The national debt, me boy, will ALWAYS increase when unemployment is high. As, for instance, when Reagan created a high unemployment level in 1982. Or with the great republican recession of 2008 when the ue rate went to 10%.

It is so simple that even a third degree equivalent person like you should be able to understand it. Though I know you would rather just lie.
Here are the spending numbers by president: (You know, the ones you do not want to talk about)


Now, I know graphs are pretty difficult for your stunted brain. But just try to understand that moving downward is less, moving upward is more. To simplify, the red bars represent republicans, and MORE spending. The Blue represents democrats, and LESS spending.

 

[Faun]

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

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

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

The Obama administration used the term saved or create from the very first day they released their plan to the public. You are lying (again) when you claim they only added "saved" as an after thought because you think they created just a few new jobs.

You've been shown this before so for you to claim it again is nothing short of you bald-faced lying.... again.

First administration in history to make up the term and even THEY won't explain how it is supposed to be found.

Dayam! You and Oldstyle are like stupid in stereo.

Here are at least three examples of the Bush administration using the term you moronically claim wasn't used until the Obama administration....

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."​

 

[Markle]

It is always interesting when someone calls obama a fascist, and a socialist. SDumbest thing ever. You really can not be both. The two are polar opposites. Proving Sowell to be a hack, assuming he never says anything else.

 

[Oldstyle]

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

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

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

The Obama administration used the term saved or create from the very first day they released their plan to the public. You are lying (again) when you claim they only added "saved" as an after thought because you think they created just a few new jobs.

You've been shown this before so for you to claim it again is nothing short of you bald-faced lying.... again.

First administration in history to make up the term and even THEY won't explain how it is supposed to be found.

Actually Faun's right, they were using that term at the Department of Agriculture under Bush. Of course they weren't using it as an entire Administration to hide poor job creation numbers from the public. The liars at the USDA appear to have used the "jobs saved" thing to make their accomplishments seem more impressive than they were! Which makes the people at the USDA just as big a bunch of liars then as the Obama Administration is now!

I guess I was giving the Obama people more credit than they deserved, Markle! I thought they came up with the "jobs saved" scam all by themselves...but it turns out they just stole the idea from those people at the USDA and took it to a whole new level!

 

[AntonToo]

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

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

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

The Obama administration used the term saved or create from the very first day they released their plan to the public. You are lying (again) when you claim they only added "saved" as an after thought because you think they created just a few new jobs.

You've been shown this before so for you to claim it again is nothing short of you bald-faced lying.... again.

First administration in history to make up the term and even THEY won't explain how it is supposed to be found.

Actually Faun's right, they were using that term at the Department of Agriculture under Bush. Of course they weren't using it as an entire Administration to hide poor job creation numbers from the public. The liars at the USDA appear to have used the "jobs saved" thing to make their accomplishments seem more impressive than they were! Which makes the people at the USDA just as big a bunch of liars then as the Obama Administration is now!

I guess I was giving the Obama people more credit than they deserved, Markle! I thought they came up with the "jobs saved" scam all by themselves...but it turns out they just stole the idea from those people at the USDA and took it to a whole new level!

This is the problem I was talking about. I explained to you ten different ways that there isn't way to differentiate jobs saved from job gained in macroeconomic effect estimates and that the two terms mean exactly same effect from that perspective. BUT, you just CAN'T get it.

Ignorance is one thing, but what you got is much worse, you've got a bad case of stupid.