US Jobless claims fall to 4 decade low

[Rshermr]

[/QUOTE] [/QUOTE]
Oldstyle, the con troll, says:
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![/QUOTE]
Not the National Debt, of course, You are picking on my error in wording. Which was my mistake. What I meant to say was that Clinton had a Budget Surplus, which no other president had in the previous 30 years.
So, did Clinton have a budget surplus, or a budget deficit like all the republican presidents for the 1970's until today? Lets look at the record:

The three best charts on how Clinton’s surpluses became Bush and Obama’s deficits
By Ezra Klein September 5, 2012

There's a reason Bill Clinton is on the stage tonight. When he was president, America enjoyed a booming economy and surpluses (here are some charts). Since he left the White House, things haven't been quite as good.

But the story of why they haven't been quite as good is more complicated than "Clinton isn't around now." Here are three of the best analyses of what's happened to the federal budget since 2001. I've included the key paragraph and chart from each of them.

The Pew Fiscal Analysis Initiative: "Between 2001 and 2011, about two-thirds (68 percent) of the $12.7 trillion growth in federal debt has been due to new legislation. Forty percent of this legislative growth was the result of tax cuts enacted after January 2001, and 60 percent resulted from spending increases. Technical and economic revisions combined caused about one quarter (27 percent) of the growth, and changes in other means of financing accounted for 6 percent.

The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities: "If not for the Bush tax cuts, the deficit-financed wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the effects of the worst recession since the Great Depression (including the cost of policymakers’ actions to combat it), we would not be facing these huge deficits in the near term. By themselves, in fact, the Bush tax cuts and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan will account for almost half of the $20 trillion in debt that, under current policies, the nation will owe by 2019. The stimulus law and financial rescues will account for less than 10 percent of the debt at that time."

All of these analyses are using data from the Congressional Budget Office, and all of them are telling the same basic story. But they explain it in slightly different ways.

All agree that the projections in 2001 were simply wrong. They didn't see that the tech bubble was about to pop, and they definitely didn't foresee the economy falling off a cliff in 2008. That alone accounts, in all the papers, for about a quarter of the deterioration.

The place where you see real differences is in how the papers account for the role of legislation and policy in piling up the debt.
The three best charts on how Clinton’s surpluses became Bush and Obama’s deficits
So, there you go, me con troll. An actual impartial source with a link. You don't get to use them because you are trying to prove a lie.
My goodness, Oldstyle. Surpluses by clinton and most of the national debt by REPUBICANS and republican economic policies.
Maybe we should try another impartial source, to make sure you are the liar you appear to be:
In 1998, the United States achieved its first federal budget surplus in three decades (the final two years of Clinton’s presidency also resulted in budget surpluses).
Bill Clinton - U.S. Presidents - HISTORY.com
So the fact that you are just a food services employee does indeed not work well for ypu. And my 45 year old ba in economics did indeed hold up, though that was really very easy.
Lets check the score on proof of statements:
OLDSTYLE
No references, no links
RSHERMR
2 (TWO) references, 2 (TWO) Links
In this debate, Oldstyle looses again, but did waste peoples time with lies.

 

[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!

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.

Ignorance? You mean like insisting that jobs created is the same thing as jobs created or saved? That kind of ignorance? Of course there is a way to differentiated between the two! You refuse to do so because it would mean admitting that the Obama Administration was conning the American people each and every time they used that statistic.

 

[Oldstyle]

[/QUOTE]
Oldstyle, the con troll, says:
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![/QUOTE]
Not the National Debt, of course, You are picking on my error in wording. Which was my mistake. What I meant to say was that Clinton had a Budget Surplus, which no other president had in the previous 30 years.
So, did Clinton have a budget surplus, or a budget deficit like all the republican presidents for the 1970's until today? Lets look at the record:

The three best charts on how Clinton’s surpluses became Bush and Obama’s deficits
By Ezra Klein September 5, 2012

There's a reason Bill Clinton is on the stage tonight. When he was president, America enjoyed a booming economy and surpluses (here are some charts). Since he left the White House, things haven't been quite as good.

But the story of why they haven't been quite as good is more complicated than "Clinton isn't around now." Here are three of the best analyses of what's happened to the federal budget since 2001. I've included the key paragraph and chart from each of them.

The Pew Fiscal Analysis Initiative: "Between 2001 and 2011, about two-thirds (68 percent) of the $12.7 trillion growth in federal debt has been due to new legislation. Forty percent of this legislative growth was the result of tax cuts enacted after January 2001, and 60 percent resulted from spending increases. Technical and economic revisions combined caused about one quarter (27 percent) of the growth, and changes in other means of financing accounted for 6 percent.

The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities: "If not for the Bush tax cuts, the deficit-financed wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the effects of the worst recession since the Great Depression (including the cost of policymakers’ actions to combat it), we would not be facing these huge deficits in the near term. By themselves, in fact, the Bush tax cuts and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan will account for almost half of the $20 trillion in debt that, under current policies, the nation will owe by 2019. The stimulus law and financial rescues will account for less than 10 percent of the debt at that time."

All of these analyses are using data from the Congressional Budget Office, and all of them are telling the same basic story. But they explain it in slightly different ways.

All agree that the projections in 2001 were simply wrong. They didn't see that the tech bubble was about to pop, and they definitely didn't foresee the economy falling off a cliff in 2008. That alone accounts, in all the papers, for about a quarter of the deterioration.

The place where you see real differences is in how the papers account for the role of legislation and policy in piling up the debt.
The three best charts on how Clinton’s surpluses became Bush and Obama’s deficits
So, there you go, me con troll. An actual impartial source with a link. You don't get to use them because you are trying to prove a lie.
My goodness, Oldstyle. Surpluses by clinton and most of the national debt by REPUBICANS and republican economic policies.
Maybe we should try another impartial source, to make sure you are the liar you appear to be:
In 1998, the United States achieved its first federal budget surplus in three decades (the final two years of Clinton’s presidency also resulted in budget surpluses).
Bill Clinton - U.S. Presidents - HISTORY.com
So the fact that you are just a food services employee does indeed not work well for ypu. And my 45 year old ba in economics did indeed hold up, though that was really very easy.
Lets check the score on proof of statements:
OLDSTYLE
No references, no links
RSHERMR
2 (TWO) references, 2 (TWO) Links
In this debate, Oldstyle looses again, but did waste peoples time with lies.



[/QUOTE]

God but you're an idiot! You don't know the difference between a budget surplus and the National debt...do you? Why don't you just take a blue Sharpie and write on your forehead "I'm clueless when it comes to economics!!!"

 

[AntonToo]

Ignorance? You mean like insisting that jobs created is the same thing as jobs created or saved? That kind of ignorance? Of course there is a way to differentiated between the two! You refuse to do so because it would mean admitting that the Obama Administration was conning the American people each and every time they used that statistic.

That's pretty much the expected response given that you don't have capacity to understand why it is NOT POSSIBLE for macroeconomic estimate to tell a job saved from a job created.

You just can't understand that simple concept, so you keep posting the stupid nonsence that you do, keep proving that time is wasted trying to respond to you.

 

[Oldstyle]

Fiscal
Year Year
Ending National Debt Deficit
FY1993 09/30/1993 $4.411488 trillion
FY1994 09/30/1994 $4.692749 trillion $281.26 billion
FY1995 09/29/1995 $4.973982 trillion $281.23 billion
FY1996 09/30/1996 $5.224810 trillion $250.83 billion
FY1997 09/30/1997 $5.413146 trillion $188.34 billion
FY1998 09/30/1998 $5.526193 trillion $113.05 billion
FY1999 09/30/1999 $5.656270 trillion $130.08 billion
FY2000 09/29/2000 $5.674178 trillion $17.91 billion
FY2001 09/28/2001 $5.807463 trillion $133.29 billion

Fiscal
Year End
Date Claimed
Surplus Public
Debt Intra-gov
Holdings Total National
Debt
FY1997 09/30/1997 $3.789667T $1.623478T $5.413146T
FY1998 09/30/1998 $69.2B $3.733864T

$55.8B $1.792328T

$168.9B $5.526193T

$113B
FY1999 09/30/1999 $122.7B $3.636104T

$97.8B $2.020166T

$227.8B $5.656270T

$130.1B
FY2000 09/29/2000 $230.0B $3.405303T

$230.8B $2.268874T

$248.7B $5.674178T

$17.9B
FY2001 09/28/2001 $3.339310T

$66.0B $2.468153T

$199.3B $5.807463T

$133.3B

Show me a surplus in the National Debt under Clinton! It never happened.

What went down under Clinton was the "Public Debt" and the only reason that happened was because the Dot Com Boom put so much money into Social Security which is required by law to take any surpluses it has and buy US government securities. Intergovernmental debt skyrocketed under Clinton but you liberals don't count that debt against Clinton's "surplus". The national debt most definitely did not get paid down because we did not have a surplus. The government just covered its deficit by borrowing money from Social Security rather than the public.

 

[Oldstyle]

Ignorance? You mean like insisting that jobs created is the same thing as jobs created or saved? That kind of ignorance? Of course there is a way to differentiated between the two! You refuse to do so because it would mean admitting that the Obama Administration was conning the American people each and every time they used that statistic.

That's pretty much the expected response given that you don't have capacity to understand why it is NOT POSSIBLE for macroeconomic estimate to tell a job saved from a job created.

You just can't understand that simple concept, so you keep posting the stupid nonsence that you do, keep proving that time is wasted trying to respond to you.

What's NOT POSSIBLE is to calculate an accurate estimate of "jobs saved" which is EXACTLY why the Obama Administration used it.

 

[Rshermr]

"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!

Funny, Oldstyle A liar (you) calling an organization of civil servants liars, with no proof at all. 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!

Jesus, Oldstyle. You are a really stupid con troll. The CBO is made up of civil servants and are considered impartial by republicans and democrats. The BLS is the same. Both say that jobs saved is a valid concept.
Others include:
The Federal Reserve of St. Louis
https://research.stlouisfed.org/publications/review/2014/q2/dupor.pdf

FACTCHECK.ORG
Stimulus Jobs, Re-revisited

AND MANY OTHERS.

So, it is you with no economists or researchers working for you, and who is completely agenda driven, versus many organizations with teams of researchers and economists working for them. So, what have you to offer:
1. You offer no source with a link to prove anything you say. The others do in all cases.
2. You have NO resources except conservative talking points which you do not reference. They all have lots of resources, monetary and personal.
3. The sources are impartial. You are a con troll.
4. The sources say jobs saved is real. You say it is a lie.
5. They have expertise, particularly economists. You are a simple food services employee with a couple classes in economics a long time ago.

Uh, you loose. Five to Zero. The obvious, me poor lying con troll, is that you are simply trying to sell snake oil again, with NO impartial sources.

 

[Oldstyle]

Which is why neither you...nor Faun...nor Georgie...will ever present me with an economic formula used to determine "Jobs created or saved"!

 

[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!

Funny, Oldstyle A liar (you) calling an organization of civil servants liars, with no proof at all. 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!

Jesus, Oldstyle. You are a really stupid con troll. The CBO is made up of civil servants and are considered impartial by republicans and democrats. The BLS is the same. Both say that jobs saved is a valid concept.
Others include:
The Federal Reserve of St. Louis
https://research.stlouisfed.org/publications/review/2014/q2/dupor.pdf

FACTCHECK.ORG
Stimulus Jobs, Re-revisited

AND MANY OTHERS.

So, it is you with no economists or researchers working for you, and who is completely agenda driven, versus many organizations with teams of researchers and economists working for them. So, what have you to offer:
1. You offer no source with a link to prove anything you say. The others do in all cases.
2. You have NO resources except conservative talking points which you do not reference. They all have lots of resources, monetary and personal.
3. The sources are impartial. You are a con troll.
4. The sources say jobs saved is real. You say it is a lie.
5. They have expertise, particularly economists. You are a simple food services employee with a couple classes in economics a long time ago.

Uh, you loose. Five to Zero. The obvious, me poor lying con troll, is that you are simply trying to sell snake oil again, with NO impartial sources.

Until you can show me a viable formula that one would USE to determine "jobs saved" then you can bluster all you want, Georgie but that's all it is...bluster! The "lie" here is the statistic itself. It's something used to hide economic reality rather than reveal it.

 

[Rshermr]

Fiscal
Year Year
Ending National Debt Deficit
FY1993 09/30/1993 $4.411488 trillion
FY1994 09/30/1994 $4.692749 trillion $281.26 billion
FY1995 09/29/1995 $4.973982 trillion $281.23 billion
FY1996 09/30/1996 $5.224810 trillion $250.83 billion
FY1997 09/30/1997 $5.413146 trillion $188.34 billion
FY1998 09/30/1998 $5.526193 trillion $113.05 billion
FY1999 09/30/1999 $5.656270 trillion $130.08 billion
FY2000 09/29/2000 $5.674178 trillion $17.91 billion
FY2001 09/28/2001 $5.807463 trillion $133.29 billion

Fiscal
Year End
Date Claimed
Surplus Public
Debt Intra-gov
Holdings Total National
Debt
FY1997 09/30/1997 $3.789667T $1.623478T $5.413146T
FY1998 09/30/1998 $69.2B $3.733864T

$55.8B $1.792328T

$168.9B $5.526193T

$113B
FY1999 09/30/1999 $122.7B $3.636104T

$97.8B $2.020166T

$227.8B $5.656270T

$130.1B
FY2000 09/29/2000 $230.0B $3.405303T

$230.8B $2.268874T

$248.7B $5.674178T

$17.9B
FY2001 09/28/2001 $3.339310T

$66.0B $2.468153T

$199.3B $5.807463T

$133.3B

Show me a surplus in the National Debt under Clinton! It never happened.

What went down under Clinton was the "Public Debt" and the only reason that happened was because the Dot Com Boom put so much money into Social Security which is required by law to take any surpluses it has and buy US government securities. Intergovernmental debt skyrocketed under Clinton but you liberals don't count that debt against Clinton's "surplus". The national debt most definitely did not get paid down because we did not have a surplus. The government just covered its deficit by borrowing money from Social Security rather than the public.

Yes, it did. And, so did the budget, becoming a surplus, dipshit.
Wow. How to lie with statistics?
The surplus or deficit does not refer to the national debt. It refers to the budget for a particular year. No one, me poor ignorant con troll, claimed that the national debt had become a surplus. As you know. The Budget was never a surplus for the preceding 30 years, or since that time. Making you a liar again. You are saying someone stated that Clinton had a surplus in the National Debt, which is a lie.

Again, you produced numbers with no link to where they came from. And congratulations, you produced the worst and hardest to read used to be tables ever. Jesus, you are a clown. Complete with no link so that you can not see what was actual.

thanks again for proving yourself to be a liar.

 

[Rshermr]

Which is why neither you...nor Faun...nor Georgie...will ever present me with an economic formula used to determine "Jobs created or saved"!

Nope. Because you lied, and failed to live up to your word to provide the bill. As you know. Liar.

 

[Oldstyle]

Fiscal
Year Year
Ending National Debt Deficit
FY1993 09/30/1993 $4.411488 trillion
FY1994 09/30/1994 $4.692749 trillion $281.26 billion
FY1995 09/29/1995 $4.973982 trillion $281.23 billion
FY1996 09/30/1996 $5.224810 trillion $250.83 billion
FY1997 09/30/1997 $5.413146 trillion $188.34 billion
FY1998 09/30/1998 $5.526193 trillion $113.05 billion
FY1999 09/30/1999 $5.656270 trillion $130.08 billion
FY2000 09/29/2000 $5.674178 trillion $17.91 billion
FY2001 09/28/2001 $5.807463 trillion $133.29 billion

Fiscal
Year End
Date Claimed
Surplus Public
Debt Intra-gov
Holdings Total National
Debt
FY1997 09/30/1997 $3.789667T $1.623478T $5.413146T
FY1998 09/30/1998 $69.2B $3.733864T

$55.8B $1.792328T

$168.9B $5.526193T

$113B
FY1999 09/30/1999 $122.7B $3.636104T

$97.8B $2.020166T

$227.8B $5.656270T

$130.1B
FY2000 09/29/2000 $230.0B $3.405303T

$230.8B $2.268874T

$248.7B $5.674178T

$17.9B
FY2001 09/28/2001 $3.339310T

$66.0B $2.468153T

$199.3B $5.807463T

$133.3B

Show me a surplus in the National Debt under Clinton! It never happened.

What went down under Clinton was the "Public Debt" and the only reason that happened was because the Dot Com Boom put so much money into Social Security which is required by law to take any surpluses it has and buy US government securities. Intergovernmental debt skyrocketed under Clinton but you liberals don't count that debt against Clinton's "surplus". The national debt most definitely did not get paid down because we did not have a surplus. The government just covered its deficit by borrowing money from Social Security rather than the public.

Yes, it did. And, so did the budget, becoming a surplus, dipshit.
Wow. How to lie with statistics?
The surplus or deficit does not refer to the national debt. It refers to the budget for a particular year. No one, me poor ignorant con troll, claimed that the national debt had become a surplus. As you know. The Budget was never a surplus for the preceding 30 years, or since that time. Making you a liar again. You are saying someone stated that Clinton had a surplus in the National Debt, which is a lie.

Again, you produced numbers with no link to where they came from. And congratulations, you produced the worst and hardest to read used to be tables ever. Jesus, you are a clown. Complete with no link so that you can not see what was actual.

thanks again for proving yourself to be a liar.

You're the one who made that claim! Do you want me to pull up your post?

#2369
"So, another lesson for you, OS. Did you notice the National Debt became a Surplus under Clinton, before George W. gave it away?"

Who's the liar?

 

[Oldstyle]

Which is why neither you...nor Faun...nor Georgie...will ever present me with an economic formula used to determine "Jobs created or saved"!

Nope. Because you lied, and failed to live up to your word to provide the bill. As you know. Liar.

That's keeping Faun and Anton from providing the formula? None of you can come up with it, Georgie because it doesn't exist and every time you come here and pretend that it does...you're lying through your teeth!

 

[Rshermr]

"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!

Funny, Oldstyle A liar (you) calling an organization of civil servants liars, with no proof at all. 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!

Jesus, Oldstyle. You are a really stupid con troll. The CBO is made up of civil servants and are considered impartial by republicans and democrats. The BLS is the same. Both say that jobs saved is a valid concept.
Others include:
The Federal Reserve of St. Louis
https://research.stlouisfed.org/publications/review/2014/q2/dupor.pdf

FACTCHECK.ORG
Stimulus Jobs, Re-revisited

AND MANY OTHERS.

So, it is you with no economists or researchers working for you, and who is completely agenda driven, versus many organizations with teams of researchers and economists working for them. So, what have you to offer:
1. You offer no source with a link to prove anything you say. The others do in all cases.
2. You have NO resources except conservative talking points which you do not reference. They all have lots of resources, monetary and personal.
3. The sources are impartial. You are a con troll.
4. The sources say jobs saved is real. You say it is a lie.
5. They have expertise, particularly economists. You are a simple food services employee with a couple classes in economics a long time ago.

Uh, you loose. Five to Zero. The obvious, me poor lying con troll, is that you are simply trying to sell snake oil again, with NO impartial sources.

Until you can show me a viable formula that one would USE to determine "jobs saved" then you can bluster all you want, Georgie but that's all it is...bluster! The "lie" here is the statistic itself. It's something used to hide economic reality rather than reveal it.

So, let me try to understand this. Lets take it by the numbers:
1. In exchange for the formula, you promised to provide the bill which republicans used to aleviate the problems created by the Great Republican Recession. YOU HAVE REFUSED TO DO SO.
2. Since you failed to keep your word, you have NOTHING coming.
3. You are showing no honor by demanding something you now have no right to.
4. You say that because you do not have a formula, that all the organizations with economists and researchers that say jobs saved is a valid concept and did occur are LYING.
5. You have no source backing up your contention that anyone was lying.
6. You are not an economic expert, just a food services employee. You need sources but have none.
7. It is illogical to say no jobs were saved as jobs lost went from hundreds of thousands per month to jobs increased by hundreds of thousands per month.
8. You are a con troll, and a clown wasting people's time.

 

[Rshermr]

Fiscal
Year Year
Ending National Debt Deficit
FY1993 09/30/1993 $4.411488 trillion
FY1994 09/30/1994 $4.692749 trillion $281.26 billion
FY1995 09/29/1995 $4.973982 trillion $281.23 billion
FY1996 09/30/1996 $5.224810 trillion $250.83 billion
FY1997 09/30/1997 $5.413146 trillion $188.34 billion
FY1998 09/30/1998 $5.526193 trillion $113.05 billion
FY1999 09/30/1999 $5.656270 trillion $130.08 billion
FY2000 09/29/2000 $5.674178 trillion $17.91 billion
FY2001 09/28/2001 $5.807463 trillion $133.29 billion

Fiscal
Year End
Date Claimed
Surplus Public
Debt Intra-gov
Holdings Total National
Debt
FY1997 09/30/1997 $3.789667T $1.623478T $5.413146T
FY1998 09/30/1998 $69.2B $3.733864T

$55.8B $1.792328T

$168.9B $5.526193T

$113B
FY1999 09/30/1999 $122.7B $3.636104T

$97.8B $2.020166T

$227.8B $5.656270T

$130.1B
FY2000 09/29/2000 $230.0B $3.405303T

$230.8B $2.268874T

$248.7B $5.674178T

$17.9B
FY2001 09/28/2001 $3.339310T

$66.0B $2.468153T

$199.3B $5.807463T

$133.3B

Show me a surplus in the National Debt under Clinton! It never happened.

What went down under Clinton was the "Public Debt" and the only reason that happened was because the Dot Com Boom put so much money into Social Security which is required by law to take any surpluses it has and buy US government securities. Intergovernmental debt skyrocketed under Clinton but you liberals don't count that debt against Clinton's "surplus". The national debt most definitely did not get paid down because we did not have a surplus. The government just covered its deficit by borrowing money from Social Security rather than the public.

Yes, it did. And, so did the budget, becoming a surplus, dipshit.
Wow. How to lie with statistics?
The surplus or deficit does not refer to the national debt. It refers to the budget for a particular year. No one, me poor ignorant con troll, claimed that the national debt had become a surplus. As you know. The Budget was never a surplus for the preceding 30 years, or since that time. Making you a liar again. You are saying someone stated that Clinton had a surplus in the National Debt, which is a lie.

Again, you produced numbers with no link to where they came from. And congratulations, you produced the worst and hardest to read used to be tables ever. Jesus, you are a clown. Complete with no link so that you can not see what was actual.

thanks again for proving yourself to be a liar.

You're the one who made that claim! Do you want me to pull up your post?

#2369
"So, another lesson for you, OS. Did you notice the National Debt became a Surplus under Clinton, before George W. gave it away?"

Who's the liar?

That is the SECOND time you made that comment, me boy. I posted National debt instead of budget, and there after admitted my mistake. As you well know.
Calling someone a liar when they admitted their mistake previously is bad form. Really bad form.

 

[Oldstyle]

When the Obama Administration started using "Jobs created or saved"...you're now claiming that jobs lost went from hundreds of thousands per month to jobs increased by hundreds of thousands per month? Jobs were not increasing when they started using that "jobs created or saved" statistic, Georgie...on the contrary they were still decreasing. Your memory is as bad as you knowledge of economics!

 

[Rshermr]

Fiscal
Year Year
Ending National Debt Deficit
FY1993 09/30/1993 $4.411488 trillion
FY1994 09/30/1994 $4.692749 trillion $281.26 billion
FY1995 09/29/1995 $4.973982 trillion $281.23 billion
FY1996 09/30/1996 $5.224810 trillion $250.83 billion
FY1997 09/30/1997 $5.413146 trillion $188.34 billion
FY1998 09/30/1998 $5.526193 trillion $113.05 billion
FY1999 09/30/1999 $5.656270 trillion $130.08 billion
FY2000 09/29/2000 $5.674178 trillion $17.91 billion
FY2001 09/28/2001 $5.807463 trillion $133.29 billion

Fiscal
Year End
Date Claimed
Surplus Public
Debt Intra-gov
Holdings Total National
Debt
FY1997 09/30/1997 $3.789667T $1.623478T $5.413146T
FY1998 09/30/1998 $69.2B $3.733864T

$55.8B $1.792328T

$168.9B $5.526193T

$113B
FY1999 09/30/1999 $122.7B $3.636104T

$97.8B $2.020166T

$227.8B $5.656270T

$130.1B
FY2000 09/29/2000 $230.0B $3.405303T

$230.8B $2.268874T

$248.7B $5.674178T

$17.9B
FY2001 09/28/2001 $3.339310T

$66.0B $2.468153T

$199.3B $5.807463T

$133.3B

Show me a surplus in the National Debt under Clinton! It never happened.

What went down under Clinton was the "Public Debt" and the only reason that happened was because the Dot Com Boom put so much money into Social Security which is required by law to take any surpluses it has and buy US government securities. Intergovernmental debt skyrocketed under Clinton but you liberals don't count that debt against Clinton's "surplus". The national debt most definitely did not get paid down because we did not have a surplus. The government just covered its deficit by borrowing money from Social Security rather than the public.

Yes, it did. And, so did the budget, becoming a surplus, dipshit.
Wow. How to lie with statistics?
The surplus or deficit does not refer to the national debt. It refers to the budget for a particular year. No one, me poor ignorant con troll, claimed that the national debt had become a surplus. As you know. The Budget was never a surplus for the preceding 30 years, or since that time. Making you a liar again. You are saying someone stated that Clinton had a surplus in the National Debt, which is a lie.

Again, you produced numbers with no link to where they came from. And congratulations, you produced the worst and hardest to read used to be tables ever. Jesus, you are a clown. Complete with no link so that you can not see what was actual.

thanks again for proving yourself to be a liar.

You're the one who made that claim! Do you want me to pull up your post?

#2369
"So, another lesson for you, OS. Did you notice the National Debt became a Surplus under Clinton, before George W. gave it away?"

Who's the liar?

Which is why neither you...nor Faun...nor Georgie...will ever present me with an economic formula used to determine "Jobs created or saved"!

Nope. Because you lied, and failed to live up to your word to provide the bill. As you know. Liar.

That's keeping Faun and Anton from providing the formula? None of you can come up with it, Georgie because it doesn't exist and every time you come here and pretend that it does...you're lying through your teeth!

It is simple, me boy. And obvious. None of us like you. And you do not deserve it. It is a free lesson for you. in honesty.

 

[Oldstyle]

Fiscal
Year Year
Ending National Debt Deficit
FY1993 09/30/1993 $4.411488 trillion
FY1994 09/30/1994 $4.692749 trillion $281.26 billion
FY1995 09/29/1995 $4.973982 trillion $281.23 billion
FY1996 09/30/1996 $5.224810 trillion $250.83 billion
FY1997 09/30/1997 $5.413146 trillion $188.34 billion
FY1998 09/30/1998 $5.526193 trillion $113.05 billion
FY1999 09/30/1999 $5.656270 trillion $130.08 billion
FY2000 09/29/2000 $5.674178 trillion $17.91 billion
FY2001 09/28/2001 $5.807463 trillion $133.29 billion

Fiscal
Year End
Date Claimed
Surplus Public
Debt Intra-gov
Holdings Total National
Debt
FY1997 09/30/1997 $3.789667T $1.623478T $5.413146T
FY1998 09/30/1998 $69.2B $3.733864T

$55.8B $1.792328T

$168.9B $5.526193T

$113B
FY1999 09/30/1999 $122.7B $3.636104T

$97.8B $2.020166T

$227.8B $5.656270T

$130.1B
FY2000 09/29/2000 $230.0B $3.405303T

$230.8B $2.268874T

$248.7B $5.674178T

$17.9B
FY2001 09/28/2001 $3.339310T

$66.0B $2.468153T

$199.3B $5.807463T

$133.3B

Show me a surplus in the National Debt under Clinton! It never happened.

What went down under Clinton was the "Public Debt" and the only reason that happened was because the Dot Com Boom put so much money into Social Security which is required by law to take any surpluses it has and buy US government securities. Intergovernmental debt skyrocketed under Clinton but you liberals don't count that debt against Clinton's "surplus". The national debt most definitely did not get paid down because we did not have a surplus. The government just covered its deficit by borrowing money from Social Security rather than the public.

Yes, it did. And, so did the budget, becoming a surplus, dipshit.
Wow. How to lie with statistics?
The surplus or deficit does not refer to the national debt. It refers to the budget for a particular year. No one, me poor ignorant con troll, claimed that the national debt had become a surplus. As you know. The Budget was never a surplus for the preceding 30 years, or since that time. Making you a liar again. You are saying someone stated that Clinton had a surplus in the National Debt, which is a lie.

Again, you produced numbers with no link to where they came from. And congratulations, you produced the worst and hardest to read used to be tables ever. Jesus, you are a clown. Complete with no link so that you can not see what was actual.

thanks again for proving yourself to be a liar.

You're the one who made that claim! Do you want me to pull up your post?

#2369
"So, another lesson for you, OS. Did you notice the National Debt became a Surplus under Clinton, before George W. gave it away?"

Who's the liar?

That is the SECOND time you made that comment, me boy. I posted National debt instead of budget, and there after admitted my mistake. As you well know.
Calling someone a liar when they admitted their mistake previously is bad form. Really bad form.

Ah, so when you post information that is false...it's a "mistake"...not a lie? What's amusing about that comment, Georgie is that you wouldn't know it was a mistake unless I pointed it out to you!

 

[Oldstyle]

Fiscal
Year Year
Ending National Debt Deficit
FY1993 09/30/1993 $4.411488 trillion
FY1994 09/30/1994 $4.692749 trillion $281.26 billion
FY1995 09/29/1995 $4.973982 trillion $281.23 billion
FY1996 09/30/1996 $5.224810 trillion $250.83 billion
FY1997 09/30/1997 $5.413146 trillion $188.34 billion
FY1998 09/30/1998 $5.526193 trillion $113.05 billion
FY1999 09/30/1999 $5.656270 trillion $130.08 billion
FY2000 09/29/2000 $5.674178 trillion $17.91 billion
FY2001 09/28/2001 $5.807463 trillion $133.29 billion

Fiscal
Year End
Date Claimed
Surplus Public
Debt Intra-gov
Holdings Total National
Debt
FY1997 09/30/1997 $3.789667T $1.623478T $5.413146T
FY1998 09/30/1998 $69.2B $3.733864T

$55.8B $1.792328T

$168.9B $5.526193T

$113B
FY1999 09/30/1999 $122.7B $3.636104T

$97.8B $2.020166T

$227.8B $5.656270T

$130.1B
FY2000 09/29/2000 $230.0B $3.405303T

$230.8B $2.268874T

$248.7B $5.674178T

$17.9B
FY2001 09/28/2001 $3.339310T

$66.0B $2.468153T

$199.3B $5.807463T

$133.3B

Show me a surplus in the National Debt under Clinton! It never happened.

What went down under Clinton was the "Public Debt" and the only reason that happened was because the Dot Com Boom put so much money into Social Security which is required by law to take any surpluses it has and buy US government securities. Intergovernmental debt skyrocketed under Clinton but you liberals don't count that debt against Clinton's "surplus". The national debt most definitely did not get paid down because we did not have a surplus. The government just covered its deficit by borrowing money from Social Security rather than the public.

Yes, it did. And, so did the budget, becoming a surplus, dipshit.
Wow. How to lie with statistics?
The surplus or deficit does not refer to the national debt. It refers to the budget for a particular year. No one, me poor ignorant con troll, claimed that the national debt had become a surplus. As you know. The Budget was never a surplus for the preceding 30 years, or since that time. Making you a liar again. You are saying someone stated that Clinton had a surplus in the National Debt, which is a lie.

Again, you produced numbers with no link to where they came from. And congratulations, you produced the worst and hardest to read used to be tables ever. Jesus, you are a clown. Complete with no link so that you can not see what was actual.

thanks again for proving yourself to be a liar.

You're the one who made that claim! Do you want me to pull up your post?

#2369
"So, another lesson for you, OS. Did you notice the National Debt became a Surplus under Clinton, before George W. gave it away?"

Who's the liar?

Which is why neither you...nor Faun...nor Georgie...will ever present me with an economic formula used to determine "Jobs created or saved"!

Nope. Because you lied, and failed to live up to your word to provide the bill. As you know. Liar.

That's keeping Faun and Anton from providing the formula? None of you can come up with it, Georgie because it doesn't exist and every time you come here and pretend that it does...you're lying through your teeth!

It is simple, me boy. And obvious. None of us like you. And you do not deserve it. It is a free lesson for you. in honesty.

Oh, so the reason none of you can provide the formula isn't that you don't HAVE it...it's that you don't like me?

 

[AntonToo]

What's NOT POSSIBLE is to calculate an accurate estimate of "jobs saved" which is EXACTLY why the Obama Administration used it.

No, you dumb ass, estimated difference in employment can be described as either created or saved, without a any actual difference. The numbers cited by administration were estimated and confirmed by CBO.

HOW IS THAT POSSIBLE IF THE NUMBER WAS MADE UP?

It's not possible, but what is very much possible is your unyielding stupidity.