US Jobless claims fall to 4 decade low

[Faun]

So when they are doing this "WORK" you speak of...they aren't using formulas to produce their numbers? Really, Anton?

Of course they use formulas, all kinds of formulas with all kinds of givens and all kinds of considerations and if you want to learn more about that process I suggest you go ahead and find some math and macro economic classes or resources to study instead of demanding that these complex things be explained to you by someone from a casual political discussion forum...on the second thought I don't even know why I would suggest something like that to you if you can't even get enough neurons to fire to understand why "jobs saved or created" language is used in an estimate.

You are NEVER going to get this, it is what it is.

So you're convinced they use formulas...all kinds of formulas...but you just don't know what any of them are? But we should trust their findings because we know that politicians would never try to use misleading statistics to keep the truth from the voters...right, Anton?

I see you still haven't read your own link which described how they accumulated the data. Don't you think it would be wise to do that first before you speak?

 

[Rshermr]

So when they are doing this "WORK" you speak of...they aren't using formulas to produce their numbers? Really, Anton?

Of course they use formulas, all kinds of formulas with all kinds of givens and all kinds of considerations and if you want to learn more about that process I suggest you go ahead and find some math and macro economic classes or resources to study instead of demanding that these complex things be explained to you by someone from a casual political discussion forum...on the second thought I don't even know why I would suggest something like that to you if you can't even get enough neurons to fire to understand why "jobs saved or created" language is used in an estimate.

You are NEVER going to get this, it is what it is.

When you "estimate" and those estimates are all over the place...what good is the estimate? You've got claims of "jobs saved" back then that ran the gamut from a hundred thousand all the way up to three million...but you somehow declare that these numbers have been "confirmed"? That borders on FARCE, Anton and I think you know it!

You are a lying con troll. Different times had different estimates. And they are estimates, that get better over time. Now, what you have is con talking points. As I have reminded you time after time. You have no source, and you are a simple minded food services worker. So, your statements are meaningless. You just lost five to ZERO, with you having the zero. Dipshit.

 

[Rshermr]

So when they are doing this "WORK" you speak of...they aren't using formulas to produce their numbers? Really, Anton?

Of course they use formulas, all kinds of formulas with all kinds of givens and all kinds of considerations and if you want to learn more about that process I suggest you go ahead and find some math and macro economic classes or resources to study instead of demanding that these complex things be explained to you by someone from a casual political discussion forum...on the second thought I don't even know why I would suggest something like that to you if you can't even get enough neurons to fire to understand why "jobs saved or created" language is used in an estimate.

You are NEVER going to get this, it is what it is.

So you're convinced they use formulas...all kinds of formulas...but you just don't know what any of them are? But we should trust their findings because we know that politicians would never try to use misleading statistics to keep the truth from the voters...right, Anton?

You will never understand because:
1. You are too stupid to understand.
2. You do not want to understand.
3. You simply want to post drivel.
4. It has been explained to you and no one else cares to explain it again.
5. You are a simple food services worker pretending to know something. Period.

So, technically, you are a waste of space. No one cares about your drivel. Everyone knows you are a serial liar. And a con troll, though that is redundant.

 

[Faun]

So when they are doing this "WORK" you speak of...they aren't using formulas to produce their numbers? Really, Anton?

Of course they use formulas, all kinds of formulas with all kinds of givens and all kinds of considerations and if you want to learn more about that process I suggest you go ahead and find some math and macro economic classes or resources to study instead of demanding that these complex things be explained to you by someone from a casual political discussion forum...on the second thought I don't even know why I would suggest something like that to you if you can't even get enough neurons to fire to understand why "jobs saved or created" language is used in an estimate.

You are NEVER going to get this, it is what it is.

So you're convinced they use formulas...all kinds of formulas...but you just don't know what any of them are? But we should trust their findings because we know that politicians would never try to use misleading statistics to keep the truth from the voters...right, Anton?

You will never understand because:
1. You are too stupid to understand.
2. You do not want to understand.
3. You simply want to post drivel.
4. It has been explained to you and no one else cares to explain it again.
5. You are a simple food services worker pretending to know something. Period.

So, technically, you are a waste of space. No one cares about your drivel. Everyone knows you are a serial liar. And a con troll, though that is redundant.

That's all he's programed to know how to do.

 

[Rshermr]

So when they are doing this "WORK" you speak of...they aren't using formulas to produce their numbers? Really, Anton?

Of course they use formulas, all kinds of formulas with all kinds of givens and all kinds of considerations and if you want to learn more about that process I suggest you go ahead and find some math and macro economic classes or resources to study instead of demanding that these complex things be explained to you by someone from a casual political discussion forum...on the second thought I don't even know why I would suggest something like that to you if you can't even get enough neurons to fire to understand why "jobs saved or created" language is used in an estimate.

You are NEVER going to get this, it is what it is.

So you're convinced they use formulas...all kinds of formulas...but you just don't know what any of them are? But we should trust their findings because we know that politicians would never try to use misleading statistics to keep the truth from the voters...right, Anton?

You will never understand because:
1. You are too stupid to understand.
2. You do not want to understand.
3. You simply want to post drivel.
4. It has been explained to you and no one else cares to explain it again.
5. You are a simple food services worker pretending to know something. Period.

So, technically, you are a waste of space. No one cares about your drivel. Everyone knows you are a serial liar. And a con troll, though that is redundant.

That's all he's programed to know how to do.

Yup. Programed is a good term for how they get their "beliefs". Being a con troll requires that you not care about truth, and that you say what you are told to say. And, you should lie whenever there is a reason to. Then, you should try to call anyone who questions you names and lie about them.
For most, it would be a sad existence. For Oldstyle, it is what he wants to believe, and how he wants to act. Sad.

 

[AntonToo]

So you're convinced they use formulas...all kinds of formulas...but you just don't know what any of them are? But we should trust their findings because we know that politicians would never try to use misleading statistics to keep the truth from the voters...right, Anton?

Look buddy, I'm not an economist, I have a job and I do that, Obama and his administration have their jobs, leaving the economic estimates to economists.

The estimates they used are real and reasonable, there is no evidence of "HIDIN DA TRUF!" by the administration you claim.

You want to say it's not 3 million? Ok maybe it's 2 million. But bottom line, going back to your original post is that you are wrong when you say Obama didn't have policies that helped the economy throughout his presidency.

The End.

 

[Oldstyle]

So you're convinced they use formulas...all kinds of formulas...but you just don't know what any of them are? But we should trust their findings because we know that politicians would never try to use misleading statistics to keep the truth from the voters...right, Anton?

Look buddy, I'm not an economist, I have a job and I do that, Obama and his administration have their jobs, leaving the economic estimates to economists.

The estimates they used are real and reasonable, there is no evidence of "HIDIN DA TRUF!" by the administration you claim.

You want to say it's not 3 million? Ok maybe it's 2 million. But bottom line, going back to your original post is that you are wrong when you say Obama didn't have policies that helped the economy throughout his presidency.

The End.

Actually, Anton...the estimates they used were real...but they were far from "reasonable"! What they did was make estimates based on things like assuming what had happened with economic stimulus in the past would happen with this stimulus. They made the quantum leap that if spending $100,000 in stimulus before had resulted in X number of jobs being created then spending $100,000 now would get the same result. They also used the economic data that was coming in from local governments or businesses that got stimulus money and were required to fill out forms reporting how many jobs were created with the stimulus they got. What we learned over time is those job creation numbers that were being reported were grossly over stated. Through a combination of people simply not understanding the complex forms they were required to complete...or people deliberately lying about how many jobs were really created with their share of the stimulus...the data that Obama Administration economists were "estimating" with was so skewed that it rendered whatever result they got to be a totally fictional number.

As for Obama's policies? Which ones helped the economy? Seriously...show me Obama policies that created jobs. ObamaCare was something that stifled job creation. His calls for Cap & Trade legislation was a disincentive for those with capital to invest in either new industry or the expansion of existing industry. His use of the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico to impose a moratorium on drilling killed jobs in that industry. His refusal to allow the Keystone Oil pipeline killed jobs in the Mid West. His use of the EPA to impose new standards for carbon emissions stifled job creation. He was anti fracking...one of the drivers of the recovery that we DID have! He spent billions on "Green" industry subsidies only to see many of those companies take our money and then declare bankruptcy shortly thereafter.

 

[AntonToo]

Actually, Anton...the estimates they used were real...but they were far from "reasonable"! What they did was make estimates based on things like assuming what had happened with economic stimulus in the past would happen with this stimulus. They made the quantum leap that if spending $100,000 in stimulus before had resulted in X number of jobs being created then spending $100,000 now would get the same result.

Ok so lets note that you now agree that your claim about administration making something up is BS.

Moving on.

I don't see you answering WHY that's not reasonable.

If anything such method would seem to UNDERESTIMATE impact, since increased liquidity during Great Recession would have more of an impact than during a milder recession where demand is not as depressed.

They also used the economic data that was coming in from local governments or businesses that got stimulus money and were required to fill out forms reporting how many jobs were created with the stimulus they got. What we learned over time is those job creation numbers that were being reported were grossly over stated. Through a combination of people simply not understanding the complex forms they were required to complete...or people deliberately lying about how many jobs were really created with their share of the stimulus...the data that Obama Administration economists were "estimating" with was so skewed that it rendered whatever result they got to be a totally fictional number.

TOTALLY FICTIONAL NUMBER? Source for that?

And I really do hope that you have something pointing to general issue and not just something that would make up tine percentage of reporting. What was that fictional number and how does it compare to NOT fictional number?

As for Obama's policies? Which ones helped the economy? Seriously...show me Obama policies that created jobs.

One more time...the 10th time now?

800 billion was spent into economy and you can think of NOTHING that created jobs, while admitting that it created jobs...which means that YOU ARE A COMPLETE MORON, SIR.

Meanwhile, this is what will be in the history books:

The Financial Crisis: Lessons for the Next One | Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

 

[Oldstyle]

Actually, Anton...the estimates they used were real...but they were far from "reasonable"! What they did was make estimates based on things like assuming what had happened with economic stimulus in the past would happen with this stimulus. They made the quantum leap that if spending $100,000 in stimulus before had resulted in X number of jobs being created then spending $100,000 now would get the same result.

Ok so lets note that you now agree that your claim about administration making something up is BS.

Moving on.

I don't see you answering WHY that's not reasonable.

If anything such method would seem to UNDERESTIMATE impact, since increased liquidity during Great Recession would have more of an impact than during a milder recession where demand is not as depressed.

They also used the economic data that was coming in from local governments or businesses that got stimulus money and were required to fill out forms reporting how many jobs were created with the stimulus they got. What we learned over time is those job creation numbers that were being reported were grossly over stated. Through a combination of people simply not understanding the complex forms they were required to complete...or people deliberately lying about how many jobs were really created with their share of the stimulus...the data that Obama Administration economists were "estimating" with was so skewed that it rendered whatever result they got to be a totally fictional number.

TOTALLY FICTIONAL NUMBER? Source for that?

And I really do hope that you have something pointing to general issue and not just something that would make up tine percentage of reporting. What was that fictional number and how does it compare to NOT fictional number?

As for Obama's policies? Which ones helped the economy? Seriously...show me Obama policies that created jobs.

One more time...the 10th time now?

800 billion was spent into economy and you can think of NOTHING that created jobs, while admitting that it created jobs...which means that YOU ARE A COMPLETE MORON, SIR.

Meanwhile, this is what will be in the history books:

The Financial Crisis: Lessons for the Next One | Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

With all due respect, Anton...repeatedly posting a graph put out by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities showing what the "estimate" of unemployment might have been if they hadn't done a massive governmental response is like repeated posting a graph put out Planned Parenthood estimating how many women would die from back alley abortions if you got rid of legal abortions! The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities is a liberal think tank who's main goal is increased governmental spending to help the poor. They have an agenda.

As for my agreeing that the Administration didn't make something up? When I refer to "they"...I'm referring to the CBO. The Obama Administration totally made up their numbers. The CBO then bent over backwards using unreasonable estimates to validate those numbers. When you base what your present stimulus is going to accomplish on what past stimulus spending has done you're not giving a number that's real...you're giving a number that is a guess...based on an assumption!

Did you not know that there were huge problems with over estimations of how many jobs were created by the stimulus because the companies or governmental agencies filing reports either didn't understand what they were doing or flat out exaggerated the results? I'd be happy to cite an example if you'd like.
BART vendor pushed to boost job numbers to meet stimulus promises

 

[AntonToo]

Actually, Anton...the estimates they used were real...but they were far from "reasonable"! What they did was make estimates based on things like assuming what had happened with economic stimulus in the past would happen with this stimulus. They made the quantum leap that if spending $100,000 in stimulus before had resulted in X number of jobs being created then spending $100,000 now would get the same result.

Ok so lets note that you now agree that your claim about administration making something up is BS.

Moving on.

I don't see you answering WHY that's not reasonable.

If anything such method would seem to UNDERESTIMATE impact, since increased liquidity during Great Recession would have more of an impact than during a milder recession where demand is not as depressed.

They also used the economic data that was coming in from local governments or businesses that got stimulus money and were required to fill out forms reporting how many jobs were created with the stimulus they got. What we learned over time is those job creation numbers that were being reported were grossly over stated. Through a combination of people simply not understanding the complex forms they were required to complete...or people deliberately lying about how many jobs were really created with their share of the stimulus...the data that Obama Administration economists were "estimating" with was so skewed that it rendered whatever result they got to be a totally fictional number.

TOTALLY FICTIONAL NUMBER? Source for that?

And I really do hope that you have something pointing to general issue and not just something that would make up tine percentage of reporting. What was that fictional number and how does it compare to NOT fictional number?

As for Obama's policies? Which ones helped the economy? Seriously...show me Obama policies that created jobs.

One more time...the 10th time now?

800 billion was spent into economy and you can think of NOTHING that created jobs, while admitting that it created jobs...which means that YOU ARE A COMPLETE MORON, SIR.

Meanwhile, this is what will be in the history books:

The Financial Crisis: Lessons for the Next One | Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

With all due respect, Anton...repeatedly posting a graph put out by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities showing what the "estimate" of unemployment might have been if they hadn't done a massive governmental response is like repeated posting a graph put out Planned Parenthood estimating how many women would die from back alley abortions if you got rid of legal abortions! The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities is a liberal think tank who's main goal is increased governmental spending to help the poor. They have an agenda.

As for my agreeing that the Administration didn't make something up? When I refer to "they"...I'm referring to the CBO. The Obama Administration totally made up their numbers. The CBO then bent over backwards using unreasonable estimates to validate those numbers. When you base what your present stimulus is going to accomplish on what past stimulus spending has done you're not giving a number that's real...you're giving a number that is a guess...based on an assumption!

Did you not know that there were huge problems with over estimations of how many jobs were created by the stimulus because the companies or governmental agencies filing reports either didn't understand what they were doing or flat out exaggerated the results? I'd be happy to cite an example if you'd like.
BART vendor pushed to boost job numbers to meet stimulus promises

Your pleads of numbers being unreasonable while being unable to provide any alternative numbers is not going to convince anyone.

If you think there are more reasonable numbers - fine, lets have them. But your repeated assertions that we didn't get some jobs out of these huge volume expansionary policies are straight MORONIC.

 

[Oldstyle]

When I ask for what Obama policies created jobs, Anton and you respond by pointing to the 800 plus billion dollar stimulus as the "policy" that satisfies that request I can only smile and shake my head. The truth is there was going to be a stimulus put into effect no matter who was elected President since there was overwhelming bipartisan support for stimulus. Obviously when you spend an amount as large as 870 billion you are going to get some sort of bang for your buck. The question is...how much bang did we get for the money we spent...was the stimulus structured in the best way to create jobs and grow the economy...or was it used by the politicians in power to reward their supporters and further their agenda?

There is a reason why the Obama Stimulus didn't create the jobs that Democratic leaders promised it would, Anton! You had Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid controlling who and what got paid out of that money. It became a giant slush fund with which Democratic leaders could reward political supporters and fund their agenda. It's why we got things like Solyndra.
Recapping the Obama Administration Green Energy Stimulus Failures - IER

 

[Oldstyle]

When liberals provide "analysis" from economic "experts" that state wide eyed that YES, THE STIMULUS DID CREATE MORE JOBS THEN IF WE HADN'T SPENT 800 BILLION...SO THE STIMULUS IS A SUCCESS!!! I can only laugh at their definition of success.

 

[Oldstyle]

Reasonable numbers? You mean like the jobs created numbers that should have been used to give a more accurate evaluation of whether or not what we were doing was creating jobs? Faun used the example of the USDA puffing up their numbers under the Bush Administration, Anton. What that department did is the exact same thing that the Obama Administration did on a massive scale...the USDA managers used a bullshit "jobs saved" number to provide a narrative that sounded wonderful and made people who didn't know better think that they were doing one heck of a job. What's MORONIC is for anyone with a little common sense to take a "jobs saved" number for anything more than it is...a self serving deception.

 

[Rshermr]

When liberals provide "analysis" from economic "experts" that state wide eyed that YES, THE STIMULUS DID CREATE MORE JOBS THEN IF WE HADN'T SPENT 800 BILLION...SO THE STIMULUS IS A SUCCESS!!! I can only laugh at their definition of success.

All congenital idiots laugh. It is a condition you should not be proud of.
You have had it proven to you that $500 billion was not spent. About $500 Billion was spent. About 250 billion was tax reductions, which last time I knew, you like all the republicans approved of.

So, more lies by oldstyle.
What is funny, oldstyle, is you with your eyes CLOSED loving the fact that a republican administration caused a huge recession, and then did nothing about it. You love it so much, you wish dems would do the whole thing. Because you wanted the economy to implode. Because you are un-american. Just a lying con troll.

 

[Rshermr]

Reasonable numbers? You mean like the jobs created numbers that should have been used to give a more accurate evaluation of whether or not what we were doing was creating jobs? Faun used the example of the USDA puffing up their numbers under the Bush Administration, Anton. What that department did is the exact same thing that the Obama Administration did on a massive scale...the USDA managers used a bullshit "jobs saved" number to provide a narrative that sounded wonderful and made people who didn't know better think that they were doing one heck of a job. What's MORONIC is for anyone with a little common sense to take a "jobs saved" number for anything more than it is...a self serving deception.

When I ask for what Obama policies created jobs, Anton and you respond by pointing to the 800 plus billion dollar stimulus as the "policy" that satisfies that request I can only smile and shake my head. The truth is there was going to be a stimulus put into effect no matter who was elected President since there was overwhelming bipartisan support for stimulus. Obviously when you spend an amount as large as 870 billion you are going to get some sort of bang for your buck. The question is...how much bang did we get for the money we spent...was the stimulus structured in the best way to create jobs and grow the economy...or was it used by the politicians in power to reward their supporters and further their agenda?

[/QUOTE]

There is a reason why the Obama Stimulus didn't create the jobs that Democratic leaders promised it would, Anton! You had Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid controlling who and what got paid out of that money. It became a giant slush fund with which Democratic leaders could reward political supporters and fund their agenda. It's why we got things like Solyndra.


Recapping the Obama Administration Green Energy Stimulus Failures - IER
Institute for Energy Research

So, lying again, and unable to provide an impartial source, Oldstyle brings forward a far, far right wing source. Totally partial, and totally conservative. Lets see what Source Watch says about IER;
The Institute for Energy Research (IER), founded in 1989 from a predecessor non-profit organization registered by Charles G. Koch and Robert L. Bradley Jr., advocates positions on environmental issues including deregulation of utilities, climate change denial, and claims that conventional energy sources are virtually limitless.

It is a member of the Sustainable Development Network. The IER's President was formerly Director of Public Relations Policy at Enron.

IER has been established as a 501(c)(3) non-profit group. It is a "partner" organization of the American Energy Alliance[1], a501c4 organization which states that it is the "grassroots arm" of IER.[2] AEA states that, by "communicating IER’s decades of scholarly research to the grassroots, AEA will empower citizens with facts so that people who believe in freedom can reclaim the moral high ground in the national public policy debates in the energy and environmental arena."[2] AEA states that its aim is to "create a climate that encourages the advancement of free market energy policies" and in particular ensure drilling for oil is allowed in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and in US coastal waters.[2]

Koch Wiki
The Koch brothers -- David and Charles -- are the right-wing billionaire co-owners of Koch Industries. As two of the richest people in the world, they are key funders of the right-wing infrastructure, including the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) and the State Policy Network (SPN). In SourceWatch, key articles on the Kochs include: Koch Brothers,Koch Industries, Americans for Prosperity, American Encore, and Freedom Partners.

Ties to the American Legislative Exchange Council
In August 2011, Dr. Robert Bradley, founder and CEO of the IER, spoke at the Energy, Environment and Agriculture Task Forcemeeting of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) annual meeting in New Orleans, Louisiana.[3]

About ALEC
ALEC is a corporate bill mill. It is not just a lobby or a front group; it is much more powerful than that. Through ALEC, corporations hand state legislators their wishlists to benefit their bottom line. Corporations fund almost all of ALEC's operations. They pay for a seat on ALEC task forces where corporate lobbyists and special interest reps vote with elected officials to approve “model” bills. Learn more at the Center for Media and Democracy's ALECexposed.org, and check out breaking news on our PRWatch.org site.


Campaigns
In 2009 IER run a campaign on "green jobs" attacking the expansion of renewables energies. IER commissioned three studies on renewable energies and green jobs in Denmark, Germany and Spain.[4] These studies by different think tanks were than promoted by IER and other free market think tanks in the US but also used in Europe[5] and Ontario, Canada.[6] The study on Germany e.g. was translated into German and taken up by German media - without mentioning that the study was financed by IER with its close business links. The German institute that wrote the study (called Rheinisch-westfaelisches Institut fuer Wirtschaftsforschung, RWI) didn't acknowledge the funding from IER until they were challendged by investigative journalists.[7]

A report by the Europan NGO Corporate Europe Observatory tried to get more information on the funding of the libertarianInstituto Juan de Mariana responsible for the Spanish study and the Danish think tank CEPOS doing the study on wind energy in Denmark. The report states: "In their reply to CEO, Instituto Juan de Mariana affirmed that it finances all its activities through the individual donation of his over 250 individual members and that they did not receive corporate funding with the exception of a small Spanish insurance company. When contacted again to check whether the Institute for Energy Research (IER) support for the above study was financial, the Institute stopped responding."[8]

Staff

• 
  
• Robert L. Bradley, President
• Nancy C. Bradley, Secretary / Treasurer
• Howard Gano, Jr., Director
• Jim Clarkson, Director
• Preston Marshall, Director
• Wayne Gable, Director

Funding
EIN: 76-0149778
This is a 501(c)(03) public charity [1]

According to the ExxonMobils Corporate Giving Reports the IER received 307.000 US$ from the oil company or its foundation between 2003 and 2007.[9] The institute also received 175.000 US$ from Koch Industries according to a Greenpeace report.[10]

So,OLDSTYLE, you tried to sneak by a source that is a far right nut case source for the far right Libertarians, the Koch brothers. Very poor form, dipshit. As one would suspect from you.
So, again, you were unable to find a single source that is impartial to support you.

 

[Rshermr]

Reasonable numbers? You mean like the jobs created numbers that should have been used to give a more accurate evaluation of whether or not what we were doing was creating jobs? Faun used the example of the USDA puffing up their numbers under the Bush Administration, Anton. What that department did is the exact same thing that the Obama Administration did on a massive scale...the USDA managers used a bullshit "jobs saved" number to provide a narrative that sounded wonderful and made people who didn't know better think that they were doing one heck of a job. What's MORONIC is for anyone with a little common sense to take a "jobs saved" number for anything more than it is...a self serving deception.

Lets see what is moronic, moron:
1. Taking the statement that jobs saved are incorrect from a Bat shit crazy con troll called Oldstyle.
2. Believing a person who is a food services worker with essentially no economic background, that being Oldstyle.
3. Believing a person who lies constantly, that being Oldstyle.
4. Not believing FIVE impartial sources all with teams of economists and researchers who say, without question, that jobs saved is valid.
5. Believing only conservative talking points posted by Oldstyle, who can find NO impartial sources that agree with his claim.

You lie and lie and lie. Caught again, oldstyle.

Your posts are always applying con talking points to actual economic issues. Makes it very easy to prove your posts to be what they are, which is lies. Simple.
But, for you, the worst part is it continues to show you to be useless. Of no rational value, me boy. If you post talking points, it makes you an easy target. And you always loose. Always. No contest to make it even interesting.

 

[Oldstyle]

When liberals provide "analysis" from economic "experts" that state wide eyed that YES, THE STIMULUS DID CREATE MORE JOBS THEN IF WE HADN'T SPENT 800 BILLION...SO THE STIMULUS IS A SUCCESS!!! I can only laugh at their definition of success.

All congenital idiots laugh. It is a condition you should not be proud of.
You have had it proven to you that $500 billion was not spent. About $500 Billion was spent. About 250 billion was tax reductions, which last time I knew, you like all the republicans approved of.

So, more lies by oldstyle.
What is funny, oldstyle, is you with your eyes CLOSED loving the fact that a republican administration caused a huge recession, and then did nothing about it. You love it so much, you wish dems would do the whole thing. Because you wanted the economy to implode. Because you are un-american. Just a lying con troll.

"You have had it proven to you that $500 billion was not spent. About $500 Billion was spent."

God but you're an idiot!

 

[Oldstyle]

Reasonable numbers? You mean like the jobs created numbers that should have been used to give a more accurate evaluation of whether or not what we were doing was creating jobs? Faun used the example of the USDA puffing up their numbers under the Bush Administration, Anton. What that department did is the exact same thing that the Obama Administration did on a massive scale...the USDA managers used a bullshit "jobs saved" number to provide a narrative that sounded wonderful and made people who didn't know better think that they were doing one heck of a job. What's MORONIC is for anyone with a little common sense to take a "jobs saved" number for anything more than it is...a self serving deception.

When I ask for what Obama policies created jobs, Anton and you respond by pointing to the 800 plus billion dollar stimulus as the "policy" that satisfies that request I can only smile and shake my head. The truth is there was going to be a stimulus put into effect no matter who was elected President since there was overwhelming bipartisan support for stimulus. Obviously when you spend an amount as large as 870 billion you are going to get some sort of bang for your buck. The question is...how much bang did we get for the money we spent...was the stimulus structured in the best way to create jobs and grow the economy...or was it used by the politicians in power to reward their supporters and further their agenda?

There is a reason why the Obama Stimulus didn't create the jobs that Democratic leaders promised it would, Anton! You had Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid controlling who and what got paid out of that money. It became a giant slush fund with which Democratic leaders could reward political supporters and fund their agenda. It's why we got things like Solyndra.


Recapping the Obama Administration Green Energy Stimulus Failures - IER
Institute for Energy Research

So, lying again, and unable to provide an impartial source, Oldstyle brings forward a far, far right wing source. Totally partial, and totally conservative. Lets see what Source Watch says about IER;
The Institute for Energy Research (IER), founded in 1989 from a predecessor non-profit organization registered by Charles G. Koch and Robert L. Bradley Jr., advocates positions on environmental issues including deregulation of utilities, climate change denial, and claims that conventional energy sources are virtually limitless.

It is a member of the Sustainable Development Network. The IER's President was formerly Director of Public Relations Policy at Enron.

IER has been established as a 501(c)(3) non-profit group. It is a "partner" organization of the American Energy Alliance[1], a501c4 organization which states that it is the "grassroots arm" of IER.[2] AEA states that, by "communicating IER’s decades of scholarly research to the grassroots, AEA will empower citizens with facts so that people who believe in freedom can reclaim the moral high ground in the national public policy debates in the energy and environmental arena."[2] AEA states that its aim is to "create a climate that encourages the advancement of free market energy policies" and in particular ensure drilling for oil is allowed in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and in US coastal waters.[2]

Koch Wiki
The Koch brothers -- David and Charles -- are the right-wing billionaire co-owners of Koch Industries. As two of the richest people in the world, they are key funders of the right-wing infrastructure, including the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) and the State Policy Network (SPN). In SourceWatch, key articles on the Kochs include: Koch Brothers,Koch Industries, Americans for Prosperity, American Encore, and Freedom Partners.

Ties to the American Legislative Exchange Council
In August 2011, Dr. Robert Bradley, founder and CEO of the IER, spoke at the Energy, Environment and Agriculture Task Forcemeeting of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) annual meeting in New Orleans, Louisiana.[3]

About ALEC
ALEC is a corporate bill mill. It is not just a lobby or a front group; it is much more powerful than that. Through ALEC, corporations hand state legislators their wishlists to benefit their bottom line. Corporations fund almost all of ALEC's operations. They pay for a seat on ALEC task forces where corporate lobbyists and special interest reps vote with elected officials to approve “model” bills. Learn more at the Center for Media and Democracy's ALECexposed.org, and check out breaking news on our PRWatch.org site.


Campaigns
In 2009 IER run a campaign on "green jobs" attacking the expansion of renewables energies. IER commissioned three studies on renewable energies and green jobs in Denmark, Germany and Spain.[4] These studies by different think tanks were than promoted by IER and other free market think tanks in the US but also used in Europe[5] and Ontario, Canada.[6] The study on Germany e.g. was translated into German and taken up by German media - without mentioning that the study was financed by IER with its close business links. The German institute that wrote the study (called Rheinisch-westfaelisches Institut fuer Wirtschaftsforschung, RWI) didn't acknowledge the funding from IER until they were challendged by investigative journalists.[7]

A report by the Europan NGO Corporate Europe Observatory tried to get more information on the funding of the libertarianInstituto Juan de Mariana responsible for the Spanish study and the Danish think tank CEPOS doing the study on wind energy in Denmark. The report states: "In their reply to CEO, Instituto Juan de Mariana affirmed that it finances all its activities through the individual donation of his over 250 individual members and that they did not receive corporate funding with the exception of a small Spanish insurance company. When contacted again to check whether the Institute for Energy Research (IER) support for the above study was financial, the Institute stopped responding."[8]

Staff

• 
  
• Robert L. Bradley, President
• Nancy C. Bradley, Secretary / Treasurer
• Howard Gano, Jr., Director
• Jim Clarkson, Director
• Preston Marshall, Director
• Wayne Gable, Director

Funding
EIN: 76-0149778
This is a 501(c)(03) public charity [1]

According to the ExxonMobils Corporate Giving Reports the IER received 307.000 US$ from the oil company or its foundation between 2003 and 2007.[9] The institute also received 175.000 US$ from Koch Industries according to a Greenpeace report.[10]

So,OLDSTYLE, you tried to sneak by a source that is a far right nut case source for the far right Libertarians, the Koch brothers. Very poor form, dipshit. As one would suspect from you.
So, again, you were unable to find a single source that is impartial to support you.

[/QUOTE]

What's laughable is that you think Source Watch is a credible referee on what is or isn't an impartial source.

"The wiki is a project of the Center for Media and Democracy (CMD) think tank, which also runs PRWatch. According to CMD, it does not accept government grants or corporate donations.[1] CMD was founded by environmental activist John Stauber.

The site suffers somewhat from liberal bias in that there's not much documentation of left-wing front groups, though the wiki is meant to concentrate on corporate FUD campaigns. Occasionally, some anti-scientific stuff from nature woo-meisters creeps in and a few editors like to slap Koch Industries under the funding sections of every front group page. However, the wiki is in general active and well-maintained and collects a lot of good sources and research. Their coverage of global warming denialism, oil and coal interests, and tobacco front groups is superb." SourceWatch - RationalWiki

 

[AntonToo]

When I ask for what Obama policies created jobs, Anton and you respond by pointing to the 800 plus billion dollar stimulus as the "policy" that satisfies that request I can only smile and shake my head. The truth is there was going to be a stimulus put into effect no matter who was elected President since there was overwhelming bipartisan support for stimulus. Obviously when you spend an amount as large as 870 billion you are going to get some sort of bang for your buck. The question is...how much bang did we get for the money we spent...was the stimulus structured in the best way to create jobs and grow the economy...or was it used by the politicians in power to reward their supporters and further their agenda?

There is a reason why the Obama Stimulus didn't create the jobs that Democratic leaders promised it would, Anton! You had Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid controlling who and what got paid out of that money. It became a giant slush fund with which Democratic leaders could reward political supporters and fund their agenda. It's why we got things like Solyndra.
Recapping the Obama Administration Green Energy Stimulus Failures - IER

Hilarious when it's counting the deficits it's nothing but - OBAMA SPENT LIKE DRUNKEN SAILOR!
When it's counting the jobs that spending bought it's - ANYBODY woulda done it! He didn't do nothing special!


Well leave it to you to make IRRELEVANT arguments. It doesn't matter who-woulda-coulda. Fact is Obama DID. So when you say he DIDN"T pass job creating policies, you are WRONG.

Since you haven't been able to provide anything resembling what you would consider GOOD NUMBERS on how many jobs 800 billion dollars caused we can safely ignore your BS ramblings.

 

[AntonToo]

Reasonable numbers? You mean like the jobs created numbers that should have been used to give a more accurate evaluation of whether or not what we were doing was creating jobs? Faun used the example of the USDA puffing up their numbers under the Bush Administration, Anton. What that department did is the exact same thing that the Obama Administration did on a massive scale...the USDA managers used a bullshit "jobs saved" number to provide a narrative that sounded wonderful and made people who didn't know better think that they were doing one heck of a job. What's MORONIC is for anyone with a little common sense to take a "jobs saved" number for anything more than it is...a self serving deception.

Yes, Reasonable numbers. Give us what you consider REASONABLE numbers.

Lets have them asshole. Enough bitching and moaning and dodging.

Time to true up and say something HONEST.

You don't know how many jobs? Just fucking say so and admit that you are arguing ENTIRELY from wishful ignorance rather than fact. Arguing entirely from NEED to deny the UNTHINKABLE, UNACCEPTABLE idea that Obama's policies actually did benefit the jobs market.