This was on "Morning Joe" and reported in Politico, which mentions that Walker "recently survived a recall election," but not that one of the reasons he won was that his opponents tried to make it a referendum on him.
The Wisconsin governor... cited Boston’s “big dig,” a massive, problem-laden infrastucture project as a time when Romney “came in, rolled up his sleeves and said, ‘I’m taking control.’... I’d like to see him do that,” he added.
पोस्ट्स
२१५ टिप्पण्या:
215 पैकी 1 – 200 नवीन› नवीनतम»but there’s got to be something more.
Romney should talk about his executive experience as governor of Massachusetts. Oh wait.
Romney should talk about his illustrious business career at Bain. Oh wait.
Romney should talk about the most important things in his life, his family and religious beliefs. Oh wait.
Romney should talk about his executive experience as governor of Massachusetts. Oh wait.
Obama should talk about his successful executive experience as President of the United States. Oh, wait ..
Well, maybe he can talk about his business experience ... oh, I guess not.
Well, maybe he can talk about his religious beliefs, his relationship to Rev Wright ... drat.
Maybe he can talk about his friends from Chicago, people like Tony Rezko and Bill Ayers ... oops.
Well, maybe he can talk about his sterling academic record at Harvard ...
I could go on, and on, and on ...
Obama should talk about his successful executive experience as President of the United States. Oh, wait ..
Obama gives speeches about what he has accomplished as President all the time. He's not running and hiding from his record the way Romney is.
Frankly, I think he's doing that now.
Actually, though, most people vote against, rather than for.
As last time out proved.
PS Hatman should talk about how smart he is. Oh, wait.
Hatman should talk about how well he understands people. Oh, wait.
Hatman should talk about all his life experiences. Oh, wait.
Andy R. said...
Obama should talk about his successful executive experience as President of the United States. Oh, wait ..
Obama gives speeches about what he has accomplished as President all the time. He's not running and hiding from his record the way Romney is.
Those nightsticks to the head when he was Occupying Hotlanta really destroyed his cognitive functions, didn't they?
Andy R. said...
Obama gives speeches about what he has accomplished as President all the time.
Romney gives speeches about his business experience all the time.
You asserting otherwise is not a fact.
Watching you continue to make an utter buffoon of yourself is passe.
Hey, this isn't a gay issue hatboy, unless you want to talk about how Obama has shit on gays, throwing them a pitiful bone here and there. That's because he knows most gays will vote for him no matter what he does or doesn't do. A metaphoric shit packing.
For people who don't know about the Big Dig, it was a huge boondoggle involving tunnels under Boston for both transportation and water. After the govt. kickbacks, union no show jobs, and mob influence it was unsafe and way over budget
Obama gives speeches about what he has accomplished as President all the time
Can you point me to one of the speeches he has given where he talks about what he "accomplished"? Because I just can't find them.
Here is a link to a speech he gave.
And another one
I see lots of "the economy sucks because of what the wicked Republicans did eight years ago" talk, but not a whole lot of discussion of his wonderful "accomplishments".
Since he can't do it, why don't you step in and remind me what precisely he has accomplished?
AndyR. No, he just wants you to know that the speech he gave on "you didnt build that"' the one he gave with such passion and vitriol in his voice is a speech he did not give.
Romney is a rich, devout Mormon who governed a state with nearly full employment and who started and successfully and profitably ran a private equity fund. He did not spend his youth snorting coke and blowing dope. It is pretty clear who has something to hide in this campaign and we have begun to see that with the president doing a one eighty on his feelings about business and who and what creates jobs.
How is the OWS work going here in Atlanta?
Obama should talk about the stimulus and how it created jobs! Oh wait.
Obama should talk about how he gave his cronies and wealthy donors tax-pyaer funded loans and what a success his green energy "start ups" are! Obama should sing the praises of bankrupt Solyndra. oh wait..
Obama should talk about taxing the productive to pay for his out of control spending... oh wait
Obama should run around the nation and lie to everyone. Oh wait; he's doing just that!
It's July. The election in in November.
Both sides have their tactics, whether they turn out to be right or wrong. That includes deciding when to make what points.
Undecided voters first have to decide that they want the incumbent out. Only then will they start considering whether they want to vote the other candidate IN.
Can you point me to one of the speeches he has given where he talks about what he "accomplished"? Because I just can't find them.
You're pretty clearly being intentionally dumb, but I'll play along. The White House posts speeches by Obama here. I opened the very top one on that page, and it has a whole list of accomplishments from the administration.
Obama should talk about the stimulus and how it created jobs! Oh wait.
Do you actually think that the stimulus didn't create any jobs?
Did Walker give any indication of the status of the double super secret dieliberations of the extra extraordinay and secret grand jury? This is a story I hold my breath on, knowing their indictment is going to come in any day now. Possibly this afternoon.
10b. Doncep
Trust me: I CAN "just vote somebody out" because he has done his job so poorly and his ideas are so toxic. When Jimmy Carter smiles because he's no longer the worst president in living memory and only James Buchanan is backstopping the bottom of the list, Obama Must Go!
From an Obama speech.
OBAMA: We acted fast. Our economy started growing again six months after I took office and it has continued to grow for the last three years.
Our businesses have gone back to basics and created over 4 million jobs in the last 27 months; more private sector jobs than were created during the entire seven years before this crisis, in a little over two years.
And across America, we’ve seen them create almost 500,000 jobs in the last 27 months, the strongest period of manufacturing job growth since 1995.
So he does sometimes talk about his "accomplishments". But he lies his ass off when he does it.
The election is in November. Romney needs to save his strongest attacks for September and October.
@ Andy R.
No, the stimulus did NOT create jobs, it only lined the pockets of Obama's cronies. There are fewer people in the work force now than there were when Obama took office. More people went on federal disability in June 2012 than found jobs.
Obama Must Go!
Can someone point me to a speech that Romney has given where he talked about Bain? I scanned the list here for titles that looked like they might have something to do with Bain and searched the textes for Bain and couldn't find anything. I tried googling but the search results were full of articles about Bain attacks and how Romney is running from Bain. I did find this article from January, from a self-described conservative, "Mitt Romney should give a major speech on Bain". It's possible that Romney is saving Bain for the future, although it's a little odd that he's letting all the negative stuff go uncontested. The idea that he would run for President without talking about the largest and most important part of his career is even more odd.
Am I wrong about this? Has Romney given any speeches about Bain? There was the day of worldwind media interviews about when exactly he retroactively retired, but that was rushed and incoherent and wasn't focused on his business expertise anyway.
Obama has had two successes on his record.
First his election itself did much to lift the racial guilt as an constant background issue left over from MLK's days. The liberals are in denial, but it happened.
Second he seems to have convinced our enemies to stand down and wait for us to collapse.
Why should they attack us now while Mr Fifth Column is doing his thing to us and they can hide and watch the US military power go into a severe shrinkage. Putin will wait. The Muslim Jihadists will wait.
If they were to attack us today they remember that we can wake up and retaliate.
So Obama did achieve peace in our time. For a very small time. Great job, Obama.
By the way, we had this exact same conversation during the primaries. I said, "hey Republicans, it's kind of risky to pick a candidate that can't make a positive case for himself. All he can say is vote against the other guy." And some of you said that would be fine and Anyone But Obama was strong enough and basically anyone could beat Obama. And the folks who were supporting people other than Romney said, actually that might be a good point and that maybe we shouldn't nominate a candidate who is all about being Not Obama and can't offer reasons why voters should vote for him other than wanting not to vote for Obama.
It's a pretty risky gamble to pick a candidate who can only win if voters don't actually contrast him against the incumbent, but it was a necessity based on the weakness of the Republican primary field.
AndyR: the scary thing, at least to me, is that you probably believe that crap you are writing.
AndyR: the scary thing, at least to me, is that you probably believe that crap you are writing.
Are you scared that Scott Walked believed what he said as well?
You're pretty clearly being intentionally dumb, but I'll play along. The White House posts speeches by Obama here. I opened the very top one on that page, and it has a whole list of accomplishments from the administration.
You're the one playing dumb. Or perhaps being dumb.
From your link
We’ve now seen almost two and a half years of private sector job growth -- about 4.5 million jobs created; about half a million in the manufacturing sector, the fastest growth we’ve seen in the manufacturing sector since the 1990s. Saved an auto industry, stabilized the financial system.
The reality is that the economy has gotten worse under Obama. The percentage of Americans unemployed has continued to rise while he has been in office. Labor force participation is now at its lowest level since 1981, and the trend is down, not up. Poverty levels in the US are now at their highest level in fifty years, and the trend is up, not down.
You're pretty clearly being intentionally dumb, but I'll play along. The White House posts speeches by Obama here. I opened the very top one on that page, and it has a whole list of accomplishments from the administration.
Obama should talk about the stimulus and how it created jobs! Oh wait.
Do you actually think that the stimulus didn't create any jobs?
-----------
No, the stimulus didn't create any jobs and Obama hasn't created any jobs.
On the contrary, the labor participation rate is at its lowest since 1981 (when women were still entering the workforce), and the needle hasn't moved since we hit bottom in mid 2009.
So despite Obama's claim that he's created 4.5 million jobs, he's actually created none and in fact because of the constant expansion of the work force, you can say that we have more people out of work than we had when we hit bottom.
The stimulus was almost entirely given to the states so they could shore up the holes in their state budgets.
Scott Walker? I am not a resident of WI and dont follow WI politics. As a general rule, I dont believe much of what politicians say. But please remind me of what Scott Walker said, and why I should be scared.
So despite Obama's claim that he's created 4.5 million jobs, he's actually created none and in fact because of the constant expansion of the work force, you can say that we have more people out of work than we had when we hit bottom.
Do you know what a counterfactual is?
It's a pretty risky gamble to pick a candidate who can only win if voters don't actually contrast him against the incumbent
Obama is President because voters contrasted him with Bush, not for any other reason.
Think back to 2008. Obama is running for President.
Did he talk about his executive experience in running .. uh ..right, he had zero executive experience.
Did he talk about his illustrious business career at .. uh ..
Did he talk about his friends, family, religious beliefs?
Did he do any of the things you now are saying that Romney must do?
No, he ran on "hope and change" and closing Gitmo. That's it.
But please remind me of what Scott Walker said, and why I should be scared.
Did you read the article that Althouse linked to?
Do you know what a counterfactual is?
Do you know what a fact is?
I get the distinct impression that for the majority of liberals, the concept of "fact is completely alien.
Andy R. said...
Do you actually think that the stimulus didn't create any jobs?
Uh, considering there are fewer people working today than in 1985 and the U/E rate is higher than when Obama was sworn in, no.
And there really is no factual dispute about it.
Uh, considering there are fewer people working today than in 1985 and the U/E rate is higher than when Obama was sworn in, no.
Jay, do you know what a counterfactual is?
Andy R: I did (the "morning joe" interview--and saw nothing that scared me--seemed to be about Mr Walker's view on elections. I didnt find that scary at all. Why should I be scared? I happened to disagree with his comment because people vote for all sorts of reasons. What precisely did you find scary?
So despite Obama's claim that he's created 4.5 million jobs, he's actually created none and in fact because of the constant expansion of the work force, you can say that we have more people out of work than we had when we hit bottom.
Do you know what a counterfactual is?
----------
Yes, I understand that I am claiming that there are two bottoms, the "official" and the "unofficial".
Why don't you address the thrust of my comments instead of asking meaningless rhetorical questions?
I wonder how Obama created all these jobs yet the unemployment figures remain pretty much the same as three years ago.
Just to be clear, the relevant question with the stimulus is whether we have more jobs now because the stimulus was passed than we would have now if the stimulus wasn't passed.
Here are some "facts:
Obama's Economic Stimulus Program Created Up To 3.3 Million Jobs, CBO Says
New CBO Report Finds Up to 2.4 Million People Owe Their Jobs to the Recovery Act
Did the Stimulus Create Jobs? Yes, the stimulus legislation increased employment, despite false Republican claims to the contrary.
Those are reports from the CBO and our friends at factcheck. I've occasionally seen delusional right wing commenters claim that the stimulus didn't create any jobs, but I've never seen a serious argument trying to say that is the case.
You might ask yourself why you think such a thing and who lied to you about it.
Can someone point me to a speech that Romney has given where he talked about Bain?
A collection of most Romney speeches and interviews.
http://mittromneycentral.com/speeches/
Scroll down and see the link for "Bain".
Can you point me to speech or interview where Obama has talked about his time in Chicago?
I wonder how Obama created all these jobs yet the unemployment figures remain pretty much the same as three years ago.
Because the employment rate would have been even worse without the stimulus. Is that clear?
Obama's Economic Stimulus Program Created Up To 3.3 Million Jobs, CBO Says
-------------
Excerpt from first line of the CBO report -
"MAY HAVE CREATED OR SAVED as many as 3.3 million jobs last quarter"
good job internet sleuth.
Because the employment rate would have been even worse without the stimulus. Is that clear?
--------------
lol the irony.
Do you know what a counterfactual is?
Because the employment rate would have been even worse without the stimulus. Is that clear?
What is clear is that the actual unemployment rate is nowhere near where supporters of the stimulus claimed would be at this time.
the scary thing, at least to me, is that you probably believe that crap you are writing.
I was asking if you were scared about what Walker said because my comments in this thread have been agreeing with him.
Andy, here's some actual data for you:
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/people-not-labor-force-soar-522000-labor-force-participation-rate-lowest-1981
It's a bit more relevant than the CBO crunching the garbage numbers that are given to them and spitting out a report.
I prefer the use of BLS for information on jobs, but YMMV.
And the whole notion of jobs "created or saved" appears to me to be a bit flakey--Just how are "jobs saved" measured?
The entire election will hinge on what hatman likes.
hatman can't prove any net jobs were created because of this stimulus. Remember you take money out of the private sector and shift it over to the public sector. At best no net jobs, in reality you probably lose jobs.
Romney really should tap into Walker's Huckleberry fan base.
"We don't want to be like Milwaukee!" **wink wink nudge nudge**
And tell them being at the top in the nation in job losses is "protecting the taxpayer."
They'll eat it right up.
Just to be clear, the relevant question with the stimulus is whether we have more jobs now because the stimulus was passed than we would have now if the stimulus wasn't passed.
You do not get to decide what the "relevant question" is.
Here are some "facts"
Facts" is deservedly in quotes.
Obama's Economic Stimulus Program Created Up To 3.3 Million Jobs, CBO Says
But if you bother to click through the link, what you actually read is: "President Barack Obama’s stimulus package may have created or saved as many as 3.3 million jobs last quarter and lowered the unemployment rate by as much as 1.8 percentage points, the Congressional Budget Office said."
"May" have "saved" as many as 3.3 million jobs is NOT the same thing as "created up to 3.3 million jobs". It is not even close to the same thing.
This moronic "saved or created" bullshit was so roundly ridiculed when if surfaced a couple of years ago that I thought we'd seen the last of it.
But in your pathetic effort to make Obama seem less of an economic disaster, you've yanked it out of its coffin.
(Link)
That's a fascinating assertion Andy.
Notice hatman doesn't want to talk about labor force participation rate, just the U-6 rate. When Bush was in office it was the inverse.
I prefer the use of BLS for information on jobs, but YMMV.
And the whole notion of jobs "created or saved" appears to me to be a bit flakey--Just how are "jobs saved" measured?
------------
They were saved when the Obama stimulus was passed on to the states so that they could shore up their budgets and government workers didn't need to be fired.
Of course this is a perverse incentive for corrupt states who cannot handle their financies to not make the neccesary corrective actions.
As far as created jobs, well, there were basically zero. That's why the created or saved categories are lumped together. To give the illusion of job creation.
Andy R. said...
You might ask yourself why you think such a thing and who lied to you about it.
Except nobody "lied" except you.
See stupid, you can't have "jobs created" as a measure when the yardstick is "saved or created"
Also note from your propoganda:
between 0.4 million and 2.4 million jobs
You can't bring yourself to ask why there is such a wide variance there.
Let me help you:
It is all bullshit.
We can't have a debate about whether the stimulus created jobs unless someone else posts some evidence. This is from factcheck, with the links on that page if you want to click through:
"As we have written before, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office released a report in August that said the stimulus bill has "[l]owered the unemployment rate by between 0.7 percentage points and 1.8 percentage points" and "[i]ncreased the number of people employed by between 1.4 million and 3.3 million.""
I know many of you think that the stimulus didn't create any jobs but can you link to some economic analysis that refutes the calculations from the CBO?
SPImmortal: I don't see what bearing the labor force participation rate has on whether or not the stimulus created jobs. The stimulus could have created jobs and people could have left the labor force at the same time. That might explain some of the changes in the employment rate numbers, but the CBO is also talking about the absolute number of jobs created.
Do you have a source other than Althouse commenters claiming the stimulus didn't create any jobs that I can look at?
Yes, our silly little gay boy can't read this:
President Barack Obama’s stimulus package may have created or saved as many as 3.3 million jobs last quarter and lowered the unemployment rate by as much as 1.8 percentage points, the Congressional Budget Office said
And comprehend that it is all complete & utter bullshit.
Andy R. said...
I know many of you think that the stimulus didn't create any jobs but can you link to some economic analysis that refutes the calculations from the CBO?
Um, the CBO did not, and is not claiming, what you say they are.
An organization misreporting what the CBO said is not a fact.
There are fewer people working today than in 1985 and the U/E rate is higher than when Obama was sworn in.
Little andy can't comprehend all this math.
From MadisonMan's link:
Romer and Bernstein defend their estimates with the argument that the economic situation turned out worse than they had anticipated; and so the economy would have done even worse without a stimulus. That may or may not be the case – but at this point, a more thorough explanation is certainly warranted.
These people are not claiming that the stimulus didn't create any jobs.
We're welcome to have a debate about whether or not the stimulus was cost-effective. It's quite possible that the stimulus cost per job created was too high. But the idea that the stimulus didn't create any jobs has no bearing on empirical reality.
tell them being at the top in the nation in job losses is "protecting the taxpayer."
Unemployment rate by state.
http://www.bls.gov/web/laus/laumstrk.htm/
I'm not sure how a state can be "at the top of the nation in job losses" when thirty states in the nation have a worse unemployment record.
So, if the economy is in free fall, and policies are put in place that actually help to stop the free fall, that's a bad thing?
But actively preventing economic recovery is a good thing?
Crazy world...crazy bubble world...
The only objective fact is the labor force participation rate which is at the lowest level since the Carter years
Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey
That's a fact, all hatman has is bullshit.
Because the employment rate would have been even worse without the stimulus. Is that clear?
Clear, but totally false.
Regardless of the actual definition of "counterfactual", you are obviously using it to mean that you will blithely dismiss any accurate, factual statement of truth that indicates Obama is a failure as a President.
For instance, Obama claims that he inherited economic problems from Bush.
Well, using your logic, I can just claim that if it weren't for W's policies, the economy Obama inherited would have been much, much worse.
Or using your logic, I can just claim that if we had elected McCain instead of Obama, consumer confidence would have been restored almost immediately and we would have the best recovery from a recession in the history of the US.
In fact the Labor force participation rate is exactly where it was during 1980! Thanks Krugfuck.
Andy R. said...
But the idea that the stimulus didn't create any jobs has no bearing on empirical reality.
There is no evidence, anywhere at all, the stimulus created a single job.
The unemployment rate went up a full percentage point after the stimulus was passed.
There are 10 million fewer people in the labor force.
Your utter inability to understand what the CBO said is a you problem.
machine said...
So, if the economy is in free fall, and policies are put in place that actually help to stop the free fall, that's a bad thing?
Hysterical.
No "free fall" was stopped since there are fewer people working than 29 years ago.
Or would you like some statistics on the net wealth that has been erased in the last few years?
These people are not claiming that the stimulus didn't create any jobs
It's difficult to spend close to a billion dollars and not create any jobs. If nothing else you're going to create jobs for the people giving the money away.
The question is whether it created any net jobs. And it is not at all clear that it did. The number of employed Americans decreased after the stimulus.
Andy R. said...
Just to be clear, the relevant question with the stimulus is whether we have more jobs now because the stimulus was passed than we would have now if the stimulus wasn't passed.
Here are some "facts:
Obama's Economic Stimulus Program Created Up To 3.3 Million Jobs, CBO Says
New CBO Report Finds Up to 2.4 Million People Owe Their Jobs to the Recovery Act
Did the Stimulus Create Jobs? Yes, the stimulus legislation increased employment, despite false Republican claims to the contrary.
The CBO is only as good as the numbers given it by Congress. It doesn't do its own research.
As for FactCheck, by its own admission (not that being part of the Annenberg Center isn't damning enough), it's run by the University of Pennsylvania.
The stimulus money went straight into the pockets of Democrat politicians, most of whom used it to pay off their own debts.
The only jobs to come out of it were to the guys who put up those orange signs where you never saw anybody working.
From the Congressional Budget Office website, "Estimated Impact of the Stimulus Package on Employment and Economic Output"
Estimated Impact of the Stimulus Package on Employment and Economic Output
"Increased the number of people employed by between 1.4 million and 3.3 million"
Can someone explain to me why this isn't true?
So, if the economy is in free fall, and policies are put in place that actually help to stop the free fall, that's a bad thing?
It's not a bad thing.
Too bad that's not what was done. Because we're stuck with an economy which is still in free fall.
machine said...
So, if the economy is in free fall, and policies are put in place that actually help to stop the free fall, that's a bad thing?
The economy wasn't in free fall. In fact, the markets turned around long before the first stimulus dollar was spent.
But actively preventing economic recovery is a good thing?
Another fan of Dingy Harry.
SPImmortal: I don't see what bearing the labor force participation rate has on whether or not the stimulus created jobs. The stimulus could have created jobs and people could have left the labor force at the same time. That might explain some of the changes in the employment rate numbers, but the CBO is also talking about the absolute number of jobs created.
---------------
It's really simple. The labor force participation rate is the number of people employed or seeking employment.
When it goes off a cliff like that (and it's still dropping to this day). It means that people have stopped looking for work because there is none, and new workers entering the workforce can't find any.
the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office
It may be nonpartisan, but it is not unbiased. When I see reports from it, I ask myself (I'm cynical): Would the CBO actually report that something that Congress did had no effect, essentially telling its paymasters that they're doing nothing and charging people for it?
Estimated Impact of the Stimulus Package on Employment and Economic Output
"Increased the number of people employed by between 1.4 million and 3.3 million"
Hilarious.
He doesn't understand why "estimates" are not actual job increases.
The unemployment rate went up a full percentage point after the stimulus was passed.
And if the unemployment rate would have gone up two percentage points without the stimulus, would you agree that it created/saved jobs?
If a block of houses is on fire, and the fire department shows up and saves three houses, you could look at it two ways. You could say, we started with ten houses and now we have three houses so the fire department didn't save any houses. Or you could say that without the fire department we would have no houses so this is increase of three houses.
Now if we all accept the general premise, that there are more jobs now than there would be without the stimulus, then we're just arguing semantics. If someone thinks that the stimulus bill didn't actually have any impact on the number of jobs in the country, then all the evidence presented so far in this thread says you are wrong.
Estimated Impact of the Stimulus Package on Employment and Economic Output
"Increased the number of people employed by between 1.4 million and 3.3 million"
Can someone explain to me why this isn't true?
Because it is based on the same stupid "saved or created" bullshit. This time, they use the word "retain" instead of "saved".
The CBO was mandated by the (Democratic) Congress to count "saved" or "retained" jobs as just like "created" ones.
From your own link-
The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) contains a variety of provisions intended to boost economic activity and employment in the United States. Section 1512(e) of the law requires the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) to comment on the reports filed by certain recipients of funding under ARRA that detail how many jobs were created or retained through funded activities.
And if the unemployment rate would have gone up two percentage points without the stimulus, would you agree that it created/saved jobs?
Perhaps if I had not sacrificed a chicken three years ago, the world would have ended by now. You can't prove that it wouldn't, can you?
Your theory about what the economy would have done absent the stimulus is equally speculative.
I see you've moved on to a new argument - "of course there are more people out of work than before the stimulus, but things would be even worse without it".
Nothing wrong with changing your mind. You should do it more often. But don't do it without acknowledging you are doing it.
Madison Man hits the nail on the head with respect to the CBO--it is intensely partisan and beholden to the party in power in Congress--it does no original research and crunches numbers given to it by the party in power. It will be biased toward either Rs or Ds. There are much better sources of data, again the BLS or even census data.
Andy R. said...
Now if we all accept the general premise, that there are more jobs now than there would be without the stimulus, then we're just arguing semantics. If someone thinks that the stimulus bill didn't actually have any impact on the number of jobs in the country, then all the evidence presented so far in this thread says you are wrong.
Obviously we all don't accept the general premise since unemployment is going up again and workforce participation is going down. Still.
As for "the evidence presented", it's pretty much been shot to Hell.
Do you actually think that the stimulus didn't create any jobs?
In January 2009, when President Obama took office, the unemployment rate was 7.8% and today it is 8.2%.
In January 2009, there were 133,886,830 people in the U.S. workforce, today there are 127,048,587 people in the workforce.
Last month more people started collecting disability than the number of people who got jobs.
So, after President Obama's fantastic stimulus, unemployment is higher, nearly 7 million fewer people are working (or else unemployment would be much worse than the official numbers) and more and more people are latching on to the government teat.
Spare
A collection of most Romney speeches and interviews.
http://mittromneycentral.com/speeches/
Scroll down and see the link for "Bain".
Those are blog posts from that website that have been tagged with Bain. I scrolled through them and didn't find a single speech by Romney about Bain. It seems that if Romney has ever given a speech about Bain, no one can find it.
BTW--Q's comment above helps make my case that the CBO is partisan--Now, because they suck up to their overlords, they will soon be using republican figures provided as the Rs control the house.
Obviously we all don't accept the general premise since unemployment is going up again and workforce participation is going down.
Yes, and it would be worse without the stimulus.
if we all accept the general premise, that there are more jobs now than there would be without the stimulus
I don't see why I should accept your hypothetical premise. We were told the stimulus would keep U6 under 8%. It didn't. What reason other than blind faith that you have more knowledge than the Obama administration should I think U6 would have been worse with no stimulus?
It seems that if Romney has ever given a speech about Bain
Yeah, change the topic, you ugly loser.
I doubt if Romney has "ever given a speech about Bain".
Has Obama ever given a speech about his time at Harvard? Has he ever give a speech about his work as a "community organizer" in Chicago? There are vast areas of Obamas life which he has never given a speech about.
AndyR--while you may be inerested in "Bain" I suspect most Americans dont care--the "Bain" meme isnt resonating except with hard core Dems. In the meantime, Mr Obama continues to backtrack on his "you didnt built that" comments. Looks to me like his internal polling is telling his campaign he fucked it up pretty badly. YMMV of course.
If you want to go with "Bain" be my guest. Looks like to me its doubling down on stupid.
Obama is in big trouble when all he has to defend his crappy polices are dumbfucks like Garbage Mahal and Hatman.
Q's comment above helps make my case that the CBO is partisan
That wasn't my point. CBO just does what it is told. If they are told to cook the books, they cook the books. The problem is with the people writing the law commanding them to cook the books.
Here are nine reports on the stimulus, "Did the stimulus work? A review of the nine best studies on the subject". Seven found a positive effect. Of the two that didn't, one of those isn't statistically significant.
I think, in the world where the stimulus passed we have more jobs than in the world where the stimulus was not passed. The CBO and 7 out of 9 of those studies agree with me.
Most of you seem to be granting that there are more jobs in the world with the stimulus than what would have happened, but you would prefer to evaluate the stimulus in some other way.
For people who think it's just the absolute change over time, I'm not sure what more I have to say to you. It's possible both that the stimulus created jobs and that overall, jobs were lost in the economy, for reasons other than the stimulus. I think it's pretty clear that the way to evaluate policies is to contrast their impact versus what would have happened if they weren't passed, holding everything else equal.
If I get new running shoes that make me run faster and I time myself the next day (but there is also a big rain storm) and my running time is 2 minutes slower, did the shoes make me faster? Without the storm, I would have been one minute faster. But with the storm and the shoes, I'm 2 minutes slower, whereas without the shoes I would have been three minutes slower. Did the shoes have an effect? Even though my overall time was slower, do we all agree that the shoes still made me faster? Is the relevant comparison running in the storm, with or without the shoes?
If people are flat out refusing to acknowledge that the stimulus had an impact on the number of jobs in the country, I don't think there is any other evidence I can present that can demonstrate that you are wrong.
There would be even less jobs today without the stimulus.
It seems that if Romney has ever given a speech about Bain
Yeah, change the topic, you ugly loser.
The very first comment on this post, by me, was chiding Romney for avoiding talking about Bain. There was then a back and forth to try to figure out if a) Romney should talk about Bain and b) Romney had ever given a speech about Bain. I was responding to a comment pointing to a list of posts about Bain on that website, although none of those posts were about a Romney speech.
At this point, I'm curious if Romney has given any speeches that even mention Bain, much less being about Bain.
If I didn't respond to that comment, I could have been accused of ignoring it. Since I did respond, you're accusing me of changing the subject, although I'm just returning to a previous discussion which hadn't been resolved. Anyway, I'm more than capable of talking about more than one thing at a time.
If people are flat out refusing to acknowledge that the stimulus had an impact on the number of jobs in the country, I don't think there is any other evidence I can present that can demonstrate that you are wrong.
I agree that the stimulus had an effect on the number of jobs in this country. It did create new jobs, but they were government jobs that sucked more money out of the economy, instead of private sector jobs that would pump money into the economy.
"The stimulus money went straight into the pockets of Democrat politicians, most of whom used it to pay off their own debts."
Does anyone actually believe this? Because if any of you do think this is even remotely accurate, then all of us are screwed and are living in a completely dysfunctional democracy incapable of having a reasonable discussion about our future.
Congrats EDoucher! You have gone the full Bachmann!
I don't think there is any other evidence I can present that can demonstrate that you are wrong.
That's true, but it's only because you fail to understand that it's because you are massively and demonstrably ignorant on all matters economic, and equally demonstrably uninterested in learning anything that could upset your silly Obama-worship.
The ability to cut and paste Kos' (or whomever you parrot - clearly you yourself have no understanding of the opportuinity costs of fiscal irresponsibility) arguments is never persuasive, and is no reflection on those you're attempting to - if I can coin a term - brow-bleat.
So, in the world according to Andy Obama's new slogan will be:
"We suck less than you thought."
Now if we all accept the general premise, that there are more jobs now than there would be without the stimulus...
Why should we accept any premise. The burden of proof is on the person floating the premise.
Do you know, by the way, how the CBO figured out how many jobs were created or saved?
Hint: it wasn't by doing even a shallow analysis of labor/tax/employment reporting.
The very first comment on this post, by me, was chiding Romney for avoiding talking about Bain.
You have this persistent belief that you set the topic around here and the rest of us then discuss it.
Why are lefties so arrogant?
You have this persistent belief that you set the topic around here and the rest of us then discuss it.
Me, you, and Roger all posted multiple times about Bain. I got distracted by the stimulus argument and realized that there was a link posted to the Romney speeches as if there was one that talked about Bain. There apparently isn't, that I could find.
Since you were the one that posted the link to the Bain posts, and since there wasn't a speech there by Romney about Bain, I see why you are being defensive.
I really would like to return to the original topic, which is that Romney is refusing to present a positive case about why he should be elected.
At this point, I'm curious if Romney has given any speeches that even mention Bain
He has certainly talked about Bain in various different forums. Whether he has actually given a formal "speech" with the word "Bain" in it, I don't know, And I don't see why I'm supposed to care.
So, care to refresh my memory on what Obama talked about in 2008 while running for POTUS? His political experience? His private sector experience? His faith? What?
Andy: I personally think Bain isnt an issue, but the electorate can decide--as you note in your most recent post, and apropos Mr Walker's comments on the morning joe: the election can be determined by either positive or negative reasons. That is: get rid of the incumbent (irrespective of the challenger) or elect someone who you think will do a better job. I happen to think the electorate will use either argument to justify their votes.
We will find out in November.
Andy R. said...
Now if we all accept the general premise, that there are more jobs now than there would be without the stimulus, then we're just arguing semantics. If someone thinks that the stimulus bill didn't actually have any impact on the number of jobs in the country, then all the evidence presented so far in this thread says you are wrong.
Of course you accept that premise, it confirms your biases.
There is no "evidence" that the number of jobs increased because of the stimulus.
None.
Zero.
Me, you, and Roger all posted multiple times about Bain.
As you already admitted, YOU are the one who injected Bain into the thread. Then we all talked about the economy for a long time, with you getting your queer ass soundly whipped.
At which point you suddenly decided you had had enough of the economy and wanted to talk about Bain again. I repeat, you don't get to tell everyone else what to comment on.
If you have anything more interesting to say about Bain other than "Golly, has Romney ever given a speech on Bain?" then maybe I'll join in.
If all you want is to stop the beating you're taking on the economy, tough shit.
Andy R. said...
Of the two that didn't, one of those isn't statistically significant
How would you know?
At which point you suddenly decided you had had enough of the economy and wanted to talk about Bain again. I repeat, you don't get to tell everyone else what to comment on.
I'm not telling anyone what they can and can't talk about. I noticed that there was a comment I had missed which might have answered my question about a Romney speech about Bain. The commenter (you) was mistaken, and so I pointed that out.
I really would like to return to the original topic, which is that Romney is refusing to present a positive case about why he should be elected.
Romney can better deal with the "Soviet threat", and bring back the "Anglo-Saxon heritage" with Great Britain.
And more top end tax cuts.
Best candidate ever!
I really would like to return to the original topic, which is that Romney is refusing to present a positive case about why he should be elected.
That is not the original topic. The original topic is "what wins elections - running against the other guy, or running on yourself?".
Which is why I'm asking you to remind me, what exactly did Obama run on again? His experience? His faith? His business background? What was the rationale for the Obama presidency again?
bring back the "Anglo-Saxon heritage" with Great Britain.
Why are all lefties such racist little fuckwits?
It's a serious question.
There are roughly a million things that influence the employment rate at any one time. Regulations, demand, the stock market, oil prices, the euro crisis, etc. I could go on and on.
What political scientists and the CBO have been attempting to figure out is what was the independent or unique impact of the stimulus. Among all the other factors that were pushing the number of jobs up and down, what did the stimulus do? There were lots of factors that were pushing down the number of jobs, either by ending existing jobs or making it more difficult for new jobs to be created.
A number of researchers and government workers have attempting to determine the specific impact of the stimulus on jobs. Both the CBO and the bulk of those researchers determined that the stimulus caused a net increase in the number of jobs, holding everything else constant.
Does anyone disagree with this?
I noticed that there was a comment I had missed
I notice that you have missed a few more comments. For example, this one.
what exactly did Obama run on again? His experience? His faith? His business background? What was the rationale for the Obama presidency again?
Yes, the post was about an article where Scott Walked criticized Romney for not presenting a positive case about why he should be elected.
It's possible both that the stimulus created jobs and that overall, jobs were lost in the economy
Andy, if your boss fires you today and hires someone else, has he "created" a job? Job creation numbers are only meaningful as a net change.
Why are all lefties such racist little fuckwits?
It's a serious question.
Ask the racist little fuckwit from Romney's campaign who said it, genius.
Another decent thread wrecked by Andy R's bain in the ass antics.
what exactly did Obama run on again? His experience? His faith? His business background? What was the rationale for the Obama presidency again?
I was in Israel during the campaign, so I'm probably not the best person to answer that question. I also wasn't an undecided voter or someone that needed to be motivated to vote, so Obama probably wasn't directing his campaign operations at me.
You're welcome to disagree with me and Scott Walker, but if Romney loses, I think people will probably agree that Romney should have presented more of a positive case about why people should vote for Romney.
Ask the racist little fuckwit from Romney's campaign who said it, genius.
Romney should fire whoever said that and go kiss the ring of the NAACP immediately.
Both the CBO and the bulk of those researchers determined that the stimulus caused a net increase in the number of jobs, holding everything else constant.
The CBO was not charged with any such task, and made no such determination. The CBO said nothing about a "net increase in jobs as a result of the stimulus". You are flat-out lying on this point.
If you can point to any "researchers" who "determined" that the Let's-Pay-Back-Wealthy-Democratic-Donors-Act caused a net increase in the number of jobs, than go right ahead.
hatman and garage are always flat-out lying, what's new?
Andy, if your boss fires you today and hires someone else, has he "created" a job? Job creation numbers are only meaningful as a net change.
If I make a donation to a company to hire a new worker and at the same time a storm destroys one of their factories and they lose 10 jobs, did my donation create a job?
Instead of -10 jobs they have -9 jobs. It's a decrease in jobs, but the independent result of my donation was one new job. It's somewhat more complicated with the stimulus, but that's what researchers are trying to answer. And overwhelmingly, they have come to the conclusion that the unique impact of the stimulus was to increase the number of jobs.
Ask the racist little fuckwit from Romney's campaign who said it, genius.
You think that it is racist to mention the fact that this country was founded by Anglo-Saxons?
What other aspects of reality do you think are racist, you psychotic little troll?
Of the two that didn't, one of those isn't statistically significant
How would you know?
Because the range on private sector jobs is -1.5 million to 2.7 million.
Both the CBO and the bulk of those researchers determined that the stimulus caused a net increase in the number of jobs, holding everything else constant.
Does anyone disagree with this?
The CBO found no such thing.
The CBO did not claim to find any such thing.
Andy R. said...
Because the range on private sector jobs is -1.5 million to 2.7 million.
Hilarious.
But I guess the CBO you keep referencing which said:
Increased the number of full-time-equivalent (FTE) jobs by 2.0 million to 4.8 million
Is like totally statistically significant!!!
For the question we're looking at, wouldn't we just want to know if the range is all positive, all negative, or includes zero? How are you interpreting it?
hat the stimulus caused a net increase in the number of jobs, holding everything else constant.
Um, no, no they did not.
Especially considering there are fewer people working now than before the stimulus was passed.
You are terribly unfamiliar with the term "net" and what this all means.
Are some of you arguing that we should just look at the employment numbers before the stimulus and then again after the stimulus. And therefore whatever change occurred because of (only?) the stimulus?
Because that's a trivial and pointless analysis. It doesn't actually answer the question of whether or not the stimulus created jobs. I'm not seeing anything more complex than that from you guys.
I'm not sure why you think those dozens of researchers have been running all those analyses if the relevant question is just the absolute number of jobs before and after the stimulus.
that the stimulus caused a net increase in the number of jobs, holding everything else constant.
You are terribly unfamiliar with the term "net" and what this all means.
You're right, I shouldn't have said net. I should have said, "the stimulus caused an increase in the number of jobs, holding everything else constant."
Do you agree with that (fixed) comment?
I was in Israel during the campaign
No shit, Jew boy? And there I was thinking you were American.
so I'm probably not the best person to answer that question.
Remind me again, exactly what questions relating to America and American politics are you knowledgeable about?
I also wasn't an undecided voter or someone that needed to be motivated to vote
Not sure why you're a voter at all, at least in this country.
You're welcome to disagree with me and Scott Walker
You and Scott Walker, standing side by side and shoulder to shoulder. It's a beautiful sight.
Amazingly, I see that you bullshitted your way through that entire comment without answering my question. Just an oversight I;m sure.
what exactly did Obama run on again? His experience? His faith? His business background? What was the rationale for the Obama presidency again?
Come on, Andy. Dazzle me with some of those legendary Jewish brains.
No shit, Jew boy? And there I was thinking you were American.
I'm done talking with you.
Because that's a trivial and pointless analysis. It doesn't actually answer the question of whether or not the stimulus created jobs.
You never answered my question about whether my sacrificing a chicken prevented the world from being destroyed. Can you demonstrate that it didn't?
machine said...
The stimulus money went straight into the pockets of Democrat politicians, most of whom used it to pay off their own debts.
Does anyone actually believe this?
If they don't, they're as in the tank as the mindless automaton. Because that's what happened.
Because if any of you do think this is even remotely accurate, then all of us are screwed and are living in a completely dysfunctional democracy incapable of having a reasonable discussion about our future.
By George, I think he's got it. At least as far as the Lefties are concerned.
Congrats EDoucher! You have gone the full Bachmann!
That's dutcher, moron, and Mrs Bachmann is pretty good company these days as she correctly pointed the ties Hillary's girlfriend has to the Moslem Brotherhood.
I'm done talking with you
You never started talking with me, you fascist little turd.
You think that it is racist to mention the fact that this country was founded by Anglo-Saxons?
Hahaha. This, after just asking me why I'm a racist for bringing it up!
You have a bright future ahead of you commenting here, Q.
If they don't, they're as in the tank as the mindless automaton. Because that's what happened.
Here is the PolitiFact article on the ad that edutcher linked to, "We checked out the claim that stimulus money went to buy electric cars from Finland as a payback to Obama supporters. But when PolitiFact sorted out the facts, it found the picture was very different. We rated that claim False."
This, after just asking me why I'm a racist for bringing it up!
I don't recall asking you why you were a racist. I asked why lefties in general are racist.
I know why you're racist - because you're stupid and malevolent and have the same grip as reality as James Holmes.
AndyR: honestly, I dont know whatever analysis other than a pre-post analysis would shed any light on the question. Clearly there are intervening and interactive variables, but the fundamental question is this (from a research standpoint): jobs prior, stimulus, jobs after. Are the numbers dispositive? depends on the sophistication of the analysis. But I gotta tell you, that pre-post analyses are pretty much the gold standard of analysis.
Good old Polifact - the gold standard in establishing The Truth.
That the "stimulus" money went to Democratic run companies in Democratic states is not really open to dispute. Establishing a quid pro quo is the hard part.
AndyR: honestly, I dont know whatever analysis other than a pre-post analysis would shed any light on the question. Clearly there are intervening and interactive variables, but the fundamental question is this (from a research standpoint): jobs prior, stimulus, jobs after. Are the numbers dispositive? depends on the sophistication of the analysis. But I gotta tell you, that pre-post analyses are pretty much the gold standard of analysis.
Yeah, but this only works if you have no other variables or can hold other things constant. It's great in a laboratory setting when you can dose half your patients and run a treatment and control comparison.
But we only have one country, there isn't another USA in existence that didn't get a stimulus to compare it to. And obviously the stimulus wasn't the only thing happening, we're also in the middle of ongoing global economic turmoil. Researchers can't just ignore that.
The way around the fundamental problem of causal inference isn't to do a simple pre/post, but to do the more sophisticated kind of analysis in the nine studies that I linked to. For example, you model the expected number of jobs that would exist without the stimulus, then compare it to what actually happened.
And the consensus from those studies was clear that the stimulus had an impact.
That the "stimulus" money went to Democratic run companies in Democratic states is not really open to dispute.
LOL Click here
To determine the number of jobs created by the stimulus, here's what the CBO did:
They took the formula they used to determine how many jobs would be created if X dollars were spent, then plugged in the fact that Y dollars were spent to get to how many jobs were created.
If I make a donation to a company to hire a new worker and at the same time a storm destroys one of their factories and they lose 10 jobs, did my donation create a job?
You need to take your analogy back another step, because YOU (as the gov't) didn't have donation money sitting around somewhere. You had to TAKE the money from someone, depressing their ability to create a job, or borrow the money, adding to the dour economic forecast which, again depresses job creation. Additionally, by focusing on these politically favored stimulus opportunities, other less favored opportunities were lost and other less favored employers cut jobs. The CBO says, in effect, we spent $800 million dollars, so we MUST have created some jobs, and in fact we can see that company X took the money and retained some people on the payroll. But in an economy of millions of actors and trillions of dollars and innumerable unintended consequences, the only measure of effectiveness for the stimulus is the net employment. Which has gone down. You can continue to argue that "but for stimulus it would have gone down more" but that is an un-provable and highly disputed Keynesian assertion.
Andy R. said...
And the consensus from those studies was clear that the stimulus had an impact.
OK, aside from the fact the holes in those studies have been explained to Hatman;, yes, we can agree "that the stimulus had an impact".
We went a trillion dollars in debt.
the holes in those studies
Which of the studies are you talking about? People have been attacking the CBO study, but I haven't heard a criticism of the other six studies that found a positive impact.
LOL Click here
LOL. Click on The America Prospect!
Has it ever occurred to you step outside your cocoon just for an instant?
I'm going to go out on a limb here-somebody else can do the legwork.I bet, If my county is anything to go by, that most of the stimulous went to education.
compensating those in the trenches who tirelessly get out the vote.
Has it ever occurred to you step outside your cocoon just for an instant?
I'd give you a link to a right wing site that lists the breakdown of every penny spent from the stimulus. But I don't think that's their mission.
Anyways, did you click on any of the data?
I thought of a better analogy. Let's say in 2004 Bush announced a new regulation about offshore drilling, and we were curious what impact it had on the price of gas. We could just compare the price of gas from 2003 to 2005 and see what the change was. But if a researcher tried to do this, they would be laughed at. Because they would be completely ignoring all the other stuff that happened, like the Iraq War.
It seems that this is what people want to do with the stimulus. Look at the jobs numbers before and after the stimulus, ignore everything else that happened, and say any change was because of the stimulus. That's exactly not how you do social science. I wish I had known that the reason that people were claiming the stimulus did not create any jobs is because they were doing this kind of simplistic analysis. It could have saved us all this back and forth.
I suspect the Romney staffer meant to say "Anglo American" but said "Anglo Saxon" instead. No more stupid than having the wrong number of states in your head or thinking Austrian was a language. I could be wrong, but I doubt that there was some sort of racist undertone given the fact that the British are not keen on those kinds of inferences in any way.
Imagine that Ireland is a racial ethnostate with draconian immigration laws which have the explicit purpose of keeping Ireland Irish.
Imagine that Irish-Americans are the fiercest foes of immigration laws in America - laws much weaker than those in place in Ireland.
Imagine an Irish-American commenter on this blog - call him "JoeR" who is a strong critic of the sort of policies in America which he favors in Ireland.
It's hard to imagine, because that sort of rank hypocrisy is not easily tolerated. For some reason it has been tolerated among Jews for a long time. That time needs to come to an end. It's rotting the Jewish mind and the non-Jewish mind alike.
Look at the jobs numbers before and after the stimulus, ignore everything else that happened, and say any change was because of the stimulus.
We were told that there would be a change and that the change would be a result of the "stimulus". We were told this by the Democratic leadership.
You're now saying, "Don't pay any attention to what the Dem leadership tells you!"
Andy R: You are arguing the "jobs saved" position which cannot be challenged and thus is hardly a position at all. Obama declared that the stimulus would save or create X number of jobs. He was in the clear until everyone by X was out of a job. A fatuous argument. You are out of your depth and should spend the time you are typing reading a textbook on economics or reading the Financial Times or the Wall Street Journal to get some deeper understanding of what you are skimming over very lightly indeed.
Q Do us all a favor and leave the "jew boy" crap out of this. People play pretty rough here but that kind of slur is unacceptable.
Has it ever occurred to you step outside your cocoon just for an instant?
I'd give you a link to a right wing site that lists the breakdown of every penny spent from the stimulus. But I don't think that's their mission.
I guess that's a "no".
You are out of your depth and should spend the time you are typing reading a textbook on economics or reading the Financial Times or the Wall Street Journal to get some deeper understanding of what you are skimming over very lightly indeed.
Do you think all six of the studies here that found the stimulus created jobs plus the CBO report are flawed?
Link
On average, Democratic districts received one-and-a-half times as many awards as Republican ones. Democratic districts also received two-and-a-half times more stimulus dollars than Republican districts ($122,127,186,509 vs. $46,139,592,268). Republican districts also received smaller awards on average. (The average dollars awarded per Republican district is $260,675,663, while the average dollars awarded per Democratic district is $471,533,539.)
150 comments so far and half of them from a known idiot.
You do know you're arguing with a brick.
Do you think all six of the studies here that found the stimulus created jobs plus the CBO report are flawed?
The CBO report does not - and cannot - say that the stimulus created any net jobs.
Of your "researchers, one has this conclusion: "Out of the $787 billion stimulus bill, about $250 billion went in direct aid to state and local governments to prevent them from hurting the economy by cutting spending."
This does not say that any new jobs were created. It does suggest that jobs were "saved" .... in state and local government.
I don't think there is anything good or noble about the Democrats engaging in deficit spending to preserve the jobs of Democratic union workers who kick a portion of their wages right back to the Democratic party.
I can imagine a White House and an Obama re-election campaign organization just full of stubbornly clueless pious irritants like Andy R. I sure hope Obama and Axe hires thousands more like him.
Q Do us all a favor and leave the "jew boy" crap out of this
Do us all a favor and grow a pair of testicles. It is long, long past time that Jews were held to the same standards as everyone else.
I'm not meekly turning the cheek while some Jew back from college in his own private little racist ethno-state lectures me on "racism".
No more double standards.
The CBO has to use the numbers congress gives it. If congress deems 47 jobs created (or retained) for every $100,000 of stimulus spent, and there was $800 billion spent, the the CBO must determine that the stimulus created 376 million jobs. Which, of course it didn't, but they would be required to come to that conclusion. It works for the Republican side too. If they get the keys, they get to send the numbers to the CBO and you will then see the CBO PROVING that their policies work. You going to buy those reports also? It is entirely possible that if there was no stimulus, and also no obamacare and fewer new regulations and a constant policy on taxes that the job rate would be better than it is now. Obviously, that is an unprovable assertion. Just like claiming things would be worse without the stimulus.
I want to make sure I'm not mischaracterizing what any of you are claiming. Is the argument really this:
"The stimulus didn't create any jobs because I looked at the number of jobs before the stimulus and the number of jobs after the stimulus and I ignored everything else and since the number of jobs didn't get bigger therefore the stimulus didn't create any jobs."
Because I was reading a discussion at a lefty blog recently and people were trying to figure out why people said the stimulus didn't create any jobs. And no one actually knew. The idea that someone would look at something as complicated as the economy and the stimulus and just compare two numbers, before and after, never occurred to us.
"I'm not meekly turning the cheek while some Jew back from college in his own private little racist ethno-state lectures me on "racism".
No more double standards."
I dont think those words "double standards" mean what you think they do. Do you have trouble typing with the hood on, or does it come off while at home? What possible relevance does his or anyone elves religion have on this? And if you dont want to be lectured on racism, perhaps you should stop being a racist. Stop giving my viewpoint a bad name.
"The idea that someone would look at something as complicated as the economy and the stimulus and just compare two numbers, before and after, never occurred to us."
Wait. The idea that someone would look at the before job number, and compare it with the after job number and notice that the after number was smaller and then come to the conclusion that there were no additional jobs added never occurred to you? Well, that explains some things then.
I guess we were giving the anti-stimulus conservatives too much credit. Good to know.
The idea that someone would look at something as complicated as the economy and the stimulus and just compare two numbers, before and after, never occurred to us.
Did you ever notice how since your ideas are always short on results, you start saying everything is "complicated"
The Obama administration never said it was "complicated"
They said pass the stimulus and the unemployment rate would decline. Period. Full stop.
I dont think those words "double standards" mean what you think they do.
I know perfectly well what a "double standard" is. If you think you see an error in my use of the term, feel free to point it out.
Stop giving my viewpoint a bad name.
If your viewpoint is that policies which are perfectly legitimate in Israel are evil incarnate in America, it's not me giving your viewpoints a bad name. It's you.
racist
A racist is a conservative who is winning an argument with a liberal. Conservatives have finally mustered the courage to subject blacks to legitimate criticism. The final frontier will be learning to do the same with Jews.
The next time AndyR pops up crying about the Arizona immigration laws, for example, I'm asking him why he is not fighting to change the far more draconian laws in Israel. If that makes you pee in your pants because you think its "racist", you're not a conservative and you're not very smart.
that found the stimulus created jobs plus the CBO report are flawed?
The CBO issued an estimate.
You can not name a single CBO estimate in the last 25 years that has been accurate within 50%.
By the way, little andy skipping right over this part of his own link is comical:
But it also doesn’t take into account the actual changes in employment and output that occurred after the stimulus was passed. Further, there is considerable disagreement within the economics profession about macroeconomic modeling, and for any of these studies, one could find economists who dispute the value of the model used.
In other words, the studies simply ignored the actual outcomes and engaged in modeling.
Gee, what other group of people do stuff like that again?
Oh, the global warming crowd.
Romney's message he should do more of:
I will work as hard to make the American People prosperous again as I did at Bain Capital to make the teachers pensions, individuals with savings, all that entrusted money to me more prosperous. And hopefully as sucessfully.
I will work as hard to get America back on her feet as I did to get the Olympics back on it's feet. And Hopefully as successfully.
I will work as hard as I did in Massachusetts to fix the biggest issues voters had - healthcare and avoiding more taxes by solving a 2 billion deficit without raising taxes. I did that. I understand that 10 years later the priorities of the US voters are changing to resurrecting the American economy, middle class jobs, controlling the deficit to avoid getting more taxes on Americans, jobs for the poor, the healthcare, trade, student loans mess. And jobs from more small businesses that built it, and more jobs for professionals, Vets. I will serve to reflect these present voter wishes.
They said pass the stimulus and the unemployment rate would decline. Period. Full stop
Yea and Republicans like Scott Walker promised the same goddamn thing to get elected. Promising jobs. What happened? Where are the jobs? Walker has one of the worst, if not the worst, job creation in the country. Walker promised there would be a "tremendous takeoff" in jobs if we could just past the recalls. June proved once again Wisconsin was #1 in the country in job losses.
In a sane world that should tell us that his Tea Party austerity economics is not what is needed in a severe recession. But we don't live in that world.
Thank you Chip.
I was scrolling through the comments noticing how many are from AndyR And garage and wondering if I should go to the trouble of reading them. I stopped at your comment, as I always do, and you summed up nicely what I suspected. Saved me several minutes of reading and probably a headache.
Andy R. said...
Because I was reading a discussion at a lefty blog recently and people were trying to figure out why people said the stimulus didn't create any jobs. And no one actually knew.
Note the insular nature of your existence.
Hey, isn't it funny us Tea Party dummies are like so stupid that you can't even fathom what we're saying?
And, we keep winning elections to boot.
That's gotta suck for you.
Q said...
Q Do us all a favor and leave the "jew boy" crap out of this
Q typed.
"Do us all a favor and grow a pair of testicles. It is long, long past time that Jews were held to the same standards as everyone else.
I'm not meekly turning the cheek while some Jew back from college in his own private little racist ethno-state lectures me on "racism".
No more double standards."
But of course there are double standards,Q. You call hatman a "jew boy" on the internet which you would never do in person because he might ram your testicles down you sissy throat if you did. No, dude, you grow a pair and learn to argue with a kid without calling him a jew boy. Ok, dipshit?
The next time AndyR pops up crying about the Arizona immigration laws, for example, I'm asking him why he is not fighting to change the far more draconian laws in Israel.
This is so nonsensical, I find it hard to believe you're a genuine conservative.
Note the insular nature of your existence.
I read plenty of conservative sites. Most frequently, The Corner. But obviously, no one who writes at The Corner would ever claim as proof the stimulus didn't create any jobs because they did a simple before and after comparison of the number of jobs. But I also figured that the folks at NR wouldn't like the stimulus, so I was curious what arguments they did make.
This post does a good job of summing up how smart people look at the issue:
Did the Stimulus Work?
First, the narrow question about jobs. (And note that it's being described the exact same way I described it.)
On February 15, they put two statements to the panel and asked them to respond. The first statement reads:
Because of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, the U.S. unemployment rate was lower at the end of 2010 than it would have been without the stimulus bill.
It is true that, of those surveyed, 51 percent agreed and 29 percent strongly agreed with this statement.
Only four percent disagreed with that statement.
There is a later discussion of whether or not the stimulus is worth it. Maybe it was, maybe it wasn't. But that wasn't the discussion we were having. We were talking about whether it created jobs. And basically everyone, minus dumb internet commenters, agrees that it did. There is an 81-4% consensus in favor of the same position I was taking in the comment section here.
Again, saying you are going to compare the number of jobs before and after the stimulus and ignore everything else that is happening is dumb. If you walked into an intro statistics class at a community college and said you wanted to examine the impact of the stimulus on the number of jobs and just looked solely at the number of jobs before and after the stimulus you would be laughed out of the classroom.
I'm not sure why the people here are clinging to this idea as if it is supposed to be persuasive or meaningful.
Chip Ahoy said...
150 comments so far and half of them from a known idiot.
You do know you're arguing with a brick
Andy is not dumb, exactly. There's method to his madness. But it's true that it would make no difference to him if you could prove to a mathematical certainty that the Democrats economic policies have a deleterious impact on America. His positions are held tribally, not rationally. Why should he care about the economic performance of an abstract entity called "America", most of whose people he doesn't even like?
The point in refuting his incorrect claims is that incorrect claims always need to be refuted.
I wonder who is right, 80% of economists or the slightly deranged Althouse Comment Crew.
Again, saying you are going to compare the number of jobs before and after the stimulus and ignore everything else that is happening is dumb.
You keep repeating "everything else that is happening"
Like what?
Andy R. said...
I wonder who is right, 80% of economists or the slightly deranged Althouse Comment Crew.
NOTICE HOW YOU ENTIRELY MISREPRESENT THE LINK YOU PROVIDED
So it’s not as straightforward as Dionne claims. Now, the lack of consensus is even more obvious when you look at those economists whose work actually focuses on the effectiveness of stimulus.
Just like you did with the CBO, by the way.
You can just stop making an idiot of yourself at any time.
There is an 81-4% consensus in favor of the same position I was taking in the comment section here.
Um, no there isn't, you silly dipshit liar.
We were talking about whether it created jobs. And basically everyone, minus dumb internet commenters, agrees that it did.
To quote a certain dumb commenter here -
It's difficult to spend close to a billion dollars and not create any jobs. If nothing else you're going to create jobs for the people giving the money away.
The question is whether it created any net jobs. And it is not at all clear that it did. The number of employed Americans decreased after the stimulus.
We can take it as given that, after spending almost a billion dollars on "stimulus", somebody somewhere in the US was employed who otherwise would not have been.
Again, saying you are going to compare the number of jobs before and after the stimulus and ignore everything else that is happening is dumb.
Again, ignoring the fact that the Democrats promised that passing the stimulus would result in unemployment under 6% is just dumb. It was not the dumb comnenters here who said that the stimulus would have a certain specific effect. It was the dumb people in the Democratic leadership. Don't get mad at us for holding them to their promises.
NOTICE HOW YOU ENTIRELY MISREPRESENT THE LINK YOU PROVIDED
No I didn't. I specifically said, "There is a later discussion of whether or not the stimulus is worth it. Maybe it was, maybe it wasn't. But that wasn't the discussion we were having."
This is the second part of the post that I linked to: "Taking into account all of the ARRA’s economic consequences — including the economic costs of raising taxes to pay for the spending, its effects on future spending, and any other likely future effects — the benefits of the stimulus will end up exceeding its costs."
The benefits that are being referred to are (in part) the jobs that are created. Now maybe the stimulus was a poor use of money, and previously in this thread I mentioned the idea that it might not have been cost effective. But we focused in on a very narrow question, which is whether the stimulus created jobs. 80% of economists agree that it did. 4% say that it did not. Now a lot of those 80% of people might have thought the cost of creating those jobs was too high. That is not what we have been arguing about.
There is a later discussion of whether or not the stimulus is worth it.
Um, no there isn't you silly dipshit liar.
The entirety of the discussion is that the assertion that the stimulus created jobs in the EJ Dionne article is unprovable.
NOTICE HOW YOU ENTIRELY MISREPRESENT THE LINK YOU PROVIDED
Andy being Andy, it's perfectly possible that he just failed to understand what he read. He's not the brightest kid in the kibbutz.
Andy R. said...
No I didn't. I specifically said, "There is a later discussion of whether or not the stimulus is worth it. Maybe it was, maybe it wasn't. But that wasn't the discussion we were having.
Which is a lie.
You are lying, you ignorant dipshit.
Note: As it turns out, my colleague Matt Mitchell is a regular and close reader of these surveys and as he shows this is a very narrow reading of the survey.
The entire discussion is on whether or not the claim "did the stimulus work" is provable.
You simply can not make a post on this topic without lying.
Because of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, the U.S. unemployment rate was lower at the end of 2010 than it would have been without the stimulus bill.
It is true that, of those surveyed, 51 percent agreed and 29 percent strongly agreed with this statement.
I know people are disagreeing with me about the impact of the stimulus. I think that there are more jobs now with the stimulus than there would be if the stimulus was not passed. Some of you disagree.
But are you also disagreeing that 80% of the economists that were surveyed think I'm right? Because the statement above that they agree with is what I think.
Andy R. said...
I wonder who is right, 80% of economists or the slightly deranged Althouse Comment Crew.
Note that you can not even begin to explain what these economists did, let alone explain or defend it.
You'll just appeal to authority.
Things are neater that way.
Andy R. said...
But are you also disagreeing that 80% of the economists that were surveyed think I'm right? Because the statement above that they agree with is what I think
Bullshit
From your own link:
my colleague Matt Mitchell is a regular and close reader of these surveys and as he shows this is a very narrow reading of the survey.
Andy R. said...
Again, saying you are going to compare the number of jobs before and after the stimulus and ignore everything else that is happening is dumb.
Please provide an example of "all the other things that are happening"
I'd love to know what they are.
Really.
But we focused in on a very narrow question, which is whether the stimulus created jobs. 80% of economists agree that it did.
You're full of shit.
Here is a link to the survey itself.
Because of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, the U.S. unemployment rate was lower at the end of 2010 than it would have been without the stimulus bill.
It's not the end of 2010 now. It's the middle of 2012. The relevant question is whether unemployment at present is lower than it would have been absent the stimulus.
Has any panel of experts weighed in on that?
Andy R. said...
If you walked into an intro statistics class at a community college and said you wanted to examine the impact of the stimulus on the number of jobs and just looked solely at the number of jobs before and after the stimulus you would be laughed out of the classroom.
Note that you don't have to be in a "statistics class" (it is cute all your references are to school as you have no real world experience) in order to examine the impact of the stimulus.
Further, if you walked into a fortune 500 board meeting and your division lost $300 million but you tried to tell them you "created" $10 million in sales, and so you're super-duper great, you'd be laughed out of the room and fired.
You'll just appeal to authority.
I don't see appeals to authority as being particularly problematic. When the health care bill was being debated, a lot of people acted like they were experts on the health care market, one of the largest and most complex parts of the economy. And then when it went before the Supreme Court, they were experts on Constitutional jurisprudence. And when the stimulus comes up, they are experts on economics. And when global warming comes up, they are experts on climate science. It's possible that the Althouse Comment Crew are genius superhumans with expertise in every subject. Or maybe not.
When climate science comes up, I look to the real experts that have PhD's and do this for a living to see what they think. (Hint, they almost all believe the earth is getting warmer). I'm quite aware I don't have the schooling to independent evaluate their research. And when the stimulus comes up, I look to see what the economists think.
Andy R. said...
And when the stimulus comes up, I look to see what the economists think.
Actually, you uncritically accept information that confirms your biases.
There is an adjective for people like that.
Andy R. said...
I don't see appeals to authority as being particularly problematic
Of course you don't.
You have very little interest in thinking and critical thought. I mean, why do those things when we have "experts" right?
I mean, the "experts" are never like wrong or anything.
Here is a link to the survey itself.
Do you agree that the responses to the first question supports what I have been arguing?
Do you agree that the second question is not relevant to our conversation because it is about a lot more than simply whether the stimulus created jobs or not?
Actually, you uncritically accept information that confirms your biases.
And if 80% of economists said that the stimulus didn't create any jobs, I would reconsider my position.
I'm not an expert on nuclear weapons, so when Obama plus all the living Republican Secretaries of State say a new START treaty is a good idea, I think they are probably right.
People who think they more know about a specialized topic than the experts who went to school and studied the topic and work in the field because they read a couple of articles online is wacky.
We're both looking at survey results where 80% of economists agree that "the U.S. unemployment rate was lower at the end of 2010 than it would have been without the stimulus bill".
You seem to be denying that this is exactly what I was saying in this thread. I don't know how I can be any clearer with you. The stimulus was big and complicated. It may have been a mistake.
But it clearly created jobs.
Somehow, I think the concept of, "Consider the source", eludes Hatman.
That some of those other "studies" might just be a tad biased because of who is conducting them, like all those polls showing Choom ahead by 5 or so that turn out to be skewed to the Demos by 8 just doesn't seem to penetrate.
If the net number of jobs decreased, you have not created any jobs. Denying that fact is nothing but the braying of an ignorant jackass unwilling to admit that his position is untenable. You cannot say, nor can the CBO or any number of economists, that without the stimulus the marketplace would not have created as many jobs.
The intelligent person would investigate - not assume, but investigate - the reasonable premise whether the act of trying to create jobs by diverting capital from the economy into underwriting jobs that the free market did not support was actually counterproductive. In other words, was the net loss of jobs accelerated by manipulation of the flow of capital.
That is as reasonable a hypothesis given the net loss in jobs as claiming that manipulating the flow of capital created any jobs. It is more reasonable given the evidence that there was indeed a net loss of jobs.
Hatman, I've said this before. You are a sophomoric debater. One key indicator is the constant use of the question mark in your comments. All the educated readers here recall that particular asininity from our college days. We all ran into it and all dismissed the practitioners as useless loads long ago.
Let me fold one of the more sophomoric tactics that you used up thread back onto you when you were harping on your word of the day - the counter-factual nonsense.
Do you know what argumentum ad ignorantiam means?
Do you know what petitio principii means?
So you don't strain your brain, they are two logical fallacies that you have employed in this thread. One you employ every time you comment on this site. The other is the one you employed when you were backed into a corner in this thread. Both are hallmark utilities employed by the intellectual fraud.
B, do you know what horse's ass means and that you and Q are one?
I don't think there is any evidence I could present that would change any of your minds. 80% of economists that were surveyed agreed with me. 4% agree with those of you who are arguing with me. There are a list of studies that agree with me by the researchers whose job it is to figure out the impact of the stimulus.
It was useful and interesting for me to find out how people can believe the stimulus did not create any jobs. I shouldn't have thought that everyone would be comfortable taking into account more than one variable at a time when considering the impact of legislation.
Andy R. said...
You seem to be denying that this is exactly what I was saying in this thread. I don't know how I can be any clearer with you. The stimulus was big and complicated.
Hysterical.
And:
Andy R. said...
Again, saying you are going to compare the number of jobs before and after the stimulus and ignore everything else that is happening is dumb.
Note the vagaries.
Of course it is simple that way.
hip Ahoy said...
150 comments so far and half of them from a known idiot.
You do know you're arguing with a brick.
he's just so cute when tries to think.
What ya cookin for dinner?
We had curried chicken with rice.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा