Taxes were cut, where are the jobs?

I did explain how it is hairsplitting, and I did back up my claim.

This is why it's a waste of time w/ you. You make all kinds of demands, and when people easily meet them, you just ignore them, move the goalposts, twist words, & distract.

It's such a repetitive pattern.

no you did not.

the stimulus created and saved 3 million jobs

is not the same as

the stimulus created or saved 3 million jobs

the first means that it both saved 3 million jobs and created 3 millions jobs. the second means that it could have either saved 3 million jobs or created 3 million jobs. sheeeesh...i can't believe i have to teach 1st grade english to you.

no suprise you get pissy when you're asked to back up your claims. it is becuase they are false. i have made dozens of posts saying i'm glad people have jobs and that the stimulus did give or save people jobs. but do go ahead and pretend i haven't just because i call out your pathetic apoligism for obama. you bitch about bush and how his taxes didn't live up to his promises, yet, you admire obama for his stimulus despite the stimulus didn't live up to his promises.

you're transparent.
 
no you did not.

the stimulus created and saved 3 million jobs

is not the same as

the stimulus created or saved 3 million jobs

the first means that it both saved 3 million jobs and created 3 millions jobs. the second means that it could have either saved 3 million jobs or created 3 million jobs. sheeeesh...i can't believe i have to teach 1st grade english to you.

no suprise you get pissy when you're asked to back up your claims. it is becuase they are false. i have made dozens of posts saying i'm glad people have jobs and that the stimulus did give or save people jobs. but do go ahead and pretend i haven't just because i call out your pathetic apoligism for obama. you bitch about bush and how his taxes didn't live up to his promises, yet, you admire obama for his stimulus despite the stimulus didn't live up to his promises.

you're transparent.

That's serious hairsplitting, and distraction. Obviously, I'm not saying it's responsible for 6 million jobs, particularly if I'm citing the CBO (and if you're talking about the stimulus, you should really know the CBO #'s).

How can you not see that? Instead of having an actual discussion about it, you get caught up in the minutiae of "and" & "or."

It's incredible. And then you have the shamelessness to call me transparent. What an idiot.
 
That's serious hairsplitting, and distraction. Obviously, I'm not saying it's responsible for 6 million jobs, particularly if I'm citing the CBO (and if you're talking about the stimulus, you should really know the CBO #'s).

How can you not see that? Instead of having an actual discussion about it, you get caught up in the minutiae of "and" & "or."

It's incredible. And then you have the shamelessness to call me transparent. What an idiot.

Well Bush created 8 million jobs with a tax cut that cost half what Obama's stimulus cost, and only created 3 million jobs. And THAT is if we go by your bloated claims of 3 million, I doubt that many total jobs have been created, much less ones directly related to the stimulus. But even giving your retarded ass the benefit of the doubt, 8 million for half the cost of 3 million, is a pretty stark difference.
 
Well Bush created 8 million jobs with a tax cut that cost half what Obama's stimulus cost, and only created 3 million jobs. And THAT is if we go by your bloated claims of 3 million, I doubt that many total jobs have been created, much less ones directly related to the stimulus. But even giving your retarded ass the benefit of the doubt, 8 million for half the cost of 3 million, is a pretty stark difference.
There were almost 4 million jobs lost in '08
 
After reading through the thread from overnight, (gheeze, don't you guys sleep? ;)) I notice that the claims are heavy on say so, and short on actual links to proof of claim.

I'll give a couple of things credit here..

1. Obama taking office was met with a horrific torrid of financial collapse. A conservative President might have reacted differently, but Obama acted in the manner he believed was the correct way.

2. He did continue TARP from the Bush administration which shored up the banks to allow them to stabilize, and not go under plummeting us into full blown depression.

Now, on to the lies to some small degree.

1. He turned what should have been a 1 to 2 year recession into a contraction of the American economy unprecedented in our history.

2. He absolutely lied, and continues to lie about jobs created, and he did this by changing the metrics of how a job is counted.

3. He used his bully pulpit and a majority in both houses of Congress to ram through a take over of 1/6 of the American economy regardless of the will of the people. And this action and ensuing fight has injected so much uncertainty into the economy that we are skipping along the bottom instead of recovering.

4. He has sowed division within the country cynically, and politically to the point that many Americans no longer have any faith or trust in institutions like CBO, (Remember the incident of calling the CBO head into the office for a Soporano's style dressing down when they went against Obamacare?)

5. He demonized business, banks, political opponents, etc. to the point where a face to face discussion on the street between friends that hold differing views are avoided.

6. Instead of leading on every issue he defers to congress, and allows organizations like "The Apollo Project" (Van Jones) to write the ACA.

7. This man said he wanted to "fundamentally transform America".... But, he never articulated into what? I believe into a Euro Social economy. So while they are going down, he and liberals want to adopt policies, and measures that got them in the trouble they are in today...Great.

Like I said that is a start....This man is dangerous, I have always said that. And not because of his skin color, not because of his disdain for wealth, not because I dislike him personally, I don't know him.

No, This man is dangerous because he is a progressive, top down, big central government social engineer that will not realize when his policies have failed, but rather will only think that he hasn't done enough. Plus, he will not allow anyone to disagree with his agenda either. Remember, he thinks that compromise means agree with him or get out of the way, and he doesn't think that he needs to follow the Constitution unless it allows him more power....He is dangerous.
 
Nice hairsplitting. I'm just going by the CBO, Yurtsie. Over 3 million people are working now who likely wouldn't be if not for the stimulus.

.

no no, those jobs were created by the tax cuts.....and I can prove it the same way you can prove they were created by the stimulus.......by saying it and sticking to my guns.....
 
Easily the most moronic post ever written since the dawn of the internet. The entire world is now dumber thanks to you.

Not you this time, pimp.
 
Last edited:
no no, those jobs were created by the tax cuts.....and I can prove it the same way you can prove they were created by the stimulus.......by saying it and sticking to my guns.....

But that's not the way I'm proving it. I have the CBO.

What do you have?

Oh - nothing. That's right.
 
You want me to teach you about it?

How about checking it out, instead. They do very detailed work, and have a wonderful website.


Hmmm....Interesting....I don't think I could have been more clear...Just tell me how the CBO arrives at their numbers.
 
Hmmm....Interesting....I don't think I could have been more clear...Just tell me how the CBO arrives at their numbers.

It is interesting, and embarassing, that you're partaking in the discussion & asking me to teach you about something that is pretty basic & inherent to it.

Are you trying to discredit the CBO?

They use reports from recipients of the money, as well as some historical data & economic models that they traditionally use. There is a very large report on it, easily accessible online.

You should educate yourself. It might result in some personal growth.
 
It is interesting, and embarassing, that you're partaking in the discussion & asking me to teach you about something that is pretty basic & inherent to it.

Are you trying to discredit the CBO?

They use reports from recipients of the money, as well as some historical data & economic models that they traditionally use. There is a very large report on it, easily accessible online.

You should educate yourself. It might result in some personal growth.

You have the patience of a higher order of angel Oncelor
 
It is interesting, and embarassing, that you're partaking in the discussion & asking me to teach you about something that is pretty basic & inherent to it.

Are you trying to discredit the CBO?

They use reports from recipients of the money, as well as some historical data & economic models that they traditionally use. There is a very large report on it, easily accessible online.

You should educate yourself. It might result in some personal growth.


Ok, but you are still not giving the full picture...

Washington is buzzing with news that the Congressional Budget Office has a new cost estimate for the President’s proposal to further expand the federal government’s control over the health care system. The White House is doubtlessly pleased because the takeaway message, as blindly regurgitated by the Associated Press, is that a giant new entitlement program is going to “drive down red ink:”

The Congressional Budget Office estimated the legislation would reduce the federal deficit by $138 billion over its first 10 years, and continue to drive down the red ink thereafter. Democratic leaders said the deficit would be cut $1.2 trillion in the second decade – and Obama called it the biggest reduction since the 1990s, when President Bill Clinton put the federal budget on a path to surplus.

Michael Cannon already has explained that the cost estimate is fraudulent because of what it leaves out, so let me explain why it is fraudulent because of what it includes. The CBO has a very dismal track record of getting the numbers wrong, in part because there is no attempt to measure how a bigger burden of government has negative macroeconomic effects, but also because the number crunchers do a poor job of measuring the degree to which people (recipients, health care providers, state and local politicians, etc.) will modify their behavior to become eligible for other people’s money. The problem is compounded by similar mistakes for revenue estimates from the Joint Committee on Taxation, which (like CBO) makes no attempt to capture macroeconomic effects and has a less-than-stellar history of predicting behavioral responses.

If the legislation passes, we will get more spending, more taxes, and more debt. Equally troubling, we will get more dependency. That’s good for Washington and bad for the country.

http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/lies-damned-lies-and-cbo-estimates/

The CBO is only allowed to use parameters that the person requesting the scoring gives them, and nothing outside that...In this case Obama.

Read here:

http://www.cbo.gov/about/our-processes


Now, a new question....Tell me how many times the CBO has accurately projected the cost of anything?
 
Ok, but you are still not giving the full picture...



The CBO is only allowed to use parameters that the person requesting the scoring gives them, and nothing outside that...In this case Obama.

Read here:

http://www.cbo.gov/about/our-processes


Now, a new question....Tell me how many times the CBO has accurately projected the cost of anything?

I don't trust their cost projections as much as their research on actual results, but it's apples & oranges. Even the CBO acknowledges that projections can be fairly unreliable at times because of so many variables involved.

But with the jobs, they have reports from people who got the money, and listed jobs that were saved or created.

Hey...what the heck is this CBO thing? El Rushbo (a.k.a. "the truth") never says anything about it...
 
Back
Top