APP - Obama needs to shout his achievements out loud

Could you cite to some folks that actually support your conclusion, my friend? Christ. Pretty much every economist agrees that the stimulus package helped the economy. Here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/21/business/economy/21stimulus.html

Or here:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125964003843970851.html?mod=article-outset-box

Or here:

http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/2010-01-25-usa-today-economic-survey-obama-stimulus_N.htm

Or here:

http://www.aei.org/outlook/100928
And I ask them the same I ask here: where is the data supporting these conclusions?

NYT article: mentions economists saying the stimulus was too small - hardly glowing report of success, is it? (May I suggest http://www.learnatest.com/shop/KitDetail.cfm?coreID=1111111063&type=V&seqNum=2&MBC=TEACH)

WSJ - CBO claims based on reports from stimulus funds recipients - already debunked. Example: Jenny-O CLAIMS 286 jobs, where the reality was they did not hire anyone, and previous financial reports had no plans for layoffs. Therefore, the claim of 286 jobs for that money is a lie based on the number of man hours used to produce the product over the period of time the contract was in effect. They took the money, produced the product using the SAME EMPLOYEES they already had. IF previous financial reports from Jenny-O had indicated plans to lay people off, then it could possibly be claimed their receipt of stimulus avoided those layoffs. But they did NOT plan on layoffs, so it saved no jobs, and they did NOT hire any new employees, so it did not create any new jobs. And there are thousands of other examples showing the jobs saved/created is a big fat lie.

USA & AEI: All I see is a bunch of claims, but no supporting data. "3% rise ... but would have been a 1% contraction" Proof? none. Just mention the word stimulus as the cause. And when some details are released, the "experts" are naming non-stimulus factors, like one who mentions the first time home buyer's credit, and worries about it expiring in April. Another mentions the fact often quoted by conservative economists: the deeper the recession, the faster the recovery - a pattern established over the last hundred years, WITHOUT "stimulus" coming from government, and therefore unattributable to the stimulus. And Swonk mentions the fact that jobs are more difficult to create (with a dumb assed excuse that ignores all the jobs exported between 1981 and now), pretty much admitting UE figures are NOT responding the way stimulus advocates predicted.
 
Could you cite to some folks that actually support your conclusion, my friend?
I did (kind of). http://stimuluswatch.org But I didn't cite people's opinions who agree, I gave an access site to the raw data, where thinking people can come to their own conclusions without being spoon fed by liberal economists. (and before you scream bias, the description "liberal" comes from one of YOUR cites.)
 
Could you cite to some folks that actually support your conclusion, my friend? Christ. Pretty much every economist agrees that the stimulus package helped the economy. Here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/21/business/economy/21stimulus.html

Or here:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125964003843970851.html?mod=article-outset-box

Or here:

http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/2010-01-25-usa-today-economic-survey-obama-stimulus_N.htm

Or here:

http://www.aei.org/outlook/100928

why can't you address my post that responded to you, well.....here is a small part.....

from the same source your cited:

President Obama's economic recovery package will actually hurt the economy more in the long run than if he were to do nothing, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said Wednesday.

:pke:
 
why can't you address my post that responded to you, well.....here is a small part.....

from the same source your cited:



:pke:


If you took the time to actually read what the CBO said, you would know why this is such a mind-numbingly stupid criticism of the stimulus bill. In short, the near-term benefits of the stimulus bill more than outweigh the chance of a de minimis reduction in GDP ten years from now.
 
I did (kind of). http://stimuluswatch.org But I didn't cite people's opinions who agree, I gave an access site to the raw data, where thinking people can come to their own conclusions without being spoon fed by liberal economists. (and before you scream bias, the description "liberal" comes from one of YOUR cites.)


Liberal, conservative and centrist economists generally agree that the stimulus improved the economy. AEI is not a liberal group.
 
And I ask them the same I ask here: where is the data supporting these conclusions?

NYT article: mentions economists saying the stimulus was too small - hardly glowing report of success, is it? (May I suggest http://www.learnatest.com/shop/KitDetail.cfm?coreID=1111111063&type=V&seqNum=2&MBC=TEACH)

Seriously? From the NY Times article:

But with roughly a quarter of the stimulus money out the door after nine months, the accumulation of hard data and real-life experience has allowed more dispassionate analysts to reach a consensus that the stimulus package, messy as it is, is working.

The legislation, a variety of economists say, is helping an economy in free fall a year ago to grow again and shed fewer jobs than it otherwise would. Mr. Obama’s promise to “save or create” about 3.5 million jobs by the end of 2010 is roughly on track, though far more jobs are being saved than created, especially among states and cities using their money to avoid cutting teachers, police officers and other workers.

“It was worth doing — it’s made a difference,” said Nigel Gault, chief economist at IHS Global Insight, a financial forecasting and analysis group based in Lexington, Mass.

Mr. Gault added: “I don’t think it’s right to look at it by saying, ‘Well, the economy is still doing extremely badly, therefore the stimulus didn’t work.’ I’m afraid the answer is, yes, we did badly but we would have done even worse without the stimulus.”

In interviews, a broad range of economists said the White House and Congress were right to structure the package as a mix of tax cuts and spending, rather than just tax cuts as Republicans prefer or just spending as many Democrats do. And it is fortuitous, many say, that the money gets doled out over two years — longer for major construction — considering the probable length of the “jobless recovery” under way as wary employers hold off on new hiring.


WSJ - CBO claims based on reports from stimulus funds recipients - already debunked. Example: Jenny-O CLAIMS 286 jobs, where the reality was they did not hire anyone, and previous financial reports had no plans for layoffs. Therefore, the claim of 286 jobs for that money is a lie based on the number of man hours used to produce the product over the period of time the contract was in effect. They took the money, produced the product using the SAME EMPLOYEES they already had. IF previous financial reports from Jenny-O had indicated plans to lay people off, then it could possibly be claimed their receipt of stimulus avoided those layoffs. But they did NOT plan on layoffs, so it saved no jobs, and they did NOT hire any new employees, so it did not create any new jobs. And there are thousands of other examples showing the jobs saved/created is a big fat lie.


You're way off base here. The CBO did not base its claims on reports from stimulus fund recipients. Try again, hot shot.


USA & AEI: All I see is a bunch of claims, but no supporting data. "3% rise ... but would have been a 1% contraction" Proof? none. Just mention the word stimulus as the cause. And when some details are released, the "experts" are naming non-stimulus factors, like one who mentions the first time home buyer's credit, and worries about it expiring in April. Another mentions the fact often quoted by conservative economists: the deeper the recession, the faster the recovery - a pattern established over the last hundred years, WITHOUT "stimulus" coming from government, and therefore unattributable to the stimulus. And Swonk mentions the fact that jobs are more difficult to create (with a dumb assed excuse that ignores all the jobs exported between 1981 and now), pretty much admitting UE figures are NOT responding the way stimulus advocates predicted.


Oh, I see. We're not supposed to believe the analysis of the conservative AEI or the mix of economists in USA Today piece because you say so? Sorry, pal. I'm not buying your bullshit.
 
Seriously? From the NY Times article:







You're way off base here. The CBO did not base its claims on reports from stimulus fund recipients. Try again, hot shot.





Oh, I see. We're not supposed to believe the analysis of the conservative AEI or the mix of economists in USA Today piece because you say so? Sorry, pal. I'm not buying your bullshit.

I believe that many of these people do not want the stimulus to work, they would rather the economy crashed than Obama be proved right. They are all neocons to a man or woman and have hated him from day one or even before.
 
If you took the time to actually read what the CBO said, you would know why this is such a mind-numbingly stupid criticism of the stimulus bill. In short, the near-term benefits of the stimulus bill more than outweigh the chance of a de minimis reduction in GDP ten years from now.

President Obama's economic recovery package will actually hurt the economy more in the long run than if he were to do nothing, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said Wednesday.

:pke:
 
You're way off base here. The CBO did not base its claims on reports from stimulus fund recipients. Try again, hot shot.
CBO Director Douglas Elmendorf, in a blog post, said stimulus recipients have reported that about 640,000 jobs "were created or retained" with stimulus funding through Sept. 30.
I do not have to try again. It's right there, in the words of the director of CBO.

I really do suggest you give these guys a try:
http://www.learnatest.com/shop/KitDe...um=2&MBC=TEACH
 
I do not have to try again. It's right there, in the words of the director of CBO.

I really do suggest you give these guys a try:
http://www.learnatest.com/shop/KitDe...um=2&MBC=TEACH


Try again:

The CBO said the figures were estimates made "using evidence about how previous similar policies have affected the economy and various mathematical models that represent the workings of the economy."


And, if you actually went to the CBO report (or ever the Director's blog) you would find a discussion of the CBO findings and the fact that they did not rely on reported figures because such figures do not present a complete picture:

Under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA), also known as the economic stimulus package, certain recipients of funds appropriated in ARRA (most grant recipients, contractors, and subcontractors) are required to report the number of jobs they have created or retained with ARRA funding since the law’s enactment in February 2009. The law also requires CBO to comment on that reported number. Today CBO released a report to satisfy that requirement. The report also provides CBO’s estimates of ARRA’s overall impact on employment and economic output as of the third quarter of calendar year 2009. Those estimates—which CBO considers more comprehensive than the recipients’ reports—are based on evidence from similar policies enacted in the past and various economic models.

Limitations of Recipients’ Estimates

Recipients report that about 640,000 jobs were created or retained with ARRA funding through September 2009. However, such reports do not provide a comprehensive estimate of the law’s impact on employment in the United States. That impact may be higher or lower than the reported number for several reasons (in addition to any issues about the quality of the data in the reports). First, it is impossible to determine how many of the reported jobs would have existed in the absence of the stimulus package. Second, the reports filed by recipients measure only the jobs created by employers who received ARRA funding directly or by their immediate subcontractors (so-called primary and secondary recipients), not by lower-level subcontractors. Third, the reports do not attempt to measure the number of jobs that may have been created or retained indirectly as greater income for recipients and their employees boosted demand for products and services. Fourth, the recipients’ reports cover only certain appropriations made under ARRA, which encompass only about one-quarter of the total amount spent by the government or conveyed through tax reductions in ARRA through September 2009. The reports do not measure the effects of other provisions of the stimulus package, such as tax cuts and transfer payments to individuals.

CBO’s Estimates of ARRA’s Impact on Employment and Economic Output

Estimating the law’s overall effects on employment requires a more comprehensive analysis than the recipients’ reports provide. Therefore, looking at the actual amounts spent so far (where identifiable) and estimates of the other effects of ARRA on spending and revenues, CBO has estimated the law’s impact on employment and economic output using evidence about how previous similar policies have affected the economy and various mathematical models that represent the workings of the economy. On that basis, CBO estimates that in the third quarter of calendar year 2009, an additional 600,000 to 1.6 million people were employed in the United States, and real (inflation-adjusted) gross domestic product (GDP) was 1.2 percent to 3.2 percent higher, than would have been the case in the absence of ARRA. Those ranges are intended to encompass most economists’ views and to reflect the uncertainty involved in such estimates.

CBO’s current estimates differ only slightly from those CBO prepared in March 2009. At that time, CBO projected that in the third quarter of 2009, U.S. employment would be higher by 600,000 to 1.5 million people with ARRA than it would be without the law, and real GDP would be 1.1 percent to 3.0 percent higher. CBO’s new estimates reflect small revisions to earlier projections of the timing and magnitude of changes to spending and revenues under ARRA. On the one hand, tax cuts through September are now estimated to be roughly $10 billion larger than originally projected (mainly because certain tax changes were carried out more quickly than anticipated); on the other hand, the net change in federal spending as a result of the legislation has turned out to be slightly smaller than CBO initially estimated.

CBO’s current estimates do not reflect any change in the agency’s assessment of the effect that each dollar of spending increase or revenue decrease has on output and employment. Since March, CBO has continued to examine new research on the relationships between changes in government policy and changes in output and employment. To date, that examination has generated no significant change in CBO’s assessment of those relationships. CBO has also examined incoming data on output and employment during the period since ARRA’s enactment. However, those data are not as helpful in determining ARRA’s economic effects as might be supposed, because isolating the effects would require knowing what path the economy would have taken in the absence of the law. Because that path cannot be observed, the new data add only limited information about ARRA’s impact. Economic output and employment in the spring and summer of 2009 were lower than CBO had projected at the beginning of the year. But in CBO’s judgment, that outcome reflects greater-than-projected weakness in the underlying economy rather than lower-than-expected effects of ARRA.


http://cboblog.cbo.gov/?paged=3
 
Oh, I see. We're not supposed to believe the analysis of the conservative AEI or the mix of economists in USA Today piece because you say so? Sorry, pal. I'm not buying your bullshit.
Of course not, you're full up to the hair folicles with DNC bullshit. Your head is up the ass of the donkey, getting your fresh. Can't possibly cram more.

Again, WHERE IS THEIR EVIDENCE? You give reference to all kinds of assholes making all kinds of conclusions, but not one of them gives a fucking dime's worth of actual data supporting their claims.

Yet the few cents worth of data given (CBO saying that recipients report 640,000 jobs gained or saved - God I have to admire the balls of the "saved jobs" bullshit) can be shown to be an outright lie on the part of the recipients, who did NOT add or save any jobs to complete the project or contract using stimulus funds.

The thing is, a conclusion based on false data is, well, FALSE. A lie. Bullshit. Pasture cookies. Federal smoke.

And do not think it isn't noticeable that CBO is worth citing when their report agrees with you, but full of shit when they do not. Can you say "cherry picking"?
 
And, if you actually went to the CBO report (or ever the Director's blog) you would find a discussion of the CBO findings and the fact that they did not rely on reported figures because such figures do not present a complete picture:

They never do, unless of course, the figures support whatever bird-brained approach the Dems are recommending, THEN it's perfectly acceptable to assume the numbers represent the WHOLE picture! Funny how that shit works with you pinheads!

The bottom line on JOBS is this... Unless this Socialist Administration changes its stripes and starts to actually PROMOTE capitalism, instead of continuing their WAR on it... we will not see the return of jobs in America anytime soon! It just ain't gonna happen! You morons think he can create enough busy work with government programs to put America back to work again, but he can't, and even IF he could, it would only be temporary jobs, and when the money peters out, we're right back where we started.
 
Of course not, you're full up to the hair folicles with DNC bullshit. Your head is up the ass of the donkey, getting your fresh. Can't possibly cram more.

Again, WHERE IS THEIR EVIDENCE? You give reference to all kinds of assholes making all kinds of conclusions, but not one of them gives a fucking dime's worth of actual data supporting their claims.

Yet the few cents worth of data given (CBO saying that recipients report 640,000 jobs gained or saved - God I have to admire the balls of the "saved jobs" bullshit) can be shown to be an outright lie on the part of the recipients, who did NOT add or save any jobs to complete the project or contract using stimulus funds.

The thing is, a conclusion based on false data is, well, FALSE. A lie. Bullshit. Pasture cookies. Federal smoke.

And do not think it isn't noticeable that CBO is worth citing when their report agrees with you, but full of shit when they do not. Can you say "cherry picking"?


So the American Enterprise Institute is "DNC bullshit?" I'm sure that's news to them. Same with the CBO? Interesting as well. USA Today? Wall Street Jouurnal? All DNC bullshit, huh?

And I'm not saying that the CBO report is full of shit at all. I'm simply pointing out that their analysis was not based on stimulus fund recipient reports as you claimed. Indeed, the CBO pointed out quite explicitly why they did nor rely on recipient reports and instead performed their own analysis.

By the way, it seems that you disagree with economists from across the political spectrum but you haven't really given me any contrary analysis other than your personal bullshit reckonin'. Are there any actual economists that agree with your assessment?
 
President Obama's economic recovery package will actually hurt the economy more in the long run than if he were to do nothing, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said Wednesday.
 
On that basis, CBO estimates that in the third quarter of calendar year 2009, an additional 600,000 to 1.6 million people were employed in the United States, and real (inflation-adjusted) gross domestic product (GDP) was 1.2 percent to 3.2 percent higher, than would have been the case in the absence of ARRA.
So, tell me, are these guys precogs? Clairvoyants? Writers for National Enquirer and Globe?

How the FUCK do they know what GNP would have been without ARRA? It's a fucking stupid assed bullshit lie. Oh, that's right, they have mathematical models based on the effects from other "similar" policies (the results of which are based on the same lies they acknowledge make estimating results directly impossible.)

The entire fucking thing is MADE UP. The only thing more stupid than their lies are the fucking twits eating it up and asking for more.
 
President Obama's economic recovery package will actually hurt the economy more in the long run than if he were to do nothing, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said Wednesday.


I've already responded to that nonsense. Do try to keep up. And are you ashamed to post the Washington Times link? Why hide it?

As I said previously, if you are unwilling to trade 3-4% GDP growth now due to concerns about a projection 0.1% reduction in GDP 10 years from now you need to be kept far, far, far away from a position of power. It's jackassery of the highest order.
 
So, tell me, are these guys precogs? Clairvoyants? Writers for National Enquirer and Globe?

How the FUCK do they know what GNP would have been without ARRA? It's a fucking stupid assed bullshit lie. Oh, that's right, they have mathematical models based on the effects from other "similar" policies (the results of which are based on the same lies they acknowledge make estimating results directly impossible.)

The entire fucking thing is MADE UP. The only thing more stupid than their lies are the fucking twits eating it up and asking for more.


Dude, when the defense of your position is that the entire field of macroeconomics is "a fucking stupid assed bullshit lie" and is "made up" you really ought to sit this one out. You're obviously out of your element.

You could have done us all a favor and saved us a lot of time by just saying that from the outset.
 
President Obama's economic recovery package will actually hurt the economy more in the long run than if he were to do nothing, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said Wednesday.
 
President Obama's economic recovery package will actually hurt the economy more in the long run than if he were to do nothing, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said Wednesday.


That's some good hackery, counselor. For those interested, here's the story he's citing:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/feb/04/cbo-obama-stimulus-harmful-over-long-haul/


Let's get you on record, counselor. Is 3-4% growth now during a recession worth a projected 0.1-0.3% decrease in GDP in 2019?
 
That's some good hackery, counselor. For those interested, here's the story he's citing:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/feb/04/cbo-obama-stimulus-harmful-over-long-haul/


Let's get you on record, counselor. Is 3-4% growth now during a recession worth a projected 0.1-0.3% decrease in GDP in 2019?

what do you do for a living coward....you never answer that, yet you constantly bring up my profession....why are so ashamed of what you do?

and moron, i'm the one that gave the link in the first place....the quote is entirely valid, the CBO clearly and unequivocally states that the stimulus will do more harm than good....deal with it
 
Back
Top