The Stimulus Worked
- Thread starter Bonestorm
- Start date
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
You are simply being ridiculous yet again.
YOU claim there was a positive change in employment due to the stimulus. Since we KNOW that the total number of jobs in this country decreased, you HAVE to be talking about jobs 'saved' by the stimulus. If you are not, then please explain how you have a positive change without talking about jobs saved or created.
I'm not claiming anything. I'm telling you that everyone that has assessed the impact of the stimulus on employment has said that the stimulus bill had a positive effect on the employment. And it does not necessarily have to be jobs "saved" (although the difference between a job saved and a job created for purposes of the unemployment rate is exactly nil).
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
You JUST stated that no one other than myself and Damo were talking about jobs 'saved or created'. That is completely absurd.
If the stimulus had a positive effect on employment then you HAVE to be talking about jobs created or saved. Do you not?
Yes... it DOES have to be jobs 'saved'... because we KNOW the NET change in jobs went DOWN. Thus the only way you can possibly describe the stimulus as having a 'positive' effect is if you are saying MORE jobs would have been lost without it. That means those jobs you are referring to were 'saved'.
You are silly/stupid/ignorant/blinded by partisinship/ect. to pretend that the tide has not turned and had the stimulus not happened MANY MANY more jobs would have been lost, thus those jobs were saved!
Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
Yea...how dare those god damned unions try and create a middle class. Just who the hell do they think they are? [/sarcasm]
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
Try reading the thread moron. I said that more jobs would have been lost if not for the stimulus. I even highlighted the public sector jobs that benefited from the stimulus. Either pay attention or shut your ass.
As if. If it was possible to build an economy on public sector jobs only the Soviet Union would still be around.
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
lool...i'm not claiming, but i'm telling you that everyone else says it, i'm just not claiming it for myself
Exactly. I am aware of my limitations. I have no basis for claiming anything with respect to the impact of the stimulus bill. I only know what I have read and everything that I have read says that the stimulus bill had a positive impact on employment.
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
translation:
this is how i get out being wrong all the time, i just never claim anything, i always rely on other people's opinions, because if i think for myself, i will be wrong and then i will kill myself
It's not possible to do that, but the argument is a strawman.
The idea was just to get people back to work, and get money flowing in the economy again. If getting them back to work happens to be at more public sector jobs in the beginning, fine. Get them a paycheck. They'll spend that paycheck at a department store, local restaurant, online, wherever, and if enough people are back to work & doing that, all of those businesses will benefit, and need to hire. As they hire, those people will be getting paychecks, and spending at a dept. store, restaurant, online, etc. And so on.
That's the idea. It's not "let's build the economy on public sector jobs, and keep everything in a bubble"....
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
The white house was offering wildly optimistic 8% suggestions. I think I remember Paul Krugman saying that 12% was a more realistic number - which would be surprisingly accurate if my brain isn't just making it up.
I have no idea what to type into google to produce this that wouldn't just turn up white noise.
Rubbish, spend the money buying things, this gives a larger effect on the economy than just a paycheck. This uses the same "stimulus" logic that bush used. Give people money they'll spend it, jobs will be "created or saved"...
It's just not the most effective way to rebuild a faltering economy, not by a long shot. It is why predictions that said unemployment would go up to around 10% rather than Obama's 8% were correct. Pay companies to build roads, don't just "create" government jobs because their unions gave you cash it's ineffective and gives the appearance that the goal wasn't to fix anything, just to give graft to your benefactors. Both may work short-term, but they are both bad plans. Put people to work building things, not more bureaucracy. This is one of the basic principals of Keynesian Economics, spend the money on infrastructure.
I'll also notice here that people are ignoring those people no longer counted on unemployment because they've given up. These were the people that made Bush's actual growth into "the worst economy since the Great Depression" long before the collapse.
Damo, it's simply a mischaracterization to suggest that most or all of the stimulus jobs being created are "made up" gov't jobs. A lot of the money IS going to projects like the one you mentioned, and a good portion of the stimulus is incentives & tax breaks for certain hiring practices.
Why are you characterizing it the way you are? What are you basing that on?
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
i told you i am not your therapist, i have no idea why you are so obsessed with calling me counseler, if you need help that bad, contact someone in your hometown
your entire premise is a cop out....you refuse to give an answer because you're too afraid of being told you're wrong, instead you rely on other people's answers so you can always claim you're never wrong....
i notice you still are incapable of answering why a second stimulus is needed if the first one worked....why are you so scared to answer this?
First, you seem awfully close to advocating a central-planning economic theory: you want the government to go out and buy things. Second, this isn't the same stimulus logic that Bush used. The Bush logic was "give everybody some cash reagardless of how they'll use it." The logic here is keep people employed that we can assure will be kept employed through direct transfer payment to state and local government.
Actually, it is one of the best ways to keep the economy from tanking further. Of course, you'll have to credit the CBO and Moodys and all the usual suspects to agree with me so I won't hold my breath. The transfers to state and local governments were to keep people employed that would otherwise have been laid off with states cutting back on spending. Everyone agrees that the transfer payment to the states were the most effective stimulus measures. Naturally, state aid was one of the things that the "centrists" cut.
bob
a member named bob
well weather or not people think its working, company's are still going belly up, contractors cant get jobs unless its road construction. If the economy is picking up its definitely not showing here in MN. No one know what's going to come from this admin, so why would people risk more.
