Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Please provide any links showing that Obama was dissatisfied with the bill and unhappy to sign it.
It wont be long before you can NOT ignore the results of the stim pack
Did Obama sign the bill, or didn't he?It is a LIE to make the claim that it was the same bill the projection was made on.
Is the Times article writter infallable?
Why did he make the mistake of thinking this was teh same bill the projections was made on?
Is he fallabele or infallable?
The Stimulus package was sold to the public being an spending initiative that would prevent unemployment from going over 8%. It didn't.
With hindsight (i.e. better data) it's clear that the unemployment rate was already at 8.2% before the stimulus passed and at 8.6% a few days after it passed.
Just because it was from summer 09 ( a month after the recession ended btw) doesnt mean it doesnt contain some interesting snippets, like;
the President rejected calls for a second stimulus package, saying the current stimulus needs more time to work, since only a small fraction of the money has been spent.
Read more: Barack Obama's Stimulus Plan: Failing by Its Own Measure - TIME
The logic for those that are a) honest and b) can grok logic and English means- he was banking on the stimulus playing out .and NOW that is has played out ..9.1%.
Yes unemployment is 9.1%, what would it have been without the stimulus? Or are you arguing that a stimulus was needed and President Obama's was just too small?
It's only 9.1% because the government no longer counts 3.6M people who have given up looking for work due to LACK OF JOBS. If they were counted, U3 Unemployment would be 11.2%
A shrinking Labor Force Participation Rate is a very damaging way to lower unemployment.
Just sayin'.
The Stimulus package was sold to the public being an spending initiative that would prevent unemployment from going over 8%. It didn't.
With hindsight (i.e. better data) it's clear that the unemployment rate was already at 8.2% before the stimulus passed and at 8.6% a few days after it passed.
Are you admitting it was a failure before it started?
If you want to claim they think everything's peachy now, you get to provide proof.
Just because it was from summer 09 ( a month after the recession ended btw) doesnt mean it doesnt contain some interesting snippets, like;
the President rejected calls for a second stimulus package, saying the current stimulus needs more time to work, since only a small fraction of the money has been spent.
Read more: Barack Obama's Stimulus Plan: Failing by Its Own Measure - TIME
The logic for those that are a) honest and b) can grok logic and English means- he was banking on the stimulus playing out .and NOW that is has played out ..9.1%.
Yes unemployment is 9.1%, what would it have been without the stimulus?
I have answered you 3 times, ask me again I and I am gonna neg rep ur ass so help me Christ.
Or are you arguing that a stimulus was needed and President Obama's was just too small?
no I am arguing now that your capacity to ingest logical is faulty.
What are you basing that on -- wishful thinking?I know things would have been a lot worse for people here in Arizona without the stimulus funds.
Nope , it was numbers provided by people who recieved the stim money and their reports of jobs coming from it.
Just because it was from summer 09 ( a month after the recession ended btw) doesnt mean it doesnt contain some interesting snippets, like;
the President rejected calls for a second stimulus package, saying the current stimulus needs more time to work, since only a small fraction of the money has been spent.
Read more: Barack Obama's Stimulus Plan: Failing by Its Own Measure - TIME
The logic for those that are a) honest and b) can grok logic and English means- he was banking on the stimulus playing out .and NOW that is has played out ..9.1%.
Yes unemployment is 9.1%, what would it have been without the stimulus? Or are you arguing that a stimulus was needed and President Obama's was just too small?
It's only 9.1% because the government no longer counts 3.6M people who have given up looking for work due to LACK OF JOBS. If they were counted, U3 Unemployment would be 11.2%
A shrinking Labor Force Participation Rate is a very damaging way to lower unemployment.
Just sayin'.
Stim Pack - was that a reference to my favorite video game of all time, Fallout?
Yes unemployment is 9.1%, what would it have been without the stimulus? Or are you arguing that a stimulus was needed and President Obama's was just too small?
It's only 9.1% because the government no longer counts 3.6M people who have given up looking for work due to LACK OF JOBS. If they were counted, U3 Unemployment would be 11.2%
A shrinking Labor Force Participation Rate is a very damaging way to lower unemployment.
Just sayin'.
You didn't answer the questions:
Yes unemployment is 9.1% (11.2%), what would it have been without the stimulus? Or are you arguing that a stimulus was needed and President Obama's was just too small?
It's only 9.1% because the government no longer counts 3.6M people who have given up looking for work due to LACK OF JOBS. If they were counted, U3 Unemployment would be 11.2%
A shrinking Labor Force Participation Rate is a very damaging way to lower unemployment.
Just sayin'.
You didn't answer the questions:
Yes unemployment is 9.1% (11.2%), what would it have been without the stimulus? Or are you arguing that a stimulus was needed and President Obama's was just too small?
Your question has been answered directly several times in different threads. What will you get out of this answer here that you didnt get in the other places?
Nope , it was numbers provided by people who recieved the stim money and their reports of jobs coming from it.
Congressional Budget Office - Estimated Impact of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act on Employment and Economic Output from January 2011 Through March 2011
Is the right getting tired of lying about it yet?