CBO: Stimulus saved between 5 to 25 million jobs

[Listening]

A bump for 11% unemployment.

Good job guys.

 

[Sundial]

The so called stimulus was really a drag on the recovery.

People worried about all that debt.

Still refusing to respond with an explaination behind the underemplyment rate data provided by the U.S. Bureau of Labor? It doesn't look like the stimulus really worked during this administration, or is recycling the same graphs (that have already been proven inaccurate) the only response you are capable of giving? I have already provided the proof below, to which you have yet to comment on with regard to this supposed "success" of the stimulus. Success would result in a reduction of underemployment as well as unemployment.

Your graph shows that unemployment shot up in the last year of the Bush administration; stopped growing in the first year of the Obama administration; and has been declining since then.

Everyone agrees that that's the case.

Everyone also agrees that unemployment is not falling fast enough. Liberals, like myself, say that what's needed is a jobs program, and an extension of Obama's payroll tax cut.

Republicans want to fire police and teachers and other public sector workers, in hopes that will somehow create jobs.

 

[likeabird03]

Your graph shows that unemployment shot up in the last year of the Bush administration; stopped growing in the first year of the Obama administration; and has been declining since then.

No ones denying that we were in a deep recession, unemployment is going to shoot up. Im in no way letting Bush off the hook either - in fact I didn't vote for him. Our point is that Unemployment has hardly budged, that it's increased if you count discouraged workers, and that any slowing in the increase is hardly at the credit of the Obama or the stimulus, so stop trying to twist the conversation. Fact is, this has been the slowest recovery in memory and it's partly due to a useless president who is anti-business.

Everyone agrees that that's the case.

Everyone also agrees that unemployment is not falling fast enough. Liberals, like myself, say that what's needed is a jobs program, and an extension of Obama's payroll tax cut.

Yes, because taxcuts lead to job increases only when democrats pass them, and they don't increase the deficit either!!

Republicans want to fire police and teachers and other public sector workers, in hopes that will somehow create jobs.

I think we still have a lot to cut! Republicans should keep up the good work

 

[8537]

Heritage would crack me up if they weren't so fucking dishonest. Would we be better off if public-sector employment had fallen as fast as private sector?

 

[likeabird03]

Heritage would crack me up if they weren't so fucking dishonest. Would we be better off if public-sector employment had fallen as fast as private sector?

It sources the BLS. Go try looking for your own stats that support otherwise before you resort to ad hominem attacks and calling people dishontest.

I think if they hadn't been hiring gangbusters throughout the recession while the private sector was being decimated our fiscal situation wouldn't be so bad.

 

[kaz]

Heritage would crack me up if they weren't so fucking dishonest. Would we be better off if public-sector employment had fallen as fast as private sector?

Yes. Economically government employees are unemployed. At best they produce nothing. In fact they can and frequently are far worse because they actually destroy economic value with unending rules and regulations. We pay for government twice. Once when the money is removed from the economy and again when it's used to buy government.

 

[Sundial]

It's hard to know what to say about that. Teachers don't teach, police don't keep the peace, soldiers don't protect the country, and mail carriers don't carry the mail.

Unless - I guess - they're private teachers and private police. Then they're doing something?

You drive on government roads, eat hamburgers inspected the USDA, use money printed by the government, rely on government-paid firefighters, keep your money in government-insured accounts, and rely on the rule of law to keep you safe, and yet government is nothing but a burden to you.

OK. So leave. There's hardly any government at all, in Somalia.

 

[8537]

Heritage would crack me up if they weren't so fucking dishonest. Would we be better off if public-sector employment had fallen as fast as private sector?

Yes. Economically government employees are unemployed. At best they produce nothing.

So police officers produce nothing? Having a force and system to protect private property rights adds no economic value?

Really now?

We pay for government twice. Once when the money is removed from the economy and again when it's used to buy government.

The money doesn't disappear from the economy any more than it disappears when a private sector employee gets paid.

 

[8537]

Heritage would crack me up if they weren't so fucking dishonest. Would we be better off if public-sector employment had fallen as fast as private sector?

It sources the BLS. Go try looking for your own stats that support otherwise before you resort to ad hominem attacks and calling people dishonest.

It's not the source. It's the Heritage hacks interpretation thereof.

 

[Sundial]

Your graph shows that unemployment shot up in the last year of the Bush administration; stopped growing in the first year of the Obama administration; and has been declining since then.

No ones denying that we were in a deep recession, unemployment is going to shoot up. Im in no way letting Bush off the hook either - in fact I didn't vote for him. Our point is that Unemployment has hardly budged, that it's increased if you count discouraged workers, and that any slowing in the increase is hardly at the credit of the Obama or the stimulus, so stop trying to twist the conversation. Fact is, this has been the slowest recovery in memory and it's partly due to a useless president who is anti-business.

Everyone agrees that that's the case.

Everyone also agrees that unemployment is not falling fast enough. Liberals, like myself, say that what's needed is a jobs program, and an extension of Obama's payroll tax cut.

Yes, because taxcuts lead to job increases only when democrats pass them, and they don't increase the deficit either!!

Republicans want to fire police and teachers and other public sector workers, in hopes that will somehow create jobs.

I think we still have a lot to cut! Republicans should keep up the good work

The recovery's the "slowest in memory" only if you have a very short memory. The recovery from the first Bush recession was slower. We've been adding about 150,000 jobs a month for almost two years now - a total of about 3 million so far.

Unemployment's falling - whether you count unemployed workers or underemployed workers or anybody else. Firing teachers and firefighters would only make the situation worse. Not just in terms of fewer jobs, but in terms of kids who aren't educated and fires that don't get put out.

 

[Listening]

Unemployment's falling - whether you count unemployed workers or underemployed workers or anybody else.

That's an interesting claim.

I have yet to see a graph on unemployment that takes into accout those who have dropped out of the job search.

Can you provide that information ?

 

[Full-Auto]

Unemployment's falling - whether you count unemployed workers or underemployed workers or anybody else.

That's an interesting claim.

I have yet to see a graph on unemployment that takes into accout those who have dropped out of the job search.

Can you provide that information ?

What? and show the 3 million net missing form the equation.

 

[Listening]

Firing teachers and firefighters would only make the situation worse. Not just in terms of fewer jobs, but in terms of kids who aren't educated and fires that don't get put out.

That is an interesting statement.

Maybe what you have is kids who don't get taught.....strings/Japanese/Russian.

Those were not around when I went to school.....and, well, let just say I survived....barely....don't know I made it without Japanese. Also, isn't it possible that we could get rid of a few administrators. They make more and do less (if anything). I don't recall my high school crawling with the beauracrats I see today.

As to fires that don't get put out....when it happens....we talk. In the meantime, if my city wants these things, we can tax ourselves thank you very much.

It is a classic example of states addicted to the federal dole.

 

[kaz]

Heritage would crack me up if they weren't so fucking dishonest. Would we be better off if public-sector employment had fallen as fast as private sector?

Yes. Economically government employees are unemployed. At best they produce nothing.

So police officers produce nothing? Having a force and system to protect private property rights adds no economic value?

Really now?

Really now. You even used the right word. "protect." No, the police don't produce economic value, they protect it. Can you get rich by working and saving? Yes. Can you get rich buying more insurance? No, it's protection. I'm a libertarian not an anarchist and I want a police force, but as you said, it's to protect me. In no way are we going to get richer by hiring more police.

I always like too how you make sweeping statements about government and when I challenge you of course you pick a tiny part of government that even a libertarian supports and ignore the millions of bureaucrats in this country who are obviously the ones I'm referring to.

We pay for government twice. Once when the money is removed from the economy and again when it's used to buy government.

The money doesn't disappear from the economy any more than it disappears when a private sector employee gets paid.

The private sector employee is paid by money that is generated by the company producing a profit. And the employee is used in some way to generate more profit. That profit is what grows the economy. The government employee is also paid from profits generated by companies, only they are not used to create more profit. It's not sustainable. No, it's not the same. It's a different world entirely. You have a bucket and a half empty pool. An employee of the company is taking water from outside the pool and putting it in the pool. The government employee is taking money out of the pool and throwing it up in the air. Some of the water goes in the pool, some doesn't. But the pool will never get more full that way.

 

[8537]

Yes. Economically government employees are unemployed. At best they produce nothing.

So police officers produce nothing? Having a force and system to protect private property rights adds no economic value?

Really now?

Really now. You even used the right word. "protect." No, the police don't produce economic value, they protect it.

Police create economic value by protecting intellectual and private property rights.

Can you get rich by working and saving? Yes. Can you get rich buying more insurance? No, it's protection. I'm a libertarian not an anarchist and I want a police force, but as you said, it's to protect me. In no way are we going to get richer by hiring more police.

you don't think Somalia would be richer if they had a more robust system of hiring people to protect private property rights?

The private sector employee is paid by money that is generated by the company producing a profit. And the employee is used in some way to generate more profit. That profit is what grows the economy.

Profits don't grow an economy. Increased productivity grows an economy.

 

[kaz]

Police create economic value by protecting intellectual and private property rights

First of all it's still as you said, "protecting" rights, not creating intellectual property. That's also such a tiny portion of what a small portion of the government does. And that's the best you can come up with that government employees create economic value? Your honor, based on testimony provided by the ... defense ... I rest my case ...

you don't think Somalia would be richer if they had a more robust system of hiring people to protect private property rights?

Of course they would. But it doesn't contradict anything I said that the police protect value, they don't create it.

Profits don't grow an economy. Increased productivity grows an economy.

Funny stuff. Productivity means you produce more with the same resources and create a greater ... wait for it ... PROFIT! That profit goes into more projects, higher pay for employees, higher dividends for shareholders, all of which create, yes, hated, wealth. How gauche...

 

[newpolitics]

So police officers produce nothing? Having a force and system to protect private property rights adds no economic value?

Really now?

Really now. You even used the right word. "protect." No, the police don't produce economic value, they protect it.

Police create economic value by protecting intellectual and private property rights.

Can you get rich by working and saving? Yes. Can you get rich buying more insurance? No, it's protection. I'm a libertarian not an anarchist and I want a police force, but as you said, it's to protect me. In no way are we going to get richer by hiring more police.

you don't think Somalia would be richer if they had a more robust system of hiring people to protect private property rights?

The private sector employee is paid by money that is generated by the company producing a profit. And the employee is used in some way to generate more profit. That profit is what grows the economy.

Profits don't grow an economy. Increased productivity grows an economy.

Crime is a negative externality. Therefore, Police are actually an added cost to deal with that externality. They are the opposite of creating economic value. They are merely there to deal with an externality. That's what I learned anyway.

 

[8537]

Police create economic value by protecting intellectual and private property rights

First of all it's still as you said, "protecting" rights, not creating intellectual property. That's also such a tiny portion of what a small portion of the government does.

huh? That's the first and most important role of government.

Of course they would. But it doesn't contradict anything I said that the police protect value, they don't create it.

Protecting intellectual property rights creates economic value and increases standard of living.

Funny stuff. Productivity means you produce more with the same resources and create a greater ... wait for it ... PROFIT!

No, in a competitive market it means you produce....wait for it...more producers!

 

[8537]

Crime is a negative externality.

A negative externality of which transaction?

Therefore, Police are actually an added cost to deal with that externality. They are the opposite of creating economic value. They are merely there to deal with an externality. That's what I learned anyway.

I'd be interested to know what market transaction has an impact on non market participants that involves turning them into criminals.

And if they are somehow the result of production / consumption by other parties, then internalizing that externality improves market efficiency.

 

[Mr_Rockhead]

Unemployment's falling - whether you count unemployed workers or underemployed workers or anybody else.

That's an interesting claim.

I have yet to see a graph on unemployment that takes into accout those who have dropped out of the job search.

Can you provide that information ?

What? and show the 3 million net missing form the equation.

I’ve been away from these boards for awhile because I generally logged-in only while at work (and I got laid off in September).

So, speaking as someone who lost their job during Obama’s recovery, I think this particular (lack of) measurement is his ace in the hole.

I say this because, during my indoctrination at the unemployment office, I was told I would not qualify for any federal unemployment extensions because they all expire on December 31.

Of course, this means all the unemployed who have been on these extensions for the past two years will drop off the radar screen at the end of the year. And, even though they are still unemployed, they will no longer be counted as such.

I think this is pretty good timing for Obama.