Economy: Question For Trump Supporter

[AntonToo]

The Pork Bill couldn't have stimulated anything. You can't stimulate the economy by concentrating on a few particular sectors of the economy, and the few bucks that most of us got in our paychecks by robbing Social Security. Trust me, I'm a working stiff myself, and the extra money was so small it was barely noticeable.

Now we arrive at straight dumb.

Your argument (and I see conservatives say it all the time) is that 870 billion dollars disappeared. YEP this argument is that magical, that silly.

Not a single economist would try to claim such nonsense. Nor was the money concentrated "in a few sectors", for example most americans have seen tax cuts from that bill directly in their paycheck. Also money tends to distribute through economy in secondary effects.

You build a road, you get paid, you spend, someone else gets paid etc. etc. etc.


Stimulus was not a free lunch - but conservatives are consistently unable to sanely talk about it's upsides and downsides, let alone sanely compare them.

 

[owebo]

The Pork Bill couldn't have stimulated anything. You can't stimulate the economy by concentrating on a few particular sectors of the economy, and the few bucks that most of us got in our paychecks by robbing Social Security. Trust me, I'm a working stiff myself, and the extra money was so small it was barely noticeable.

Now we arrive at straight dumb.

Your argument (and I see conservatives say it all the time) is that 870 billion dollars disappeared. YEP this argument is that magical, that silly.

Not a single economist would try to claim such nonsense. Nor was the money concentrated "in a few sectors", for starters most americans have seen tax cuts from that bill directly in their paycheck. Also money tends to distribute through economy in secondary effects.

You build a road, you get paid, you spend, someone else gets paid etc. etc. etc.

You are dumber than your Obama......

Even he admitted the shovel ready was't wasn't real.....

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Now we arrive at straight dumb.

Your argument (and I see conservatives say it all the time) is that 870 billion dollars disappeared. YEP this argument is that magical, that silly.

Not a single economist would try to claim such nonsense. Nor was the money concentrated "in a few sectors", for starters most americans have seen tax cuts from that bill directly in their paycheck. Also money tends to distribute through economy in secondary effects.

You build a road, you get paid, you spend, someone else gets paid etc. etc. etc.


Stimulus was not a free lunch - but conservatives are consistently unable to sanely understand it's upsides and downsides, let alone sanely compare them.

Okay, you show me where the jobs were created:

Now, only 6% of the money went to infrastructure when the promise was that much of it was going to in order to stimulate jobs. Tax cuts, again, not nearly enough for people to start spending. Giving money away to Democrat states and local governments--not a job creator in any sense of the word. 11% to green energy, a real jobs killer if anything.

 

[AntonToo]

Now we arrive at straight dumb.

Your argument (and I see conservatives say it all the time) is that 870 billion dollars disappeared. YEP this argument is that magical, that silly.

Not a single economist would try to claim such nonsense. Nor was the money concentrated "in a few sectors", for starters most americans have seen tax cuts from that bill directly in their paycheck. Also money tends to distribute through economy in secondary effects.

You build a road, you get paid, you spend, someone else gets paid etc. etc. etc.


Stimulus was not a free lunch - but conservatives are consistently unable to sanely understand it's upsides and downsides, let alone sanely compare them.

Okay, you show me where the jobs were created:

View attachment 91720

Now, only 6% of the money went to infrastructure when the promise was that much of it was going to in order to stimulate jobs. Tax cuts, again, not nearly enough for people to start spending. Giving money away to Democrat states and local governments--not a job creator in any sense of the word. 11% to green energy, a real jobs killer if anything.

What do you mean "not nearly enough to start spending", do you imagine there is some sort of threshold on additional money in people's paychecks before they do something with it?

Your "giving money away to Democrat states" is completely made up bullshit.

There are serious estimates by economists who seriously study such effects, what you are doing here is baseless, wishful politicking.


Estimated Impact of the Stimulus Package on Employment and Economic Output

 

[Iceweasel]

People out of the labor force skyrocketed under Obama.....it's like a time warp back to the mid 1970's....sadly....

It skyrocketed under Bush too. Bush set a new record every year, but only had Boomers retiring in any significant numbers in his second term.

Go ahead and support that. Or run off with your tail between your legs.

 

[Iceweasel]

(the labor force is employed plus unemployed).

Huh?

 

[AntonToo]

(the labor force is employed plus unemployed).

Huh?

The labor force is employed plus unemployed

It isn't how many people are working, it's how many people are working or looking for work

 

[Iceweasel]

(the labor force is employed plus unemployed).

Huh?

The labor force is employed plus unemployed

It isn't how many people are working, it's how many people are working or looking for work

How are the unemployed in the labor force?

 

[AntonToo]

(the labor force is employed plus unemployed).

Huh?

The labor force is employed plus unemployed

It isn't how many people are working, it's how many people are working or looking for work

How are the unemployed in the labor force?

labor force is employed plus unemployed...that's how.

 

[Iceweasel]

(the labor force is employed plus unemployed).

Huh?

The labor force is employed plus unemployed

It isn't how many people are working, it's how many people are working or looking for work

How are the unemployed in the labor force?

labor force is employed plus unemployed...that's how.

That's a unique definition and contrary to common sense, definitions and sanity.

 

[AntonToo]

How are the labor force components (i.e., civilian labor force, employed, unemployed, and unemployment rate) defined?
The concepts and definitions used by the LAUS program are the same as those used in the Current Population Survey for the national labor force data:

• Civilian labor force. Included are all persons in the civilian noninstitutional population ages 16 and older classified as either employed or unemployed. (See the definitions below.)
• Employed persons. These are all persons who, during the reference week (the week including the 12th day of the month), (a) did any work as paid employees, worked in their own business or profession or on their own farm, or worked 15 hours or more as unpaid workers in an enterprise operated by a member of their family, or (b) were not working but who had jobs from which they were temporarily absent because of vacation, illness, bad weather, childcare problems, maternity or paternity leave, labor-management dispute, job training, or other family or personal reasons, whether or not they were paid for the time off or were seeking other jobs. Each employed person is counted only once, even if he or she holds more than one job.
• Unemployed persons. Included are all persons who had no employment during the reference week, were available for work, except for temporary illness, and had made specific efforts to find employment some time during the 4 week-period ending with the reference week. Persons who were waiting to be recalled to a job from which they had been laid off need not have been looking for work to be classified as unemployed.

Frequently Asked Questions

 

[AntonToo]

That's a unique definition and contrary to common sense, definitions and sanity.

Yes that is what people who have little understanding about economic terminology and statistics may say. But there are very good reasons these definitions.

 

[Iceweasel]

That's a unique definition and contrary to common sense, definitions and sanity.

Yes that is what people who have little understanding about economic terminology and statistics may say. But there are very good reasons these definitions.

...which you can't supply.

 

[AntonToo]

That's a unique definition and contrary to common sense, definitions and sanity.

Yes that is what people who have little understanding about economic terminology and statistics may say. But there are very good reasons these definitions.

...which you can't supply.

Ofcourse I can silly.

[Labor Force] refers to people available to work and there are separate subset terms that specifically mean those without work and those looking for work - [Employed] and [Unemployed].

 

[SmokeALib]

That's a unique definition and contrary to common sense, definitions and sanity.

Yes that is what people who have little understanding about economic terminology and statistics may say. But there are very good reasons these definitions.

...which you can't supply.

Ofcourse I can silly.

[Labor Force] refers to people available to work and there are separate subset terms that specifically mean those without work and those looking for work - [Employed] and [Unemployed].

Jeez.....

 

[Iceweasel]

That's a unique definition and contrary to common sense, definitions and sanity.

Yes that is what people who have little understanding about economic terminology and statistics may say. But there are very good reasons these definitions.

...which you can't supply.

Ofcourse I can silly.

[Labor Force] refers to people available to work and there are separate subset terms that specifically mean those without work and those looking for work - [Employed] and [Unemployed].

You are a fool to prove your ignorance so willingly.

Glossary
Labor force (Current Population Survey)
The labor force includes all persons classified as employed or unemployed in accordance with the definitions contained in this glossary.


Do you know what the word or means? It isn't the same as and. Depending on whether they are citing those working or not. Not those working and not working.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

What do you mean "not nearly enough to start spending", do you imagine there is some sort of threshold on additional money in people's paychecks before they do something with it?

Your "giving money away to Democrat states" is completely made up bullshit.

There are serious estimates by economists who seriously study such effects, what you are doing here is baseless, wishful politicking.


Estimated Impact of the Stimulus Package on Employment and Economic Output

That depends on what economist you are listening to.

A Verdict on Obama's 'Stimulus' Plan

Where Did Stimulus Money Really Go?

 

[AntonToo]

[
That depends on what economist you are listening to.

A Verdict on Obama's 'Stimulus' Plan

I'll review this study and methodology.

Where Did Stimulus Money Really Go?

politico garbage, not actual economic study


Thats it? There was nothing but these bias confirming links that you could find? Or did you filter out the studies that contradicted it?

 

[AntonToo]

That's a unique definition and contrary to common sense, definitions and sanity.

Yes that is what people who have little understanding about economic terminology and statistics may say. But there are very good reasons these definitions.

...which you can't supply.

Ofcourse I can silly.

[Labor Force] refers to people available to work and there are separate subset terms that specifically mean those without work and those looking for work - [Employed] and [Unemployed].

You are a fool to prove your ignorance so willingly.

Glossary
Labor force (Current Population Survey)
The labor force includes all persons classified as employed or unemployed in accordance with the definitions contained in this glossary.


Do you know what the word or means? It isn't the same as and. Depending on whether they are citing those working or not. Not those working and not working.

Holy fucking stupid. I really dont know what else to say at this point.

1 - employed
1 - unemployed

Labor Force is 2.

The sooner you understand this basic concept the sooner you will stop making an idiot out of yourself for everyone to witness.

 

[PoliticalChic]

What do you mean "not nearly enough to start spending", do you imagine there is some sort of threshold on additional money in people's paychecks before they do something with it?

Your "giving money away to Democrat states" is completely made up bullshit.

There are serious estimates by economists who seriously study such effects, what you are doing here is baseless, wishful politicking.


Estimated Impact of the Stimulus Package on Employment and Economic Output

That depends on what economist you are listening to.

A Verdict on Obama's 'Stimulus' Plan

Where Did Stimulus Money Really Go?

Right you are, Ray.

Difficult to determine whether the Obama supportes are more fools or more liars.
This President has an unbroken record of utter failure....and the 'Stimulus' certainly looms large in that constellation.



According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, there were fewer people employed after the 'Stimulus' than back in January 2009 when Barack Obama was sworn in as President, and there are more people unemployed than in January 2009.

Back then, a reported 142 million people had jobs. In July 2011, 139.2 million people had jobs.

In terms of employment, the private sector became smaller than when Obama was sworn in. In January 2009, 110.9 million people were working in the (nonfarm) private sector, but by July 2011 there were only 109.9 million - despite the larger U.S. population in 2011.
RealClearMarkets - More Unemployed Presently, Than In 2009



ZERO net job growth from 2009 through 2011

http://informthepundits.wordpress.com/2012/03/11/obama-claims-4-million-new-jobs/



Population growth is about 1% annually.
Population growth (annual %) | Data



This from 2012:
"This continues to be the longest streak — 41 months — of unemployment of 8% or higher since the Great Depression. And recall that back in 2009, Team Obama predicted that if Congress passed its $800 billion stimulus plan, the unemployment rate would be around 5.6% today.

– Job growth during the three-year Obama recovery has averaged just 75,000 a month for a total of 2.7 million. During the first three years of the Reagan Recovery, job growth averaged 273,000 a month for a total of 9.8 million. If you adjust for the larger U.S. population today, the Reagan Recovery averaged 360,000 jobs a month for a three-year total of 13 million jobs."

http://patdollard.com/2012/07/team-...employment-today-if-congress-passed-stimulus/



It takes a particular sort of moron to have re-voted for this failure.