For those of you who think Obama has not helped create or save jobs...

[Jarhead]

I reviewed a majority of the articles you cited...
I am not sure if you noticed, but nothing specific is identified...they say things like "created or saved" and other non specific data.

However...

There is only one thing you need to look at to determine if the stimulus did what it was touted to do.

The unemployment numbers.

Please tell me how unemployment can go UP at the same time the amount of unemployed goes down?

But in an effort to back my concerns I will use this example...

Comapny A and Company B both make widgets.
Comapny A gets a check from the government for 1 Billioon dollars to stimulate hiring
Comapny B gets nothing.

Comapny A and Company B both bid for a contract.
Company A offers a bid at a better price becuase it now has the cash flow to do so.
Company A wins the contract. Company B, on its last leg (as company A was before it got the cash), is forced to lay off 100 employees since it lost the bid...its opnly chance of surviving.
Comapny A however not only won the bid, but it no longer has direct copmpetition from company B...soi it gets a larger share of the market.
So now, with the new contract PLUS the billiion dollars it is able to hire more employees to fill the void of company B going under.
So it hires 90 people.

100 laid off

90 hired

net (-10) jobs gained

But the report comes out that becuase of the stimulus, 90 jobs were created.

THAT is how jobs created results in a higher unemployment number.

Dont just cite articles....look at the logic and discerne the information from there.

Plenty of specifics were identified. The specifics I listed in my thread were in those sources. Either you are lying, or you are just stupid. Which is it?

Of course, the unemployment rate has risen (and fallen), but that doesn't mean Obama didn't help create jobs. In fact, there has been slight economic growth ever since year began. I mean you do realize that there are factors outside of Obama's control right? The man isn't a cure-all for the economy. He never claimed he was. The sooner Americans understand that, the sooner they can learn to be patient with economic recovery.

Im a liar or stupid?

OK. Now we got that childish crap out of the way. Do it again, and I wont give you the time of day next time.

But you onviously did not read my explanation as to why jobs were created but the unemployment numbers grew. And they grew. Unemployment is STILL way above what it was when the stimulus was passed.

Like I said earlier. Give a man 100 dollars to hire a man for 100 dollars and a man will be hired. It is not rocket science.

Qustion is.....who lost their job so that man can be hired? A man from a compettitor who did not get that 100 free dollars....becuase the company that got the money has more liquidity than the competitor in an environemnt where "borrowing" money is next to impossible.

You need to stop being fooled. It is not an Obama thing. It is politics. It is what politicians do. They fool the voter base.

But the bottom line.....unemployment is higher than it was when the stimulus was enacted.....three dam years later!

 

[Sundial]

the administration promised that if we did not pass the stimulus the UE rate would go above 8%. If we did it would be below 7%. The result has been a UE rate over 9% for most of this administration.
If that isn't a failure I'm not sure what is.

Where did he promise that? When? What words did he use?

Or - are you just making shit up?

If I show you will you shut the fuck up and go away after you apologize?

Yup. Show me where Obama made a promise to anyone that the unemployment rate would stay below 7% or 8% or any other number and I'll "shut the fuck up" and apologize.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

1) The Stimulus: created around 2 million jobs. According to Moody Analytics, it "significantly softened the recession."

What is Obama's actual record on creating jobs? | syracuse.com

2) According to this site that cites empirican research, it is likely the Recovery Act's benefits significantly outweighed the costs:

Did the stimulus work? A review of the nine best studies on the subject - The Washington Post

3) The results of Obama extending unemployment benefits under his stimulus plan reduced the fall of GDP by 18.3% and saved 1.6 million jobs

ETA News Release: US Labor Department study underscores positive impact of unemployment insurance [11/16/2010]

4) 114,407 teaching jobs have been created or saved

Education Jobs Fund - Official Website

5) The GM, Crysler bailout added about 45,000 and saved about 1 million:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/rss_viewer/one_year_later_autos_report.pdf

(^^^The White House is citing the Bureau of Labor Statistics in this article)


I found other independent research showing "possible economic progress" under Obama's stimulus, but I know you cons would be quick to jump all over any information like that. For now, though, this should settle the argument that Obama "has done nothing." If you would all just stop watching Fox News (or MSNBC), you may just have an informed opinion about Obama.

You should go back and read the thread YOU started about how ignorant Americans are; then rethink this piece.

What?

What indeed. Touting "jobs saved" is idiotic.. you can't prove that you had an impact on that which never happened except in the case you have irrefutable proof it would have happened and irrefutable proof that your actions prevented it from happening. Case in point, all we have is Obama saying the sky is falling and now saying because he spent a gazillion $$, the sky didn't fall.

That's just dumb.

 

[Billy000]

I reviewed a majority of the articles you cited...
I am not sure if you noticed, but nothing specific is identified...they say things like "created or saved" and other non specific data.

However...

There is only one thing you need to look at to determine if the stimulus did what it was touted to do.

The unemployment numbers.

Please tell me how unemployment can go UP at the same time the amount of unemployed goes down?

But in an effort to back my concerns I will use this example...

Comapny A and Company B both make widgets.
Comapny A gets a check from the government for 1 Billioon dollars to stimulate hiring
Comapny B gets nothing.

Comapny A and Company B both bid for a contract.
Company A offers a bid at a better price becuase it now has the cash flow to do so.
Company A wins the contract. Company B, on its last leg (as company A was before it got the cash), is forced to lay off 100 employees since it lost the bid...its opnly chance of surviving.
Comapny A however not only won the bid, but it no longer has direct copmpetition from company B...soi it gets a larger share of the market.
So now, with the new contract PLUS the billiion dollars it is able to hire more employees to fill the void of company B going under.
So it hires 90 people.

100 laid off

90 hired

net (-10) jobs gained

But the report comes out that becuase of the stimulus, 90 jobs were created.

THAT is how jobs created results in a higher unemployment number.

Dont just cite articles....look at the logic and discerne the information from there.

Plenty of specifics were identified. The specifics I listed in my thread were in those sources. Either you are lying, or you are just stupid. Which is it?

Of course, the unemployment rate has risen (and fallen), but that doesn't mean Obama didn't help create jobs. In fact, there has been slight economic growth ever since year began. I mean you do realize that there are factors outside of Obama's control right? The man isn't a cure-all for the economy. He never claimed he was. The sooner Americans understand that, the sooner they can learn to be patient with economic recovery.

Im a liar or stupid?

OK. Now we got that childish crap out of the way. Do it again, and I wont give you the time of day next time.

But you onviously did not read my explanation as to why jobs were created but the unemployment numbers grew. And they grew. Unemployment is STILL way above what it was when the stimulus was passed.

Like I said earlier. Give a man 100 dollars to hire a man for 100 dollars and a man will be hired. It is not rocket science.

Qustion is.....who lost their job so that man can be hired? A man from a compettitor who did not get that 100 free dollars....becuase the company that got the money has more liquidity than the competitor in an environemnt where "borrowing" money is next to impossible.

You need to stop being fooled. It is not an Obama thing. It is politics. It is what politicians do. They fool the voter base.

But the bottom line.....unemployment is higher than it was when the stimulus was enacted.....three dam years later!

Again, you don't get it. Yes, it is higher now, however, the unemployment rate would be higher if it wasn't for Obama. There is no denying that there are factors that are outside of Obama's control. Let me ask you this: what policies has Obama enacted that have directly increased the unemployment rate? Don't you dare say gov regulations, because that would be false.

 

[Billy000]

You should go back and read the thread YOU started about how ignorant Americans are; then rethink this piece.

What?

What indeed. Touting "jobs saved" is idiotic.. you can't prove that you had an impact on that which never happened except in the case you have irrefutable proof it would have happened and irrefutable proof that your actions prevented it from happening. Case in point, all we have is Obama saying the sky is falling and now saying because he spent a gazillion $$, the sky didn't fall.

That's just dumb.

None of my sources are quoted from Obama.

 

[Jarhead]

How about we approach it this way...

If back in early 2009 Obama said this in a state of the union address to congress....

" I would like congress to grant me permission to borrow one trillion dollars so I can enact a stimulus/recovery plan. It is our estimate that this stimulus will rewsult in an increase in unemployment to ablout 10% before dropping and stablizing at 9% by the end of three years. Our GDP will show very little growth over the three year period with the stimulus, but an increase is still an increase. Some of those receiving stimulus money will likely go under and I can assure you that at least one company will lose 550 million of the borrowed money with the taxpayer being pushed to the back of the line as it pertains to recouping some of that money. On the other side, however, we will be able to ensure that some states will be able to retain many of their employees...in essence allowing us to save many government jobs"

Do you think a democratic congress would have passed it?

If your answer is no....then the stimulus was a failure.

If your answer is yes, you are full of shit.

Or how about this:

Suppose back in 09 the President had said, "The stock market has fallen by 50%. The banking system is imploding. Banks are refusing to lend to each other, and may have to shut their doors altogether. Foreclosures are skyrocketing. Companies are going bankrupt - GM, Merril Lynch, Lehman Bros., AIG etc. Unemployment is soaring. Economists are saying if nothing is done the financial system may collapse altogether.

We can do nothing and hope for the best.

Or we can intervene, and by the end of 2011 the economy will have added 3 million jobs, stocks will have doubled, and the economy will be expanding."

That's what actually happened.

The idea that the economy and the banking system would have improved on their own, on the other hand, is wishful thinking.

yes...that is exactly what was said.....

Now...lets take what was said...and yes, what was said was accurate at the time and add in what I said which is also accurate to date...

And then we need to eliminate something you satted as fact but it is not necssarily fact...the part about doing nothing....you dont know the outcome of that....for doing nothing has been proven to help recessions in the past....

Look...all I am saying is I dont know the answer....and I do not hold congress responsible for taking a chance on the stimulus....it was as good a guess as anything.

But to claim it was a success is not being genuine. Better than doing nothing? Maybe. Maybe not. We dont know....but a success?

That is just political posturing for the election. It was by no means a success. A failure? I dont know....but worth the 850 billion of boirrowed money? I dont personally think so.

It also did something I am very much against. It intereferred with pure competition. Many survived that shouldnt have due to receiving funds at the expense of many that failed that wouldnt have if their competition did not get the funds.

And that last part should be disturbing to all of us.

 

[The T]

You should go back and read the thread YOU started about how ignorant Americans are; then rethink this piece.

What?

What indeed. Touting "jobs saved" is idiotic.. you can't prove that you had an impact on that which never happened except in the case you have irrefutable proof it would have happened and irrefutable proof that your actions prevented it from happening. Case in point, all we have is Obama saying the sky is falling and now saying because he spent a gazillion $$, the sky didn't fall.

That's just dumb.

Just as he says that he ..."Saved us from a depression..." Frankly? I see no difference...the results of his actions are the same as FDR that prolonged the 1930's depression until FDR found an out via Pearl Harbor...

 

[Jarhead]

Plenty of specifics were identified. The specifics I listed in my thread were in those sources. Either you are lying, or you are just stupid. Which is it?

Of course, the unemployment rate has risen (and fallen), but that doesn't mean Obama didn't help create jobs. In fact, there has been slight economic growth ever since year began. I mean you do realize that there are factors outside of Obama's control right? The man isn't a cure-all for the economy. He never claimed he was. The sooner Americans understand that, the sooner they can learn to be patient with economic recovery.

Im a liar or stupid?

OK. Now we got that childish crap out of the way. Do it again, and I wont give you the time of day next time.

But you onviously did not read my explanation as to why jobs were created but the unemployment numbers grew. And they grew. Unemployment is STILL way above what it was when the stimulus was passed.

Like I said earlier. Give a man 100 dollars to hire a man for 100 dollars and a man will be hired. It is not rocket science.

Qustion is.....who lost their job so that man can be hired? A man from a compettitor who did not get that 100 free dollars....becuase the company that got the money has more liquidity than the competitor in an environemnt where "borrowing" money is next to impossible.

You need to stop being fooled. It is not an Obama thing. It is politics. It is what politicians do. They fool the voter base.

But the bottom line.....unemployment is higher than it was when the stimulus was enacted.....three dam years later!

Again, you don't get it. Yes, it is higher now, however, the unemployment rate would be higher if it wasn't for Obama. There is no denying that there are factors that are outside of Obama's control. Let me ask you this: what policies has Obama enacted that have directly increased the unemployment rate? Don't you dare say gov regulations, because that would be false.

the part in bold......dont threaten. It is childish. I am starting to find your debate tactics annoying.

I do get it. But dont you see what you are saying. You are rating the success stimulus on what "may have been" without it.

Well...it can be said the other way as well.....without it maybe the numbers would have proiven to be better.

I noticed your support has gone from "it created jobs" to "it prevented things fromgetting worse"

Why the switch?

Becuase you tossed your articles aside and ahd to address the one fact that stands out..........unemployment is higher now...3 years since the strimulus was passed.

That being said...I have nothing more to add to this debate. You have threatened me, called me a liar and called me stupid.

I have no interest in you anymore.

But interestingly....I even THANKEd another debater debating on your side.

Why?

Becuase he/she speaks to others with respect.

You do not.

 

[Jarhead]

Where did he promise that? When? What words did he use?

Or - are you just making shit up?

If I show you will you shut the fuck up and go away after you apologize?

Yup. Show me where Obama made a promise to anyone that the unemployment rate would stay below 7% or 8% or any other number and I'll "shut the fuck up" and apologize.

It was not Obama. It was Romer. And she admittedly regretted saying it.

 

[Sundial]

I reviewed a majority of the articles you cited...
I am not sure if you noticed, but nothing specific is identified...they say things like "created or saved" and other non specific data.

However...

There is only one thing you need to look at to determine if the stimulus did what it was touted to do.

The unemployment numbers.

Please tell me how unemployment can go UP at the same time the amount of unemployed goes down?

But in an effort to back my concerns I will use this example...

Comapny A and Company B both make widgets.
Comapny A gets a check from the government for 1 Billioon dollars to stimulate hiring
Comapny B gets nothing.

Comapny A and Company B both bid for a contract.
Company A offers a bid at a better price becuase it now has the cash flow to do so.
Company A wins the contract. Company B, on its last leg (as company A was before it got the cash), is forced to lay off 100 employees since it lost the bid...its opnly chance of surviving.
Comapny A however not only won the bid, but it no longer has direct copmpetition from company B...soi it gets a larger share of the market.
So now, with the new contract PLUS the billiion dollars it is able to hire more employees to fill the void of company B going under.
So it hires 90 people.

100 laid off

90 hired

net (-10) jobs gained

But the report comes out that becuase of the stimulus, 90 jobs were created.

THAT is how jobs created results in a higher unemployment number.

Dont just cite articles....look at the logic and discerne the information from there.

Plenty of specifics were identified. The specifics I listed in my thread were in those sources. Either you are lying, or you are just stupid. Which is it?

Of course, the unemployment rate has risen (and fallen), but that doesn't mean Obama didn't help create jobs. In fact, there has been slight economic growth ever since year began. I mean you do realize that there are factors outside of Obama's control right? The man isn't a cure-all for the economy. He never claimed he was. The sooner Americans understand that, the sooner they can learn to be patient with economic recovery.

Im a liar or stupid?

OK. Now we got that childish crap out of the way. Do it again, and I wont give you the time of day next time.

But you onviously did not read my explanation as to why jobs were created but the unemployment numbers grew. And they grew. Unemployment is STILL way above what it was when the stimulus was passed.

Like I said earlier. Give a man 100 dollars to hire a man for 100 dollars and a man will be hired. It is not rocket science.

Qustion is.....who lost their job so that man can be hired? A man from a compettitor who did not get that 100 free dollars....becuase the company that got the money has more liquidity than the competitor in an environemnt where "borrowing" money is next to impossible.

You need to stop being fooled. It is not an Obama thing. It is politics. It is what politicians do. They fool the voter base.

But the bottom line.....unemployment is higher than it was when the stimulus was enacted.....three dam years later!

True. On the other hand, this most recent recession was the worst since WWII. Unemployment skyrocketed. It's been falling - and it's still falling - but we still have a ways to go.

If you look at the graph what you'll see is that in 2008 - the last year of the Bush administration - the unemployment rate went nearly vertical. At one point, the economy was losing nearly one million jobs a month.

Over the course of the last two years, we've been gaining an average of about 150,000 a month.

So we haven't repaired all the damage yet. More is still needed - a jobs bill, for example, and an extension of the payroll tax break - but we are moving in the right direction.


EDIT: Another way to look at it is this - the recession cost American households a total of about $15 trillion of net wealth. The government spent somewhere in the $3 - $5 trillion, depending on how you count it. Yes, it's a lot of money. But on a scale of the devastation, it's not that much.

 

[Billy000]

Im a liar or stupid?

OK. Now we got that childish crap out of the way. Do it again, and I wont give you the time of day next time.

But you onviously did not read my explanation as to why jobs were created but the unemployment numbers grew. And they grew. Unemployment is STILL way above what it was when the stimulus was passed.

Like I said earlier. Give a man 100 dollars to hire a man for 100 dollars and a man will be hired. It is not rocket science.

Qustion is.....who lost their job so that man can be hired? A man from a compettitor who did not get that 100 free dollars....becuase the company that got the money has more liquidity than the competitor in an environemnt where "borrowing" money is next to impossible.

You need to stop being fooled. It is not an Obama thing. It is politics. It is what politicians do. They fool the voter base.

But the bottom line.....unemployment is higher than it was when the stimulus was enacted.....three dam years later!

Again, you don't get it. Yes, it is higher now, however, the unemployment rate would be higher if it wasn't for Obama. There is no denying that there are factors that are outside of Obama's control. Let me ask you this: what policies has Obama enacted that have directly increased the unemployment rate? Don't you dare say gov regulations, because that would be false.

the part in bold......dont threaten. It is childish. I am starting to find your debate tactics annoying.

I do get it. But dont you see what you are saying. You are rating the success stimulus on what "may have been" without it.

Well...it can be said the other way as well.....without it maybe the numbers would have proiven to be better.

I noticed your support has gone from "it created jobs" to "it prevented things fromgetting worse"

Why the switch?

Becuase you tossed your articles aside and ahd to address the one fact that stands out..........unemployment is higher now...3 years since the strimulus was passed.

That being said...I have nothing more to add to this debate. You have threatened me, called me a liar and called me stupid.

I have no interest in you anymore.

But interestingly....I even THANKEd another debater debating on your side.

Why?

Becuase he/she speaks to others with respect.

You do not.

I did not threaten you. You are deliberately taking my words out of context. A liar? Well if you aren't stupid then you are lying. Me accusing you of being stupid? Sure, okay, that was out of line. My bad.

Because it created jobs, it kept things from getting worse. That is my point.

Again, I am awaiting your source of how Obama has directly contributed to the increase in the unemployment rate.

 

[Jarhead]

Plenty of specifics were identified. The specifics I listed in my thread were in those sources. Either you are lying, or you are just stupid. Which is it?

Of course, the unemployment rate has risen (and fallen), but that doesn't mean Obama didn't help create jobs. In fact, there has been slight economic growth ever since year began. I mean you do realize that there are factors outside of Obama's control right? The man isn't a cure-all for the economy. He never claimed he was. The sooner Americans understand that, the sooner they can learn to be patient with economic recovery.

Im a liar or stupid?

OK. Now we got that childish crap out of the way. Do it again, and I wont give you the time of day next time.

But you onviously did not read my explanation as to why jobs were created but the unemployment numbers grew. And they grew. Unemployment is STILL way above what it was when the stimulus was passed.

Like I said earlier. Give a man 100 dollars to hire a man for 100 dollars and a man will be hired. It is not rocket science.

Qustion is.....who lost their job so that man can be hired? A man from a compettitor who did not get that 100 free dollars....becuase the company that got the money has more liquidity than the competitor in an environemnt where "borrowing" money is next to impossible.

You need to stop being fooled. It is not an Obama thing. It is politics. It is what politicians do. They fool the voter base.

But the bottom line.....unemployment is higher than it was when the stimulus was enacted.....three dam years later!

True. On the other hand, this most recent recession was the worst since WWII. Unemployment skyrocketed. It's been falling - and it's still falling - but we still have a ways to go.

If you look at the graph what you'll see is that in 2008 - the last year of the Bush administration - the unemployment rate went nearly vertical. At one point, the economy was losing nearly one million jobs a month.

Over the course of the last two years, we've been gaining an average of about 150,000 a month.

So we haven't repaired all the damage yet. More is still needed - a jobs bill, for example, and an extension of the payroll tax break - but we are moving in the right direction.

hey...dont forget the late 70's.
Gas lines.
Inflation
high unempoloyment
Prime rate over 20%

Then let us not forget the dot com bubble bursting.
Nasdaq dropped by what....65%?
Not to mention all of those jobs lost.

You want my theory as to whay this became as bad as it did?

We had two parties out there during a NON INCUMBANT presidential election scaring the crap out of the voters just as the economy was tanking.

I cant speak for many....but for me and my wife?

We drew every penny offered to us in our HELOC and stashed in away.....just in case....as a safety net.

And I am not one to knee jerk react....but man...those politicians made it sound like the worlds was coming to an end.

And ironically? Citibankl contacted me 3 months later offering to up my credit line.

I have since replaced the money.

 

[Jarhead]

Again, you don't get it. Yes, it is higher now, however, the unemployment rate would be higher if it wasn't for Obama. There is no denying that there are factors that are outside of Obama's control. Let me ask you this: what policies has Obama enacted that have directly increased the unemployment rate? Don't you dare say gov regulations, because that would be false.

the part in bold......dont threaten. It is childish. I am starting to find your debate tactics annoying.

I do get it. But dont you see what you are saying. You are rating the success stimulus on what "may have been" without it.

Well...it can be said the other way as well.....without it maybe the numbers would have proiven to be better.

I noticed your support has gone from "it created jobs" to "it prevented things fromgetting worse"

Why the switch?

Becuase you tossed your articles aside and ahd to address the one fact that stands out..........unemployment is higher now...3 years since the strimulus was passed.

That being said...I have nothing more to add to this debate. You have threatened me, called me a liar and called me stupid.

I have no interest in you anymore.

But interestingly....I even THANKEd another debater debating on your side.

Why?

Becuase he/she speaks to others with respect.

You do not.

I did not threaten you. You are deliberately taking my words out of context. A liar? Well if you aren't stupid then you are lying. Me accusing you of being stupid? Sure, okay, that was out of line. My bad.

Because it created jobs, it kept things from getting worse. That is my point.

Again, I am awaiting your source of how Obama has directly contributed to the increase in the unemployment rate.

I never said he did.

All I said was that uenmployemnt got worse DESPITE the stimulus.

Now....Im done with you. I had absolutely no enjoyment deabting you. I learned squat from you...whereas I learned a ton in one third the posts from sundial.

I suggest changing your approach. You are starting to sound like TruthMatters.

Have a nice weekend.

 

[The Rabbi]

Where did he promise that? When? What words did he use?

Or - are you just making shit up?

If I show you will you shut the fuck up and go away after you apologize?

Yup. Show me where Obama made a promise to anyone that the unemployment rate would stay below 7% or 8% or any other number and I'll "shut the fuck up" and apologize.

Further, the boost to the economy would keep the unemployment rate from surpassing 8%, according to a January study by Obama administration economists Christina Romer and Jared Bernstein. Without it, the study said, unemployment could rise to 9% in 2010.

Stimulus: White House tells critics not to judge yet - Jul. 6, 2009

Ok, I'm ready.

 

[Sundial]

How about we approach it this way...

If back in early 2009 Obama said this in a state of the union address to congress....

" I would like congress to grant me permission to borrow one trillion dollars so I can enact a stimulus/recovery plan. It is our estimate that this stimulus will rewsult in an increase in unemployment to ablout 10% before dropping and stablizing at 9% by the end of three years. Our GDP will show very little growth over the three year period with the stimulus, but an increase is still an increase. Some of those receiving stimulus money will likely go under and I can assure you that at least one company will lose 550 million of the borrowed money with the taxpayer being pushed to the back of the line as it pertains to recouping some of that money. On the other side, however, we will be able to ensure that some states will be able to retain many of their employees...in essence allowing us to save many government jobs"

Do you think a democratic congress would have passed it?

If your answer is no....then the stimulus was a failure.

If your answer is yes, you are full of shit.

Or how about this:

Suppose back in 09 the President had said, "The stock market has fallen by 50%. The banking system is imploding. Banks are refusing to lend to each other, and may have to shut their doors altogether. Foreclosures are skyrocketing. Companies are going bankrupt - GM, Merril Lynch, Lehman Bros., AIG etc. Unemployment is soaring. Economists are saying if nothing is done the financial system may collapse altogether.

We can do nothing and hope for the best.

Or we can intervene, and by the end of 2011 the economy will have added 3 million jobs, stocks will have doubled, and the economy will be expanding."

That's what actually happened.

The idea that the economy and the banking system would have improved on their own, on the other hand, is wishful thinking.

yes...that is exactly what was said.....

Now...lets take what was said...and yes, what was said was accurate at the time and add in what I said which is also accurate to date...

And then we need to eliminate something you satted as fact but it is not necssarily fact...the part about doing nothing....you dont know the outcome of that....for doing nothing has been proven to help recessions in the past....

Look...all I am saying is I dont know the answer....and I do not hold congress responsible for taking a chance on the stimulus....it was as good a guess as anything.

But to claim it was a success is not being genuine. Better than doing nothing? Maybe. Maybe not. We dont know....but a success?

That is just political posturing for the election. It was by no means a success. A failure? I dont know....but worth the 850 billion of boirrowed money? I dont personally think so.

It also did something I am very much against. It intereferred with pure competition. Many survived that shouldnt have due to receiving funds at the expense of many that failed that wouldnt have if their competition did not get the funds.

And that last part should be disturbing to all of us.

Sure, we can't go back in time and see what would have happened if things had been done differently.

What we know for sure is that things were bad and getting worse. A lot of people seemed to think that things were about to get a lot lot worse, unless something was done. The government intervened, and things got better.

We don't know for sure they were right. Maybe everything would have gotten better on its own. I think what the OP is pointing out is that the people who've studied it don't seem to think so.

 

[Sundial]

If I show you will you shut the fuck up and go away after you apologize?

Yup. Show me where Obama made a promise to anyone that the unemployment rate would stay below 7% or 8% or any other number and I'll "shut the fuck up" and apologize.

Further, the boost to the economy would keep the unemployment rate from surpassing 8%, according to a January study by Obama administration economists Christina Romer and Jared Bernstein. Without it, the study said, unemployment could rise to 9% in 2010.

Stimulus: White House tells critics not to judge yet - Jul. 6, 2009

Ok, I'm ready.

Obama warned upon taking office that if "dramatic action" were not taken, "the unemployment rate could reach double digits," with the recession lasting for years.

But PolitiFact could find no evidence of anyone in the administration making a public pledge that the stimulus would keep the unemployment rate below 8 percent.

PolitiFact Ohio | John Boehner says Obama promised the stimulus would keep unemployment below 8 percent

It's a popular talking point among Republicans, but no one in the Obama administration ever promised the unemployment rate would never go above 8% - or any other number.

 

[bripat9643]

There isn't a shred of evidence for any of the claims made. Moody's is just trying to curry favor with the Administration.

1) The Stimulus: created around 2 million jobs. According to Moody Analytics, it "significantly softened the recession."

What is Obama's actual record on creating jobs? | syracuse.com

2) According to this site that cites empirican research, it is likely the Recovery Act's benefits significantly outweighed the costs:

Did the stimulus work? A review of the nine best studies on the subject - The Washington Post

3) The results of Obama extending unemployment benefits under his stimulus plan reduced the fall of GDP by 18.3% and saved 1.6 million jobs

ETA News Release: US Labor Department study underscores positive impact of unemployment insurance [11/16/2010]

4) 114,407 teaching jobs have been created or saved

Education Jobs Fund - Official Website

5) The GM, Crysler bailout added about 45,000 and saved about 1 million:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/rss_viewer/one_year_later_autos_report.pdf

(^^^The White House is citing the Bureau of Labor Statistics in this article)


I found other independent research showing "possible economic progress" under Obama's stimulus, but I know you cons would be quick to jump all over any information like that. For now, though, this should settle the argument that Obama "has done nothing." If you would all just stop watching Fox News (or MSNBC), you may just have an informed opinion about Obama.

 

[Amelia]

My opinion is and has consistently been that the stimulus did accomplish something but that it could have accomplished significantly more if Obama had actually paid attention to making sure it was working right instead of taking his eye off the ball and inflicting the nation with the ACA year from hell.

If Obama actually cared about infrastructure for example, and put his time and political weight where his mouth was, instead of using old bridges as little more than photo ops, then the stimulus could have had more oomph.

But Obama didn't care about making sure the stimulus was working. In the back of his head in a tactical way I'm sure he hoped it would work. But he didn't put his energy and attention into it. He didn't act like he really meant it when he said he "got it" when he talked about knowing that people wanted him to pay attention to the economy and jobs. He didn't care about anything but putting his name in the history books with some version, no matter how weak, of something resembling universal healthcare. It didn't matter to him how many campaign promises he had to break to do that, how many lies he had to tell the American people to do it, how many shady deals he had to do it, or how badly the American people were recoiling from what he was doing.

All that mattered to Obama was this vanity legislation.



So trot out all the numbers you want about jobs. I'm glad we seem to be in a recovery however anemic. I hope it continues.

But Obama didn't make it happen. He did set some things in motion which could have earned him credit for a robust recovery. But then he stepped all over it and held it back from getting traction.

 

[The Rabbi]

Yup. Show me where Obama made a promise to anyone that the unemployment rate would stay below 7% or 8% or any other number and I'll "shut the fuck up" and apologize.

Stimulus: White House tells critics not to judge yet - Jul. 6, 2009

Ok, I'm ready.

Obama warned upon taking office that if "dramatic action" were not taken, "the unemployment rate could reach double digits," with the recession lasting for years.

But PolitiFact could find no evidence of anyone in the administration making a public pledge that the stimulus would keep the unemployment rate below 8 percent.

PolitiFact Ohio | John Boehner says Obama promised the stimulus would keep unemployment below 8 percent

It's a popular talking point among Republicans, but no one in the Obama administration ever promised the unemployment rate would never go above 8% - or any other number.

I just showed you were that happened. Either apologize or STFU.

 

[Billy000]

the part in bold......dont threaten. It is childish. I am starting to find your debate tactics annoying.

I do get it. But dont you see what you are saying. You are rating the success stimulus on what "may have been" without it.

Well...it can be said the other way as well.....without it maybe the numbers would have proiven to be better.

I noticed your support has gone from "it created jobs" to "it prevented things fromgetting worse"

Why the switch?

Becuase you tossed your articles aside and ahd to address the one fact that stands out..........unemployment is higher now...3 years since the strimulus was passed.

That being said...I have nothing more to add to this debate. You have threatened me, called me a liar and called me stupid.

I have no interest in you anymore.

But interestingly....I even THANKEd another debater debating on your side.

Why?

Becuase he/she speaks to others with respect.

You do not.

I did not threaten you. You are deliberately taking my words out of context. A liar? Well if you aren't stupid then you are lying. Me accusing you of being stupid? Sure, okay, that was out of line. My bad.

Because it created jobs, it kept things from getting worse. That is my point.

Again, I am awaiting your source of how Obama has directly contributed to the increase in the unemployment rate.

I never said he did.

All I said was that uenmployemnt got worse DESPITE the stimulus.

Now....Im done with you. I had absolutely no enjoyment deabting you. I learned squat from you...whereas I learned a ton in one third the posts from sundial.

I suggest changing your approach. You are starting to sound like TruthMatters.

Have a nice weekend.

Lol so because sundial and I agree, I should feel inferior because you say so? Come on, that's so weak.

Obama made the big political mistake of predicting that the unemployment rate would drop. Just because he was wrong, it doesn't mean he didn't help the economy.

And I wasn't expecting you to learn anything, anyway...