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

[Jarhead]

For a progressive to come here "now" and maintain that the Obama White House never said that unemployment would remain below 8% if the Obama Stimulus was granted to them is the epitome of playing fast and loose with the truth. Obama's very own economic advisors are the ones that made that prediction representing the Obama Administration and Obama took their message out on the road with him...stumping across the country saying that "leading economists" backed his plan.

yeah...those same economists that did not realize how bad the economy was.

I mean...that was their job...to evaluate the condition of the economy.

And not one of them was right?

And they are "leading" economists?

Really?

 

[Oldstyle]

For a progressive to come here "now" and maintain that the Obama White House never said that unemployment would remain below 8% if the Obama Stimulus was granted to them is the epitome of playing fast and loose with the truth. Obama's very own economic advisors are the ones that made that prediction representing the Obama Administration and Obama took their message out on the road with him...stumping across the country saying that "leading economists" backed his plan.

yeah...those same economists that did not realize how bad the economy was.

I mean...that was their job...to evaluate the condition of the economy.

And not one of them was right?

And they are "leading" economists?

Really?

There is a reason that Larry Summers and Christina Romer both went trotting back to Harvard and Berkeley halfway through Obama's first term and it ISN'T that they were doing such a bang up job with the economy. Nah, those two got out while the getting was good because they did such a lousy job. I'd like to be sitting in one of their classrooms when either of them start waxing poetic about the wonders of Keynesian economic theory. I'd give them a serious RAZZBERRY and walk out.

 

[daveman]

It was an unmitigated expensive disaster.

And what the hell is a "saved" job??

A saved job is a job that someone could not afford to keep paying for until the tax payer gave him the money to contiue paying for it.

And what happens when that money runs out?

 

[daveman]

How can you conservatives make fun of the President who created or saved over 100 trillion jobs?

You lie. It was eleventy zillion jobs. I'm reporting you to ATTACK WATCH!!

 

[Jarhead]

It was an unmitigated expensive disaster.

And what the hell is a "saved" job??

A saved job is a job that someone could not afford to keep paying for until the tax payer gave him the money to contiue paying for it.

And what happens when that money runs out?

The job is lost. It was never actually saved...the loss of it was deferred to a later date.

 

[Ernie S.]

For a progressive to come here "now" and maintain that the Obama White House never said that unemployment would remain below 8% if the Obama Stimulus was granted to them is the epitome of playing fast and loose with the truth. Obama's very own economic advisors are the ones that made that prediction representing the Obama Administration and Obama took their message out on the road with him...stumping across the country saying that "leading economists" backed his plan.

yeah...those same economists that did not realize how bad the economy was.

I mean...that was their job...to evaluate the condition of the economy.

And not one of them was right?

And they are "leading" economists?

Really?

That should read: Hand Picked, leading economists.
Walter Williams and Thomas Sowell are leading economists. Did obama ask their opinions?

 

[daveman]

Here's the other problem with your numbers, Billy...

They compare what they "think" might have happened with no stimulus compared to what happened with the Obama Stimulus but they don't compare the Obama Stimulus with a stimulus that primed the private sector and let the public sector contract (which if you believe as I do that government is bloated and inefficient, is a good thing). If we'd spent our trillion dollars THAT way how many jobs would have been created instead of temporarily "saved"? If we'd gone THAT way would the President even need to be back asking for Stimulus II or would growth in the private sector have generated significant revenues...enough to pay for the government that we DO need? Just food for thought.

No, what they did was look at the direct affect the stimulus had on the economy. Come on, is it really so hard to believe that Obama created jobs? Is it really? Why do you try to fight the validity of independent analysis? Unless you can find research that disputes these claims, anything criticism you have toward it is unfounded.

If you're giving Obama credit for creating jobs, you also have to give him responsibility for jobs lost.

And going by the UE figures, he's lost more jobs than he's created.

 

[daveman]

A saved job is a job that someone could not afford to keep paying for until the tax payer gave him the money to contiue paying for it.

And what happens when that money runs out?

The job is lost. It was never actually saved...the loss of it was deferred to a later date.

So Obama is responsible for losing that job.

But just try to get Billy to acknowledge that.

 

[The Rabbi]

For a progressive to come here "now" and maintain that the Obama White House never said that unemployment would remain below 8% if the Obama Stimulus was granted to them is the epitome of playing fast and loose with the truth. Obama's very own economic advisors are the ones that made that prediction representing the Obama Administration and Obama took their message out on the road with him...stumping across the country saying that "leading economists" backed his plan.

yeah...those same economists that did not realize how bad the economy was.

I mean...that was their job...to evaluate the condition of the economy.

And not one of them was right?

And they are "leading" economists?

Really?

Actually 300 leading economists, including 2 Nobel Prize winners, took out an ad predicting failure for the stimulus.

 

[daveman]

For a progressive to come here "now" and maintain that the Obama White House never said that unemployment would remain below 8% if the Obama Stimulus was granted to them is the epitome of playing fast and loose with the truth. Obama's very own economic advisors are the ones that made that prediction representing the Obama Administration and Obama took their message out on the road with him...stumping across the country saying that "leading economists" backed his plan.

yeah...those same economists that did not realize how bad the economy was.

I mean...that was their job...to evaluate the condition of the economy.

And not one of them was right?

And they are "leading" economists?

Really?

Actually 300 leading economists, including 2 Nobel Prize winners, took out an ad predicting failure for the stimulus.

Obama picked his economists not for expertise but for ideology.

You know, like he picks all his staff.

 

[Sundial]

For a progressive to come here "now" and maintain that the Obama White House never said that unemployment would remain below 8% if the Obama Stimulus was granted to them is the epitome of playing fast and loose with the truth. Obama's very own economic advisors are the ones that made that prediction representing the Obama Administration and Obama took their message out on the road with him...stumping across the country saying that "leading economists" backed his plan.

The truth is very simple: there's a difference between a forecast, (with a "high level of uncertainty" by Christina Romer), and a promise by Obama.

What I don't know is whether you know you're being deceitful. Or whether you think it's "honest" to maintain they're the same.

 

[The Rabbi]

For a progressive to come here "now" and maintain that the Obama White House never said that unemployment would remain below 8% if the Obama Stimulus was granted to them is the epitome of playing fast and loose with the truth. Obama's very own economic advisors are the ones that made that prediction representing the Obama Administration and Obama took their message out on the road with him...stumping across the country saying that "leading economists" backed his plan.

The truth is very simple: there's a difference between a forecast, (with a "high level of uncertainty" by Christina Romer), and a promise by Obama.

What I don't know is whether you know you're being deceitful. Or whether you think it's "honest" to maintain they're the same.

Your'e right. Obama promised to close Gitmo. Romer only forecasted what the UE rate would be.
Of course in both cases the end result was the same.

 

[Sundial]

For a progressive to come here "now" and maintain that the Obama White House never said that unemployment would remain below 8% if the Obama Stimulus was granted to them is the epitome of playing fast and loose with the truth. Obama's very own economic advisors are the ones that made that prediction representing the Obama Administration and Obama took their message out on the road with him...stumping across the country saying that "leading economists" backed his plan.

The truth is very simple: there's a difference between a forecast, (with a "high level of uncertainty" by Christina Romer), and a promise by Obama.

What I don't know is whether you know you're being deceitful. Or whether you think it's "honest" to maintain they're the same.

Your'e right. Obama promised to close Gitmo. Romer only forecasted what the UE rate would be.
Of course in both cases the end result was the same.

Well, the Pubs stopped him from closing Gitmo, so...

 

[The Rabbi]

The truth is very simple: there's a difference between a forecast, (with a "high level of uncertainty" by Christina Romer), and a promise by Obama.

What I don't know is whether you know you're being deceitful. Or whether you think it's "honest" to maintain they're the same.

Your'e right. Obama promised to close Gitmo. Romer only forecasted what the UE rate would be.
Of course in both cases the end result was the same.

Well, the Pubs stopped him from closing Gitmo, so...

Since the Dems had filibuster proof majorities for 2 years remind me how the GOP stopped him.

 

[daveman]

For a progressive to come here "now" and maintain that the Obama White House never said that unemployment would remain below 8% if the Obama Stimulus was granted to them is the epitome of playing fast and loose with the truth. Obama's very own economic advisors are the ones that made that prediction representing the Obama Administration and Obama took their message out on the road with him...stumping across the country saying that "leading economists" backed his plan.

The truth is very simple: there's a difference between a forecast, (with a "high level of uncertainty" by Christina Romer), and a promise by Obama.

What I don't know is whether you know you're being deceitful. Or whether you think it's "honest" to maintain they're the same.

He never claimed Obama made that promise. He relayed what the Administration said.

So who's being deceitful?

 

[The Rabbi]

For a progressive to come here "now" and maintain that the Obama White House never said that unemployment would remain below 8% if the Obama Stimulus was granted to them is the epitome of playing fast and loose with the truth. Obama's very own economic advisors are the ones that made that prediction representing the Obama Administration and Obama took their message out on the road with him...stumping across the country saying that "leading economists" backed his plan.

The truth is very simple: there's a difference between a forecast, (with a "high level of uncertainty" by Christina Romer), and a promise by Obama.

What I don't know is whether you know you're being deceitful. Or whether you think it's "honest" to maintain they're the same.

He never claimed Obama made that promise. He relayed what the Administration said.

So who's being deceitful?

I think we've heard the last from Sundial on this. Until he comes back with some piece of inanity totally unresponsive to everything we've thrown here.

 

[Oldstyle]

For a progressive to come here "now" and maintain that the Obama White House never said that unemployment would remain below 8% if the Obama Stimulus was granted to them is the epitome of playing fast and loose with the truth. Obama's very own economic advisors are the ones that made that prediction representing the Obama Administration and Obama took their message out on the road with him...stumping across the country saying that "leading economists" backed his plan.

The truth is very simple: there's a difference between a forecast, (with a "high level of uncertainty" by Christina Romer), and a promise by Obama.

What I don't know is whether you know you're being deceitful. Or whether you think it's "honest" to maintain they're the same.

A "high level of uncertainty"? I don't remember the high level of uncertainty you're referring to, Sun...what I remember is dire predictions from the members of the Obama Administration about what would happen if they were not given their stimulus package. I remember Barack Obama stumping from one end of the country to the other telling the American people that we had to have this stimulus or unemployment would go over 9%. I remember Christina Romer standing out in front of the White House and telling us all that if the stimulus was passed it would keep unemployment below 8%. Now "you" may want to Monday morning quarterback the difference between a "forecast" and a "promise" but the bottom line remains that this Administration misjudged what was going on with the economy in a major way and gave us a stimulus that was more about rewarding loyal Democratic constituancies than it was about addressing unemployment.

 

[daveman]

The truth is very simple: there's a difference between a forecast, (with a "high level of uncertainty" by Christina Romer), and a promise by Obama.

What I don't know is whether you know you're being deceitful. Or whether you think it's "honest" to maintain they're the same.

He never claimed Obama made that promise. He relayed what the Administration said.

So who's being deceitful?

I think we've heard the last from Sundial on this. Until he comes back with some piece of inanity totally unresponsive to everything we've thrown here.

Oh, you mean like all his other posts.

 

[Billy000]

It just doesnt show in the net numbers and we cant prove it.

Very impressive.

Again, none of you have sources to counter my OP.

Give it up, Billy...nobody is buying the bullshit anymore. Unemployment is around 9%. The stimulus was a trillion dollar Keynesian "science project" by Larry Summers and Christina Romer that failed miserably out in the real world. Why do you think they both abandoned ship and went back to academia? Because the Obama Stimulus worked? Come on...show some common sense...

You really can't handle cognitive dissonance? Look, you can dislike Obama if you want, but to not give him credit for anything is just narrow-minded and stupid.

 

[Billy000]

Here's the other problem with your numbers, Billy...

They compare what they "think" might have happened with no stimulus compared to what happened with the Obama Stimulus but they don't compare the Obama Stimulus with a stimulus that primed the private sector and let the public sector contract (which if you believe as I do that government is bloated and inefficient, is a good thing). If we'd spent our trillion dollars THAT way how many jobs would have been created instead of temporarily "saved"? If we'd gone THAT way would the President even need to be back asking for Stimulus II or would growth in the private sector have generated significant revenues...enough to pay for the government that we DO need? Just food for thought.

No, what they did was look at the direct affect the stimulus had on the economy. Come on, is it really so hard to believe that Obama created jobs? Is it really? Why do you try to fight the validity of independent analysis? Unless you can find research that disputes these claims, anything criticism you have toward it is unfounded.

I'm sorry, Billy...but the number of jobs that were "created" by Obama's stimulus were minimal at best...that's why they invented a new statistic..."jobs created or SAVED". They didn't do that because they created so many jobs...they did that because they DIDN'T create many jobs at all and needed to make it appear better than it really was.

oh come on, now you are just making things up.