How to raise employment

[Rshermr]

So, the rabbi says:
Sure. Most of Obama's economists believe the multiplier is above 1. They are wrong too. How do we know?

Because they've spent a trillion dollars in stimulus and the economy sucks.

So, the rabbi lies again. He just said something really provably wrong. Without any evidence to back him up. So, apparently he believes that we should believe him.
So, I say they've spent 1$
So there. Only 1$.
Well, lets see. Now, understand, rabbi is a con tool. And they hate proof. So, he is not going to want to trust impartial sources. But he will be caught in a lie. Then, he will have to attack. Me, of course. Then the sources if he is still stuck.

"The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 distributes funds in three ways. Since its enactment in February 2009, $774.7B has been paid out."
Total size of the ARRA is set at $480B. Of that, the above $774,7B has been expended. Of that total spent, of $774.7B, $290.7B was in tax relief, $246B was in contracts, grants, and loans. $238B was in entitlements.
Recovery.gov - Tracking the Money

Now, does that look like a trillion???? The biggest component, tax relief, had the least effect. Lowest multiplier.
So, damn, not quite a trillion. And really, really easy to understand. Should you care to. Unless, your purpose is simply to post con dogma, based on agenda, as usual.

Deficits have run over a trillion dollars for 4 years. By definition that is "stimulus."
You lose, once more.

Even
as stupid as you are, rabbi, you do not believe that lie. Here is a definition of a federal budget.
The budget for the federal government. The federal budget of a country is determined yearly, and forecasts the amount of money that will be spent on a variety of expenses in the upcoming year.

Read more: What is federal budget? definition and meaning

Now, lets see if you can understand the concept of stimulus.
A package of economic measures put together by the government to stimulate a floundering economy. The objective of a stimulus package is to reinvigorate the economy and prevent or reverse a recession by boosting employment and spending. The theory behind the usefulness of a stimulus package is rooted in Keynesian economics, which argues that the impact of a recession can be lessened with increased government spending.
Read more: Stimulus Package Definition | Investopedia
So, again, rabbi, you are wrong. Based on your definition, which is really, really stupid, we have a stimulus every single year for the past 15 or more. So, I would say nice try. But this try does not pass the giggle test. Every economist that ever heard this one would be laughint at you. And their belief, as mine, is that you are either really, really ignorant. Or just dishonest.

 

[The Rabbi]

Stimulus involving gov't deficit spending. Something we have been doing with abandon for the last 4years.
You lose. Once more.
Don't you ever get tired of being wrong?

 

[Rshermr]

Sure. Most of Obama's economists believe the multiplier is above 1. They are wrong too. How do we know? Because they've spent a trillion dollars in stimulus and the economy sucks.

That could be due to any number of reasons other than a wrong multiplier. It could be that their model itself is wrong. It could be that they aren't using the right data. It could be because the multiplier value fluctuates over time.

Here is a really good analysis of the AARA, or the Stimulus, as the CBO sees it. The CBO is one of the few non partial analyses.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/06/07/1098364/-CBO-Director-Demolishes-GOP-s-Stimulus-Myth
Relative to multipliers, it depends entirely on the specific parts of the stimulus. According to the CBO, tax reductions to the wealthy had the lowest multiplier. But, beleiving that the multiplier was under 1 is an interesting concept in the face of the evidence. Since the CBO believes that the AARA created several million jobs and increased the GNP, it would be pretty much impossible for the multipliers to be under 1.

 

[boedicca]

And, the rabbi says:

Because they've spent a trillion dollars in stimulus and the economy sucks.

So, apparently the rabbi believes the stimulus did no good. Lets see. Some more of that damned impartial evidence you hate so much, rabbi:
"In a survey conducted by the University of Chicago Booth School of Business, 80 percent of economic experts agreed that, because of the stimulus, the U.S. unemployment rate was lower at the end of 2010 than it would have been otherwise."

“Only 4 percent disagreed or strongly disagreed,” CBO Director Douglas Elmendorf told the House Budget Committee. “That,” he added, “is a distinct minority.”
Congressional Budget Office defends stimulus - The Washington Post

Stimulus works to increase economic growth and employment when the economy is weak, as it is now. The CBO and almost all economists recognize that once the economy returns to full employment, deficit-financed spending does not work the same as in a weak economy and that continuing to run deficits will likely harm economic growth.
Why Obama's Economic Stimulus Worked - Economic Intelligence (usnews.com)

And the stimulus still is increasing jobs.
Obama's 2009 stimulus is still boosting jobs

By the way, the multipliers were there, also. The worst of the expenditure types was one year tax cut to high income people. Worst by a factor of 2. That is no other expenditure type had results as low as twice that of that tax cut.

So, we can believe con tools like rabbi, or you can believe the CBO. My money is on the CBO.

I'd call that excuse making. Romer and Bernstein, Obama's economic advisors, justified the stimulus package with a prediction that it would lower unemployment to less than 6% by the 2012 election. The fact that a bunch of academics are now rewriting predictions to justify that larded up ball-o-pork just demonstrates how pwned Academia is by the Left.

 

[Rshermr]

And, the rabbi says:

Because they've spent a trillion dollars in stimulus and the economy sucks.

So, apparently the rabbi believes the stimulus did no good. Lets see. Some more of that damned impartial evidence you hate so much, rabbi:
"In a survey conducted by the University of Chicago Booth School of Business, 80 percent of economic experts agreed that, because of the stimulus, the U.S. unemployment rate was lower at the end of 2010 than it would have been otherwise."

“Only 4 percent disagreed or strongly disagreed,” CBO Director Douglas Elmendorf told the House Budget Committee. “That,” he added, “is a distinct minority.”
Congressional Budget Office defends stimulus - The Washington Post

Stimulus works to increase economic growth and employment when the economy is weak, as it is now. The CBO and almost all economists recognize that once the economy returns to full employment, deficit-financed spending does not work the same as in a weak economy and that continuing to run deficits will likely harm economic growth.
Why Obama's Economic Stimulus Worked - Economic Intelligence (usnews.com)

And the stimulus still is increasing jobs.
Obama's 2009 stimulus is still boosting jobs

By the way, the multipliers were there, also. The worst of the expenditure types was one year tax cut to high income people. Worst by a factor of 2. That is no other expenditure type had results as low as twice that of that tax cut.

So, we can believe con tools like rabbi, or you can believe the CBO. My money is on the CBO.

I'd call that excuse making. Romer and Bernstein, Obama's economic advisors, justified the stimulus package with a prediction that it would lower unemployment to less than 6% by the 2012 election. The fact that a bunch of academics are now rewriting predictions to justify that larded up ball-o-pork just demonstrates how pwned Academia is by the Left.

You must have to some links to proof of that. Did you just forget them??

 

[The Rabbi]

And, the rabbi says:


So, apparently the rabbi believes the stimulus did no good. Lets see. Some more of that damned impartial evidence you hate so much, rabbi:
"In a survey conducted by the University of Chicago Booth School of Business, 80 percent of economic experts agreed that, because of the stimulus, the U.S. unemployment rate was lower at the end of 2010 than it would have been otherwise."

“Only 4 percent disagreed or strongly disagreed,” CBO Director Douglas Elmendorf told the House Budget Committee. “That,” he added, “is a distinct minority.”
Congressional Budget Office defends stimulus - The Washington Post

Stimulus works to increase economic growth and employment when the economy is weak, as it is now. The CBO and almost all economists recognize that once the economy returns to full employment, deficit-financed spending does not work the same as in a weak economy and that continuing to run deficits will likely harm economic growth.
Why Obama's Economic Stimulus Worked - Economic Intelligence (usnews.com)

And the stimulus still is increasing jobs.
Obama's 2009 stimulus is still boosting jobs

By the way, the multipliers were there, also. The worst of the expenditure types was one year tax cut to high income people. Worst by a factor of 2. That is no other expenditure type had results as low as twice that of that tax cut.

So, we can believe con tools like rabbi, or you can believe the CBO. My money is on the CBO.

I'd call that excuse making. Romer and Bernstein, Obama's economic advisors, justified the stimulus package with a prediction that it would lower unemployment to less than 6% by the 2012 election. The fact that a bunch of academics are now rewriting predictions to justify that larded up ball-o-pork just demonstrates how pwned Academia is by the Left.

You must have to some links to proof of that. Did you just forget them??

You're kidding,right? That was reported all over the place. You're the one forgetting. Maybe amnesia?

 

[JimmieD]

But, beleiving that the multiplier was under 1 is an interesting concept in the face of the evidence.

Not really. Barro, Hall, Redlick, Ramey, Shapiro, Edelberg, Eichenbaum, Fisher, Cavallo, Mountford, Uhlig, Cogan, Cwik, Taylor, Weiland, Auerbach, Fishback, Clemens, and Miran all have estimated the multiplier to be less than 1.

As I said previously, it depends on the type of statistical test that's being used, the parameters involved, the initial conditions and assumptions, and the model chosen. The CBO is but one instance of these things.

Since the CBO believes that the AARA created several million jobs and increased the GNP, it would be pretty much impossible for the multipliers to be under 1.

Something is hardly true just because the CBO believes it.

 

[The Rabbi]

HE has it backwards. The CBO strted with an assumption there was a multiplier and based their analysis on that.
The CBO's support for the stimulus has been debunked and explained so many times it is testament to the Left's stupidity they keep quoting it.

 

[Rshermr]

We may have had schools prior to the mid 19th century, but those schools were not publicly funded. There was no income tax, so teachers didn't get a government check. There was no union so they had to do a decent job.

And no revenue, eh. Since there was no tax. By the way, how did they pay for war then. Barter???

 

[The Rabbi]

We may have had schools prior to the mid 19th century, but those schools were not publicly funded. There was no income tax, so teachers didn't get a government check. There was no union so they had to do a decent job.

And no revenue, eh. Since there was no tax. By the way, how did they pay for war then. Barter???

How does "no income tax" translate into "no revenue"? Do you think the gov't raised no money prior to 1916?
You lose. Yet again.

 

[Rshermr]

I'd call that excuse making. Romer and Bernstein, Obama's economic advisors, justified the stimulus package with a prediction that it would lower unemployment to less than 6% by the 2012 election. The fact that a bunch of academics are now rewriting predictions to justify that larded up ball-o-pork just demonstrates how pwned Academia is by the Left.

You must have to some links to proof of that. Did you just forget them??

You're kidding,right? That was reported all over the place. You're the one forgetting. Maybe amnesia?

so, is that you saying that you do not?? Look, dipshit. Projections are made by economists all the time. They are rarely correct. Which is why they call Economics a social science.
Projections are better the closer to the end event as possible, and the closer to the end of the rate going up. Try a little study. Maybe a simple economics class.
And yes I do understand. You do not believe in education, because you are a con. You do not believe honest analysis from the CBO, because you are a con. So, go back to your right wing crazy web sites, and post away. And wonder why your favored party gets it's but kicked. People are really, really getting tired of the con dogma, the lies, and the anger. I know it all makes you happy, but that is just part of the whole issue of why cons are ignorant.

Here you go:
Stupid con studies:
Brock University Study Low IQ & Conservative Beliefs Linked to Prejudice | Racism, Bias & Politics | Right-Wing and Left-Wing Ideology | LiveScience

U of Arkansas study Study “Proves” Conservatism Linked To Stupidity - The Ulsterman Report

Let me know if you need more. There are hundreds of studies. But they are all pretty much the same. Oh, I forgot that you do not believe in science. You are a con tool. Forgive me.

 

[Rshermr]

We may have had schools prior to the mid 19th century, but those schools were not publicly funded. There was no income tax, so teachers didn't get a government check. There was no union so they had to do a decent job.

And no revenue, eh. Since there was no tax. By the way, how did they pay for war then. Barter???

How does "no income tax" translate into "no revenue"? Do you think the gov't raised no money prior to 1916?
You lose. Yet again.

Not at all, my poor ignorant con. There have been a number of ways that the gov has raised revenues. Taxing being the more recent. Prior to that, the primary method was tariffs.
So, if you did not have your head up your ass, you would see that I did not suggest there was no other way to raise taxes. Maybe a plastic navel is in order.
If you had not had your head up your ass, you would have seen the statement that I was responding to:

There was no income tax, so teachers didn't get a government check

So, though you would never acknowledge it, perhaps you should ask your stupid question to Katz, who made the statement to which I was responding. How does it feel to be as ignorant as you are, rabbi.

 

[Rshermr]

HE has it backwards. The CBO strted with an assumption there was a multiplier and based their analysis on that.
The CBO's support for the stimulus has been debunked and explained so many times it is testament to the Left's stupidity they keep quoting it.

So, let me get this straight. You are arguing that the CBO is partial, that they would provide analysis that is not completely impartial. That is, of course, a complete lie. An REALLY does not pass the giggle test.

So perfectly like a con tool. Both repubs and dems have relied on the CBO for unbiased analysis for decades. But, when their analysis is not what you want, they are PREJUDICED. Just can not admit you were proven wrong.

So, Rabbi, my poor ignorant con tool, lets see your impartial and unbiased source for the drivel you just laid out. You know, rabbi, some proof for the lies you just made up, from a source not known as partial.

 

[The Rabbi]

And no revenue, eh. Since there was no tax. By the way, how did they pay for war then. Barter???

How does "no income tax" translate into "no revenue"? Do you think the gov't raised no money prior to 1916?
You lose. Yet again.

Not at all, my poor ignorant con. There have been a number of ways that the gov has raised revenues. Taxing being the more recent. Prior to that, the primary method was tariffs.
So, if you did not have your head up your ass, you would see that I did not suggest there was no other way to raise taxes. Maybe a plastic navel is in order.
If you had not had your head up your ass, you would have seen the statement that I was responding to:

There was no income tax, so teachers didn't get a government check

So, though you would never acknowledge it, perhaps you should ask your stupid question to Katz, who made the statement to which I was responding. How does it feel to be as ignorant as you are, rabbi.

So tariffs are not the same as taxes? And the only two ways to raise revenue are "taxes" and "tariffs"?
You lose. Yet once more.

 

[The Rabbi]

HE has it backwards. The CBO strted with an assumption there was a multiplier and based their analysis on that.
The CBO's support for the stimulus has been debunked and explained so many times it is testament to the Left's stupidity they keep quoting it.

So, let me get this straight. You are arguing that the CBO is partial, that they would provide analysis that is not completely impartial. That is, of course, a complete lie. An REALLY does not pass the giggle test.

So perfectly like a con tool. Both repubs and dems have relied on the CBO for unbiased analysis for decades. But, when their analysis is not what you want, they are PREJUDICED. Just can not admit you were proven wrong.

So, Rabbi, my poor ignorant con tool, lets see your impartial and unbiased source for the drivel you just laid out. You know, rabbi, some proof for the lies you just made up, from a source not known as partial.

Do you understand what "straw man" means?
CBO assumed there was a multiplier and every dollar spent by the gov't resulted in X number of jobs and this is how they got their figures.
Pretty simple and well-documented.

 

[Rshermr]

HE has it backwards. The CBO strted with an assumption there was a multiplier and based their analysis on that.
The CBO's support for the stimulus has been debunked and explained so many times it is testament to the Left's stupidity they keep quoting it.

So, let me get this straight. You are arguing that the CBO is partial, that they would provide analysis that is not completely impartial. That is, of course, a complete lie. An REALLY does not pass the giggle test.

So perfectly like a con tool. Both repubs and dems have relied on the CBO for unbiased analysis for decades. But, when their analysis is not what you want, they are PREJUDICED. Just can not admit you were proven wrong.

So, Rabbi, my poor ignorant con tool, lets see your impartial and unbiased source for the drivel you just laid out. You know, rabbi, some proof for the lies you just made up, from a source not known as partial.

Do you understand what "straw man" means?
CBO assumed there was a multiplier and every dollar spent by the gov't resulted in X number of jobs and this is how they got their figures.
Pretty simple and well-documented.

No, I would say pretty well known con dogma. Which is why, though you say it is well documented, you do not produce any documentation. Same old rabbi. Just dogma, and lies he makes up all by himself.

 

[Rshermr]

How does "no income tax" translate into "no revenue"? Do you think the gov't raised no money prior to 1916?
You lose. Yet again.

Not at all, my poor ignorant con. There have been a number of ways that the gov has raised revenues. Taxing being the more recent. Prior to that, the primary method was tariffs.
So, if you did not have your head up your ass, you would see that I did not suggest there was no other way to raise taxes. Maybe a plastic navel is in order.
If you had not had your head up your ass, you would have seen the statement that I was responding to:

There was no income tax, so teachers didn't get a government check

So, though you would never acknowledge it, perhaps you should ask your stupid question to Katz, who made the statement to which I was responding. How does it feel to be as ignorant as you are, rabbi.

So tariffs are not the same as taxes? And the only two ways to raise revenue are "taxes" and "tariffs"?
You lose. Yet once more.

We were talking about income taxes. And they are not income taxes. By the way, you keep suggesting I am loosing something. Apparently you are suggesting that someone appointed you judge. But I suspect you are simply delusional. You have no status as a judge at all. Just believe you do.

 

[The Rabbi]

So, let me get this straight. You are arguing that the CBO is partial, that they would provide analysis that is not completely impartial. That is, of course, a complete lie. An REALLY does not pass the giggle test.

So perfectly like a con tool. Both repubs and dems have relied on the CBO for unbiased analysis for decades. But, when their analysis is not what you want, they are PREJUDICED. Just can not admit you were proven wrong.

So, Rabbi, my poor ignorant con tool, lets see your impartial and unbiased source for the drivel you just laid out. You know, rabbi, some proof for the lies you just made up, from a source not known as partial.

Do you understand what "straw man" means?
CBO assumed there was a multiplier and every dollar spent by the gov't resulted in X number of jobs and this is how they got their figures.
Pretty simple and well-documented.

No, I would say pretty well known con dogma. Which is why, though you say it is well documented, you do not produce any documentation. Same old rabbi. Just dogma, and lies he makes up all by himself.

"Con dogma"=truth. If I produce proof will you admit I am right and STFU? Or will you say "oh X is a conservative source so they aren't credible"?

 

[Rshermr]

Do you understand what "straw man" means?
CBO assumed there was a multiplier and every dollar spent by the gov't resulted in X number of jobs and this is how they got their figures.
Pretty simple and well-documented.

No, I would say pretty well known con dogma. Which is why, though you say it is well documented, you do not produce any documentation. Same old rabbi. Just dogma, and lies he makes up all by himself.

"Con dogma"=truth. If I produce proof will you admit I am right and STFU? Or will you say "oh X is a conservative source so they aren't credible"?

You are such a con tool. Trying to set up a deal where you can post "truth" based on something said by a source that is partial. Yeah, that would be quite a deal for the con tool. How about I provide truth from moveon. You good on that? But you may notice that I do not. Because I believe in integrity. Look it up, rabbi. Integrity. And post what you want. But no deals.
You just provided the rational for all who say cons are incapable of conversation.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

How about I provide truth from moveon. You good on that? But you may notice that I do not. Because I believe in integrity.

so you have integrity and objectivity and know all the "good sources". So then tell us which one indictates conservatism/libertarinaism is superior.... or are your good sources liberal????

See why we are positive you are a perfect liberal idiot?