If the stimulus package savad millions of jobs ??

[DontBeStupid]

Last I checked there were about 1 million less jobs in the USA today then the day obama took office.

Just curious as to how that is a success?

Would you rather have lost 4 million or 1 million?

 

[Jarhead]

Utterly false.

You should read the report before talking about things you don't know.

Above is your claim, my response and then your response.

SO dont call me a liar. I do not lie.

You're either a liar, illiterate or too scared to admit you were proven wrong. Which is it?

I clearly wrote that without stimulus the unemployment rate could go to 11%, which is what's in the report and was what I quoted. The report clearly talks about if unemployment were to go to 10%, the Recovery Act could get it down to 8%. A 2 percentage point drop. Which is what happened. A 2 percentage point drop, only from the higher estimate of 11%.

I don't think I can be any more clear on this, and I have no idea why you are choosing to ignore what I'm saying.

yeah...OKay.
Go for it.

 

[DontBeStupid]

yeah...OKay.
Go for it.

Apology accepted.

 

[Jarhead]

Nope. The Recovery act was marketed as necessary to PREVEBT the unemployment from
going above 8%...and it claimned it may hit 11% WITHOUT the recovery act.

Utterly false.

You should read the report before talking about things you don't know.

Above is your claim, my response and then your response.

SO dont call me a liar. I do not lie.

No apology at all.
Please tell me what was utterly false about my comment above?

Actually dont. There was nothing utterly false about it.

You are not a worthy debate opponent. You do not know when to admit you are wrong.

You are also quite naive....but I digress.

Cya.

 

[Oldstyle]

since libbs like to make the unproven claim that if left had not shoved the the trillion dollar stimulus package down unwilling Americans throats millions of more jobs would have been lost .....can't repubs make the same argument that if we would not have invaded Iraq and Afghanistan millions of American lives would have been lost to terror attacks ??

My question is, if the stimulus was supposed to save millions of jobs why is the unemployment rate up to around 9% since it passed? Of course libs will lie and spin and falsely blame Bush.

The report that was issued in support of the Recovery Act estimated that unemployment would most likely go to 10%, but could go as high as 11%. The Recovery Act would then drop that number by 2%. Conservatives use this as their proof Obama promised unemployment would not go over 8%, but the report never claims that. As I mentioned, the report said unemployment could go as high as 11% without stimulus.

In other words, the Recovery Act did exactly what they thought it would do.

You're amusing. So when Christina Romer was standing in front of the White House saying that if we passed the Obama Stimulus that unemployment would stay below 8% what she was REALLY saying was that if we spent a trillion dollars on "stimulus" that unemployment would go up to 10%?

The fact is...the "Recovery Act" didn't do what they thought it would do. It didn't come close. Or do you also fail to remember President Obama admitting that those "shovel ready jobs" weren't as shovel ready as they thought?

The Obama stimulus basically was made up of three components. A third was tax cuts...which was in there so Obama could say he made good on his promise to cut taxes for Americans. The only problem was that a small one time across the board tax cut didn't really encourage people to spend money. Most of them used that $150 bucks or whatever it was, to pay down their credit card debt.

Another third was going to be spent on infrastructure, fixing bridges and schools in dire need of repair...the so called "shovel ready" projects that were supposed to jump start the economy by putting people back to work. The only problem with that part of the stimulus is that you can't get projects through the morass of government red tape quickly. All the "shovel ready" construction projects to repair bridges and schools were YEARS away from happening and people were starting to ask why none of the stimulus money was getting spent to create jobs while so many people were unemployed. So Obama and his band of merry progressives panicked and ordered that infrastructure money be spent on anything that would happen right away. What was quick? Road repaving. We spent billions repaving roads. Then let's not forget all the "green jobs" spending we did. You know...like the millions we gave to the solar panel factory that Obama used as a backdrop for one of his speeches to reassure us that his plan was working...the solar panel factory that closed up a year later? Or the hundreds of millions that have been allocated for a high speed rail system that we don't have the money to ever finish and if we did would cost us billions because it isn't economically viable.

The last third was spent supporting States with extending unemployment benefits and either retaining existing government jobs or creating new ones. The problem with this third is that extending benefits doesn't create jobs and spending money on public sector jobs takes money away from creating jobs in the private sector. Tax revenues need to come from the private sector in order to continue to fund the public sector jobs. When that tax revenue wasn't created those public sector jobs we paid for were then lost as local and State governments started tightening their belts because of massive budget deficits. So we basically wasted that money on "temp" jobs for the public sector.

Bottom line is this...if we hadn't done any stimulus at all unemployment might very well have gone up to 11% before coming down again. So we did the Obama stimulus...spent a trillion dollars we had to borrow to get...and unemployment went to 10.2% before coming down. The fact is we spent all that money and got negligible results from doing so. The Germans DIDN'T do a massive stimulus plan like ours (despite Barack Obama trying to convince them they HAD TO) and their unemployment numbers are back to pre crash levels already while ours continue to be above 9% and are projected to stay at that level for years to come.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Last I checked there were about 1 million less jobs in the USA today then the day obama took office.

Just curious as to how that is a success?

Would you rather have lost 4 million or 1 million?

the thing is we can't really PROVE that we saved jobs but we can assume then claim.

We CAN prove that we lost 1,000,000 jobs since 2009 started.

 

[Oldstyle]

As she prepares to step down as President Obama's chief economist, Christina Romer said Friday that she wishes she could redo one of her first official acts for the president: last January's forecast that a big shot of federal spending would save millions of jobs and keep the unemployment rate under 8 percent.

Economist Christina Romer regrets saying jobless rate would stay below 8 percent

You should read your own links before posting them. From the article you posted:

Asked about the report, Romer said in an interview: "One could have presented it differently. If we'd only talked about the effect of the stimulus on the change in unemployment [instead of predicting the unemployment rate itself] . . . it would have been better. The thing I obviously couldn't control is the baseline forecast, and that's the thing I'm getting criticized for."

Except for the unexpectedly severe collapse in economic growth, Romer said, the report has turned out to be "very accurate."

That's like someone saying "except for the cement truck I had a head on collision with...the drive home went great".

"Very accurate"? They were off by 2 percentage points. The report wasn't accurate at all.

 

[Jarhead]

As she prepares to step down as President Obama's chief economist, Christina Romer said Friday that she wishes she could redo one of her first official acts for the president: last January's forecast that a big shot of federal spending would save millions of jobs and keep the unemployment rate under 8 percent.

Economist Christina Romer regrets saying jobless rate would stay below 8 percent

You should read your own links before posting them. From the article you posted:

Asked about the report, Romer said in an interview: "One could have presented it differently. If we'd only talked about the effect of the stimulus on the change in unemployment [instead of predicting the unemployment rate itself] . . . it would have been better. The thing I obviously couldn't control is the baseline forecast, and that's the thing I'm getting criticized for."

Except for the unexpectedly severe collapse in economic growth, Romer said, the report has turned out to be "very accurate."

That's like someone saying "except for the cement truck I had a head on collision with...the drive home went great".

"Very accurate"? They were off by 2 percentage points. The report wasn't accurate at all.

and two percentage points translates to a 25% error based on the 8% number...and based on the 10% number it translates to a 20% error.

And the irony?

We were told that TOP economists were in on the decision making.

So...

Top ecoinomists misread the severity of the economy
and top economists were off by as much as 25% as it pertained to unemployment.

I wonder what criteria this adminisraton uses to determine who is a top economist.

If a financail analyst, all by his lonesome, made a 25% error, he would be out of a job

 

[Jarhead]

My question is, if the stimulus was supposed to save millions of jobs why is the unemployment rate up to around 9% since it passed? Of course libs will lie and spin and falsely blame Bush.

The report that was issued in support of the Recovery Act estimated that unemployment would most likely go to 10%, but could go as high as 11%. The Recovery Act would then drop that number by 2%. Conservatives use this as their proof Obama promised unemployment would not go over 8%, but the report never claims that. As I mentioned, the report said unemployment could go as high as 11% without stimulus.

In other words, the Recovery Act did exactly what they thought it would do.

You're amusing. So when Christina Romer was standing in front of the White House saying that if we passed the Obama Stimulus that unemployment would stay below 8% what she was REALLY saying was that if we spent a trillion dollars on "stimulus" that unemployment would go up to 10%?

The fact is...the "Recovery Act" didn't do what they thought it would do. It didn't come close. Or do you also fail to remember President Obama admitting that those "shovel ready jobs" weren't as shovel ready as they thought?

The Obama stimulus basically was made up of three components. A third was tax cuts...which was in there so Obama could say he made good on his promise to cut taxes for Americans. The only problem was that a small one time across the board tax cut didn't really encourage people to spend money. Most of them used that $150 bucks or whatever it was, to pay down their credit card debt.

Another third was going to be spent on infrastructure, fixing bridges and schools in dire need of repair...the so called "shovel ready" projects that were supposed to jump start the economy by putting people back to work. The only problem with that part of the stimulus is that you can't get projects through the morass of government red tape quickly. All the "shovel ready" construction projects to repair bridges and schools were YEARS away from happening and people were starting to ask why none of the stimulus money was getting spent to create jobs while so many people were unemployed. So Obama and his band of merry progressives panicked and ordered that infrastructure money be spent on anything that would happen right away. What was quick? Road repaving. We spent billions repaving roads. Then let's not forget all the "green jobs" spending we did. You know...like the millions we gave to the solar panel factory that Obama used as a backdrop for one of his speeches to reassure us that his plan was working...the solar panel factory that closed up a year later? Or the hundreds of millions that have been allocated for a high speed rail system that we don't have the money to ever finish and if we did would cost us billions because it isn't economically viable.

The last third was spent supporting States with extending unemployment benefits and either retaining existing government jobs or creating new ones. The problem with this third is that extending benefits doesn't create jobs and spending money on public sector jobs takes money away from creating jobs in the private sector. Tax revenues need to come from the private sector in order to continue to fund the public sector jobs. When that tax revenue wasn't created those public sector jobs we paid for were then lost as local and State governments started tightening their belts because of massive budget deficits. So we basically wasted that money on "temp" jobs for the public sector.

Bottom line is this...if we hadn't done any stimulus at all unemployment might very well have gone up to 11% before coming down again. So we did the Obama stimulus...spent a trillion dollars we had to borrow to get...and unemployment went to 10.2% before coming down. The fact is we spent all that money and got negligible results from doing so. The Germans DIDN'T do a massive stimulus plan like ours (despite Barack Obama trying to convince them they HAD TO) and their unemployment numbers are back to pre crash levels already while ours continue to be above 9% and are projected to stay at that level for years to come.

awww Jeez....there you go again. Telling it like it is without the spin and rhetoric.
Dont you realize that gets you nowhere in a debate on this board?

 

[DontBeStupid]

Bottom line is this...if we hadn't done any stimulus at all unemployment might very well have gone up to 11% before coming down again.

I'm going to regret asking this, but ...

How is that different from what I said?

 

[DontBeStupid]

"Very accurate"? They were off by 2 percentage points. The report wasn't accurate at all.

You guys keep harping on the baseline unemployment estimates as if no one has ever said they were off. They were off. Everyone (I think) knows they were off. Obama and his team admitted they were off within a month or so of the report.

But the report wasn't about estimating what unemployment was in January 2009. Nor was the Recovery Act about estimating what unemployment was in 2009. The Recovery Act was about dropping unemployment by adding jobs, which it did. Economists agree on it. The CBO said it did.

Why do you choose to ignore this?

 

[Jarhead]

Bottom line is this...if we hadn't done any stimulus at all unemployment might very well have gone up to 11% before coming down again.

I'm going to regret asking this, but ...

How is that different from what I said?

nothing...no one said it was.

It was your denying that Romer marketed the plan as one that would keep unemployment within 8% that was wrong./

Even she admitted it was an error to say such...in other words, admitting that she did say it.

But lets be real....if Obama and his team said "without the stimulus unemployment may hit 11% and with the stimulus it may hit 11% before it gets better", he never would have recieved the votes.

SO whereas it was an error by Romer...she took the hit...it was a planned and calculated error to sell the idea of borrowing a trillion dollars.

 

[Jarhead]

"Very accurate"? They were off by 2 percentage points. The report wasn't accurate at all.

You guys keep harping on the baseline unemployment estimates as if no one has ever said they were off. They were off. Everyone (I think) knows they were off. Obama and his team admitted they were off within a month or so of the report.

But the report wasn't about estimating what unemployment was in January 2009. Nor was the Recovery Act about estimating what unemployment was in 2009. The Recovery Act was about dropping unemployment by adding jobs, which it did. Economists agree on it. The CBO said it did.

Why do you choose to ignore this?

because it added temporary jobs that dop nothing to jump start en economy.

Someone recieving 12 an hour for a temp job will spend no more than he would receiving the same while on unemployment.

So whereas we may have nicer roads....it was not an economy jump starter as it was marketed as....it did nothing for the economy....all it did was give us nicer roads.

Sure, we needed nicer roads....but not when we are in a very poor economy.

If I were in serious debt, and my income was down dramatically, I would not borrow money to make my bathrooms nicer.

 

[DontBeStupid]

It was your denying that Romer marketed the plan as one that would keep unemployment within 8% that was wrong.

I still have yet to see you post a link showing Romer saying that unemployment wouldn't go over 8%.

 

[Care4all]

The report that was issued in support of the Recovery Act estimated that unemployment would most likely go to 10%, but could go as high as 11%. The Recovery Act would then drop that number by 2%. Conservatives use this as their proof Obama promised unemployment would not go over 8%, but the report never claims that. As I mentioned, the report said unemployment could go as high as 11% without stimulus.

In other words, the Recovery Act did exactly what they thought it would do.

You're amusing. So when Christina Romer was standing in front of the White House saying that if we passed the Obama Stimulus that unemployment would stay below 8% what she was REALLY saying was that if we spent a trillion dollars on "stimulus" that unemployment would go up to 10%?

The fact is...the "Recovery Act" didn't do what they thought it would do. It didn't come close. Or do you also fail to remember President Obama admitting that those "shovel ready jobs" weren't as shovel ready as they thought?

The Obama stimulus basically was made up of three components. A third was tax cuts...which was in there so Obama could say he made good on his promise to cut taxes for Americans. The only problem was that a small one time across the board tax cut didn't really encourage people to spend money. Most of them used that $150 bucks or whatever it was, to pay down their credit card debt.

Another third was going to be spent on infrastructure, fixing bridges and schools in dire need of repair...the so called "shovel ready" projects that were supposed to jump start the economy by putting people back to work. The only problem with that part of the stimulus is that you can't get projects through the morass of government red tape quickly. All the "shovel ready" construction projects to repair bridges and schools were YEARS away from happening and people were starting to ask why none of the stimulus money was getting spent to create jobs while so many people were unemployed. So Obama and his band of merry progressives panicked and ordered that infrastructure money be spent on anything that would happen right away. What was quick? Road repaving. We spent billions repaving roads. Then let's not forget all the "green jobs" spending we did. You know...like the millions we gave to the solar panel factory that Obama used as a backdrop for one of his speeches to reassure us that his plan was working...the solar panel factory that closed up a year later? Or the hundreds of millions that have been allocated for a high speed rail system that we don't have the money to ever finish and if we did would cost us billions because it isn't economically viable.

The last third was spent supporting States with extending unemployment benefits and either retaining existing government jobs or creating new ones. The problem with this third is that extending benefits doesn't create jobs and spending money on public sector jobs takes money away from creating jobs in the private sector. Tax revenues need to come from the private sector in order to continue to fund the public sector jobs. When that tax revenue wasn't created those public sector jobs we paid for were then lost as local and State governments started tightening their belts because of massive budget deficits. So we basically wasted that money on "temp" jobs for the public sector.

Bottom line is this...if we hadn't done any stimulus at all unemployment might very well have gone up to 11% before coming down again. So we did the Obama stimulus...spent a trillion dollars we had to borrow to get...and unemployment went to 10.2% before coming down. The fact is we spent all that money and got negligible results from doing so. The Germans DIDN'T do a massive stimulus plan like ours (despite Barack Obama trying to convince them they HAD TO) and their unemployment numbers are back to pre crash levels already while ours continue to be above 9% and are projected to stay at that level for years to come.

awww Jeez....there you go again. Telling it like it is without the spin and rhetoric.
Dont you realize that gets you nowhere in a debate on this board?

I think it should probably be noted that Christina Romer did project that 8% BEFORE Obama was even inaugurated president....looks like she spoke too soon and without all the facts nor vision to imagine the worst.

she was even off on how bad the UE rate would be if NO stimulus was passed, which was estimated by her to a peak at 9%! yet it went a little over 10%....

Also, by the end of obama's first 4 months in office, before any of the 2 year stimulus monies could be used or distributed by the States for their own agendas and projects, unemployment hit 9,4%....May, 2009. IT rose from the 7.3% for dec 2008 that she was working off of to 7.8% for January, 8.2% for february, 8.6% for march, 8.9% for April, then 9,4% for may 2009.

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

then june 9.5%, july 9.5, august 9.7, sept 9.8, oct 10.1, nov 9.9, dec 9.9, jan 2010- 9.7%....january 2011-9.0%....jul 2011-9.1%

I guess as a numbers person and analyst, I see improvement, although it is slow. And reviewing the bls u/e numbers, i see the u/e trend of adding about 0.4% on average to the u/e rate a month before the stimulus to adding much less than 0.2% on average to the u/e rate a month after the stimulus, then reverting downward.... as an indication that the stimulus had a positive effect.

The effect the obama admin touted in their details like more private sector jobs created vs gvt jobs or jobs created vs jobs saved, etc, is definitely debatable!

 

[Jarhead]

It was your denying that Romer marketed the plan as one that would keep unemployment within 8% that was wrong.

I still have yet to see you post a link showing Romer saying that unemployment wouldn't go over 8%.

I did very early on in our debate.


Economist Christina Romer regrets saying jobless rate would stay below 8 percent

 

[Jarhead]

it was post number 27.

You know, I dont mind that we dont see eye to eye on the affects of the stimulus.

What bothers me is you claim to know everything about the stimulus...you even criticized me for not knowing much about it....yet u had no idea that Romer claimed it would keep unemployment below 8%.

I mean, she was the Presidents number one......and you had no idea she said that?

Thats sort of why I dont wish to debate you anymore. You calim you know it all and say I know nothing...yet you seem to know less than I do.

Whatever....enjoy.

 

[Jarhead]

You're amusing. So when Christina Romer was standing in front of the White House saying that if we passed the Obama Stimulus that unemployment would stay below 8% what she was REALLY saying was that if we spent a trillion dollars on "stimulus" that unemployment would go up to 10%?

The fact is...the "Recovery Act" didn't do what they thought it would do. It didn't come close. Or do you also fail to remember President Obama admitting that those "shovel ready jobs" weren't as shovel ready as they thought?

The Obama stimulus basically was made up of three components. A third was tax cuts...which was in there so Obama could say he made good on his promise to cut taxes for Americans. The only problem was that a small one time across the board tax cut didn't really encourage people to spend money. Most of them used that $150 bucks or whatever it was, to pay down their credit card debt.

Another third was going to be spent on infrastructure, fixing bridges and schools in dire need of repair...the so called "shovel ready" projects that were supposed to jump start the economy by putting people back to work. The only problem with that part of the stimulus is that you can't get projects through the morass of government red tape quickly. All the "shovel ready" construction projects to repair bridges and schools were YEARS away from happening and people were starting to ask why none of the stimulus money was getting spent to create jobs while so many people were unemployed. So Obama and his band of merry progressives panicked and ordered that infrastructure money be spent on anything that would happen right away. What was quick? Road repaving. We spent billions repaving roads. Then let's not forget all the "green jobs" spending we did. You know...like the millions we gave to the solar panel factory that Obama used as a backdrop for one of his speeches to reassure us that his plan was working...the solar panel factory that closed up a year later? Or the hundreds of millions that have been allocated for a high speed rail system that we don't have the money to ever finish and if we did would cost us billions because it isn't economically viable.

The last third was spent supporting States with extending unemployment benefits and either retaining existing government jobs or creating new ones. The problem with this third is that extending benefits doesn't create jobs and spending money on public sector jobs takes money away from creating jobs in the private sector. Tax revenues need to come from the private sector in order to continue to fund the public sector jobs. When that tax revenue wasn't created those public sector jobs we paid for were then lost as local and State governments started tightening their belts because of massive budget deficits. So we basically wasted that money on "temp" jobs for the public sector.

Bottom line is this...if we hadn't done any stimulus at all unemployment might very well have gone up to 11% before coming down again. So we did the Obama stimulus...spent a trillion dollars we had to borrow to get...and unemployment went to 10.2% before coming down. The fact is we spent all that money and got negligible results from doing so. The Germans DIDN'T do a massive stimulus plan like ours (despite Barack Obama trying to convince them they HAD TO) and their unemployment numbers are back to pre crash levels already while ours continue to be above 9% and are projected to stay at that level for years to come.

awww Jeez....there you go again. Telling it like it is without the spin and rhetoric.
Dont you realize that gets you nowhere in a debate on this board?

I think it should probably be noted that Christina Romer did project that 8% BEFORE Obama was even inaugurated president....looks like she spoke too soon and without all the facts nor vision to imagine the worst.

she was even off on how bad the UE rate would be if NO stimulus was passed, which was estimated by her to a peak at 9%! yet it went a little over 10%....

Also, by the end of obama's first 4 months in office, before any of the 2 year stimulus monies could be used or distributed by the States for their own agendas and projects, unemployment hit 9,4%....May, 2009. IT rose from the 7.3% for dec 2008 that she was working off of to 7.8% for January, 8.2% for february, 8.6% for march, 8.9% for April, then 9,4% for may 2009.

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

then june 9.5%, july 9.5, august 9.7, sept 9.8, oct 10.1, nov 9.9, dec 9.9, jan 2010- 9.7%....january 2011-9.0%....jul 2011-9.1%

I guess as a numbers person and analyst, I see improvement, although it is slow. And reviewing the bls u/e numbers, i see the u/e trend of adding about 0.4% on average to the u/e rate a month before the stimulus to adding much less than 0.2% on average to the u/e rate a month after the stimulus, then reverting downward.... as an indication that the stimulus had a positive effect.

The effect the obama admin touted in their details like more private sector jobs created vs gvt jobs or jobs created vs jobs saved, etc, is definitely debatable!

I believe you are incorect as to when she made that claim. It was during the debate and he was well in office at the time.
How could she have made that claim before the plan was even drafted? It deoesnt make sense that he was not in office yet.
But I may be wrong.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

awww Jeez....there you go again. Telling it like it is without the spin and rhetoric.
Dont you realize that gets you nowhere in a debate on this board?

I think it should probably be noted that Christina Romer did project that 8% BEFORE Obama was even inaugurated president....looks like she spoke too soon and without all the facts nor vision to imagine the worst.

she was even off on how bad the UE rate would be if NO stimulus was passed, which was estimated by her to a peak at 9%! yet it went a little over 10%....

Also, by the end of obama's first 4 months in office, before any of the 2 year stimulus monies could be used or distributed by the States for their own agendas and projects, unemployment hit 9,4%....May, 2009. IT rose from the 7.3% for dec 2008 that she was working off of to 7.8% for January, 8.2% for february, 8.6% for march, 8.9% for April, then 9,4% for may 2009.

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

then june 9.5%, july 9.5, august 9.7, sept 9.8, oct 10.1, nov 9.9, dec 9.9, jan 2010- 9.7%....january 2011-9.0%....jul 2011-9.1%

I guess as a numbers person and analyst, I see improvement, although it is slow. And reviewing the bls u/e numbers, i see the u/e trend of adding about 0.4% on average to the u/e rate a month before the stimulus to adding much less than 0.2% on average to the u/e rate a month after the stimulus, then reverting downward.... as an indication that the stimulus had a positive effect.

The effect the obama admin touted in their details like more private sector jobs created vs gvt jobs or jobs created vs jobs saved, etc, is definitely debatable!

I believe you are incorect as to when she made that claim. It was during the debate and he was well in office at the time.
How could she have made that claim before the plan was even drafted? It deoesnt make sense that he was not in office yet.
But I may be wrong.

Obama Stresses Plan's Job Potential <---i think you are right on that one.

Either way it doesn't change the fact that if you compare things today to the day obama took office the unemployment rate is higher, the total number of jobs is lower, and our GDP is growing slower than when he took over.

 

[Jarhead]

I think it should probably be noted that Christina Romer did project that 8% BEFORE Obama was even inaugurated president....looks like she spoke too soon and without all the facts nor vision to imagine the worst.

she was even off on how bad the UE rate would be if NO stimulus was passed, which was estimated by her to a peak at 9%! yet it went a little over 10%....

Also, by the end of obama's first 4 months in office, before any of the 2 year stimulus monies could be used or distributed by the States for their own agendas and projects, unemployment hit 9,4%....May, 2009. IT rose from the 7.3% for dec 2008 that she was working off of to 7.8% for January, 8.2% for february, 8.6% for march, 8.9% for April, then 9,4% for may 2009.

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

then june 9.5%, july 9.5, august 9.7, sept 9.8, oct 10.1, nov 9.9, dec 9.9, jan 2010- 9.7%....january 2011-9.0%....jul 2011-9.1%

I guess as a numbers person and analyst, I see improvement, although it is slow. And reviewing the bls u/e numbers, i see the u/e trend of adding about 0.4% on average to the u/e rate a month before the stimulus to adding much less than 0.2% on average to the u/e rate a month after the stimulus, then reverting downward.... as an indication that the stimulus had a positive effect.

The effect the obama admin touted in their details like more private sector jobs created vs gvt jobs or jobs created vs jobs saved, etc, is definitely debatable!

I believe you are incorect as to when she made that claim. It was during the debate and he was well in office at the time.
How could she have made that claim before the plan was even drafted? It deoesnt make sense that he was not in office yet.
But I may be wrong.

Obama Stresses Plan's Job Potential <---i think you are right on that one.

Either way it doesn't change the fact that if you compare things today to the day obama took office the unemployment rate is higher, the total number of jobs is lower, and our GDP is growing slower than when he took over.

I stand corrected. She released the memo before he was inaugurated.....but it was based in the already drafted plan.