If the stimulus package savad millions of jobs ??

[DontBeStupid]

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 have never claimed to know everything about the stimulus. I have read the report though and I don't think you have. That's fine. You don't have to. But if you want to talk about what's in it, it's important to read it first.

As for Romer, again, that article claims she said unemployment wouldn't go over 8% but then never provides a quote of her saying it. That's my point here. She never said it. All this talk about 8% was lifted from numbers in the report. Selectively lifted, I might add, as I quoted you the part where the report says unemployment could go as high as 11% without stimulus, yet no Conservative will ever admit that was in the report.

Clearly I am not saying the stimulus should have fixed everything nor that it did fix everything, but calling it a failure based on numbers selectively lifted from a report written before Obama even took office ... well, that's just not honest or accurate.

 

[Care4all]

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.

uh, nope....i don't think so? Cuz here is an editorial article about the projection of the u/e rate that she and another advisory made and the article is dated january 10th, 2009 which is most definitely before obama became president....so when she first made her guesstimates, he was not president yet.

Romer and Bernstein on stimulus - NYTimes.com


January 10, 2009, 7:25 am Romer and Bernstein on stimulus

here is the report she put out on it dated january 9th, 2009....before his inauguration which i am presuming this is where her projections were taken from....:

http://otrans.3cdn.net/45593e8ecbd339d074_l3m6bt1te.pdf

Care

 

[asterism]

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

"According to a new report from the nonpartisan CBO, the stimulus saved up to 2.9 million jobs : A new Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report estimates that the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) increased the number of people employed by between 1.0 million and 2.9 million jobs as of June. "

CBO estimates recovery act saved up to 2.9 million jobs; Perry vows opposition to any new stimulus – - Americas ReviewAmericas Review

When has the CBO ever been correct?

 

[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.

uh, nope....i don't think so? Cuz here is an editorial article about the projection of the u/e rate that she and another advisory made and the article is dated january 10th, 2009 which is most definitely before obama became president....so when she first made her guesstimates, he was not president yet.

Romer and Bernstein on stimulus - NYTimes.com


January 10, 2009, 7:25 am Romer and Bernstein on stimulus

here is the report she put out on it dated january 9th, 2009....before his inauguration which i am presuming this is where her projections were taken from....:

http://otrans.3cdn.net/45593e8ecbd339d074_l3m6bt1te.pdf

Care

I had already mentioned that I had been found to be wrong and said "I stand corrected"...a few posts down.

 

[Jarhead]

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 have never claimed to know everything about the stimulus. I have read the report though and I don't think you have. That's fine. You don't have to. But if you want to talk about what's in it, it's important to read it first.

As for Romer, again, that article claims she said unemployment wouldn't go over 8% but then never provides a quote of her saying it. That's my point here. She never said it. All this talk about 8% was lifted from numbers in the report. Selectively lifted, I might add, as I quoted you the part where the report says unemployment could go as high as 11% without stimulus, yet no Conservative will ever admit that was in the report.

Clearly I am not saying the stimulus should have fixed everything nor that it did fix everything, but calling it a failure based on numbers selectively lifted from a report written before Obama even took office ... well, that's just not honest or accurate.

1) I did read it.....so enough with your hloier than thou attitude.
2) you scanned the article. You did not reasd it and comprehend it for if you did you would notice it was not about her saying it......It was an article about her REGRETS for saying 8%

Now...why would she regret something that she never did to begin with?

Jeez...Ive had enough of you.

Cyas.

 

[FA_Q2]

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 have never claimed to know everything about the stimulus. I have read the report though and I don't think you have. That's fine. You don't have to. But if you want to talk about what's in it, it's important to read it first.

As for Romer, again, that article claims she said unemployment wouldn't go over 8% but then never provides a quote of her saying it. That's my point here. She never said it. All this talk about 8% was lifted from numbers in the report. Selectively lifted, I might add, as I quoted you the part where the report says unemployment could go as high as 11% without stimulus, yet no Conservative will ever admit that was in the report.

Clearly I am not saying the stimulus should have fixed everything nor that it did fix everything, but calling it a failure based on numbers selectively lifted from a report written before Obama even took office ... well, that's just not honest or accurate.

But you are claiming that it was a success. By what metric do you measure that then? This recovery has been slower than any other in recent history as far as I can tell and there is no indication that the stimulus has done anything. If we wanted to stay at 9% unemployment for 2 years, I don't think that we needed to spend almost a trillion dollars to do so. There is nothing that is going on today that would make me call the stimulus a 'success' because the economy has not even clamed out of the shit can let alone returned to normalcy.

 

[DontBeStupid]

It was an article about her REGRETS for saying 8%

Then it should be easy for you to find an article where she DID say it.

Take your time.

 

[Jarhead]

It was an article about her REGRETS for saying 8%

Then it should be easy for you to find an article where she DID say it.

Take your time.

no need to.
I know how to comprehend what i read.

When an article is about someone regretting something...and discusses that persons regret....I no longer need to find the article to see if, in fact, she actruallty did what she is now regretting.

Sorry...not playing into your game.

 

[DontBeStupid]

When an article is about someone regretting something...and discusses that persons regret....I no longer need to find the article to see if, in fact, she actruallty did what she is now regretting.

That is why you fail.

 

[Jarhead]

When an article is about someone regretting something...and discusses that persons regret....I no longer need to find the article to see if, in fact, she actruallty did what she is now regretting.

That is why you fail.

nope.

But it certainly explains why you are so naive and easily fooled.

You know...some people on here say you sometiomes have a tendency to act like an ass.

I tell them I disagree.

I tell them you ARE an ass and sometimes you have a tendency to act normal.

 

[AmericanFirst]

[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.

Because you're not taking into account what was going on in the rest of the economy.

Right, obamaturd doesn't take into account he is an idiot along with the rest of the dimwits.

 

[AmericanFirst]

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.

Unemployment is DOWN to 9.1% and not up because of the stimulus and if more GOP governors had taken the stimulus it would be less.
Remember Bush had a stimulus also. And he allow millions of jobs to move overseas and cut taxes that did not create any jobs.
We would be in the double digits unemployment and in a depression instead of a recession.
We may never get over the mess Bush created in 8 years.
Unemployment rate was 8.5% and rising when Obama took office. It went up and then DOWN to 9.1%.

LIAR! The unemployment rate went up, even after the dimwits and obamaturd guranteed it would not go above 8%. Keep the lies coming lefty.

 

[AmericanFirst]

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.

Unemployment is DOWN to 9.1% and not up because of the stimulus and if more GOP governors had taken the stimulus it would be less.
Remember Bush had a stimulus also. And he allow millions of jobs to move overseas and cut taxes that did not create any jobs.
We would be in the double digits unemployment and in a depression instead of a recession.
We may never get over the mess Bush created in 8 years.
Unemployment rate was 8.5% and rising when Obama took office. It went up and then DOWN to 9.1%.

When obamaturd took office it was 7.2%. Stop with the lies.

 

[Moonglow]

Did u guys bitch this bad when the savings and loans were bailed out by Bush?

 

[AmericanFirst]

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.

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.

You and the other lefties should stop putting forth lies.

 

[Jarhead]

Did u guys bitch this bad when the savings and loans were bailed out by Bush?

I bitch and moan everytime our tax dollars are used to clean up the mess of poor business practices.

You know...years ago..back in the 80's...Madison avenue came uop with a great idea. Merge, merge, merge.....become the largest ad agency and eliminate the competition.

Well, the BBDO's and ACand R's and the JWalter thompsons all suiffered from their greed..and went under....and guess what....hundreds if not thousands of little ad agencies opened up and picked up the slack....all those that l;ost their jobs were hired by the new ones.....and the industry barely lost a step.

We dont need government to fix what others break.

Let them fail and let American ingenuity fill the void created.

 

[AmericanFirst]

They dont. Christina Romer put out a memo stating that it is bekliueved that the stiumulus will prevent unemployment from going above 8%...and the lack of one will result in unemployment at 9%.

Please show me what section stated that with the stimulus, unemployment will hit 10 to 11% but then go down 2 points....as you claimed it said.

A link will be fine.

http://otrans.3cdn.net/ee40602f9a7d8172b8_ozm6bt5oi.pdf

"Forecasts of the unemployment rate without the recovery plan vary substantially. Some private forecasters anticipate unemployment rates as high as 11% in the absence of action."

You're welcome.

Uh....Asshole....
read the bolded word.
Your claim was that WITH the recovery they said unemployment would go as high as 10-11% and then drop 2 points....and then youy said "it did exactly what they predicted"

So you proved yourself wrong.
They NEVER said it would go to 10 maybe 11% with the stimulus.

And it did.


How does it feel to be an asshole?

His kind of asshole always feels stuffed. Funny how the idiots keep proving themselves liars.

 

[Care4all]

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.

Unemployment is DOWN to 9.1% and not up because of the stimulus and if more GOP governors had taken the stimulus it would be less.
Remember Bush had a stimulus also. And he allow millions of jobs to move overseas and cut taxes that did not create any jobs.
We would be in the double digits unemployment and in a depression instead of a recession.
We may never get over the mess Bush created in 8 years.
Unemployment rate was 8.5% and rising when Obama took office. It went up and then DOWN to 9.1%.

When obamaturd took office it was 7.2%. Stop with the lies.

so Obama gets inaugurated as president on the 20th of January and YOU are attributing the December 2008 unemployment rate as what he began with.....?

SERIOUSLY? Even the unemployment rate at the end of February 8.2%, after his first 30 days wasn't truly HIS unemployment rate....there is absolutely nothing any president can do to change the trend in unemployment rate in 30,60, or even 90 days....

it reached, where it was going to go, based on the way it was trending before any president takes office.

A new CEO hired in any private company gets a YEAR of grace before the corporation begins blaming the new ceo for the figures.

guess you are too young or inexperienced in business to know this?

where the unemployment levels reached within the first 6 months of office is not really Obama's, but the maintaining of 9% unemployment rate, with not much improvement can be and will be put on to him, imo.

 

[AmericanFirst]

Your claim was that WITH the recovery they said unemployment would go as high as 10-11% and then drop 2 points

No.

Why would you lie about this? Anyone can scroll back and see what I wrote.

Yeah we can. and you are still a liar.

 

[DontBeStupid]

But you are claiming that it was a success. By what metric do you measure that then? This recovery has been slower than any other in recent history as far as I can tell and there is no indication that the stimulus has done anything. If we wanted to stay at 9% unemployment for 2 years, I don't think that we needed to spend almost a trillion dollars to do so. There is nothing that is going on today that would make me call the stimulus a 'success' because the economy has not even clamed out of the shit can let alone returned to normalcy.

I never thought the Recovery Act was about fixing everything and getting us back to normal. How could it when it was so small and had 1/3 tax cuts? Maybe that's where you and I differ. I always thought it was about preventing a Depression and getting the economy growing again and that's it. By that standard, it was a success. We did not enter a Depression and GDP has been growing since 2009Q3.

On the jobs front I'm a little more mixed. The report prior to Obama taking office estimated some 3-4 million jobs would be saved or created, and no analysis after the fact, that I can find, shows that we hit that range. 1-3 million seems to be the range, so in that regard, I would say they weren't successful in hitting their target, but you can't call it a failure either, because millions of jobs were saved/created. Not too mention, when speaking about jobs, States have been making cuts and laying people off for 2 years now, so that would negatively reflect on the job picture and cancel out the money they got from the Recovery Act. We would have to factor that out to get a true number that we could apply just to the Recovery Act, and that's a bit beyond me and my little laptop.

But all in all, I would say it was a success more than a failure. With the facts out there, I don't understand why anyone would choose to ignore them and say it was a complete failure.