What about the Proposed Jobs Bill do Repubs not like?

[CrusaderFrank]

Thats just it. Barry thinks his way is right. It has never worked in the past and won't work now but I doubt anyone will ever convice him of this.

We can only hope that the next POTUS does have the right ideas and can fix the mess.

Of course it's worked in the past, and resoundingly well. FDR's public work projects yielded benefits we still see today. Roads, bridges, dams as well as getting rural areas on to the electric grid has been the foundation for American prosperity and creation of the middle class. Eisenhower building even more roads again yielded multiple benefits. Clinton upgrading the telecommunications infrastructure exploded employment.

But lets look at the private sector. Really? What has apple done? They have created some really spiffy electronic devices and now employ more people abroad then they do here.

Did Apple’s iPod Create U.S. Jobs? - The Curious Capitalist - TIME.com

Compare that with a private/public project like the creation of UNIX and the Internet. Multiple firms benefitted from that..and it yielded high paying jobs for Americans.

FD's make work failure averaged 20% unemployment from his inauguration until Hitler ended the FDR Depression by conquering France.

Might want to pick a better example

 

[BlindBoo]

This is the response always to failed policies: Well, it sucks but things would ahve been MUCH worse if we hadn't done it.
It is bullshit.
The policy was a failure. We have had lower unemployment had we not passed the stimulus. This was known at the time and has been confirmed since.

Completely and utterly incorrect. This is not based in reality at all.

what is correct is the stimulus did not do what it was supposed to do. Help with the unemployment numbers. Many on the right siad it wouldnt, and all on the left said it would.

Now...sure, you can sugar coat/rationalize it by saying one of the following:

1) imagine how bad the numbers would be without it
2) the economy was worse than we realized
3) unemployment has gone down....just not by as much as you want

However, the bottom line is unemployment is still at 9.1% and there is no releif in sight. This was not what the stimulus plan projected.

Therefore, it is silly to continually say it wasnt a failure.

If something only does a little of what yopu expect it to do, it is a failure.

If a car engine is touted and marketed as one that can reach speeds of 140 MPH but it tops out at 90 MPH....it is a failure.

Stimulus Round 1: The stimulus bill passed by Democrats in 2009 with almost universal Republican criticism was split into three parts: Just over $200 billion in tax cuts, about $300 billion in direct spending on projects and other aid to states, and just under $300 billion in social safety-net spending through items such as extended unemployment benefits and health insurance subsidies.

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates that the parts of the program that got the most criticism -- actual spending on projects and aid packages -- was the most effective in creating jobs.

Tax cuts for middle income workers were less effective while tax cuts for the wealthy were deemed the least effective.

Still, the CBO estimates that at least 1.4 million jobs were created and saved by the direct spending alone, and that as many as 3.6 million jobs were produced while stimulus funds were being spent.

Stimulus added jobs, just not enough - Sep. 8, 2011

 

[The Rabbi]

Futhermore, how far up would the unemployement gone had we not had the stimulus, we'll never know.

This is the response always to failed policies: Well, it sucks but things would ahve been MUCH worse if we hadn't done it.
It is bullshit.
The policy was a failure. We have had lower unemployment had we not passed the stimulus. This was known at the time and has been confirmed since.

I noticed you didn't address the rebuttal to your original lie that it was the Democrats holding up the bill, and latched on to something that is subjective so you can denigrate it. But you are of course wrong there too.

It's Official: Obama Is Creaming Bush When It Comes To Jobs - Business Insider

I can only hope the Republican gamble to do anything to stop the President, give him a Waterloo moment so to speak, from getting re-elected fails and the voter turn the house back over to the Democrats.

I figured you were kidding about the Dems holding up the bill because it was so well known. Here's the link:
Obama Campaign Says GOP Blocking Jobs Bill--After Reid Blocks Jobs Bill | The Weekly Standard
And your article was a joke. Comparing Bush's worst month in the onset of a recession to Obama's whole term is an absurd argument only a moron would believe.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Completely and utterly incorrect. This is not based in reality at all.

what is correct is the stimulus did not do what it was supposed to do. Help with the unemployment numbers. Many on the right siad it wouldnt, and all on the left said it would.

Now...sure, you can sugar coat/rationalize it by saying one of the following:

1) imagine how bad the numbers would be without it
2) the economy was worse than we realized
3) unemployment has gone down....just not by as much as you want

However, the bottom line is unemployment is still at 9.1% and there is no releif in sight. This was not what the stimulus plan projected.

Therefore, it is silly to continually say it wasnt a failure.

If something only does a little of what yopu expect it to do, it is a failure.

If a car engine is touted and marketed as one that can reach speeds of 140 MPH but it tops out at 90 MPH....it is a failure.

Stimulus Round 1: The stimulus bill passed by Democrats in 2009 with almost universal Republican criticism was split into three parts: Just over $200 billion in tax cuts, about $300 billion in direct spending on projects and other aid to states, and just under $300 billion in social safety-net spending through items such as extended unemployment benefits and health insurance subsidies.

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates that the parts of the program that got the most criticism -- actual spending on projects and aid packages -- was the most effective in creating jobs.

Tax cuts for middle income workers were less effective while tax cuts for the wealthy were deemed the least effective.

Still, the CBO estimates that at least 1.4 million jobs were created and saved by the direct spending alone, and that as many as 3.6 million jobs were produced while stimulus funds were being spent.

Stimulus added jobs, just not enough - Sep. 8, 2011

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O55aRrvXtio]Obama: Shovel-Ready Not as Shovel-Ready as We Expected - YouTube[/ame]

 

[8537]

Thats just it. Barry thinks his way is right. It has never worked in the past and won't work now but I doubt anyone will ever convice him of this.

We can only hope that the next POTUS does have the right ideas and can fix the mess.

Of course it's worked in the past, and resoundingly well. FDR's public work projects yielded benefits we still see today. Roads, bridges, dams as well as getting rural areas on to the electric grid has been the foundation for American prosperity and creation of the middle class. Eisenhower building even more roads again yielded multiple benefits. Clinton upgrading the telecommunications infrastructure exploded employment.

But lets look at the private sector. Really? What has apple done? They have created some really spiffy electronic devices and now employ more people abroad then they do here.

Did Apple’s iPod Create U.S. Jobs? - The Curious Capitalist - TIME.com

Compare that with a private/public project like the creation of UNIX and the Internet. Multiple firms benefitted from that..and it yielded high paying jobs for Americans.

FD's make work failure averaged 20% unemployment from his inauguration until Hitler ended the FDR Depression by conquering France.

Might want to pick a better example

The unemployment rate fell about 10 percentage points - a decline of 40% - during FDR's first term. This was thanks in part to the most rapid four year period of peacetime expansion in US history.

You can't blame FDR for the fact that our production was virtually cut in half during the three years preceding his first term.

 

[Jarhead]

I agree with ya here. I don't know if I'd like to them allow the payroll tax cut to expire, but further cuts make no sense right now.



I'll dig it up when I have some time, but there's a great national survey that polls pretty much this exact question monthly - I can't recall the details.



This part I don't understand. In my office, we figured out the cost burden and savings from the health care reform bill, year by year as signed into law, in the course of a single 60-minute conversation with a HC consultant. It's really not complicated. There are some range estimates that are pretty broad, but no more so than any other projections.

If there's uncertainty around the bill at this point, it's simply because people think the Republicans will repeal it. That uncertainty could disappear easily...

either your HC consultant wasnt honest with you or perhaps you are not aware of what the uncertainty is...

Some companies will have no increase and others will have dramatic increases.

Problem is, until 2013, no one knows who the winners and losers will be.

You see..there are many employees who opt out and go on their spouses plans as they are better or more cost effective.

With the new law, likely all employers will trend to simple plans and spouses plans will not necearrily be the one to go on. Maybe the other spouse is a better plan...or maybe it is cost effective for each spouse to have their own SINGLE plan.

Again, those numbers can be estimated. Attempting to predict how people will behave in response to the law really, really isn't that difficult. We have decades of experience observing how people respond to various economic incentives and this one is no different. We can't predict what each individual might do, but we can certainly create a fairly reliable estimate of the aggregate response. In our firm's case, we paid a HC consultant to do the numbers.

IT IS AN ISSUE OF HOW MANY OF THOSE THEY DONT INSURE NOW, WILL THEY HAVE TO INSURE COME 2013.

There's an app for that....

So to risk expanding now without knowing how the human factor comes into play with the healthcare law is...well......irresponsible.

I don't know. I work with a good number of firms who are in a holding pattern at the moment - but that's demand driven in most cases, not regulatory.

I am a business planner. You know that. I know why my clients are not expanding. My amnufacturers are getting hit with some wierd EPA regulations. It is not what has been implmented already that is holding them back. It is "not knowing what else is coming their way" that is holding them back.

My dsitributer and service clients are holding back based on the exact reason I gave you....not sure how many of their employees will be opting into their insuracne.

You skirted it by saying there is an app for it. No...there is not an app because NO ONE yet knows exactly what other companies are going to do.

For example, of my small firm (not including my temps) I have 4 people who are on their spouses plan. It is possible all of them will come on my plan. I dont know yet. It depends how their spouses companies react. Maybe they will all stay on their spouses plan and maybe the others that are on my plan will ALSO go to their spouses plan...then I am a winner.

Of my sigle employees...the younger ones.....only 2 of six of them took the insurance......but when the mandate kicks in, maybe all six of them will...or maybe none of them as maybe they will go on their parents plan...or maybe their parents wont let them.

There is not an app for human nature.

Look at it this way.....many companies were exempt for a year or two....why? What was the reason they needed an extra year or two before having to comply?

Becuase they need to see what happens....decisions require the ability to watch trends.

We can not watch a trend of a new law until the law is in affect.

HC was maybe a good idea.....but the timing of it was pathetic......after 250 years...we could have waited until the unemployment numbers were down into the 4-5 range.

It is holding people back from hiring.

 

[Cuyo]

I'm just wondering what the objections are to the dems proposed Jobs bill? It's deficit neutral and seems to be designed to make an impact immediately.

Jobs Bill Overview

So, I was wondering which parts, specifically, those who are against it have the biggest issue with.

You should ask the Democrats in the Senate since they are the ones holding it up. Actually I think it was voted down. Mainly by Democrats btw.

How about, it is a repetition of policies that have already failed to improve employment and have caused the downgrade of thsi country's debt and massive deficits?

Neg rep for your stupid pointless and inflammatory avatar.

Neutralized, and negged your stupid ass for being a pussy.

Why don't you go play in traffic?

 

[The Rabbi]

Completely and utterly incorrect. This is not based in reality at all.

what is correct is the stimulus did not do what it was supposed to do. Help with the unemployment numbers. Many on the right siad it wouldnt, and all on the left said it would.

Now...sure, you can sugar coat/rationalize it by saying one of the following:

1) imagine how bad the numbers would be without it
2) the economy was worse than we realized
3) unemployment has gone down....just not by as much as you want

However, the bottom line is unemployment is still at 9.1% and there is no releif in sight. This was not what the stimulus plan projected.

Therefore, it is silly to continually say it wasnt a failure.

If something only does a little of what yopu expect it to do, it is a failure.

If a car engine is touted and marketed as one that can reach speeds of 140 MPH but it tops out at 90 MPH....it is a failure.

Stimulus Round 1: The stimulus bill passed by Democrats in 2009 with almost universal Republican criticism was split into three parts: Just over $200 billion in tax cuts, about $300 billion in direct spending on projects and other aid to states, and just under $300 billion in social safety-net spending through items such as extended unemployment benefits and health insurance subsidies.

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates that the parts of the program that got the most criticism -- actual spending on projects and aid packages -- was the most effective in creating jobs.

Tax cuts for middle income workers were less effective while tax cuts for the wealthy were deemed the least effective.

Still, the CBO estimates that at least 1.4 million jobs were created and saved by the direct spending alone, and that as many as 3.6 million jobs were produced while stimulus funds were being spent.

Stimulus added jobs, just not enough - Sep. 8, 2011

This claim has been made about a dozen times on this board. Every time it is refuted by pointing out the CBO simply worked off assumptions that gov't spending must produce jobs. The actual results of course belie that assumption. We have higher UE and under-employment now than since Obama took office. Job creation is pitiful, well below replacement levels.
So the question is why do you keep repeating inaccurate information when it has been shown to be inaccurate many times?

 

[8537]

either your HC consultant wasnt honest with you or perhaps you are not aware of what the uncertainty is...

Some companies will have no increase and others will have dramatic increases.

Problem is, until 2013, no one knows who the winners and losers will be.

You see..there are many employees who opt out and go on their spouses plans as they are better or more cost effective.

With the new law, likely all employers will trend to simple plans and spouses plans will not necearrily be the one to go on. Maybe the other spouse is a better plan...or maybe it is cost effective for each spouse to have their own SINGLE plan.

Again, those numbers can be estimated. Attempting to predict how people will behave in response to the law really, really isn't that difficult. We have decades of experience observing how people respond to various economic incentives and this one is no different. We can't predict what each individual might do, but we can certainly create a fairly reliable estimate of the aggregate response. In our firm's case, we paid a HC consultant to do the numbers.




There's an app for that....

So to risk expanding now without knowing how the human factor comes into play with the healthcare law is...well......irresponsible.

I don't know. I work with a good number of firms who are in a holding pattern at the moment - but that's demand driven in most cases, not regulatory.

I am a business planner. You know that. I know why my clients are not expanding. My amnufacturers are getting hit with some wierd EPA regulations.

Which new EPA regulations are they facing?

My dsitributer and service clients are holding back based on the exact reason I gave you....not sure how many of their employees will be opting into their insuracne.

You skirted it by saying there is an app for it. No...there is not an app because NO ONE yet knows exactly what other companies are going to do.

Again, people get paid a nice sum of money to figure that stuff out and provide guidance. That's what our firm sought, and it's what we suggested to firms with whom we work.

Look at it this way.....many companies were exempt for a year or two....why? What was the reason they needed an extra year or two before having to comply?

Because they paid off the right people, of course!

 

[8537]

what is correct is the stimulus did not do what it was supposed to do. Help with the unemployment numbers. Many on the right siad it wouldnt, and all on the left said it would.

Now...sure, you can sugar coat/rationalize it by saying one of the following:

1) imagine how bad the numbers would be without it
2) the economy was worse than we realized
3) unemployment has gone down....just not by as much as you want

However, the bottom line is unemployment is still at 9.1% and there is no releif in sight. This was not what the stimulus plan projected.

Therefore, it is silly to continually say it wasnt a failure.

If something only does a little of what yopu expect it to do, it is a failure.

If a car engine is touted and marketed as one that can reach speeds of 140 MPH but it tops out at 90 MPH....it is a failure.

Stimulus Round 1: The stimulus bill passed by Democrats in 2009 with almost universal Republican criticism was split into three parts: Just over $200 billion in tax cuts, about $300 billion in direct spending on projects and other aid to states, and just under $300 billion in social safety-net spending through items such as extended unemployment benefits and health insurance subsidies.

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates that the parts of the program that got the most criticism -- actual spending on projects and aid packages -- was the most effective in creating jobs.

Tax cuts for middle income workers were less effective while tax cuts for the wealthy were deemed the least effective.

Still, the CBO estimates that at least 1.4 million jobs were created and saved by the direct spending alone, and that as many as 3.6 million jobs were produced while stimulus funds were being spent.

Stimulus added jobs, just not enough - Sep. 8, 2011

This claim has been made about a dozen times on this board. Every time it is refuted by pointing out the CBO simply worked off assumptions that gov't spending must produce jobs. The actual results of course belie that assumption. We have higher UE and under-employment now than since Obama took office. Job creation is pitiful, well below replacement levels.
So the question is why do you keep repeating inaccurate information when it has been shown to be inaccurate many times?

So the folks at Moody's are wrong? McCain's economic advisor is wrong?

Global Insights / IHS forecasters?
JP Morgan Forecasters?

The three largest economic forecasting firms are all wrong because...well...

Because Rabbi says so.

 

[Jarhead]

Completely and utterly incorrect. This is not based in reality at all.

what is correct is the stimulus did not do what it was supposed to do. Help with the unemployment numbers. Many on the right siad it wouldnt, and all on the left said it would.

Now...sure, you can sugar coat/rationalize it by saying one of the following:

1) imagine how bad the numbers would be without it
2) the economy was worse than we realized
3) unemployment has gone down....just not by as much as you want

However, the bottom line is unemployment is still at 9.1% and there is no releif in sight. This was not what the stimulus plan projected.

Therefore, it is silly to continually say it wasnt a failure.

If something only does a little of what yopu expect it to do, it is a failure.

If a car engine is touted and marketed as one that can reach speeds of 140 MPH but it tops out at 90 MPH....it is a failure.

Stimulus Round 1: The stimulus bill passed by Democrats in 2009 with almost universal Republican criticism was split into three parts: Just over $200 billion in tax cuts, about $300 billion in direct spending on projects and other aid to states, and just under $300 billion in social safety-net spending through items such as extended unemployment benefits and health insurance subsidies.

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates that the parts of the program that got the most criticism -- actual spending on projects and aid packages -- was the most effective in creating jobs.

Tax cuts for middle income workers were less effective while tax cuts for the wealthy were deemed the least effective.

Still, the CBO estimates that at least 1.4 million jobs were created and saved by the direct spending alone, and that as many as 3.6 million jobs were produced while stimulus funds were being spent.

Stimulus added jobs, just not enough - Sep. 8, 2011

BB....do you read what you cite...or do you just see what you like and post it without really understanding it.

"actual spending on projects and aid packages -- was the most effective in creating jobs."

It is impossible to deny this. All knew this was going to happen. You take a dollar and give it to someone to build a road, it will create a job. That was never denied....the question was.....how will it create PERMANENT jobs and help grow the private sector. Afterall, we did not need to take taxpayer moeny to give a job to a man that was already taking taxpayer money collecting unemployment. To be honest, I would prefer that man spending his time looking for a permanent job while living on taxpayer money....as opposed to working a temporary job on taxpayer money...and then losing that temporary job when the project is complete and again going back on unemployment to look for a job.

"Tax cuts for middle income workers were less effective while tax cuts for the wealthy were deemed the least effective."

Of course. We saw that with the Bush cuts as well. Truth is, put a few extra bucks in the pocketr of the consumer during a recession and 9% unemployment and they will not spend it.

So to tout it as a success based on that is rediculous. I dont need to see those CBO numbers as they dont tell the whole story.

The whole story wraps around one thing...unemployment is still 9.1% 2 years later.

those in the 9.1% dont give a crap about the "jobs saved"......and the 3.6 mnillion jobs created? Seems that must have been at the expense of the same amount of jobs lost.

So tell me...who did the stimulus help?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Of course it's worked in the past, and resoundingly well. FDR's public work projects yielded benefits we still see today. Roads, bridges, dams as well as getting rural areas on to the electric grid has been the foundation for American prosperity and creation of the middle class. Eisenhower building even more roads again yielded multiple benefits. Clinton upgrading the telecommunications infrastructure exploded employment.

But lets look at the private sector. Really? What has apple done? They have created some really spiffy electronic devices and now employ more people abroad then they do here.

Did Apple’s iPod Create U.S. Jobs? - The Curious Capitalist - TIME.com

Compare that with a private/public project like the creation of UNIX and the Internet. Multiple firms benefitted from that..and it yielded high paying jobs for Americans.

FD's make work failure averaged 20% unemployment from his inauguration until Hitler ended the FDR Depression by conquering France.

Might want to pick a better example

The unemployment rate fell about 10 percentage points - a decline of 40% - during FDR's first term. This was thanks in part to the most rapid four year period of peacetime expansion in US history.

You can't blame FDR for the fact that our production was virtually cut in half during the three years preceding his first term.

No, that was the FED that strangled the US economy nearly to death.

FDR installed a Soviet style Central planning "Washington knows Best" framework and that's what kept unemployment at 20% until Hitler started WWII.

He even sued kosher butchers because clearly, the government knew more about handling produce than they did.

 

[Jarhead]

Again, those numbers can be estimated. Attempting to predict how people will behave in response to the law really, really isn't that difficult. We have decades of experience observing how people respond to various economic incentives and this one is no different. We can't predict what each individual might do, but we can certainly create a fairly reliable estimate of the aggregate response. In our firm's case, we paid a HC consultant to do the numbers.




There's an app for that....




I don't know. I work with a good number of firms who are in a holding pattern at the moment - but that's demand driven in most cases, not regulatory.

Which new EPA regulations are they facing?

how they rid themselves of non toxic bi product...there is one that has to do with the loading bay.....cost my client over 75K to widen the bays by a foot each......he never had an issue....had plenty of clearance.....75K and you cant even tell the difference.

Again, people get paid a nice sum of money to figure that stuff out and provide guidance. That's what our firm sought, and it's what we suggested to firms with whom we work.

Look at it this way.....many companies were exempt for a year or two....why? What was the reason they needed an extra year or two before having to comply?

Sorry...the best paid professionals can not determine human nature...they have no basis for it. They do not know how people are going to react. Heck, they dont know how much premiums will rise.

Because they paid off the right people, of course!

I agree...they paid off the right people....but that is a diversion...

the question is WHY did they feel the need to pay off the right people and get the waivers?

 

[8537]

FD's make work failure averaged 20% unemployment from his inauguration until Hitler ended the FDR Depression by conquering France.

Might want to pick a better example

The unemployment rate fell about 10 percentage points - a decline of 40% - during FDR's first term. This was thanks in part to the most rapid four year period of peacetime expansion in US history.

You can't blame FDR for the fact that our production was virtually cut in half during the three years preceding his first term.

No, that was the FED that strangled the US economy nearly to death.

huh what? Of course the FED fucked things up. I'm still confused as to where you think I claimed differently.

Luckily for us, when FDR took office he changed the Fed mandate and put new people in charge.

FDR installed a Soviet style Central planning "Washington knows Best" framework and that's what kept unemployment at 20% until Hitler started WWII.

No, that's just a lie. And one you seem to like repeating in face of all evidence to the contrary. Unemployment fell from 25% to 15%. It was not "kept" at 20% until Hitler started WW2.

 

[8537]

I agree...they paid off the right people....but that is a diversion...

the question is WHY did they feel the need to pay off the right people and get the waivers?

Because it's going to cost money and they see an option to save money instead. Given the choice of spending money on HC or not spending money on HC, a firm in a vacuum will not spend money on HC. These large firms simply see an opening for regulatory capture and they're jumping at it.

 

[Jarhead]

I agree...they paid off the right people....but that is a diversion...

the question is WHY did they feel the need to pay off the right people and get the waivers?

Because it's going to cost money and they see an option to save money instead. Given the choice of spending money on HC or not spending money on HC, a firm in a vacuum will not spend money on HC. These large firms simply see an opening for regulatory capture and they're jumping at it.

No sir.....not as I uynderstand it.

They asked for a waiver becuase they wanted a year plus to analyze how the employees react once the health care law went into affect so they can properly prepare for the transition..and properly estimate annual costs.

I mean...what good is a wiaver if you need to do it a year or two later anyway?

 

[Claudette]

Thats just it. Barry thinks his way is right. It has never worked in the past and won't work now but I doubt anyone will ever convice him of this.

We can only hope that the next POTUS does have the right ideas and can fix the mess.

Of course it's worked in the past, and resoundingly well. FDR's public work projects yielded benefits we still see today. Roads, bridges, dams as well as getting rural areas on to the electric grid has been the foundation for American prosperity and creation of the middle class. Eisenhower building even more roads again yielded multiple benefits. Clinton upgrading the telecommunications infrastructure exploded employment.

But lets look at the private sector. Really? What has apple done? They have created some really spiffy electronic devices and now employ more people abroad then they do here.

Did Apple’s iPod Create U.S. Jobs? - The Curious Capitalist - TIME.com

Compare that with a private/public project like the creation of UNIX and the Internet. Multiple firms benefitted from that..and it yielded high paying jobs for Americans.

Despite what FDR did the depressioin didn't end. He raised taxes sometimes up to 99% on those that payed taxes. Business couldn't expand under that kind of taxation so the depression went on and on.

Last I heard Apple isn't the only private sector employer out there. There are loads or corps and small businesses out there that hire loads of people and their jobs are right here in the US.

Despite what you may think the private sector is the engine that fuels the economy. No private sector that provides jobs and where does Govt get the money for anything??

FDR was a great war time Prez. Nothing will ever take that away from him but his polices did nothing to lessen the depression.

One would think Barry, being a law professor and all, would know that.

 

[BlindBoo]

This is the response always to failed policies: Well, it sucks but things would ahve been MUCH worse if we hadn't done it.
It is bullshit.
The policy was a failure. We have had lower unemployment had we not passed the stimulus. This was known at the time and has been confirmed since.

I noticed you didn't address the rebuttal to your original lie that it was the Democrats holding up the bill, and latched on to something that is subjective so you can denigrate it. But you are of course wrong there too.

It's Official: Obama Is Creaming Bush When It Comes To Jobs - Business Insider

I can only hope the Republican gamble to do anything to stop the President, give him a Waterloo moment so to speak, from getting re-elected fails and the voter turn the house back over to the Democrats.

I figured you were kidding about the Dems holding up the bill because it was so well known. Here's the link:
Obama Campaign Says GOP Blocking Jobs Bill--After Reid Blocks Jobs Bill | The Weekly Standard
And your article was a joke. Comparing Bush's worst month in the onset of a recession to Obama's whole term is an absurd argument only a moron would believe.

Psssss, today is October 18th, not the 4th.

Again you're caught in lie, The chart in the article I posted shows over two years split between the two Preisdents. 13 months of each, not President Bushes worst month to President Obama nearly three years. Care to revise your statement?

 

[Rocko]

Of course it's worked in the past, and resoundingly well. FDR's public work projects yielded benefits we still see today. Roads, bridges, dams as well as getting rural areas on to the electric grid has been the foundation for American prosperity and creation of the middle class. Eisenhower building even more roads again yielded multiple benefits. Clinton upgrading the telecommunications infrastructure exploded employment.

But lets look at the private sector. Really? What has apple done? They have created some really spiffy electronic devices and now employ more people abroad then they do here.

Did Apple’s iPod Create U.S. Jobs? - The Curious Capitalist - TIME.com

Compare that with a private/public project like the creation of UNIX and the Internet. Multiple firms benefitted from that..and it yielded high paying jobs for Americans.

FD's make work failure averaged 20% unemployment from his inauguration until Hitler ended the FDR Depression by conquering France.

Might want to pick a better example

The unemployment rate fell about 10 percentage points - a decline of 40% - during FDR's first term. This was thanks in part to the most rapid four year period of peacetime expansion in US history.

You can't blame FDR for the fact that our production was virtually cut in half during the three years preceding his first term.

unemployment was exactly as high as it was 8 years after the New Deal...WW 2 ended the GD.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

FD's make work failure averaged 20% unemployment from his inauguration until Hitler ended the FDR Depression by conquering France.

Might want to pick a better example

The unemployment rate fell about 10 percentage points - a decline of 40% - during FDR's first term. This was thanks in part to the most rapid four year period of peacetime expansion in US history.

You can't blame FDR for the fact that our production was virtually cut in half during the three years preceding his first term.

unemployment was exactly as high as it was 8 years after the New Deal...WW 2 ended the GD.

The "Great Depression" is a horrible misnomer, it's the FDR Depression.