Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
That's a bunch of crap. One of the primary functions of government is to provide and maintain infrastructure. It is one of the reasons we pay taxes.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 Apples 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.
You're seriously fucked up to compare the invasion of Poland, the lowlands, battle of Britain and Fall of France with some FDR style public works program.
I don't expect you to understand, Frank. Doing so would require admitting you might be wrong
You're already on record stating that war is public works, no?
That's a political conclusion. We aren't interested in politics anymore.Well I think it is a given that the media and the WH - and the Senate...will frame this as heartless, uncaring and all around un-American bill not worth looking at.
Indeed...and it will not be a difficult sell.
Why are Repubs so consistantly ignorant? A modest tax increase on +$1 million income earners would allow them to claim the high ground that Obama wants to hold.
the federal government has more than enough of our money. The government must learn to exercise fiscal discipline. Of course those on the Left do not want to discuss THAT.
I have no earthly idea where you got that information. It was 25% in 1933. It was 19% in 1937. It was 14% in 1940.
Can you explain, economically speaking, how WW2 ended the Depression?
I think your 24 % may be the real unemployment rate....I can't provide a link now, but there's evidence that the New Deal did not sustain lower unemployment, and there's also evidence that FDR's New Deal prolonged the pain felt.
There was no "real" unemployment rate in 1933. Any figure you see is an extrapolation from other data sources.
As for the evidence that FDR's New Deal prolonged the pain, The Mackinak and UCLA studies both fail to address a simple fact: That the economy grew at record pace for the four years after FDR took office - a peacetime growth rate not seen since.
It's real simple to understand, WW 2 started a manufacturing boom, where demand of our products, from our allies was at an all time high.
So demand for products ended the Depression?
I think your 24 % may be the real unemployment rate....I can't provide a link now, but there's evidence that the New Deal did not sustain lower unemployment, and there's also evidence that FDR's New Deal prolonged the pain felt.
There was no "real" unemployment rate in 1933. Any figure you see is an extrapolation from other data sources.
As for the evidence that FDR's New Deal prolonged the pain, The Mackinak and UCLA studies both fail to address a simple fact: That the economy grew at record pace for the four years after FDR took office - a peacetime growth rate not seen since.
It's real simple to understand, WW 2 started a manufacturing boom, where demand of our products, from our allies was at an all time high.
So demand for products ended the Depression?
The Fed stopped strangling the economy in 1933 and had he not been a Soviet Style Central Planner, FDR could have dropped unemployment almost as fast as Harding/Coolidge/Mellon did the decade before.
I have no earthly idea where you got that information. It was 25% in 1933. It was 19% in 1937. It was 14% in 1940.
Can you explain, economically speaking, how WW2 ended the Depression?
I think your 24 % may be the real unemployment rate....I can't provide a link now, but there's evidence that the New Deal did not sustain lower unemployment, and there's also evidence that FDR's New Deal prolonged the pain felt.
There was no "real" unemployment rate in 1933. Any figure you see is an extrapolation from other data sources.
As for the evidence that FDR's New Deal prolonged the pain, The Mackinak and UCLA studies both fail to address a simple fact: That the economy grew at record pace for the four years after FDR took office - a peacetime growth rate not seen since.
It's real simple to understand, WW 2 started a manufacturing boom, where demand of our products, from our allies was at an all time high.
So demand for products ended the Depression?
CBO estimates that over 1.4 million jobs were created.....Ok, how does that line up with the fact that since stimulus one, the unemployment rate rose from around 8%( Obama's promised ceiling for that number) to over 10% before settling to a little over 9%?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
I think your 24 % may be the real unemployment rate....I can't provide a link now, but there's evidence that the New Deal did not sustain lower unemployment, and there's also evidence that FDR's New Deal prolonged the pain felt.
There was no "real" unemployment rate in 1933. Any figure you see is an extrapolation from other data sources.
As for the evidence that FDR's New Deal prolonged the pain, The Mackinak and UCLA studies both fail to address a simple fact: That the economy grew at record pace for the four years after FDR took office - a peacetime growth rate not seen since.
It's real simple to understand, WW 2 started a manufacturing boom, where demand of our products, from our allies was at an all time high.
So demand for products ended the Depression?
I could be wrong, but I don't think I am, but as I recall the number was 15% since inception and 15% 8 years later....I'm on my blackberry, but if I find the link, I'll pm it to u.
Yes the War led to unprecedented demand.
CBO estimates that over 1.4 million jobs were created.....Ok, how does that line up with the fact that since stimulus one, the unemployment rate rose from around 8%( Obama's promised ceiling for that number) to over 10% before settling to a little over 9%?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
And those are the government's estimates. Others estimate that between those on their taxpayer funded vacations plus those who's benefits have run out, plus those who are working part time, plus those who are "underemployed" reaches nearly 20%.
SO when the Obama regime tells us Obama "saved 140,000 jobs but the unemployment figures state a loss of 2 million jobs, how it is possible for the CBO to estimate the creation of 1.4 million jobs. It just isn't so.
There was no "real" unemployment rate in 1933. Any figure you see is an extrapolation from other data sources.
As for the evidence that FDR's New Deal prolonged the pain, The Mackinak and UCLA studies both fail to address a simple fact: That the economy grew at record pace for the four years after FDR took office - a peacetime growth rate not seen since.
So demand for products ended the Depression?
I could be wrong, but I don't think I am, but as I recall the number was 15% since inception and 15% 8 years later....I'm on my blackberry, but if I find the link, I'll pm it to u.
Yes the War led to unprecedented demand.
The unemployment rate was 25% in 1933, extrapolating from other data. By some measures, the actual rate was closer to 35%.
in 1937, it had fallen to 14% on the back of record economic growth as shuttered capacity was refilled.
The economy faced another recession about that same time and unemployment increased again to about 20%, but by 1940 it had again fallen - this time to 14% on a path to almost zero during the war.
As for the war ending the depression due to unprecedented demand...I'd prefer we not grow the economy by blowing shit up, but we agree that a striking increase in demand + deficit spending ended the Depression.
I could be wrong, but I don't think I am, but as I recall the number was 15% since inception and 15% 8 years later....I'm on my blackberry, but if I find the link, I'll pm it to u.
Yes the War led to unprecedented demand.
The unemployment rate was 25% in 1933, extrapolating from other data. By some measures, the actual rate was closer to 35%.
in 1937, it had fallen to 14% on the back of record economic growth as shuttered capacity was refilled.
The economy faced another recession about that same time and unemployment increased again to about 20%, but by 1940 it had again fallen - this time to 14% on a path to almost zero during the war.
As for the war ending the depression due to unprecedented demand...I'd prefer we not grow the economy by blowing shit up, but we agree that a striking increase in demand + deficit spending ended the Depression.
I agree with you, in not wanting to start wars to cure tthe ills of our economy, but putting our value judgments aside, it is a valid theory that WW 2 had a major positive economic impact....I will try to search for some clarification of the UE figures, thanks for bringing your data to my attention.
CBO estimates that over 1.4 million jobs were created.....Ok, how does that line up with the fact that since stimulus one, the unemployment rate rose from around 8%( Obama's promised ceiling for that number) to over 10% before settling to a little over 9%?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
And those are the government's estimates. Others estimate that between those on their taxpayer funded vacations plus those who's benefits have run out, plus those who are working part time, plus those who are "underemployed" reaches nearly 20%.
SO when the Obama regime tells us Obama "saved 140,000 jobs but the unemployment figures state a loss of 2 million jobs, how it is possible for the CBO to estimate the creation of 1.4 million jobs. It just isn't so.
It's not a static analysis.
Nor is the analysis by Moodys Analytics or any of the other leading economic forecasting firms that find the stimulus created between 1 and 3.5 million jobs.
No matter.CBO estimates that over 1.4 million jobs were created.....Ok, how does that line up with the fact that since stimulus one, the unemployment rate rose from around 8%( Obama's promised ceiling for that number) to over 10% before settling to a little over 9%?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
And those are the government's estimates. Others estimate that between those on their taxpayer funded vacations plus those who's benefits have run out, plus those who are working part time, plus those who are "underemployed" reaches nearly 20%.
SO when the Obama regime tells us Obama "saved 140,000 jobs but the unemployment figures state a loss of 2 million jobs, how it is possible for the CBO to estimate the creation of 1.4 million jobs. It just isn't so.
It's not a static analysis.
Nor is the analysis by Moodys Analytics or any of the other leading economic forecasting firms that find the stimulus created between 1 and 3.5 million jobs.
There was no lie. You liberals use that accusation as a knee jerk defense mechanism when your dopey charts and graphs do not reflect the facts.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?
yo..
You can cite all of the graphs and charts you want.
Bottom line....
Unemployment is at 9.1%...and that does not include the underemnployed or those that have given up.
So do yourself a favor...stop looking for ways to ignore thwe bottom line and start realizing that unemployment is at 9.1%..
FYI....you need to read the fine print of your charts and graphs.....
And before you ask me why...let me put it to you this way....
According to the CBO report....3.6 million jobs were created....yet unempl;oyment didnt budge.
Seems to me they forgot to mentiuon that 3.6 million jhobs were also LOST during that span.
Or does it make you happy to know that a tremporary job was created for one man (at a cost to the taxpayer) while a permanent job for another man is lost.
What makes me happy is being able to prove Rabbi's lies. Fact is Democrats didn't vote against the jobs bill(well, 2 of them did along with all the Republicans). Also the charts or article did not compare President Bushes worst month with President Obamas entire term.
The rest I'll leave up to you to decide.
Politics as usual. I had hoped you had the intelligence to make that inference. I was incorrect.That's a political conclusion. We aren't interested in politics anymore.Indeed...and it will not be a difficult sell.
Why are Repubs so consistantly ignorant? A modest tax increase on +$1 million income earners would allow them to claim the high ground that Obama wants to hold.
the federal government has more than enough of our money. The government must learn to exercise fiscal discipline. Of course those on the Left do not want to discuss THAT.
"Not interested in politics any more?"
That's hilarious.....where do you get this shit......
That is the one constant of the Obama regime. Picking winners and losers.CBO estimates that over 1.4 million jobs were created.....Ok, how does that line up with the fact that since stimulus one, the unemployment rate rose from around 8%( Obama's promised ceiling for that number) to over 10% before settling to a little over 9%?
And those are the government's estimates. Others estimate that between those on their taxpayer funded vacations plus those who's benefits have run out, plus those who are working part time, plus those who are "underemployed" reaches nearly 20%.
SO when the Obama regime tells us Obama "saved 140,000 jobs but the unemployment figures state a loss of 2 million jobs, how it is possible for the CBO to estimate the creation of 1.4 million jobs. It just isn't so.
It's not a static analysis.
Nor is the analysis by Moodys Analytics or any of the other leading economic forecasting firms that find the stimulus created between 1 and 3.5 million jobs.
if it did, then why did unemployment stay pretty much the same?
Dont you get it...sure it created jobs...but at the expense of jobs.
Here....let me show you....
Company A has 50 employees...struggling
Company B has 50 employees...struggling
Government takes 50 million in stimulus and gives to company A
Company B gets squat.
Bids are asked for by a developer from both companies.
Company A has more liquid capital and can mark up less than company B and wins the bid...
To meet the demand for the projectt company A hires 20 employees...20 jobs created.
Another time to bid...and again, company A wins becuase it has the capital....
But, alas, company B is on its last leg and closes shop....50 jobs lost.
Company A, thanks to the 50 million, hires those 30 people to meet the needs of the new project.
Now 50 jobs created.
But 50 jobs were also lost
And you know who the only real winner is?
The client that asked for bids...for he was able to get a lower price due to the government infusion of capital into company A.
Yep...our tax dollars created net zero jobs yet helped some evil rich greedy developer save money.
Hows that hope and change coming along anyway?
CBO estimates that over 1.4 million jobs were created.....Ok, how does that line up with the fact that since stimulus one, the unemployment rate rose from around 8%( Obama's promised ceiling for that number) to over 10% before settling to a little over 9%?
And those are the government's estimates. Others estimate that between those on their taxpayer funded vacations plus those who's benefits have run out, plus those who are working part time, plus those who are "underemployed" reaches nearly 20%.
SO when the Obama regime tells us Obama "saved 140,000 jobs but the unemployment figures state a loss of 2 million jobs, how it is possible for the CBO to estimate the creation of 1.4 million jobs. It just isn't so.
It's not a static analysis.
Nor is the analysis by Moodys Analytics or any of the other leading economic forecasting firms that find the stimulus created between 1 and 3.5 million jobs.
if it did, then why did unemployment stay pretty much the same?
Dont you get it...sure it created jobs...but at the expense of jobs.
SO there has been and still is a LOSS of jobs. That despite stimulus one and two.It's not a static analysis.
Nor is the analysis by Moodys Analytics or any of the other leading economic forecasting firms that find the stimulus created between 1 and 3.5 million jobs.
if it did, then why did unemployment stay pretty much the same?
Dont you get it...sure it created jobs...but at the expense of jobs.
No, the model's are smart enough to realize that it's a net negative because the current loss of jobs is more detrimental than the current addition of jobs due to stimulus. That's why every major forecasting firm, almost all academic economists and the CBO all agree that the short-term result is +1 million to +3.5 million jobs.
SO there has been and still is a LOSS of jobs. That despite stimulus one and two.if it did, then why did unemployment stay pretty much the same?
Dont you get it...sure it created jobs...but at the expense of jobs.
No, the model's are smart enough to realize that it's a net negative because the current loss of jobs is more detrimental than the current addition of jobs due to stimulus. That's why every major forecasting firm, almost all academic economists and the CBO all agree that the short-term result is +1 million to +3.5 million jobs.
Short term job gains offset by permanent job losses. Sheesh.
There is so much spin from your side in this thread it's beginning to resemble a Whirlpool.
Bottom line.....The Obaam regime should be given Carte Blanche to spend spend spend to create temporary relief while the economy as a whole suffers and real job creation is ignored. Great idea.
Hey genius, where is the money coming from and why the hell is it being dumped into temporary fixes?
I will answer both. Nowhere. And to kick the can down the road or in this case to the other side of the aisle.
Obama is running around the Southeast in his campaign bus tour which is a violation of campaign law because he is spending taxpayer dollars, blaming republicans for not letting him spend another half trillion on this garbage. What a shit head.
SO there has been and still is a LOSS of jobs. That despite stimulus one and two.if it did, then why did unemployment stay pretty much the same?
Dont you get it...sure it created jobs...but at the expense of jobs.
No, the model's are smart enough to realize that it's a net negative because the current loss of jobs is more detrimental than the current addition of jobs due to stimulus. That's why every major forecasting firm, almost all academic economists and the CBO all agree that the short-term result is +1 million to +3.5 million jobs.
Short term job gains offset by permanent job losses. Sheesh.
