What about the Proposed Jobs Bill do Repubs not like?

[8537]

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.
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.

Who are these "academic economists" that agree that the stimulus created jobs? I want names. And no, Christina Romer does not count.

Let's start with the Nobel Laureates: Akerlof, Solow and Stiglitz. Then move to McCain's economic advisor, Mark Zandi. The list is hundreds long.

 

[The Rabbi]

SO there has been and still is a LOSS of jobs. That despite stimulus one and two.
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.

Who are these "academic economists" that agree that the stimulus created jobs? I want names. And no, Christina Romer does not count.

Let's start with the Nobel Laureates: Akerlof, Solow and Stiglitz. Then move to McCain's economic advisor, Mark Zandi. The list is hundreds long.

Stieglitz is a leftist, currently pandering to the Dirtbaggers on Wall St.
You'll need to provide links to back up your absurd assertion.

 

[8537]

Who are these "academic economists" that agree that the stimulus created jobs? I want names. And no, Christina Romer does not count.

Let's start with the Nobel Laureates: Akerlof, Solow and Stiglitz. Then move to McCain's economic advisor, Mark Zandi. The list is hundreds long.

Stieglitz is a leftist, currently pandering to the Dirtbaggers on Wall St.
You'll need to provide links to back up your absurd assertion.

which assertion do you find absurd?

 

[The Rabbi]

Let's start with the Nobel Laureates: Akerlof, Solow and Stiglitz. Then move to McCain's economic advisor, Mark Zandi. The list is hundreds long.

Stieglitz is a leftist, currently pandering to the Dirtbaggers on Wall St.
You'll need to provide links to back up your absurd assertion.

which assertion do you find absurd?

That the stimulus created millions of jobs when the UE and underemployment rate are obviously much higher than they were before the stimulus passed.
In the real world such empirical data generally suggests the policy failed miserably at great cost. Only on Planet Left could something liek that be spun as a success.
I would place money that every economist you mention cites the CBO for their source. And we've already shown the CBO to be wrong.

 

[thereisnospoon]

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.
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.

Who are these "academic economists" that agree that the stimulus created jobs? I want names. And no, Christina Romer does not count.

There are posts on this thread with links that state the CBO claims 1.4 million and in other links 3 million jobs were created by Stimulus one and two. Of course I dispute these numbers because most jobs created were temporary or contract jobs. Or as in many cases, municipal, county and state government jobs many of which were eliminated after the stimulus funding was exhausted.
Those geniuses on the Left are relying on CBO numbers....THIS TIME. In the past, when CBO numbers did not fit the template, they disputed those numbers.
I state the CBO numbers are correct. However, those numbers do not tell the whole story.
That is where we are at this time.

 

[8537]

Stieglitz is a leftist, currently pandering to the Dirtbaggers on Wall St.
You'll need to provide links to back up your absurd assertion.

which assertion do you find absurd?

That the stimulus created millions of jobs

I have no doubt you lack the intellectual capacity to understand. You should take up your complaint with all of the major economic forecasting firms in the US, with the CBO, with McCain's economic advisor and with 100's of academic economists - all of whom agree that the stimulus created between 1 million and 3.5 million jobs.

I would place money that every economist you mention cites the CBO for their source.

LOL! No, they don't. That's why the range is so large.

 

[Jarhead]

which assertion do you find absurd?

That the stimulus created millions of jobs

I have no doubt you lack the intellectual capacity to understand. You should take up your complaint with all of the major economic forecasting firms in the US, with the CBO, with McCain's economic advisor and with 100's of academic economists - all of whom agree that the stimulus created between 1 million and 3.5 million jobs.

I would place money that every economist you mention cites the CBO for their source.

LOL! No, they don't. That's why the range is so large.

I explained yesterday how 50 jobs are created with a stimulus at the cost of 50 other jobs...leaving a net zero job growth

Assuming you found that to be incorrect......please explain how as many as 3.5 million jobs were created yet the unemployment numbers do not reflect such "job growth".

 

[8537]

That the stimulus created millions of jobs

I have no doubt you lack the intellectual capacity to understand. You should take up your complaint with all of the major economic forecasting firms in the US, with the CBO, with McCain's economic advisor and with 100's of academic economists - all of whom agree that the stimulus created between 1 million and 3.5 million jobs.

I would place money that every economist you mention cites the CBO for their source.

LOL! No, they don't. That's why the range is so large.

I explained yesterday how 50 jobs are created with a stimulus at the cost of 50 other jobs...leaving a net zero job growth

Assuming you found that to be incorrect......please explain how as many as 3.5 million jobs were created yet the unemployment numbers do not reflect such "job growth".

The problem is threefold:

1. You assume that removing stagnant capital leads to job losses. It doesn't.
2. The job creation numbers are based on actual, reported data.
3. Every major economic forecasting firm, the CBO and 100's of academic economists around the country agree that the bill created between 1 and 3.5M jobs.

That is not "reflected in the jobs numbers" because, as i've said, it didn't create jobs as fast as jobs were disappearing. It was never a static analysis, nor did it claim to be. The initial estimates of GDP loss in late 2008 and early 2009 were off by large margins and the actual decline was far steeper than we realized at the time. Therefore, the estimates of where the jobs numbers would be ended up being far too high.

 

[Jarhead]

I have no doubt you lack the intellectual capacity to understand. You should take up your complaint with all of the major economic forecasting firms in the US, with the CBO, with McCain's economic advisor and with 100's of academic economists - all of whom agree that the stimulus created between 1 million and 3.5 million jobs.



LOL! No, they don't. That's why the range is so large.

I explained yesterday how 50 jobs are created with a stimulus at the cost of 50 other jobs...leaving a net zero job growth

Assuming you found that to be incorrect......please explain how as many as 3.5 million jobs were created yet the unemployment numbers do not reflect such "job growth".

The problem is threefold:

1. You assume that removing stagnant capital leads to job losses. It doesn't.
2. The job creation numbers are based on actual, reported data.
3. Every major economic forecasting firm, the CBO and 100's of academic economists around the country agree that the bill created between 1 and 3.5M jobs.

That is not "reflected in the jobs numbers" because, as i've said, it didn't create jobs as fast as jobs were disappearing. It was never a static analysis, nor did it claim to be. The initial estimates of GDP loss in late 2008 and early 2009 were off by large margins and the actual decline was far steeper than we realized at the time. Therefore, the estimates of where the jobs numbers would be ended up being far too high.

And as I showed you yesterday...many jobs were lost BECUSE of the stimulus....and the numbers should have reflected it.
As a matter of fact, many jobs that were gained due to the stimulus were filled by people that lost their jobs due to the stimulus
The stimulus actually interfered with pure competition and gave advantgaes to those that received money to out bid their competition...put their competition out of business and then hire the laid off employees form the deceased competition.

So, it was very much like the CARS program. Sure it increased auto sales for a few months...but at a cost of lost auto sales several months later....and, of course, at a cost to the tax payer for those tax credits.

Well, to gain 50 jobs at the cost to the tax payer but to also lose 50 jobs due to the stimulus gives us a net 0 job growth despite a cost to the tax payer.

8537...I know you want to say it worked. But the bottom line is, it didnt. It created jobs as we lost jobs....and I know it forced people out of business.

And you know economics...that is quite obvious.

So tell me...exactly who will win a bid.....company A who just got infused with cash from the governemnt...or company B who is barely holding on?

 

[eflatminor]

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.

First, the DEMS in the Senate did not support this bill. So, it's hardly "the dems proposed Jobs bill". It's Obama's bill.

Secondly, to your question, what I don't like about it is that funds for fire, police and teachers are a state issue. Those states that have not lived within their means should NOT be bailed out with federal tax dollars. The fact California, New York, Illinois, etc are broke is not the fault of Indiana and other states with reasonable fiscal policies. Those citizens should not be forced to pay for other state's shortfalls.

 

[8537]

I explained yesterday how 50 jobs are created with a stimulus at the cost of 50 other jobs...leaving a net zero job growth

Assuming you found that to be incorrect......please explain how as many as 3.5 million jobs were created yet the unemployment numbers do not reflect such "job growth".

The problem is threefold:

1. You assume that removing stagnant capital leads to job losses. It doesn't.
2. The job creation numbers are based on actual, reported data.
3. Every major economic forecasting firm, the CBO and 100's of academic economists around the country agree that the bill created between 1 and 3.5M jobs.

That is not "reflected in the jobs numbers" because, as i've said, it didn't create jobs as fast as jobs were disappearing. It was never a static analysis, nor did it claim to be. The initial estimates of GDP loss in late 2008 and early 2009 were off by large margins and the actual decline was far steeper than we realized at the time. Therefore, the estimates of where the jobs numbers would be ended up being far too high.

And as I showed you yesterday...many jobs were lost BECUSE of the stimulus....and the numbers should have reflected it.

No, I disagree that removing money from the Chinese currency reserves led to job losses in the United States.

The stimulus actually interfered with pure competition and gave advantgaes to those that received money to out bid their competition...put their competition out of business and then hire the laid off employees form the deceased competition.

The stimulus interfered with competition in an economy that was 35% below productive capacity and 10% of production below full employment.

So, it was very much like the CARS program. Sure it increased auto sales for a few months...but at a cost of lost auto sales several months later....and, of course, at a cost to the tax payer for those tax credits.

First, it should be noted that higher incomes today (More car sales) are better than higher incomes later (more car sales later). The increased velocity of the money is what creates the recovery. Second, it didn't cost the taxpayers anything in the near or medium term.

8537...I know you want to say it worked. But the bottom line is, it didnt. It created jobs as we lost jobs....and I know it forced people out of business.

And you know economics...that is quite obvious.

I know a little about the topic, but people who know far more all agree that the stimulus worked - all of the major economy forecasters, Moodys, Zandi, academic economists of all stripes agree that it created jobs. Was it worth the long run increase in payments to interest? That's where you'll start to get some disagreement.

So tell me...exactly who will win a bid.....company A who just got infused with cash from the governemnt...or company B who is barely holding on?

The company that can afford the bid and borrow the revenue to do it.

 

[The Rabbi]

which assertion do you find absurd?

That the stimulus created millions of jobs

I have no doubt you lack the intellectual capacity to understand. You should take up your complaint with all of the major economic forecasting firms in the US, with the CBO, with McCain's economic advisor and with 100's of academic economists - all of whom agree that the stimulus created between 1 million and 3.5 million jobs.

I would place money that every economist you mention cites the CBO for their source.

LOL! No, they don't. That's why the range is so large.

Liar. Every single one of them cites the CBO for their evidence.

I didnt realize you considered McCain and his advisors to be reliable sources. Something new every day.
btw, at this juncture in his presidency Ronald Reagan created 1M jobs in one month alone. Without any stimulus spending!

 

[Oldstyle]

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

And how many of those 1.4 million jobs are still around now that the stimulus is running out? Basically we robbed Peter to pay Paul. We ran up a huge Federal deficit to keep public sector workers employed while private sector workers were getting laid off by the millions. Obama's stimulus didn't REALLY create jobs...it just protected the bloated behemoth known as government for a short amount of time while telling the private sector to go piss up a rope. Now he's back looking for more money while STILL ignoring the private sector. How many times are we going to repeat the same thing?

 

[8537]

That the stimulus created millions of jobs

I have no doubt you lack the intellectual capacity to understand. You should take up your complaint with all of the major economic forecasting firms in the US, with the CBO, with McCain's economic advisor and with 100's of academic economists - all of whom agree that the stimulus created between 1 million and 3.5 million jobs.

I would place money that every economist you mention cites the CBO for their source.

LOL! No, they don't. That's why the range is so large.

Liar. Every single one of them cites the CBO for their evidence.

YOu lie like other people breath. The largest US economic forecasting firms don't rely on the CBO. That's why they are large economic forecasting firms - and why they have different results.

I didnt realize you considered McCain and his advisors to be reliable sources. Something new every day.

His economic advisor runs one of the largest analytics firms in the country.

 

[rdean]

Well I suspected that much, but I wanted to actually hear some valid reasons from some of them. If there are no legitimate complaints, I'll have to assume that you're right.

How sad.

Got ya. rdean is the only response you need to declare your viewpoint as the correct one.

One of these days it would be nice to have a discussion where you guys really want to have honest answers instead of this bullcrap.

It was both an honest answer and the correct one.

 

[Charles_Main]

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 know just because Obama says something does not make it true. His Bill is only Deficit Neutral if the Deficit Committee Can manage to Find Even More Cuts than we were asking, and if we eliminate Charitable Tax Deductions for the Rich.

It's Never as simple as you libs want it to be.

Obama's bill will do almost nothing to help the Private Sector Start to grow again. It is nothing but an attempt to buy a small Blip In GDP growth, and a temporary dip in Unemployment. However the key is it is all Temporary. We don't need more Quick Fix, Feel Good Spending Programs. We need to fix the Problems that are causing the Private Sector to not want to Hire. Period.

Almost Nothing in is Bill addresses that. The Employer Payroll Tax Holiday would help some, but it come at a huge cost. Those are the Taxes that Fund SS and MC and both Programs can not afford to lose anymore Income. The Tax Credit to hire people who have been unemployed for more than 6 Months is a joke. 4 Grand isn't shit in the Grand scheme of how much it Costs a company to hire an Employee, Train them, and then Pay them. Companies are not going to hire just because they get a tax Credit the does not even cover the cost of Hiring and Training. They will only hire when they have Demand.

Other than those the rest of the bill is Nothing but more Infrastructure spending, which of course leads to short term Temporary work for Construction workers, Not Actual Long Term Jobs. Interestingly enough, they go almost exclusively to Union workers. Hmmm? lol

And a bunch of Bailing out states so they can keep Teachers and Cops (Or Bureaucrats - The left never considers laying them off, no it's always the teachers and cops or nothing)that they can not really afford on the job. Which only Encourages the States to NOT try and find a way to live with in their means.

It's a never ending line of BS. Obama and the Dems are using Spending or "Jobs" bills as a whole sale way to take Tax Payer dollars and use them to Reward their Supporters (Unions) and buy Votes.

The First stimulus was about 425 Billion dollars of Borrowed and Printed money one way or another put right into the hands of Democrat Supporters, Now he wants another couple Hundred Billion(About half is tax cuts) to buy more votes with. His 1 Billion dollar campaign Fund isn't enough, he wants to use the US tax Payers to go for a Trillion or so.

Republicans would have to be out of their minds to vote for this bill, You people are out of your minds for wondering why they wont, and Obama is a Lying, Manipulative asshole for Claiming there is no Reason for Republicans not to pass it.

 

[Maple]

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.

It's the same damn bill that he passed last time, the 787 billion dollar one, remember? that has not created any jobs in the private sector, that's what we don't like. It's doubling down on stupid.

 

[oreo]

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.

I think this is it in a NUT-SHELL -and out of Senate democrat majority leader-- Harry Reid's own mouth--trying to promote Obamas jobs bill. "Private sector jobs are doing just fine--it's the public sector jobs--aka government workers that are suffering"

This is Obama's jobs bill. Raise taxes and spend more, to TEMPORARILY create more jobs for teachers and firemen.
Raise taxes on everyone making 200K and over--meaning millions of real job creators in this country known as small business--give it to me--so I can TEMPORARILY employ more firemen-& teachers. This is Obama's round 2 of the original 787 BILLION dollars that belly-flopped.

This is why Obama's jobs bill could not even pass the Democrat majority senate. It's been a failed policy--he borrowed and spent lots of money we don't have to prove it failed--and he simply wants to go for round 2.

Here is Harry Reids comment:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Kk6D1-ECnQ&feature=player_embedded]Sen. Reid Says "Private Sector Jobs Are Doing Just Fine" - YouTube[/ame]


Now while Republicans are constantly being accused of NOT wanting to create private sector jobs--Mitch McConnell republican minority senate speaker stated--well--if we we're really trying to NOT create new private sector jobs in this country--we would simply line up and sign off on Obama's jobs bill. It's obvious that Obama's jobs bill is nothing more than to create temporary government jobs--not private sector jobs where they are desperately needed.

 

[8537]

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.

It's the same damn bill that he passed last time, the 787 billion dollar one, remember? that has not created any jobs in the private sector, that's what we don't like. It's doubling down on stupid.

The private sector has been adding jobs for a year and a half now, adding about 2.7M jobs.

 

[oreo]

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.

It's the same damn bill that he passed last time, the 787 billion dollar one, remember? that has not created any jobs in the private sector, that's what we don't like. It's doubling down on stupid.

The private sector has been adding jobs for a year and a half now, adding about 2.7M jobs.

LINK TO THAT CLAIM----I seem to remember ZERO jobs created in August of 2011--we are still at and STUCK on a statistical 9.1% unemployment rate in this country.

There are 14 million unemployed in this country--real unemployment including those that are no longer counted because they have been kicked off of unemployment benefits--known as the 99 weekers--comes in at an actual unemployment rate of 11.6% and-we have another 25% that are considered underemployed working temporary or part time jobs.


And they're not all road and bridge workers--teachers--firemen or policemen---