WTF Is A Jobless Recovery?????

[Toro]

You need to get your story straight. Ether Bush caused "The Worst Economy Since The Great Depression" during his 8 years or he didn't. Make up your fucken mind.

The Recession during Bush's first term started in 1999.

Obama didn't cause this recession by himself.....he had help.

His policies are making it worse.


Secondly....who owned Congress in December of 07'.

That is the answer to what caused this Recession.

You have no idea what you are talking about.

GDP grew 4.8% in 1999, Einstein.

http://www.bea.gov/national/xls/gdplev.xls

The National Bureau of Economic Research, the organization that dates recessions, dated the recession beginning in March 2001.

Click this link to clear up your ignorance!

So feel free to show us where you get 1999.

Like I said, don't pay attention to hyperpartisans. Facts are optional to them.

 

[pinqy]

So feel free to show us where you get 1999.

Like I said, don't pay attention to hyperpartisans. Facts are optional to them.

I'm still waiting to hear how he got "over 6 million jobs lost." I think we'll both be waiting a while.

 

[Polk]

Rabbi
How do you know he has made the recession worse....can you support this theory or opinion of yours with any kind of fact?

I don't see how any one can determine such, without it being just speculation or opinion....?

if you have some good analysis or facts that can legitimately back that up, I would love to see them.

He can't. He doesn't like Obama, so he "feels" Obama has made things worse. And for conservatives, feelings are what matters.

Except I provided the proof. Guess you're wrong. Again.

Posting a right-wing op-ed doesn't constitute "proof".

 

[Polk]

Wrong....Bush entered office in the middle of a Recession....then 9/11 happened and it only made things worse. Usually there is a slight dip in the economy whenever a new President enters office anyway.

This whole "9/11 tanked the economy" narrative is one right-wingers have long pimped to excuse the lack of job growth, but it just doesn't mesh with reality. If 9/11 had such a huge negative impact on the economy, why did the trough of the recession occur two months later?

 

[Polk]

You need to get your story straight. Ether Bush caused "The Worst Economy Since The Great Depression" during his 8 years or he didn't. Make up your fucken mind.

The Recession during Bush's first term started in 1999.

Obama didn't cause this recession by himself.....he had help.

His policies are making it worse.


Secondly....who owned Congress in December of 07'.

That is the answer to what caused this Recession.

You have no idea what you are talking about.

GDP grew 4.8% in 1999, Einstein.

http://www.bea.gov/national/xls/gdplev.xls

The National Bureau of Economic Research, the organization that dates recessions, dated the recession beginning in March 2001.

Click this link to clear up your ignorance!

So feel free to show us where you get 1999.

Like I said, don't pay attention to hyperpartisans. Facts are optional to them.

Indeed. While government policy can surely impact the economy, it can't control it.

 

[Polk]

So feel free to show us where you get 1999.

Like I said, don't pay attention to hyperpartisans. Facts are optional to them.

I'm still waiting to hear how he got "over 6 million jobs lost." I think we'll both be waiting a while.

Hell will freeze over first.

 

[The Rabbi]

He can't. He doesn't like Obama, so he "feels" Obama has made things worse. And for conservatives, feelings are what matters.

Except I provided the proof. Guess you're wrong. Again.

Posting a right-wing op-ed doesn't constitute "proof".

So now sound economics is called "right wing op ed" in your book? You are showing your party hack colors daily here.
In fact, different policy options would have produced very different results. Something that actually encouraged businesses to hire workers by making it cheaper would really have yielded results. Much more so thatn the "spend our way out of bankruptcy" approach that has yielded nothing but waste and fraud and huge deficits.

 

[Polk]

Except I provided the proof. Guess you're wrong. Again.

Posting a right-wing op-ed doesn't constitute "proof".

So now sound economics is called "right wing op ed" in your book? You are showing your party hack colors daily here.
In fact, different policy options would have produced very different results. Something that actually encouraged businesses to hire workers by making it cheaper would really have yielded results. Much more so thatn the "spend our way out of bankruptcy" approach that has yielded nothing but waste and fraud and huge deficits.

It's not sound economics. The policies suggested in the op-ed you post (PS, it's a right-wing op-ed because it's an article from the editorial page and it promotes a right-wing position) are less effective measures of stimulating the economy than direct spending.

 

[The Rabbi]

Posting a right-wing op-ed doesn't constitute "proof".

So now sound economics is called "right wing op ed" in your book? You are showing your party hack colors daily here.
In fact, different policy options would have produced very different results. Something that actually encouraged businesses to hire workers by making it cheaper would really have yielded results. Much more so thatn the "spend our way out of bankruptcy" approach that has yielded nothing but waste and fraud and huge deficits.

It's not sound economics. The policies suggested in the op-ed you post (PS, it's a right-wing op-ed because it's an article from the editorial page and it promotes a right-wing position) are less effective measures of stimulating the economy than direct spending.

SO sound economics is a right wing position? I'd agree! That makes left wing policies, what?
We see how effective "direct spending" has been. That was the point of the editorial.

 

[Polk]

So now sound economics is called "right wing op ed" in your book? You are showing your party hack colors daily here.
In fact, different policy options would have produced very different results. Something that actually encouraged businesses to hire workers by making it cheaper would really have yielded results. Much more so thatn the "spend our way out of bankruptcy" approach that has yielded nothing but waste and fraud and huge deficits.

It's not sound economics. The policies suggested in the op-ed you post (PS, it's a right-wing op-ed because it's an article from the editorial page and it promotes a right-wing position) are less effective measures of stimulating the economy than direct spending.

SO sound economics is a right wing position? I'd agree! That makes left wing policies, what?
We see how effective "direct spending" has been. That was the point of the editorial.

His policy isn't sound economics. And direct spending has been quite effective. GDP is significantly above where it would be otherwise and it's saved jobs.

CBO report: Stimulus package saved or created as many as 1.6 million jobs - The Hill's Blog Briefing Room

 

[elvis]

It's not sound economics. The policies suggested in the op-ed you post (PS, it's a right-wing op-ed because it's an article from the editorial page and it promotes a right-wing position) are less effective measures of stimulating the economy than direct spending.

SO sound economics is a right wing position? I'd agree! That makes left wing policies, what?
We see how effective "direct spending" has been. That was the point of the editorial.

His policy isn't sound economics. And direct spending has been quite effective. GDP is significantly above where it would be otherwise and it's saved jobs.

CBO report: Stimulus package saved or created as many as 1.6 million jobs - The Hill's Blog Briefing Room

we're supposed to believe a blog?

 

[The Rabbi]

It's not sound economics. The policies suggested in the op-ed you post (PS, it's a right-wing op-ed because it's an article from the editorial page and it promotes a right-wing position) are less effective measures of stimulating the economy than direct spending.

SO sound economics is a right wing position? I'd agree! That makes left wing policies, what?
We see how effective "direct spending" has been. That was the point of the editorial.

His policy isn't sound economics. And direct spending has been quite effective. GDP is significantly above where it would be otherwise and it's saved jobs.

CBO report: Stimulus package saved or created as many as 1.6 million jobs - The Hill's Blog Briefing Room

GDP rose because it measures government spending among other things. In fact, that was the only component that did rise.
ANd the "saved or created" meme should be one of the most discredited phrases in history. The stimulus cost jobs. Government cannot create wealth, it can only redistribute it. Gov't spending provides a multiplier of less than one.

 

[Polk]

SO sound economics is a right wing position? I'd agree! That makes left wing policies, what?
We see how effective "direct spending" has been. That was the point of the editorial.

His policy isn't sound economics. And direct spending has been quite effective. GDP is significantly above where it would be otherwise and it's saved jobs.

CBO report: Stimulus package saved or created as many as 1.6 million jobs - The Hill's Blog Briefing Room

we're supposed to believe a blog?

The Hill is a daily newspaper which covers Congress.

 

[Polk]

SO sound economics is a right wing position? I'd agree! That makes left wing policies, what?
We see how effective "direct spending" has been. That was the point of the editorial.

His policy isn't sound economics. And direct spending has been quite effective. GDP is significantly above where it would be otherwise and it's saved jobs.

CBO report: Stimulus package saved or created as many as 1.6 million jobs - The Hill's Blog Briefing Room

GDP rose because it measures government spending among other things. In fact, that was the only component that did rise.
ANd the "saved or created" meme should be one of the most discredited phrases in history. The stimulus cost jobs. Government cannot create wealth, it can only redistribute it. Gov't spending provides a multiplier of less than one.

I deal in numbers, not in feelings. If you'd like to give an explanation from an actual source showing why the CBO numbers are not accurate, I'd gladly listen. That you won't do so only shows your claim of credibility, as does your outlandish claim that government spending as a multiplier of less than one. Even someone like Mankiw, who feels that tax cuts have a higher multiplier, states that government spending has a multiplier higher than one.

 

[The Rabbi]

tually it's quoting a CBO report.
The report is totally bogus:

The nonpartisan CBO said in a legally mandated report that the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) had resulted in between 600,000 and 1.6 million jobs for the U.S. economy that wouldn't have existed in the absence of the stimulus.

Now, what kind of discrepency is there between 600k and 1.6M? If you can't measure something more exactly than that the number is pretty well made up. But the report did not count jobs that were allegedly created in districts that dont exist, or jobs that were created because someone bought a lawnmower, or any of the other evidence of fraud, waste, and mismanagement we have seen.

And look at some of the comments on the article.

 

[The Rabbi]

His policy isn't sound economics. And direct spending has been quite effective. GDP is significantly above where it would be otherwise and it's saved jobs.

CBO report: Stimulus package saved or created as many as 1.6 million jobs - The Hill's Blog Briefing Room

GDP rose because it measures government spending among other things. In fact, that was the only component that did rise.
ANd the "saved or created" meme should be one of the most discredited phrases in history. The stimulus cost jobs. Government cannot create wealth, it can only redistribute it. Gov't spending provides a multiplier of less than one.

I deal in numbers, not in feelings. If you'd like to give an explanation from an actual source showing why the CBO numbers are not accurate, I'd gladly listen. Until then, you lack credibility.

You deal in party hackism. I already told you why your argument is bogus: Claiming an increase in GDP due to government spending, where GDP measures government spending is a tautology.

 

[Polk]

tually it's quoting a CBO report.
The report is totally bogus:

The nonpartisan CBO said in a legally mandated report that the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) had resulted in between 600,000 and 1.6 million jobs for the U.S. economy that wouldn't have existed in the absence of the stimulus.

Now, what kind of discrepency is there between 600k and 1.6M? If you can't measure something more exactly than that the number is pretty well made up. But the report did not count jobs that were allegedly created in districts that dont exist, or jobs that were created because someone bought a lawnmower, or any of the other evidence of fraud, waste, and mismanagement we have seen.

And look at some of the comments on the article.

CBO estimates are based on calculations, not sitting around adding up reports coming up. And yes, any calculation has a margin of error.

 

[Polk]

GDP rose because it measures government spending among other things. In fact, that was the only component that did rise.
ANd the "saved or created" meme should be one of the most discredited phrases in history. The stimulus cost jobs. Government cannot create wealth, it can only redistribute it. Gov't spending provides a multiplier of less than one.

I deal in numbers, not in feelings. If you'd like to give an explanation from an actual source showing why the CBO numbers are not accurate, I'd gladly listen. Until then, you lack credibility.

You deal in party hackism. I already told you why your argument is bogus: Claiming an increase in GDP due to government spending, where GDP measures government spending is a tautology.

Being called a hack by the high priest of the church of "Bush good, Obama bad" is pretty funny.

 

[The Rabbi]

tually it's quoting a CBO report.
The report is totally bogus:

The nonpartisan CBO said in a legally mandated report that the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) had resulted in between 600,000 and 1.6 million jobs for the U.S. economy that wouldn't have existed in the absence of the stimulus.

Now, what kind of discrepency is there between 600k and 1.6M? If you can't measure something more exactly than that the number is pretty well made up. But the report did not count jobs that were allegedly created in districts that dont exist, or jobs that were created because someone bought a lawnmower, or any of the other evidence of fraud, waste, and mismanagement we have seen.

And look at some of the comments on the article.

CBO estimates are based on calculations, not sitting around adding up reports coming up. And yes, any calculation has a margin of error.

Over 100%??? That isn't a margin of error. That is an error. So the CBO is unsure about 1M jobs that may or may not have been created
And what calculations are they based on? As one person commented, their methodology makes assumtpions that turn out to be self serving. They assume a multiplier and then plug it back into equation. But their assumption is wrong. The multiplier is less than one, meaning that every dollar spent is a drag on the economy, not a stimulus.

 

[The Rabbi]

I deal in numbers, not in feelings. If you'd like to give an explanation from an actual source showing why the CBO numbers are not accurate, I'd gladly listen. Until then, you lack credibility.

You deal in party hackism. I already told you why your argument is bogus: Claiming an increase in GDP due to government spending, where GDP measures government spending is a tautology.

Being called a hack by the high priest of the church of "Bush good, Obama bad" is pretty funny.

Please cite anyplace where I wrote "Bush good, Obama bad."
Another lie from the left.