A Verdict on Obama's "Stimulus" Plan

[Soggy in NOLA]

It wont phase them they will just rewrite the history and science to suit their historically failed ideas.


Makes one wonder why not just get new ideas.

The truth doesn't really matter to you does it?

How cute, you are the one using ONE biased study in replacement for the vast majority of economists including the non partisan CBO report to deside what you want to believe.


The only thing that matters to yuou apperently is what your partisan hacks say.

Quit placing party over country.

Drinking already?

 

[Truthmatters]

You dont even know who the CBO is do you?

 

[Steve Hanson]

The truth doesn't really matter to you does it?

How cute, you are the one using ONE biased study in replacement for the vast majority of economists including the non partisan CBO report to deside what you want to believe.


The only thing that matters to yuou apperently is what your partisan hacks say.

Quit placing party over country.

Drinking already?

Heavily it seems.

 

[Truthmatters]

Oh here we go with the middle school defense.

They cant refute the facts so its time for them to gather up like clucking chickens and call me silly names.


That is why they cant find a candidate to run.

No one is willing to be the one who had to repete all the talking points needed to please the current R base.


They will look like complete idiots in the light of history.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

How cute, you are the one using ONE biased study in replacement for the vast majority of economists including the non partisan CBO report to deside what you want to believe.


The only thing that matters to yuou apperently is what your partisan hacks say.

Quit placing party over country.

Drinking already?

Heavily it seems.

One can only hope that these brain farts are born out of inebriation and not the norm for this one.

 

[boedicca]

You dont even know who the CBO is do you?

The CBO is not a WHO, it's a WHAT.

And some more information for those who are not reality challenged:

The decline in layoffs is not unexpected and does not necessarily reflect labor-market health. Layoffs tend to occur early in a recession. When an economy has reached bottom and has already shed much of its labor, layoffs slow. But that doesn't mean that the labor force is recovering. We could have high unemployment and a stagnant labor force even when layoffs are low. Isn't the fact that hires exceed separations indicative of a healthy labor market? Unfortunately, no.

At any point in the business cycle, even during a recession, American firms still hire a huge number of workers. That's because most of the action in the labor market reflects "churn," the continual process of replacing workers, not net expansion or contraction of employment. The lowest number hired in any month of the current recession was 3.6 million workers. Even during the dismal year of 2009 there were more than 45 million hires.

Bear in mind that the U.S. labor force has more than 150 million workers or job seekers. In a typical year, about one-third or more of the work force turns over, leaving their old jobs to take new ones. When the labor market creates 200,000 jobs, it is because five million are hired and 4.8 million are separated, not because there were 200,000 hires and no job losses. When we're talking about numbers as large as five million, the net of 200,000 is small and may reflect minor, month-to-month variations in the number of hires or separations.

The third fact puts this in perspective. In a healthy labor market like the one that prevailed in 2006 and early 2007, American firms hire about 5.5 million workers per month. Recall that the current number of hires is four million and it has not moved much from where it was two years ago. The labor market does not feel like it is expanding if hiring is not occurring at a recovery-level pace—and that means at least a half million more hires per month than we are seeing now.

The combination of low hiring and a large stock of unemployed workers, now 13.7 million, means that the competition for jobs is fierce. Because there are now many more unemployed workers, and because hiring is only about 70% of 2006 levels, a worker is about one-third as likely to find a job today as he or she was in 2006. It is no wonder that workers do not feel that the labor market has recovered.

Edward P. Lazear: Why the Job Market Feels So Dismal - WSJ.com

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Oh here we go with the middle school defense.

They cant refute the facts so its time for them to gather up like clucking chickens and call me silly names.


That is why they cant find a candidate to run.

No one is willing to be the one who had to repete all the talking points needed to please the current R base.


They will look like complete idiots in the light of history.

You look like an idiot every time you hit "Submit Reply"

Seriously...

 

[grunt11b]

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/110xx/doc11044/02-23-ARRA.pdf

The CBO long ago said it worked

Well, if they said it then it must be true.

 

[Truthmatters]

you dont even know who the cbo is do you?

the cbo is not a who, it's a what.

And some more information for those who are not reality challenged:

the decline in layoffs is not unexpected and does not necessarily reflect labor-market health. Layoffs tend to occur early in a recession. When an economy has reached bottom and has already shed much of its labor, layoffs slow. But that doesn't mean that the labor force is recovering. We could have high unemployment and a stagnant labor force even when layoffs are low. Isn't the fact that hires exceed separations indicative of a healthy labor market? Unfortunately, no.

At any point in the business cycle, even during a recession, american firms still hire a huge number of workers. That's because most of the action in the labor market reflects "churn," the continual process of replacing workers, not net expansion or contraction of employment. The lowest number hired in any month of the current recession was 3.6 million workers. Even during the dismal year of 2009 there were more than 45 million hires.

Bear in mind that the u.s. Labor force has more than 150 million workers or job seekers. In a typical year, about one-third or more of the work force turns over, leaving their old jobs to take new ones. When the labor market creates 200,000 jobs, it is because five million are hired and 4.8 million are separated, not because there were 200,000 hires and no job losses. When we're talking about numbers as large as five million, the net of 200,000 is small and may reflect minor, month-to-month variations in the number of hires or separations.

the third fact puts this in perspective. In a healthy labor market like the one that prevailed in 2006 and early 2007, american firms hire about 5.5 million workers per month. Recall that the current number of hires is four million and it has not moved much from where it was two years ago. The labor market does not feel like it is expanding if hiring is not occurring at a recovery-level pace—and that means at least a half million more hires per month than we are seeing now.

the combination of low hiring and a large stock of unemployed workers, now 13.7 million, means that the competition for jobs is fierce. Because there are now many more unemployed workers, and because hiring is only about 70% of 2006 levels, a worker is about one-third as likely to find a job today as he or she was in 2006. It is no wonder that workers do not feel that the labor market has recovered.

edward p. Lazear: Why the job market feels so dismal - wsj.com

opinion

 

[Steve Hanson]

Oh here we go with the middle school defense.

They cant refute the facts so its time for them to gather up like clucking chickens and call me silly names.


That is why they cant find a candidate to run.

No one is willing to be the one who had to repete all the talking points needed to please the current R base.


They will look like complete idiots in the light of history.

Truthmatters is a silly name. Especially when you try to apply it to you. I'll bet your dog has fleas.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Yeah, worked great.... $14,000,000,000,000 debt, 50,000,000+ unemployed, inflation, $5 gas, $1,500,000,000,000 deficits... yeah BRAVO!

 

[Truthmatters]

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/110xx/doc11044/02-23-ARRA.pdf

The CBO long ago said it worked

Well, if they said it then it must be true.

So you think two guys are better than the CBO?

 

[Truthmatters]

Oh here we go with the middle school defense.

They cant refute the facts so its time for them to gather up like clucking chickens and call me silly names.


That is why they cant find a candidate to run.

No one is willing to be the one who had to repete all the talking points needed to please the current R base.


They will look like complete idiots in the light of history.

Truthmatters is a silly name. Especially when you try to apply it to you. I'll bet your dog has fleas.

Care to discuss the issue or just call names?

 

[Steve Hanson]

[/SIZE][/B]

you dont even know who the cbo is do you?

the cbo is not a who, it's a what.

And some more information for those who are not reality challenged:

the decline in layoffs is not unexpected and does not necessarily reflect labor-market health. Layoffs tend to occur early in a recession. When an economy has reached bottom and has already shed much of its labor, layoffs slow. But that doesn't mean that the labor force is recovering. We could have high unemployment and a stagnant labor force even when layoffs are low. Isn't the fact that hires exceed separations indicative of a healthy labor market? Unfortunately, no.

At any point in the business cycle, even during a recession, american firms still hire a huge number of workers. That's because most of the action in the labor market reflects "churn," the continual process of replacing workers, not net expansion or contraction of employment. The lowest number hired in any month of the current recession was 3.6 million workers. Even during the dismal year of 2009 there were more than 45 million hires.

Bear in mind that the u.s. Labor force has more than 150 million workers or job seekers. In a typical year, about one-third or more of the work force turns over, leaving their old jobs to take new ones. When the labor market creates 200,000 jobs, it is because five million are hired and 4.8 million are separated, not because there were 200,000 hires and no job losses. When we're talking about numbers as large as five million, the net of 200,000 is small and may reflect minor, month-to-month variations in the number of hires or separations.

the third fact puts this in perspective. In a healthy labor market like the one that prevailed in 2006 and early 2007, american firms hire about 5.5 million workers per month. Recall that the current number of hires is four million and it has not moved much from where it was two years ago. The labor market does not feel like it is expanding if hiring is not occurring at a recovery-level pace—and that means at least a half million more hires per month than we are seeing now.

the combination of low hiring and a large stock of unemployed workers, now 13.7 million, means that the competition for jobs is fierce. Because there are now many more unemployed workers, and because hiring is only about 70% of 2006 levels, a worker is about one-third as likely to find a job today as he or she was in 2006. It is no wonder that workers do not feel that the labor market has recovered.

edward p. Lazear: Why the job market feels so dismal - wsj.com

opinion

Retard

 

[boedicca]

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/110xx/doc11044/02-23-ARRA.pdf

The CBO long ago said it worked

Well, if they said it then it must be true.

So you think two guys are better than the CBO?

The CBO only scores what Congress gives them to score.

That's how OBAMACARE was shown to save money.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Oh here we go with the middle school defense.

They cant refute the facts so its time for them to gather up like clucking chickens and call me silly names.


That is why they cant find a candidate to run.

No one is willing to be the one who had to repete all the talking points needed to please the current R base.


They will look like complete idiots in the light of history.

Truthmatters is a silly name. Especially when you try to apply it to you. I'll bet your dog has fleas.

Care to discuss the issue or just call names?

I think you've been accorded all the seriousness you deserve.

 

[Steve Hanson]

Oh here we go with the middle school defense.

They cant refute the facts so its time for them to gather up like clucking chickens and call me silly names.


That is why they cant find a candidate to run.

No one is willing to be the one who had to repete all the talking points needed to please the current R base.


They will look like complete idiots in the light of history.

Truthmatters is a silly name. Especially when you try to apply it to you. I'll bet your dog has fleas.

Care to discuss the issue or just call names?

Maybe when you actualy start discussing issues instead of being a left wing hack.

 

[Gadawg73]

1. The plan stimulated the wallets of those that received $ from it.
2. The plan takes from the wallets from our kids and grand kids.

 

[boedicca]

Bingo.

Our Big Government's purpose is to mug the relatively powerless in favor of its cronies.

 

[grunt11b]

[/SIZE][/B]

the cbo is not a who, it's a what.

And some more information for those who are not reality challenged:

the decline in layoffs is not unexpected and does not necessarily reflect labor-market health. Layoffs tend to occur early in a recession. When an economy has reached bottom and has already shed much of its labor, layoffs slow. But that doesn't mean that the labor force is recovering. We could have high unemployment and a stagnant labor force even when layoffs are low. Isn't the fact that hires exceed separations indicative of a healthy labor market? Unfortunately, no.

At any point in the business cycle, even during a recession, american firms still hire a huge number of workers. That's because most of the action in the labor market reflects "churn," the continual process of replacing workers, not net expansion or contraction of employment. The lowest number hired in any month of the current recession was 3.6 million workers. Even during the dismal year of 2009 there were more than 45 million hires.

Bear in mind that the u.s. Labor force has more than 150 million workers or job seekers. In a typical year, about one-third or more of the work force turns over, leaving their old jobs to take new ones. When the labor market creates 200,000 jobs, it is because five million are hired and 4.8 million are separated, not because there were 200,000 hires and no job losses. When we're talking about numbers as large as five million, the net of 200,000 is small and may reflect minor, month-to-month variations in the number of hires or separations.

the third fact puts this in perspective. In a healthy labor market like the one that prevailed in 2006 and early 2007, american firms hire about 5.5 million workers per month. Recall that the current number of hires is four million and it has not moved much from where it was two years ago. The labor market does not feel like it is expanding if hiring is not occurring at a recovery-level pace—and that means at least a half million more hires per month than we are seeing now.

the combination of low hiring and a large stock of unemployed workers, now 13.7 million, means that the competition for jobs is fierce. Because there are now many more unemployed workers, and because hiring is only about 70% of 2006 levels, a worker is about one-third as likely to find a job today as he or she was in 2006. It is no wonder that workers do not feel that the labor market has recovered.

edward p. Lazear: Why the job market feels so dismal - wsj.com

opinion

Retard