CBO: Stimulus "a net drag on the economy"

[rdean]

Don't the citizens from the repub districts pay taxes? Why shouldn't they get gov't funding, regardless of the party their elected reps belong to. Tell me, should we only fund projects in districts where the elected rep voted for the bill? Oh yeah, that'll hold down spending.

There's no hypocrisy here, those repubs voted for what their constituents wanted and then did what they're supposed to do, fund needed projects in their districts.

Moron. No one said they shouldn't receive funds. What the **** is wrong with you people?

The hypocrisy is voting against the package, taking the money, creating jobs AND THEN SAYING NO JOBS WERE CREATED. Get it? It's the lies that's wrong. Did that really need to be spelled out. You guys make me lose my temper with this "determined ignorance".

When I see that we have a couple million fewer employed people now than we did in Jan 2009, I tend to have a problem with some jackhole liberal who claims millions of jobs were created.

That's because Bush and the Republicans handed the current president an economy losing 750,000 jobs a month.

Why "tarp".

Can't you people run on Republican successes instead of lies?

Oh, that's right. Unless you call the damage Republicans have done to the country "success", they don't have any.

 

[Wiseacre]

Moron. No one said they shouldn't receive funds. What the **** is wrong with you people?

The hypocrisy is voting against the package, taking the money, creating jobs AND THEN SAYING NO JOBS WERE CREATED. Get it? It's the lies that's wrong. Did that really need to be spelled out. You guys make me lose my temper with this "determined ignorance".

When I see that we have a couple million fewer employed people now than we did in Jan 2009, I tend to have a problem with some jackhole liberal who claims millions of jobs were created.

That's because Bush and the Republicans handed the current president an economy losing 750,000 jobs a month.

Why "tarp".

Can't you people run on Republican successes instead of lies?

Oh, that's right. Unless you call the damage Republicans have done to the country "success", they don't have any.

Not a whole lot of success lately by either party. That's cuz the minority part always tries to obstruct the opposition majority, and don't give me any crap that it's only the repubs that do it.

Obama had a bullet proof Congress when he took over and he fucked it up. His policies failed, or at best did not work as well as they were advertised. You can claim things woulda been a lot worse otherwise, but not many people will agree with you, other than leftwing ideologues.

 

[Listening]

Moron. No one said they shouldn't receive funds. What the **** is wrong with you people?

The hypocrisy is voting against the package, taking the money, creating jobs AND THEN SAYING NO JOBS WERE CREATED. Get it? It's the lies that's wrong. Did that really need to be spelled out. You guys make me lose my temper with this "determined ignorance".

When I see that we have a couple million fewer employed people now than we did in Jan 2009, I tend to have a problem with some jackhole liberal who claims millions of jobs were created.

That's because Bush and the Republicans handed the current president an economy losing 750,000 jobs a month.

Why "tarp".

Can't you people run on Republican successes instead of lies?

Oh, that's right. Unless you call the damage Republicans have done to the country "success", they don't have any.

There are pills for your condition.....

Wha wha wha wha wha.....20 years from now "It's Bush's fault".

Can you please supply a calendar date as to when you morons are going to step up and take responsibility for the Moron in Chief you used to replace the previous moron ?

 

[Chris]

 

[Chris]

 

[Chris]

 

[Quantum Windbag]

So you had to do it. You made me go find out what he actually said.

He said that at the end of ten years, the stimulus could have a negative impact on the GDP without further action.

The operative words being "without further action".

Not only that, but the estimate is the stimulus led directly to the creation of 3 million jobs.

Now, if you don't believe that, there are 114 Republican Congressmen who voted against the stimulus but took stimulus money to create thousands of jobs in their districts. We sit in front of the Internet. Easy as can be to find out the names of Republicans who voted against the stimulus, created jobs, took credit for the jobs, then said the stimulus they used to create jobs didn't create any jobs. How do they keep track of all the lies?

Republicans Voting Against Stimulus Then Asked Obama for Money - Bloomberg

Alan Simpson, a former Republican senator from Wyoming named by President Barack Obama as co-chairman of a new deficit- reduction commission, said about-faces on government funding aren’t surprising.

“It’s the original sin of Washington -- it’s hypocrisy,” Simpson said. “You can’t do that then say you go out and cut the other stuff.”

I posted a video of what he said, why did you have to look it up?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I love how righties perk up when the CBO says something to their liking - otherwise the CBO is shit to them.

It remains debatable what the true long-term effects of the stimulus will be. However, it helped prevent a Second Great Depression in the short-term.

It is interesting how lefties love the CBO when they agree with them, and hate it otherwise. I, on the other hand, will point out that the CBO makes its estimates based on the exact same formulas I disparaged earlier. That means that, if the CBO is right, and the stimulus actuall created the jobs they say it did, the stimulus is bad for the economy in the long run. If, on the other hand, it did not create the millions of jobs the CBO claims, it is even worse for the economy. That means that, no matter what, the stimulus is bad, just less bad if they are right.

 

[Listening]

Wow, Chris...you really are an idiot.

The market recovered. It didn't do anything special. It had already been there.

Now, during the Reagan years, the Dow went from about 800 to nearly 3000. News Flash, when it broke 1000 people were amazed....it had never been there before.

Sorry to ruin your world.

President Obama is nothing special. In fact, it would be great if he were just average and not the Bush look-alike he has turned out to be.

Reagan takes the dow to new heights......

Well, like the President has anything to do with it anyway.

You really are stupid.

 

[Listening]

Why don't you ever post a graph of the unemployment level over his admin ?

Hhhhmmmmmm......

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I love how righties perk up when the CBO says something to their liking - otherwise the CBO is shit to them.

It remains debatable what the true long-term effects of the stimulus will be. However, it helped prevent a Second Great Depression in the short-term.

Not really. We just know more than you. At any rate, the CBO is not the problem. The CBO does exactly what it is told to do. Congress is the problem. For instance, when some hack in Congress wants to make "Obamacare" look like it is "deficit neutral"- they start with 10 years of taking in taxes, and only 4 years of paying benefits. They then have the CBO crunch the numbers. The CBO comes back and says VIOLA!! - Obamacare is "deficit neutral". The results are SHIT and everyone knows it. But it is not the fault of the CBO- they just do what they are told to do.

Everything the right disagrees with is "shit". That includes "facts", "evidence", studies", and "reality".

Didn't you just dismiss something I posted as shit because you disagreed with it? Do you think the Bulletin of Atomic Scientist is a right wing group?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/scien...the-myth-of-renewable-energy.html#post4453270

 

[Listening]

I love how righties perk up when the CBO says something to their liking - otherwise the CBO is shit to them.

It remains debatable what the true long-term effects of the stimulus will be. However, it helped prevent a Second Great Depression in the short-term.

And it reversed the rotation of a planet in a solar system we can't see yet.

That is more provable than your left wing idiot assertion about staving off a great depression.

Don't you ever get tired of sounding like Bozo the Clown ?

 

[Listening]

A bump for the boat anchor stimulus package.

 

[Truthseeker420]

The political views of The Washington Times are often described as conservative.[2][3][4] The Washington Post reported: "the Times was established by Moon to combat communism and be a conservative alternative to what he perceived as the liberal bias of The Washington Post."[1] In 1994 Reed Irvine, chairman of Accuracy in Media, a media watchdog group, said: "The Washington Times is one of the few newspapers in the country that provides some balance."

Commentator Paul Weyrich has called the Times an antidote to its liberal competitor:


The Washington Post became very arrogant and they just decided that they would determine what was news and what wasn't news and they wouldn't cover a lot of things that went on. And the Washington Times has forced the Post to cover a lot of things that they wouldn't cover if the Times wasn't in existence.[51]

In 1999 the Times was criticized by the Daily Howler for misquoting vice-president Al Gore.[52] In 2000 the Howler criticized the Times again, this time for making unsubstantiated allegations about Gore's campaign fundraising.[53] In 2004 the Howler criticized a Times' front page story which made fun of Democratic Party presidential candidate John Kerry's vacationing in France.[54]

Conservative-turned-liberal writer David Brock, who worked for the Times' sister publication Insight on the News, said in his 2002 book Blinded by the Right that the news writers at the Times were encouraged and rewarded for giving news stories a conservative slant. In his 2004 book The Republican Noise Machine, Brock wrote "the Washington Times was governed by a calculatedly unfair political bias" and that its journalistic ethics were "close to nil."[55]

In 2007, Mother Jones said that the Times had become "essential reading for political news junkies" soon after its founding, and quoted James Gavin, special assistant to Bo Hi Pak:


We're trying to combat communism and we're trying to uphold traditional Judeo-Christian values. The Washington Times is standing up for those values and fighting anything that would tear them down. Causa is doing the same thing, by explaining what the enemy is trying to do.[56]

In a 2008 essay published in Harper's Magazine, historian Thomas Frank linked the Times to the modern American conservative movement, saying:
There is even a daily newspaper—the Washington Times—published strictly for the movement’s benefit, a propaganda sheet whose distortions are so obvious and so alien that it puts one in mind of those official party organs one encounters when traveling in authoritarian countries.[57]
In 2009 the New York Times reported:


With its conservative editorial bent, the paper also became a crucial training ground for many rising conservative journalists and a must-read for those in the movement. A veritable who’s who of conservatives — Tony Blankley, Frank J. Gaffney Jr., Larry Kudlow, John Podhoretz and Tony Snow — has churned out copy for its pages.[38]

The Times has generally opposed gay and transgender rights.[58] In 2010, the Times published an editorial opposing the Employment Non-Discrimination Act because it granted legal protective status for transgender people.[59][60][61] The editorial criticized transgender people and said that gender identity can be a choice, not an innate characteristic.[59]

The Washington Times - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Listening]

Yes, I will listen to what David Brock has to say !

 

[Listening]

Dear Barack: It's Time To Give Up On The Stimulus - Forbes

Well, if you look at that graph again right now, you will notice that Romer and Bernstein predicted that, in the first quarter of 2014, the unemployment rate would be 5.0% whether the stimulus bill was passed or not. This means that the architects of Obama’s stimulus program were predicting that the $787 billion would produce no long-term benefit, just some temporary jobs during the 2Q2009 – 4Q2013 period. Given that the analysis derived total employment from real GDP, the graph also implied that by 1Q2014, real GDP would also be the same in both cases.


It is possible to calculate from the two unemployment curves approximately how many job-years of temporary employment Romer and Bernstein were forecasting would be created by their stimulus program. The answer is, “6.5 million job-years”. If you divide this number into the $787 billion cost, you get $121,300 per job-year.

To put this number in perspective, the average yearly wage for private sector full-time workers during the stimulus period was about $45,500/year. In other words, the plan was to spend more than two and a half times the average yearly private sector wage to create each temporary stimulus job. And, this was a plan that predicted that 90% of the jobs that it created would be in the private sector.

 

[Truthmatters]

it may have sustained as few as 700,000 jobs at its peak last year.

take all of this article as cold hard fact and a GREAT analysis of what happened OK?

NOW you have to admitt that the stimulus kept us from a great depression.

Without it wwe would have lost 700,000 more jobs in the first year of this recession.


It would have been mayhem.


**** the attempts to say the stim did nothing huh?


When your half your house is blown down in a tornado and you have to spend money to rebuild it that will effect your income for years to come huh?

Would it be better to just live in a house without some walls?

 

[Truthmatters]

Thank you all for admitting the stimulus saved hundereds of thousands of peoples lives from great disruption and the money they spent in the economy because they had a job helped many others.

 

[Truthmatters]

republicans just cant win can they

 

[Truthmatters]

awe little TM is just to scary with all her facts and stuff for you to answer?