Obamateurism of the Year ?

[PoliticalChic]

Except I don't think he was talking about media outlets (although we all know they too get away with false information every day, don't we). I think he was talking about the FALSE information being portrayed as truth and the gullibility of many Americans who believe it.

No he wasn't. He was attacking media outlets that don't promote the Progressive Memes.

Evidence: his frequent attacks on Fox and conservative radio.

Bingo! Thank you. CNN doesn't "promote" progressive agendas, nor do any of the 3 half-hour networks.

What??


If you have the time, you might pick up Arnaud de Borchgrave's "The Spike" which is an entertaining example of how news media slant the news, not only by what they say...but what they don't report.

I think Orwell said the same.

 

[Trajan]

Of course every economic indicator says otherwise, and every economist says otherwise, and they also have produced no other alternative, but you go right ahead and believe what you must.

I call Shenanigans.

Please provide a credible economic analysis which proves that Obamanomics is a success.

PolitiFact | A stimulus report card

In a report released on Jan. 13, 2010, the president's Council of Economic Advisers estimated that between 1.77 million jobs and 2.07 million jobs were created or saved by the stimulus through the fourth quarter of 2009.

To back up that claim, the council's report cited four independent analyses of the same question. These estimates were by the Congressional Budget Office, an independent agency that does the number-crunching for Congress, as well by three private sector economic-analysis firms. Here's what those groups found:

-- CBO: Between 800,000 jobs and 2.4 million jobs.

-- IHS/Global Insight: 1.25 million jobs

-- Macroeconomic Advisers: 1.06 million jobs

-- Moody's economy.com: 1.59 million jobs

So Obama has cherry-picked the highest number of the most favorable estimates. For him to be right about 2 million jobs having been created or saved would mean using the highest end of the administration's own range, or the highest end of the CBO's range. Indeed, leaving the CEA's analysis out of it and looking only at the independent estimates, you get an average of 1.38 million jobs created or saved, which is about 30 percent lower than the president's 2 million-job-benchmark.

However, if you fast-forward the employment estimates by one quarter -- to the first quarter of 2010 -- the numbers creep closer to what Obama and other Democrats are suggesting. Using updated estimates provided to PolitiFact, IHS/Global Insight estimates that 1.7 million jobs will be created or saved during the first quarter of 2010. And Moody's economy.com estimated that 1.9 million jobs will be created or saved by that quarter.

maggie, if I told you that I was going to hire you and your pay would be between 8 and 24 dollars, what would you say to me?

The cbo's estimate is, well, not very 'good'. IF they cannot narrow this down below a400% fudge factor, I'd say those stats are not worth using. I saw one from them where in they said 1.4 mill to 3.4 mill.

Thats not a calculus I would make a bet on or use .and yes, thats me.*shrugs*

Now did the gov. create jobs? Yes in the gov. and I am sure they added a couple hundred thousand in the gov, and perhaps 2-300 k in the private sector, but a data set with a variance that huge is next to worthless, and they should just stay out if it imho. They apparently cannot quantify the number and they know it, so they gave us this. They cannot provide a list of these jobs, which is why the estimate is so huge.

And I am sure they saved jobs as well, this we know. and that has its own blow back.




In the end lets say okay we'll use the figure that illustrates a high degree of oomph. so lets use the mid way mark of 1.6.now, at a trillion dollars, how much a job is that?
AND we do not know what the jobs are so we don't know how long they HAVE lasted or WILL last.

 

[mal]

Punish our Enemies...



peace...

 

[Queen]

I was quite entertained by that bullshit he came out with (I think it was in September, in Cleveland) when he said that job growth between 2000 and 2008 was slower than it had been in any economic expansion since World War II.

What do you have against this truthful statement?

You republicans really hate facts and numbers don't you?

 

[boedicca]

Of course every economic indicator says otherwise, and every economist says otherwise, and they also have produced no other alternative, but you go right ahead and believe what you must.

I call Shenanigans.

Please provide a credible economic analysis which proves that Obamanomics is a success.

PolitiFact | A stimulus report card

In a report released on Jan. 13, 2010, the president's Council of Economic Advisers estimated that between 1.77 million jobs and 2.07 million jobs were created or saved by the stimulus through the fourth quarter of 2009.

To back up that claim, the council's report cited four independent analyses of the same question. These estimates were by the Congressional Budget Office, an independent agency that does the number-crunching for Congress, as well by three private sector economic-analysis firms. Here's what those groups found:

-- CBO: Between 800,000 jobs and 2.4 million jobs.

-- IHS/Global Insight: 1.25 million jobs

-- Macroeconomic Advisers: 1.06 million jobs

-- Moody's economy.com: 1.59 million jobs

So Obama has cherry-picked the highest number of the most favorable estimates. For him to be right about 2 million jobs having been created or saved would mean using the highest end of the administration's own range, or the highest end of the CBO's range. Indeed, leaving the CEA's analysis out of it and looking only at the independent estimates, you get an average of 1.38 million jobs created or saved, which is about 30 percent lower than the president's 2 million-job-benchmark.

However, if you fast-forward the employment estimates by one quarter -- to the first quarter of 2010 -- the numbers creep closer to what Obama and other Democrats are suggesting. Using updated estimates provided to PolitiFact, IHS/Global Insight estimates that 1.7 million jobs will be created or saved during the first quarter of 2010. And Moody's economy.com estimated that 1.9 million jobs will be created or saved by that quarter.

Not credible. The CBO is only allowed to score according to the assumptions its given.

Created or Saved is a bullshit metric invented to distract attention from the abysmal lack of job creation.

The real picture is provided by BLS stats.

http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/surveymost

At the end of 2008, total non-farm employment was 134M. At the end of November 2010, it decreased to 130.5M.

The economy needs to create 130K jobs per month just to keep up with population growth. Obamanomics is not even meeting this low threshold.

And, any jobs that were saved by the Stimulus fall into the category of bloated, public employee sector jobs which are bleeding the country dry.

Need your streets snow plowed? Don't hold your breath if you live in Queens.

 

[boedicca]

Punish our Enemies...



peace...

[Conan]To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of their women. [/Conan]

 

[Cuyo]

obie wan know nothing has a bad case of foot in mouth disease. My favorite of the all has got to be "Not knowing all the facts, the cops acted stupidly" That one will be in the history books.

Oh, don't let your blind stupidity become blinding - The cops did in fact act stupidly.

 

[Cuyo]

I call Shenanigans.

Please provide a credible economic analysis which proves that Obamanomics is a success.

PolitiFact | A stimulus report card

In a report released on Jan. 13, 2010, the president's Council of Economic Advisers estimated that between 1.77 million jobs and 2.07 million jobs were created or saved by the stimulus through the fourth quarter of 2009.

To back up that claim, the council's report cited four independent analyses of the same question. These estimates were by the Congressional Budget Office, an independent agency that does the number-crunching for Congress, as well by three private sector economic-analysis firms. Here's what those groups found:

-- CBO: Between 800,000 jobs and 2.4 million jobs.

-- IHS/Global Insight: 1.25 million jobs

-- Macroeconomic Advisers: 1.06 million jobs

-- Moody's economy.com: 1.59 million jobs

So Obama has cherry-picked the highest number of the most favorable estimates. For him to be right about 2 million jobs having been created or saved would mean using the highest end of the administration's own range, or the highest end of the CBO's range. Indeed, leaving the CEA's analysis out of it and looking only at the independent estimates, you get an average of 1.38 million jobs created or saved, which is about 30 percent lower than the president's 2 million-job-benchmark.

However, if you fast-forward the employment estimates by one quarter -- to the first quarter of 2010 -- the numbers creep closer to what Obama and other Democrats are suggesting. Using updated estimates provided to PolitiFact, IHS/Global Insight estimates that 1.7 million jobs will be created or saved during the first quarter of 2010. And Moody's economy.com estimated that 1.9 million jobs will be created or saved by that quarter.

Not credible. The CBO is only allowed to score according to the assumptions its given.

Created or Saved is a bullshit metric invented to distract attention from the abysmal lack of job creation.

The real picture is provided by BLS stats.

Notice: Data not available: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

At the end of 2008, total non-farm employment was 134M. At the end of November 2010, it decreased to 130.5%.

The economy needs to create 130K jobs per month just to keep up with population growth. Obamanomics is not even meeting this low threshold.

And, any jobs that were saved by the Stimulus fall into the category of bloated, public employee sector jobs which are bleeding the country dry.

Need your streets snow plowed? Don't hold your breath if you live in Queens.

Link's broken.
In any event, the fact that aggregate unemployment continued to rise for a time is not relevant. We're gauging what actually happened vs what would have happened in the absence of stimulus. Still a negative number, but a lower negative number. How much lower?
As Maggie states:
-- CBO: Between 800,000 jobs and 2.4 million jobs.

-- IHS/Global Insight: 1.25 million jobs

-- Macroeconomic Advisers: 1.06 million jobs

-- Moody's economy.com: 1.59 million jobs

The jobs trending improved almost immediately, while the bleeding was so severe that even slower losses still pushed the aggregate higher for a time.

This dog and pony show is pointless with you, however, because you will simply abruptly declare any analysis that doesn't support your Obamamanic POV to be biased.

 

[boedicca]

obie wan know nothing has a bad case of foot in mouth disease. My favorite of the all has got to be "Not knowing all the facts, the cops acted stupidly" That one will be in the history books.

Oh, don't let your blind stupidity become blinding - The cops did in fact act stupidly.

You are a moron.

 

[Cuyo]

obie wan know nothing has a bad case of foot in mouth disease. My favorite of the all has got to be "Not knowing all the facts, the cops acted stupidly" That one will be in the history books.

Oh, don't let your blind stupidity become blinding - The cops did in fact act stupidly.

You are a moron.

Thanks!

 

[Trajan]

PolitiFact | A stimulus report card

Not credible. The CBO is only allowed to score according to the assumptions its given.

Created or Saved is a bullshit metric invented to distract attention from the abysmal lack of job creation.

The real picture is provided by BLS stats.

Notice: Data not available: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

At the end of 2008, total non-farm employment was 134M. At the end of November 2010, it decreased to 130.5%.

The economy needs to create 130K jobs per month just to keep up with population growth. Obamanomics is not even meeting this low threshold.

And, any jobs that were saved by the Stimulus fall into the category of bloated, public employee sector jobs which are bleeding the country dry.

Need your streets snow plowed? Don't hold your breath if you live in Queens.

Link's broken.
In any event, the fact that aggregate unemployment continued to rise for a time is not relevant. We're gauging what actually happened vs what would have happened in the absence of stimulus. Still a negative number, but a lower negative number. How much lower?
As Maggie states:
-- CBO: Between 800,000 jobs and 2.4 million jobs.

-- IHS/Global Insight: 1.25 million jobs

-- Macroeconomic Advisers: 1.06 million jobs

-- Moody's economy.com: 1.59 million jobs

The jobs trending improved almost immediately, while the bleeding was so severe that even slower losses still pushed the aggregate higher for a time.

This dog and pony show is pointless with you, however, because you will simply abruptly declare any analysis that doesn't support your Obamamanic POV to be biased.

so they' saved' jobs...(?) because I think if you leave aside lost jobs and just add up all of the monthly 'jobs created' all those 10k, 40k etc. you don't come to a million in 2009....(?) AND out of all of the jobs created alone that year, that does NOT mean by any stretch they are due to the stimulus.

 

[boedicca]

It's really very simple.

Which number is bigger: 134M or 130.5M?

 

[Cuyo]

Not credible. The CBO is only allowed to score according to the assumptions its given.

Created or Saved is a bullshit metric invented to distract attention from the abysmal lack of job creation.

The real picture is provided by BLS stats.

Notice: Data not available: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

At the end of 2008, total non-farm employment was 134M. At the end of November 2010, it decreased to 130.5%.

The economy needs to create 130K jobs per month just to keep up with population growth. Obamanomics is not even meeting this low threshold.

And, any jobs that were saved by the Stimulus fall into the category of bloated, public employee sector jobs which are bleeding the country dry.

Need your streets snow plowed? Don't hold your breath if you live in Queens.

Link's broken.
In any event, the fact that aggregate unemployment continued to rise for a time is not relevant. We're gauging what actually happened vs what would have happened in the absence of stimulus. Still a negative number, but a lower negative number. How much lower?
As Maggie states:
-- CBO: Between 800,000 jobs and 2.4 million jobs.

-- IHS/Global Insight: 1.25 million jobs

-- Macroeconomic Advisers: 1.06 million jobs

-- Moody's economy.com: 1.59 million jobs

The jobs trending improved almost immediately, while the bleeding was so severe that even slower losses still pushed the aggregate higher for a time.

This dog and pony show is pointless with you, however, because you will simply abruptly declare any analysis that doesn't support your Obamamanic POV to be biased.

so they' saved' jobs...(?) because I think if you leave aside lost jobs and just add up all of the monthly 'jobs created' all those 10k, 40k etc. you don't come to a million in 2009....(?) AND out of all of the jobs created alone that year, that does NOT mean by any stretch they are due to the stimulus.

Jobs created to offset jobs lost. It's not that complex, really.

 

[Cuyo]

It's really very simple.

Which number is bigger: 134M or 130.5M?

No, it's never that simple. As I've already expressed, it's certainly not that simple in this case.

 

[boedicca]

PolitiFact | A stimulus report card

Not credible. The CBO is only allowed to score according to the assumptions its given.

Created or Saved is a bullshit metric invented to distract attention from the abysmal lack of job creation.

The real picture is provided by BLS stats.

Notice: Data not available: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

At the end of 2008, total non-farm employment was 134M. At the end of November 2010, it decreased to 130.5%.

The economy needs to create 130K jobs per month just to keep up with population growth. Obamanomics is not even meeting this low threshold.

And, any jobs that were saved by the Stimulus fall into the category of bloated, public employee sector jobs which are bleeding the country dry.

Need your streets snow plowed? Don't hold your breath if you live in Queens.

Link's broken.
In any event, the fact that aggregate unemployment continued to rise for a time is not relevant. We're gauging what actually happened vs what would have happened in the absence of stimulus. Still a negative number, but a lower negative number. How much lower?
As Maggie states:
-- CBO: Between 800,000 jobs and 2.4 million jobs.

-- IHS/Global Insight: 1.25 million jobs

-- Macroeconomic Advisers: 1.06 million jobs

-- Moody's economy.com: 1.59 million jobs



The jobs trending improved almost immediately, while the bleeding was so severe that even slower losses still pushed the aggregate higher for a time.

This dog and pony show is pointless with you, however, because you will simply abruptly declare any analysis that doesn't support your Obamamanic POV to be biased.

Then go to the BLS yourself and search for total non-farm employment by month.

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics


I do realize it's pointless to provide any real data to a moron like you - but am suggesting that others not believe the bullshit you are spinning.

 

[Cuyo]

Not credible. The CBO is only allowed to score according to the assumptions its given.

Created or Saved is a bullshit metric invented to distract attention from the abysmal lack of job creation.

The real picture is provided by BLS stats.

Notice: Data not available: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

At the end of 2008, total non-farm employment was 134M. At the end of November 2010, it decreased to 130.5%.

The economy needs to create 130K jobs per month just to keep up with population growth. Obamanomics is not even meeting this low threshold.

And, any jobs that were saved by the Stimulus fall into the category of bloated, public employee sector jobs which are bleeding the country dry.

Need your streets snow plowed? Don't hold your breath if you live in Queens.

Link's broken.
In any event, the fact that aggregate unemployment continued to rise for a time is not relevant. We're gauging what actually happened vs what would have happened in the absence of stimulus. Still a negative number, but a lower negative number. How much lower?
As Maggie states:
-- CBO: Between 800,000 jobs and 2.4 million jobs.

-- IHS/Global Insight: 1.25 million jobs

-- Macroeconomic Advisers: 1.06 million jobs

-- Moody's economy.com: 1.59 million jobs



The jobs trending improved almost immediately, while the bleeding was so severe that even slower losses still pushed the aggregate higher for a time.

This dog and pony show is pointless with you, however, because you will simply abruptly declare any analysis that doesn't support your Obamamanic POV to be biased.

Then go to the BLS yourself and search for total non-farm employment by month.

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics


I do realize it's pointless to provide any real data to a moron like you - but am suggesting that others not believe the bullshit you are spinning.

No, you silly ass. You will not spin this.

I AM AWARE THAT UNEMPLOYMENT CONTINUED TO RISE FOR A PERIOD OF TIME - But the jobs TREND began reversing immediately.

Again, it's really not that complicated. We're not comparing a simple "A to B." We're comparing "B to B if there had been no stimulus."

 

[Trajan]

Link's broken.
In any event, the fact that aggregate unemployment continued to rise for a time is not relevant. We're gauging what actually happened vs what would have happened in the absence of stimulus. Still a negative number, but a lower negative number. How much lower?
As Maggie states:
-- CBO: Between 800,000 jobs and 2.4 million jobs.

-- IHS/Global Insight: 1.25 million jobs

-- Macroeconomic Advisers: 1.06 million jobs

-- Moody's economy.com: 1.59 million jobs

The jobs trending improved almost immediately, while the bleeding was so severe that even slower losses still pushed the aggregate higher for a time.

This dog and pony show is pointless with you, however, because you will simply abruptly declare any analysis that doesn't support your Obamamanic POV to be biased.

so they' saved' jobs...(?) because I think if you leave aside lost jobs and just add up all of the monthly 'jobs created' all those 10k, 40k etc. you don't come to a million in 2009....(?) AND out of all of the jobs created alone that year, that does NOT mean by any stretch they are due to the stimulus.

Jobs created to offset jobs lost. It's not that complex, really.

no its not, and you cannot claim every one of those jobs created was due to the stimulus, there are people right this moment getting jobs, that has nothing to do with the stimulus and in this environment, they just wait a little longer.

 

[boedicca]

Link's broken.
In any event, the fact that aggregate unemployment continued to rise for a time is not relevant. We're gauging what actually happened vs what would have happened in the absence of stimulus. Still a negative number, but a lower negative number. How much lower?
As Maggie states:
-- CBO: Between 800,000 jobs and 2.4 million jobs.

-- IHS/Global Insight: 1.25 million jobs

-- Macroeconomic Advisers: 1.06 million jobs

-- Moody's economy.com: 1.59 million jobs



The jobs trending improved almost immediately, while the bleeding was so severe that even slower losses still pushed the aggregate higher for a time.

This dog and pony show is pointless with you, however, because you will simply abruptly declare any analysis that doesn't support your Obamamanic POV to be biased.

Then go to the BLS yourself and search for total non-farm employment by month.

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics


I do realize it's pointless to provide any real data to a moron like you - but am suggesting that others not believe the bullshit you are spinning.

No, you silly ass. You will not spin this.

I AM AWARE THAT UNEMPLOYMENT CONTINUED TO RISE FOR A PERIOD OF TIME - But the jobs TREND began reversing immediately.

Again, it's really not that complicated. We're not comparing a simple "A to B." We're comparing "B to B if there had been no stimulus."

You are a complete and utter idiot.

The Job trend did not begin to reverse immediately. Over 3M jobs were lost during Obama's first term. His Big Government policies have forestalled a recovery which should be much more robust than the feeble 2.5% growth rate that doesn't even generate enough jobs to keep up with population growth.

This is how Obamnomics compares to policies tried during other downturns:

 

[Cuyo]

so they' saved' jobs...(?) because I think if you leave aside lost jobs and just add up all of the monthly 'jobs created' all those 10k, 40k etc. you don't come to a million in 2009....(?) AND out of all of the jobs created alone that year, that does NOT mean by any stretch they are due to the stimulus.

Jobs created to offset jobs lost. It's not that complex, really.

no its not, and you cannot claim every one of those jobs created was due to the stimulus, there are people right this moment getting jobs, that has nothing to do with the stimulus and in this environment, they just wait a little longer.

No, it's never a perfect science, but virtually all economists and the CBO seem to agree that it has had some stimulative effect. It's not only the jobs created that's imperfect, but also attempting to forecast an economy in absentia.

But just baselessly screaming its a failure is far less scientific than the methodology employed by the economic community... Just sayin'

 

[boedicca]

so they' saved' jobs...(?) because I think if you leave aside lost jobs and just add up all of the monthly 'jobs created' all those 10k, 40k etc. you don't come to a million in 2009....(?) AND out of all of the jobs created alone that year, that does NOT mean by any stretch they are due to the stimulus.

Jobs created to offset jobs lost. It's not that complex, really.

no its not, and you cannot claim every one of those jobs created was due to the stimulus, there are people right this moment getting jobs, that has nothing to do with the stimulus and in this environment, they just wait a little longer.

Private sector job creation right now is in spite of the government, not due to it.