Why haven't republicans explained their job growth strategy. Surely they had time...

[ScreamingEagle]

Bullshit. The Congressional Budget Office, Moody, and JP Morgan all say the same thing: 2.5 million jobs created or saved. The evidence is overwhelming that it saved the economy from the brink of collapse.

The Congressional Budget Office is a propaganda organ. If Moody and JP Morgan said that, there are plenty of other companies and financial experts who said just the opposite. Your argument is an appeal to authority - a logical fallacy, in other words.

[How else do you explain how that masive job loss rate that began in Sept of 08 turned into a recovery 6 months into Obama's presidency?

Go ahead tell me. How else was that economic shift so radical if it wasn't the Recovery Act that did it

All recessions end. In fact, the evidence shows that they end faster if government doesn't attempt to solve them. Government didn't ever get into the business of curing business slumps until the Herbert Hoover administration.

You obviously dont even understand what the CBO is. Okay prove me wrong, Show me the facts. As in reliable information not coming from actual propaganda machines like Fox News or Forbes.

Oh please. That recession was radically different from any other. We were losing 500,000+ jobs a MONTH. We were months away from a great depression. The job loss rate was not slowing down. Once the act was passed, that massive job loss rate turned to growth within months. You actually think the market corrected on its own that quickly and that dramatically? No way. Thats impossible.

the bailout rescued the financial system but Obama's stimulus did little to help us out of the recession since only 15% was even spent before the recession ended....however it DID triple the deficit....

Confirmed: Obama Stimulus Did Not Lift US Out of Depression? But It Did Triple the Deficit | The Gateway Pundit!

 

[Billy000]

The Congressional Budget Office is a propaganda organ. If Moody and JP Morgan said that, there are plenty of other companies and financial experts who said just the opposite. Your argument is an appeal to authority - a logical fallacy, in other words.



All recessions end. In fact, the evidence shows that they end faster if government doesn't attempt to solve them. Government didn't ever get into the business of curing business slumps until the Herbert Hoover administration.

You obviously dont even understand what the CBO is. Okay prove me wrong, Show me the facts. As in reliable information not coming from actual propaganda machines like Fox News or Forbes.

Oh please. That recession was radically different from any other. We were losing 500,000+ jobs a MONTH. We were months away from a great depression. The job loss rate was not slowing down. Once the act was passed, that massive job loss rate turned to growth within months. You actually think the market corrected on its own that quickly and that dramatically? No way. Thats impossible.

the bailout rescued the financial system but Obama's stimulus did little to help us out of the recession since only 15% was even spent before the recession ended....however it DID triple the deficit....

Confirmed: Obama Stimulus Did Not Lift US Out of Depression? But It Did Triple the Deficit | The Gateway Pundit!

Random googling. Always a classic USMB tactic.

Why am I not surprised you went against my wishes and posted biased crap like the Gateway? That graph measures GDP. It says nothing about job growth which is the topic of our conversation you idiot. Oh, and by the way. The Recovery Act increased our GDP by 2%.

Here is the timeline as followed:

September 2008 – 432,000 jobs lost
October 2008 – 489,000 jobs lost
November 2008 – 803,000 jobs lost
December 2008 – 661,000 jobs lost[2]
January 2009 – 818,000 jobs lost
February 2009 – 724,000 jobs lost
March 2009 – 799,000 jobs lost
April 2009 – 692,000 jobs lost
May 2009 – 361,000 jobs lost
June 2009 – 482,000 jobs lost
July 2009 – 339,000 jobs lost
August 2009 – 231,000 jobs lost
September 2009 – 199,000 jobs lost
October 2009 – 202,000 jobs lost[3]
November 2009 - 64,000 jobs created[4]
December 2009 - 109,000 jobs lost[4]
January 2010 - 40,000 jobs lost[4]
February 2010 - 35,000 jobs lost
March 2010 - 189,000 jobs created
April 2010 - 239,000 jobs created
May 2010 - 516,000 jobs created
June 2010 - 167,000 jobs lost
July 2010 - 58,000 jobs lost (143,000 Federal Census jobs lost) [5]
August 2010 - 51,000 jobs lost
September 2010 - 27,000 jobs lost (According to U.S. Labor Department, 64,000 private sector jobs are added but a net loss of 95,000 jobs are due to government layoffs) [6][7]
October 2010 - 220,000 jobs created (Private sector jobs net increase)
November 2010 - 121,000 jobs created
December 2010 - 120,000 jobs created
January 2011 - 110,000 jobs created
February 2011 - 220,000 jobs created
March 2011 - 246,000 jobs created
April 2011 - 251,000 jobs created
May 2011 - 54,000 jobs created
June 2011 - 84,000 jobs created
July 2011 - 96,000 jobs created
August 2011 - 85,000 jobs created
September 2011 - 202,000 jobs created
October 2011 - 112,000 jobs created
November 2011 - 157,000 jobs created
December 2011 - 223,000 jobs created
January 2012 - 275,000 jobs created
February 2012 - 259,000 jobs created
March 2012 - 143,000 jobs created
April 2012 - 68,000 jobs created
May 2012 - 87,000 jobs created

See where your source says the recession bottomed out? Look. The job loss rate got slightly worse after December. As you can see, once the stimulus kicked in, the growth began.

 

[TemplarKormac]

I swear to god the most simple of nuance escapes you people. The economy lost about 5 million jobs. The stimulus created 2.5 million jobs. I already went through this. Obviously if the act was bigger like it was meant to be, we would be out of this mess. You can blame republicans for that.

The stimulus worked to a large extent. It was simply undermined by corrupt assholes. How do we fix our high unemployment rate? More demand side economic policies like the stimulus.

Excuse me, but can you link me to where a reputable source says anything about Obama creating 2.5 million jobs at ANY POINT in his presidency? You're sitting there playing the blame game, but you are unable to substantiate your claims. And to which "stimulus" are you referring, by the way?

Don't play dumb. You and I have already discussed this extensively. I provide ample, non partisan evidence that 2.5 million jobs were created or saved through the act. I did an entire thread on it a few weeks back and you know it.

Key words are "I provide." I will take facts over your opinions please. You can either prove it created 2.5 million jobs, or accept that you were wrong. Funny how it was "created" now it's "created or saved." Funny I remember the Obama administration pulling a similar stunt.

NOW PROVE IT.

 

[Billy000]

Excuse me, but can you link me to where a reputable source says anything about Obama creating 2.5 million jobs at ANY POINT in his presidency? You're sitting there playing the blame game, but you are unable to substantiate your claims. And to which "stimulus" are you referring, by the way?

Don't play dumb. You and I have already discussed this extensively. I provide ample, non partisan evidence that 2.5 million jobs were created or saved through the act. I did an entire thread on it a few weeks back and you know it.

Key words are "I provide." I will take facts over your opinions please. You can either prove it created 2.5 million jobs, or accept that you were wrong. Funny how it was "created" now it's "created or saved." Funny I remember the Obama administration pulling a similar stunt.

NOW PROVE IT.

I already did dumbass. If someone else on this board wants me to prove it to them I will, but I am not playing this game with you. You know I have before so give it a rest.

 

[OKTexas]

You know you are wrong. You are clearly racist. You aren't fooling anyone addressing his skin color in that context.

That's your opinion. Opinions are like ass holes, everyone's got one and all of them stink.

Now you want to answer my question?

My arsenal of what? What are you even talking about?

I've noticed your lack of reading comprehension so I'll proved the question in a less congested area of the post.

All 5 terms in my opinion are accurate, you would consider all of them negative, so why only focus on the one that there is no dispute of it's accuracy?

Just so you understand the underlined part is the actual question, and the biggest clue is it ends in a question mark. If you have a need for any further clarification feel free to ask.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

I recall Romney presenting a wide range of plans while Obama presented absolutely nothing (worst campaign ever). But none of that seemed to matter when you have Soros's electronic systems and Obama's patsies on the ground rigging the election.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

You obviously dont even understand what the CBO is. Okay prove me wrong, Show me the facts. As in reliable information not coming from actual propaganda machines like Fox News or Forbes.

Oh please. That recession was radically different from any other. We were losing 500,000+ jobs a MONTH. We were months away from a great depression. The job loss rate was not slowing down. Once the act was passed, that massive job loss rate turned to growth within months. You actually think the market corrected on its own that quickly and that dramatically? No way. Thats impossible.

the bailout rescued the financial system but Obama's stimulus did little to help us out of the recession since only 15% was even spent before the recession ended....however it DID triple the deficit....

Confirmed: Obama Stimulus Did Not Lift US Out of Depression? But It Did Triple the Deficit | The Gateway Pundit!

Random googling. Always a classic USMB tactic.

Why am I not surprised you went against my wishes and posted biased crap like the Gateway? That graph measures GDP. It says nothing about job growth which is the topic of our conversation you idiot. Oh, and by the way. The Recovery Act increased our GDP by 2%.

2 Percent GDP without adjusting for inflation of the increased money supply. Also, 2 percent is considered nothing special in the first place. That's business as usual. The reality is that the stimulus was waste. Saying it was a positive is laughable.

 

[Billy000]

the bailout rescued the financial system but Obama's stimulus did little to help us out of the recession since only 15% was even spent before the recession ended....however it DID triple the deficit....

Confirmed: Obama Stimulus Did Not Lift US Out of Depression? But It Did Triple the Deficit | The Gateway Pundit!

Random googling. Always a classic USMB tactic.

Why am I not surprised you went against my wishes and posted biased crap like the Gateway? That graph measures GDP. It says nothing about job growth which is the topic of our conversation you idiot. Oh, and by the way. The Recovery Act increased our GDP by 2%.

2 Percent GDP without adjusting for inflation of the increased money supply. Also, 2 percent is considered nothing special in the first place. That's business as usual. The reality is that the stimulus was waste. Saying it was a positive is laughable.

I dont think you quite understand how GDP works. I do believe it was you that said printing money increases GDP. 2% is a lot in those terms.

 

[Billy000]

That's your opinion. Opinions are like ass holes, everyone's got one and all of them stink.

Now you want to answer my question?

My arsenal of what? What are you even talking about?

I've noticed your lack of reading comprehension so I'll proved the question in a less congested area of the post.

All 5 terms in my opinion are accurate, you would consider all of them negative, so why only focus on the one that there is no dispute of it's accuracy?

Just so you understand the underlined part is the actual question, and the biggest clue is it ends in a question mark. If you have a need for any further clarification feel free to ask.

Perhaps you are too stupid to understand I wasn't disputing your accuracy. I was pointing out your context which was clearly racist. How are you not getting this?

 

[ScreamingEagle]

You obviously dont even understand what the CBO is. Okay prove me wrong, Show me the facts. As in reliable information not coming from actual propaganda machines like Fox News or Forbes.

Oh please. That recession was radically different from any other. We were losing 500,000+ jobs a MONTH. We were months away from a great depression. The job loss rate was not slowing down. Once the act was passed, that massive job loss rate turned to growth within months. You actually think the market corrected on its own that quickly and that dramatically? No way. Thats impossible.

the bailout rescued the financial system but Obama's stimulus did little to help us out of the recession since only 15% was even spent before the recession ended....however it DID triple the deficit....

Confirmed: Obama Stimulus Did Not Lift US Out of Depression? But It Did Triple the Deficit | The Gateway Pundit!

Random googling. Always a classic USMB tactic.

Why am I not surprised you went against my wishes and posted biased crap like the Gateway? That graph measures GDP. It says nothing about job growth which is the topic of our conversation you idiot. Oh, and by the way. The Recovery Act increased our GDP by 2%.

what job growth.....? i don't see any of that either....

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Random googling. Always a classic USMB tactic.

Why am I not surprised you went against my wishes and posted biased crap like the Gateway? That graph measures GDP. It says nothing about job growth which is the topic of our conversation you idiot. Oh, and by the way. The Recovery Act increased our GDP by 2%.

2 Percent GDP without adjusting for inflation of the increased money supply. Also, 2 percent is considered nothing special in the first place. That's business as usual. The reality is that the stimulus was waste. Saying it was a positive is laughable.

I dont think you quite understand how GDP works. I do believe it was you that said printing money increases GDP. 2% is a lot in those terms.

If you're questioning whether printing money increases GDP, then I know that you don't know how GDP works.

 

[francoHFW]

OP- Same strategy as always- Deregulate, put cronies in charge of Wall St. and business, have a gigantic corrupt bubble for insider,make them tons of money, then leave the nonrich and the country holding the bag...BRILLIANT.

AND CUT TAXES, AND FEDERAL AID TO STATES, WHICH STATES AND LOCALITIES MAKE UP FOR WITH THEIR TAXES WHICH HIT THE NONRICH, RUINING DEMAND. WHICH IS WHY everyone BUT THE POOREST ARE PAYING 21 PER CENT IN ALL TAXES NOW, AND THE POOREST 16, AND RICHEST MAKE OUT LIKE BANDITS...

GD SHIFT KEY...

A good way to stop typing in caps is to stop pressing the shift key....

Wrong AGAIN, young fella- The shift key doesn't work, have to use the caps lock- try that for a while lol...new computer soon...Window 98, well, can't get past Google page research wise...

 

[Billy000]

the bailout rescued the financial system but Obama's stimulus did little to help us out of the recession since only 15% was even spent before the recession ended....however it DID triple the deficit....

Confirmed: Obama Stimulus Did Not Lift US Out of Depression? But It Did Triple the Deficit | The Gateway Pundit!

Random googling. Always a classic USMB tactic.

Why am I not surprised you went against my wishes and posted biased crap like the Gateway? That graph measures GDP. It says nothing about job growth which is the topic of our conversation you idiot. Oh, and by the way. The Recovery Act increased our GDP by 2%.

what job growth.....? i don't see any of that either....

Do I really need to explain this again? The economy LOST 5 million jobs. The stimulus created 2.5 million. I already made the point that the bill was TOO SMALL. Had it been bigger like it was supposed to be, we would be out of this mess and the unemployment rate would be better.

 

[Billy000]

2 Percent GDP without adjusting for inflation of the increased money supply. Also, 2 percent is considered nothing special in the first place. That's business as usual. The reality is that the stimulus was waste. Saying it was a positive is laughable.

I dont think you quite understand how GDP works. I do believe it was you that said printing money increases GDP. 2% is a lot in those terms.

If you're questioning whether printing money increases GDP, then I know that you don't know how GDP works.

Don't play dumb. You and I both know that in a previous thread you argued with Faun that printing money increases GDP. A shocking display of ignorance.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

I dont think you quite understand how GDP works. I do believe it was you that said printing money increases GDP. 2% is a lot in those terms.

If you're questioning whether printing money increases GDP, then I know that you don't know how GDP works.

Don't play dumb. You and I both know that in a previous thread you argued with Faun that printing money increases GDP. A shocking display of ignorance.

I never denied that printing money increases GDP. I thought I had just backed up that point outright. What do you think GDP is? It's the value of goods and services. If the govt. prints $500 billion in money, and the benefactors produce $300 billion in goods and services with that money, then GDP has went up $300 billion. But that doesn't mean that there isn't $200 billion in waste.

That's why, GDP is a better measure when accounted inflation. A two percent increase in GDP does not mean that the economy improved two percent even on a superficial level. The inflation needs to be accounted for. Furthermore, if you've done massive borrowing/printing money, you've effectively lessened your prospects long term. The idiots who argue that the stimulus was good are making arguments akin to buying a TV on a credit card and saying that it's all good. No, you just created a non return on investment and you've racked up your debt.

 

[OKTexas]

My arsenal of what? What are you even talking about?

I've noticed your lack of reading comprehension so I'll proved the question in a less congested area of the post.

All 5 terms in my opinion are accurate, you would consider all of them negative, so why only focus on the one that there is no dispute of it's accuracy?

Just so you understand the underlined part is the actual question, and the biggest clue is it ends in a question mark. If you have a need for any further clarification feel free to ask.

Perhaps you are too stupid to understand I wasn't disputing your accuracy. I was pointing out your context which was clearly racist. How are you not getting this?

Accurate facts can be neither racist or bigoted in any context, they are just facts. You are welcome to pretend otherwise, that doesn't make it real.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Random googling. Always a classic USMB tactic.

Why am I not surprised you went against my wishes and posted biased crap like the Gateway? That graph measures GDP. It says nothing about job growth which is the topic of our conversation you idiot. Oh, and by the way. The Recovery Act increased our GDP by 2%.

what job growth.....? i don't see any of that either....

Do I really need to explain this again? The economy LOST 5 million jobs. The stimulus created 2.5 million. I already made the point that the bill was TOO SMALL. Had it been bigger like it was supposed to be, we would be out of this mess and the unemployment rate would be better.

really....? ....then why is the Bureau of Labor Statistics' chart flat as a pancake from 2010 on....? i mean....where is the big 2.5 million upswing...?

 

[TemplarKormac]

Don't play dumb. You and I have already discussed this extensively. I provide ample, non partisan evidence that 2.5 million jobs were created or saved through the act. I did an entire thread on it a few weeks back and you know it.

Key words are "I provide." I will take facts over your opinions please. You can either prove it created 2.5 million jobs, or accept that you were wrong. Funny how it was "created" now it's "created or saved." Funny I remember the Obama administration pulling a similar stunt.

NOW PROVE IT.

I already did dumbass. If someone else on this board wants me to prove it to them I will, but I am not playing this game with you. You know I have before so give it a rest.

Sorry, you need to prove it now. Don't be half-assed.

 

[Billy000]

If you're questioning whether printing money increases GDP, then I know that you don't know how GDP works.

Don't play dumb. You and I both know that in a previous thread you argued with Faun that printing money increases GDP. A shocking display of ignorance.

I never denied that printing money increases GDP. I thought I had just backed up that point outright. What do you think GDP is? It's the value of goods and services. If the govt. prints $500 billion in money, and the benefactors produce $300 billion in goods and services with that money, then GDP has went up $300 billion. But that doesn't mean that there isn't $200 billion in waste.

That's why, GDP is a better measure when accounted inflation. A two percent increase in GDP does not mean that the economy improved two percent even on a superficial level. The inflation needs to be accounted for. Furthermore, if you've done massive borrowing/printing money, you've effectively lessened your prospects long term. The idiots who argue that the stimulus was good are making arguments akin to buying a TV on a credit card and saying that it's all good. No, you just created a non return on investment and you've racked up your debt.

Um no GDP is a measure of economic activity. Not currency itself. Get a clue.

And no inflation is already accounted for when GDP is calculated. This is pretty basic.

 

[Billy000]

what job growth.....? i don't see any of that either....

Do I really need to explain this again? The economy LOST 5 million jobs. The stimulus created 2.5 million. I already made the point that the bill was TOO SMALL. Had it been bigger like it was supposed to be, we would be out of this mess and the unemployment rate would be better.

really....? ....then why is the Bureau of Labor Statistics' chart flat as a pancake from 2010 on....?

I NEVER SAID THE RECOVERY ACT IMPROVED THE UNEMPLOYMENT RATE PERCENTAGE OVER TIME. We lost more than we gained asshole but we still gained. It's just a shame the stimulus wasn't bigger.