Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Who do I thank for all the free money?Follow

#152 Feb 28 2012 at 8:28 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,965 posts
Aripyanfar wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Are you arguing that we're still suffering some direct economic effects from 2008? Where? What? How? That makes no sense at all.

And here is the proof that no-one, let alone yourself, should listen to you on any opinion you have on economics AT ALL.

Unless you go back to school and take a mixed economics and humanities degree that covers History and Logic.

Why do you think some Asian governments have "25 year plans" that cover periods of time when they KNOW they'll be long out of power? Because they know the actions they take now will still have economic and social consequences rippling down in 25 years and beyond.


Which would be a great reason for you to have read all the words I wrote and noticed the word "direct" in there. Otherwise, according to your own logic, we could blame our current economic state on anything we want that has happened over the last 25 years. But that's kinda useless, isn't it? By "direct", I mean the direct effect of the sudden loss of value of the mortgage backed securities in the investment market (and specifically the financial portion of that market).

We're not currently dealing with banks struggling because they hold too much of those devalued assets and can no longer borrow or lend money as a result, are we? Thus, the "direct economic effects" from 2008 have long since passed. This is certainly the case in the US, where banks are back to making record profits, the market just hit 13000 again, and by all normal indicators should be firing away and growing like gangbusters.

What we're not seeing in the US is employment and GDP growth coming back. The actual financial industry has been pretty much recovered for the last year and a half. We should have seen an accompanying recovery in jobs and production, but that has been slowed. IMO, it's been slowed because of the recovery act. Between the cost of the act itself (and others), and the various regulations and mandates within those laws, the combined effect has been to discourage job creation in the private sector.


And that's exactly the area we have not recovered in. Now, I'm sure that other countries are having other problems, but I'm only speaking directly about the US and discussing the effect of the stimulus spending on our recovery (or lack thereof). I fully acknowledge that other countries, who already have out of control social spending and the boat anchor that places on their own economic growth and recovery, will also tend to have sluggish recovery. But that's their norm. It's not the norm for the US.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#153 Feb 29 2012 at 2:13 AM Rating: Excellent
Gbaji wrote:
We should have seen an accompanying recovery in jobs and production, but that has been slowed. IMO, it's been slowed because of the recovery act. Between the cost of the act itself (and others), and the various regulations and mandates within those laws, the combined effect has been to discourage job creation in the private sector.


I'd love to a see a cite that directly attributes the recovery acts to discouraging job creation.
____________________________
"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the crap out of the middle class." -George Carlin


#154 Feb 29 2012 at 5:02 AM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
7,481 posts
Omegavegeta wrote:
Gbaji wrote:
We should have seen an accompanying recovery in jobs and production, but that has been slowed. IMO, it's been slowed because of the recovery act. Between the cost of the act itself (and others), and the various regulations and mandates within those laws, the combined effect has been to discourage job creation in the private sector.


I'd love to a see a cite that directly attributes the recovery acts to discouraging job creation.


Hey get in line, Im still waiting for a cite to government spending causing an economic impact on par with the numbers caused by Private Investments leading up to 2008.
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

#155 Feb 29 2012 at 5:14 AM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
7,481 posts
Quote:
Dumb. Dumb. Dumb. The long term effect of that spending will make that short term loss of economic activity during the actual recession resulting from the subprime mortgage crisis seem like a tiny little speed bump to our economy. You honesty don't realize this? Economic fortunes go up and down all the time. They tend to wash out over time and should only require the smallest amount of action to deal with them when they occur. Long term spending trends will massively dwarf those effects over time.


While it could be considered dumb dumb dumb (personally I don't like propping up my own life with credit, and by extension I don't like my government propping its up credit either), you are wrong wrong wrong. I could link likely more than a dozen economists (both conservative and liberal) who concluded the only way to plug the leak was to put money into it. But I know where you stand professional opinions as sources so I won't bother. Don't need you forgetting what your argument was. (that you still have yet to support with any cite, including blogger or opeds.)
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

#156 Feb 29 2012 at 10:58 AM Rating: Excellent
Everyone's Oiran
Avatar
*****
15,923 posts
gbaji wrote:
By "direct", I mean the direct effect of the sudden loss of value of the mortgage backed securities in the investment market (and specifically the financial portion of that market).

We're not currently dealing with banks struggling because they hold too much of those devalued assets and can no longer borrow or lend money as a result, are we? Thus, the "direct economic effects" from 2008 have long since passed.

For one thing, US banks are still struggling madly with the fact that Financial Banks will in most cases no longer loan money to each other, or to Retail banks, nor will Retail Banks loan money to each other. So even when banks want to lend money out to US individuals or businesses, or the government, they often don't have any money to do so, as US savings in banks is outweighed by borrowings.

Secondly, the economic fallout of massively devalued assets (financial, property, and share market all of which are tightly tied together) is going to take decades to wash through the system. This wasn't a normal recession. This was a global financial meltdown second only in severity to The Great Depression, and if you think your trading and tourism partners' woes don't affect you you're dreaming.

Did you know that we could have Faster than Light travel if the rules of causality didn't exist?
____________________________
<3

http://www.reddit.com/r/Forum4/
#157 Feb 29 2012 at 11:32 AM Rating: Excellent
Prodigal Son
******
20,049 posts
Omegavegeta wrote:
Gbaji wrote:
We should have seen an accompanying recovery in jobs and production, but that has been slowed. IMO, it's been slowed because of the recovery act. Between the cost of the act itself (and others), and the various regulations and mandates within those laws, the combined effect has been to discourage job creation in the private sector.


I'd love to a see a cite that directly attributes the recovery acts to discouraging job creation.

You can't cite opinion Smiley: schooled
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#158 Feb 29 2012 at 11:43 AM Rating: Excellent
******
44,511 posts
He can cite Karl Rove who said pretty much the exact same thing earlier this month.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#159 Feb 29 2012 at 5:58 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,965 posts
Omegavegeta wrote:
Gbaji wrote:
We should have seen an accompanying recovery in jobs and production, but that has been slowed. IMO, it's been slowed because of the recovery act. Between the cost of the act itself (and others), and the various regulations and mandates within those laws, the combined effect has been to discourage job creation in the private sector.


I'd love to a see a cite that directly attributes the recovery acts to discouraging job creation.


Why? Any cite would be speculative, right? So you'd dismiss it as such, while accepting without question the claimed "jobs created or saved" that sources you agree with produce. What's the point?


Why not engage your own brain and think about the effects that actions have on the economy? What do you think job creators will do when the government runs up a huge debt and then threatens them with increased taxes to pay for it?

We conservatives predicted that this would reduce the amount of jobs created. And that's exactly what happened. Job creation has been well below the predictions made when the various stimulus acts were passed. If the Dems were wrong about that, why assume they were right about anything at all?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#160 Feb 29 2012 at 6:01 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,965 posts
rdmcandie wrote:
I could link likely more than a dozen economists (both conservative and liberal) who concluded the only way to plug the leak was to put money into it.


Yes. That was TARP, and it was necessary to turn around the problems with the financial industry.

I'm talking about all the stimulus and recovery related laws passed *after* TARP. Those had nothing to do with plugging the leak (so to say). They were sold on the argument that they were needed to help us recover. But at the very least, we should accept that they didn't work so well *and* they racked up a sizable debt.

Quote:
But I know where you stand professional opinions as sources so I won't bother. Don't need you forgetting what your argument was. (that you still have yet to support with any cite, including blogger or opeds.)


I could link to dozens of blogs and opeds. Do you really want me to do this?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#161 Feb 29 2012 at 6:07 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
7,481 posts
If it is so obvious that ARRA has cost the US jobs and economic stability why can't you just give me a link. I ain't googling the sh*t myself because I get my news from many sources, so I can draw my own position. Not just what the first google search that resembles my mindset on the matter says.

You seem to have an issue with linking your information sources, on numerous occasions ive seen you beat around it. Again and Again. So lets see your source, I have leading economists and data showing since ARRA the US economy has improved, lets see what you have showing that ARRA (or any other government spending program) has cost the economy as much as private investment did over the last decade.

Edited, Feb 29th 2012 7:08pm by rdmcandie
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

#162 Feb 29 2012 at 6:10 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Why not engage your own brain and think about the effects that actions have on the economy?

Because then you wind up with mouthbreathing simplification of arguments to what makes you feel better like "Compare MRIs to Lasik and it proves government is evil!"

Certainly there's value in thinking about things yourself. There's also value in looking into the opinion of people who study complex issues on a regular (and professional) basis. You're really good with the simplification until it fits your agenda part and then crowing about how you thought it up all by yourself. A lot less good at admitting things could be more complicated than your simplistic "logic" or MRIs vs Lasik (or ACC or ESC research or SSM or any vaguely academic study).
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#163 Feb 29 2012 at 6:13 PM Rating: Excellent
******
44,511 posts
gbaji wrote:
If the Dems were wrong about that, why assume they were right about anything at all?
Wrong about one thing equals wrong about all things? Well, if that's the case I have these lovely weapons of mass destruction to sell you.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#164 Feb 29 2012 at 6:15 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
7,481 posts
Smiley: lol
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

#165 Feb 29 2012 at 6:24 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
If the Dems were wrong about that, why assume they were right about anything at all?
Wrong about one thing equals wrong about all things? Well, if that's the case I have these lovely weapons of mass destruction to sell you.

This certainly seals the deal on assuming Gbaji is right about anything at all since he's made legions of stupid factual errors in his time here Smiley: laugh
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#166 Feb 29 2012 at 6:35 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,965 posts
Aripyanfar wrote:
For one thing, US banks are still struggling madly with the fact that Financial Banks will in most cases no longer loan money to each other, or to Retail banks, nor will Retail Banks loan money to each other. So even when banks want to lend money out to US individuals or businesses, or the government, they often don't have any money to do so, as US savings in banks is outweighed by borrowings.


And yet, shockingly, I've managed to get a car loan and refinance my home in the last couple years. Interest rates are at nearly record lows. While lending requirements have become a bit more strict, frankly they needed to be. Being too loose with lending is part of what got us in this mess (a really large part). I'm honestly curious why people keep assuming that "banks aren't lending". Of course they are.

The banks (at least in the US) were pretty much completely recovered within a year or so after TARP was passed. Most of the market recovered within 6 months to a year after that. From a financial sector standpoint, the US has been fully recovered for 1.5-2 years. The problem with our employment and GDP growth is a second problem unrelated to the financial sector. That should be readily apparent to anyone.

Given that "slow job creation" was exactly what conservatives said would happen if we spent so much on stimulus and recovery, and that is exactly what has happened, shouldn't we maybe put a bit of weight into their/my position on this?

Why insist that the recovery acts had nothing to do with our current problems? Can't you even imagine the possibility that a government program might actually result in a loss of economic growth rather than an increase? And if it's possible, then why assume that's not the case here? All the evidence points in that direction, doesn't it?

Quote:
Secondly, the economic fallout of massively devalued assets (financial, property, and share market all of which are tightly tied together) is going to take decades to wash through the system.


God no, it wont! I suppose some minor effects will linger through, mostly in housing values, but the idea that we're destined to suffer some massive negative economic effects for decades, so we should not be alarmed at the sluggish economy, the poor employment and GDP numbers, or the massive spending and resulting debt is frankly absurd. You've bought a line there.

Quote:
This wasn't a normal recession.


What do you think that means? It was a bit larger than most, but what do you think makes it "not normal". If anything this recession was much easier to manage than most because the initial harm was limited to really one major part of the economy. It's a big part, but once fixed, everything should have recovered nicely. We "fixed" the problem with TARP. There was no need to do more than that.

Quote:
This was a global financial meltdown second only in severity to The Great Depression, and if you think your trading and tourism partners' woes don't affect you you're dreaming.


Honestly? I think that nations who already had weak and tottering economies prior to the subprime mortgage crises are now using that as the scapegoat for much larger already-existing problems. They don't want to acknowledge that their problems might be the result of their own poorly thought out policies, so they blame the first thing that comes along instead. It's a crappy excuse. It's like running your credit cards to the max and living paycheck to paycheck for years while spiraling further into debt and then blaming the fact that you lost your job and it took you a few months to get another, which didn't pay quite as much for the fact that you're losing your house, car, etc.

Nope. That may have been a triggering event which tipped you over, but the underlying problems were there before. Most of Europe has been running high debt and double digit unemployment for a decade or more. This latest problem didn't cause that. And guess what? It didn't cause high debt and high unemployment in the US either. The adoption of European style social spending programs did.


Can't you see this pattern? It's right there in front of you. Just open your eyes.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#167 Feb 29 2012 at 6:49 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Given that "slow job creation" was exactly what conservatives said would happen if we spent so much on stimulus and recovery, and that is exactly what has happened, shouldn't we maybe put a bit of weight into their/my position on this?

Can you let me know what their 2009 opinion was of where the stock market would be now or GDP, manufacturing, corporate profits, etc?

I want to make sure they REALLY nailed this and this wasn't your standard blind squirrel scenario. Having a full rundown of where the GOP predicted the economy would be today would really help with that. Thanks!
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#168 Feb 29 2012 at 6:50 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,965 posts
rdmcandie wrote:
If it is so obvious that ARRA has cost the US jobs and economic stability why can't you just give me a link.


Ok


Quote:
You seem to have an issue with linking your information sources, on numerous occasions ive seen you beat around it.


No, I don't. But whenever I do, those who disagree with me will insist that the sources I cite aren't valid, apparently because they disagree with them. I've kinda adopted a "why bother" approach. Are you honestly doubting that many people believe that the recovery act caused more harm than good? So why assume that no one on the internet would be saying that?


Here's the thing: I'm saying it. Why is my opinion any less valid than some other random person on the internet?

Quote:
I have leading economists and data showing since ARRA the US economy has improved,


And I can show that if I get a flat tire, my car will still continue to travel forwards. Thus, we can conclude that flat tires help make cars move forward.

Do you see where you went wrong?

Quote:
lets see what you have showing that ARRA (or any other government spending program) has cost the economy as much as private investment did over the last decade.


Since all GDP growth is the result of some form of private investment (in the US at least), do you really want to go there? The economy is clearly much larger today than it was 10 years ago. Even at the worst point of our recession, it was still larger than 10 years prior (during the heyday of the Clinton administration). On net, private investment has a massively positive effect.

On net government spending has a negative effect. How can it not? It's "spending".
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#169 Feb 29 2012 at 6:58 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
rdmcandie wrote:
If it is so obvious that ARRA has cost the US jobs and economic stability why can't you just give me a link.


Ok


Study conclusion wrote:
This paper analyzed the employment impacts of fiscal stimulus spending, using state level data from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) enacted in February 2009 and instrumenting for actual ARRA spending using pre-ARRA factors that went into the ARRA’s allocation formulas. Cross-state IV results indicate that ARRA spending had a positive and statistically significant impact on total nonfarm employment at the one-year mark after the legislation was enacted. It also had a positive and significant impact on employment in the subsectors of state and local government, construction, manufacturing and, depending on which measure of stimulus spending one uses, the education and health sectors. Further analyses show that ARRA spending began having a statistically significant effect on total employment around July or August of 2009, but not before. Moreover, there is no evidence of correlation between employment changes and predicted ARRA spending, conditional on controls, in months prior to the ARRA’s enactment.

He sure told YOU, Rdmcandie!

Edited, Feb 29th 2012 7:01pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#170 Feb 29 2012 at 7:00 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
7,481 posts
That link doesn't support your claim that ARRA cost the US jobs and GDP, all it supports is that the funds were not allocated efficiently (something I personally believe as well, but TARP wasn't all rainbows and sunshine in that regard either.)

Strike Two.

Please provide a link that supports your claim that ARRA cost americans 8 million jobs and 700billion from the GDP.

____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

#171 Feb 29 2012 at 7:26 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
7,481 posts
Oh and also:

The Blog is an opinion blogging of an OP ED. (nothing wrong with that imo). But what the OP ED writes doesn't jive with your claim.

Quote:
The results suggest that though the program did result in 2 million jobs "created or saved" by March 2010, net job creation was statistically indistinguishable from zero by August of this year.

(quote of an OP ED by a blogger)

So the results suggest that 2 million more jobs were saved (bringing the total to 10 million. potential lost jobs) because of ARRA. The point of ARRA was to stop the recession from continuing and increasing economic growth. Considering it wasn't until DEC 2010 when this OPED was written, at the same time the overall economy was gaining jobs and the GDP posted its first positive gain in 2 years.

So I don't get why you linked this, it supports my claim that much further. This is why I personally don't stop at the first google link that sounds like I want it to.

If I didn't know better Id say Varus learned how to type in paragraphs.
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

#172 Feb 29 2012 at 7:30 PM Rating: Good
Supreme Lionator
*****
14,174 posts
Quote:
The Blog is an opinion blogging of an OP ED. (nothing wrong with that imo)


Perhaps you should write an editorial about it.
____________________________
“Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.”
#173 Feb 29 2012 at 7:34 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
7,481 posts
I was thinking about it, then I realized no one really cares what I have to say.
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

#174 Feb 29 2012 at 7:45 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,965 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
If the Dems were wrong about that, why assume they were right about anything at all?
Wrong about one thing equals wrong about all things?


No. But being wrong about one part of something should make one suspect that they are wrong about other parts as well. Doubly so when the two parts are directly connected. I'm not sure how I can be more clear about this:

Obama's economic team was grossly wrong about what the economy would do in terms of employment. Not just a little bit off, but incredibly off. Yet despite this complete lack of ability to come even close to predicting what unemployment would do absent their stimulus bills, you accept their word completely when they tell you how many jobs those bills have "created or saved".


How can they possibly know this since it's clear they don't know what the baseline is? They can't. The reasonable response in this case is to ignore their claims about the effect of those stimulus bills. The completely irrational response is to assume that even though they thought that unemployment would not breach 8% if the bill(s) were passed, and they were completely wrong, that somehow they are right when they now tell you how much better off you are because they passed those bills.


Sorry, I don't buy it. And neither should you.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#175 Feb 29 2012 at 7:59 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,965 posts
rdmcandie wrote:
That link doesn't support your claim that ARRA cost the US jobs and GDP, all it supports is that the funds were not allocated efficiently (something I personally believe as well, but TARP wasn't all rainbows and sunshine in that regard either.)


Reading is hard I guess:

Quote:
The results suggest that though the program did result in 2 million jobs "created or saved" by March 2010, net job creation was statistically indistinguishable from zero by August of this year. Taken at face value, this would suggest that the stimulus program (with an overall cost of $814 billion) worked only to generate temporary jobs at a cost of over $400,000 per worker. Even if the stimulus had in fact generated this level of employment as a durable outcome, it would still have been an extremely expensive way to generate employment.


Ok. So if net job creation is zero and it cost us $800B, and if we assume that the debt has the effect of even a single business deciding not to expand and thus create a single job, then the effect was to cost jobs.

I've explained this to you several times now. I'm starting with the assumption that high debt will ****** job creation and economic growth. All by itself. It's a given. So any job creation from the stimulus bills must not just "create or save" X jobs, but it must create or save more jobs than will be lost by the effect of the debt/taxing required to pay for it. You keep forgetting that the stimulus isn't free. There is a cost for it that must be paid. You seem to want to just look at the number of jobs created/saved and pretend that the negative effects from the debt either don't exist, or aren't related.


They are related. One is the direct result of another.

Quote:
Please provide a link that supports your claim that ARRA cost americans 8 million jobs and 700billion from the GDP.



Can I link to my own posts? Seriously, wtf do you think you're asking for here? I am saying that the stimulus bill cost us more than it helped. Why do some people only believe something if a random total stranger on the internet tells them it's true, but *not* the random total stranger on the internet who they're communicating with. Do you understand how silly this is?


You're also being way too specific here.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#176 Feb 29 2012 at 8:06 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,965 posts
rdmcandie wrote:
Quote:
The results suggest that though the program did result in 2 million jobs "created or saved" by March 2010, net job creation was statistically indistinguishable from zero by August of this year.

(quote of an OP ED by a blogger)

So the results suggest that 2 million more jobs were saved (bringing the total to 10 million. potential lost jobs) because of ARRA.


You really do suck at reading comprehension. That's not what is being said there. What it's saying is that the total count of jobs "created or saved" by the ARRA was 2 million in march of 2010. But by august of the same year all of those jobs had been lost. They even follow up with an explanation:

Quote:
Taken at face value, this would suggest that the stimulus program (with an overall cost of $814 billion) worked only to generate temporary jobs at a cost of over $400,000 per worker.



See where it says they created "temporary jobs"? That's your clue as to why all those jobs figures you're parroting aren't valid. What they were doing was hiring someone, then laying them off a few weeks or months later, then hiring someone else (could even be the same person), and laying them off a few weeks or months later. They count each of the hires as a job created, but don't count the people laid off.

Quote:
So I don't get why you linked this, it supports my claim that much further.


Sigh... Try reading for comprehension. Seriously.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#177 Feb 29 2012 at 8:09 PM Rating: Excellent
******
44,511 posts
gbaji wrote:
But being wrong about one part of something should make one suspect that they are wrong about other parts as well. Doubly so when the two parts are directly connected.
Glad you agree with me. We should be suspicious of anything a Republican says about the Armed Forces.

Edit: Oh, and with you and politics.

Edited, Feb 29th 2012 9:10pm by lolgaxe
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#178 Feb 29 2012 at 8:14 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
7,481 posts
Quote:
Sigh... Try reading for comprehension. Seriously.


Then why make such a specific statement as "Stimulus has had a bigger economic effect then 2008 Investment crisis." Then expect not have to back it up.

Cite that supports your claim please. (unlike this gem that does not)




Quote:
See where it says they created "temporary jobs"? That's your clue as to why all those jobs figures you're parroting aren't valid. What they were doing was hiring someone, then laying them off a few weeks or months later, then hiring someone else (could even be the same person), and laying them off a few weeks or months later. They count each of the hires as a job created, but don't count the people laid off.


And of course you have a cite for this I am sure.

Edited, Feb 29th 2012 9:15pm by rdmcandie
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

#179 Feb 29 2012 at 8:15 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Actually I'm curious where the "net job creation was statistically indistinguishable from zero by August of this year" conclusion comes from. It doesn't seem to be from the study although I'll admit I hadn't read it too deeply. Neither blog seems interested in showing their work but rather just making a proclamation. Well, one makes it and the other just rides off the first one.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#180 Feb 29 2012 at 8:16 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
No. But being wrong about one part of something should make one suspect that they are wrong about other parts as well. Doubly so when the two parts are directly connected.

Curiously, you steadfastly refused to apply this standard to your precious Heritage Foundation Smiley: laugh
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#181 Feb 29 2012 at 8:20 PM Rating: Excellent
******
44,511 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
No. But being wrong about one part of something should make one suspect that they are wrong about other parts as well. Doubly so when the two parts are directly connected.
Curiously, you steadfastly refused to apply this standard to your precious Heritage Foundation Smiley: laugh
You know, going with that logic, we really should be suspicious of all Republican tax plans. I distinctly remember a Republican candidate who claimed "no new taxes," and once he got in office taxes were raised. Or does that not count, because it wasn't really wrong so much as an intentional lie?
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#182 Feb 29 2012 at 8:23 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
7,481 posts
Quote:
Actually I'm curious where the "net job creation was statistically indistinguishable from zero by August of this year" conclusion comes from. It doesn't seem to be from the study although I'll admit I hadn't read it too deeply. Neither blog seems interested in showing their work but rather just making a proclamation. Well, one makes it and the other just rides off the first one.



Pretty much how I looked at it. Even if net jobs were statistically 0 this would also imply no jobs were lost. Meaning that it was essentially money that stopped the loss of jobs (what it was supposed to do anyway). Essentially meaning the 8 million lost jobs prior to 2010, was entirely the result of 2008 Investment Crisis, with ARRA stopping job loss (net gains of .6% by Dec 2010, and 1.6% Jan 2012), and TARP curbing private sector bleeding (evidenced by the increase on Wall Street).

Both Stimulus packages achieved their goals in stemming jobs loss, and economic collapse. Difference is one targeted the private sector (TARP), and one the public sector (ARRA), in the end the 2008 crisis has been curbed, and is rebounding (US is now the fastest growing G-8 economy, taking spot from Canada in 4Q).

I really don't know why he quoted that blog, (which is why I asked him to quote a blog, to pretty much case in point the first google search without reading thing).


Edited, Feb 29th 2012 9:24pm by rdmcandie
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

#183 Feb 29 2012 at 8:24 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Going back to my "I'm not seeing what they're saying" remarks, here's a passage from the conclusion:
Quote:
Based on my preferred measure of spending, announced funds, the results imply that its first year ARRA spending yielded about eight jobs per million dollars spent, or about $125,000 per job. Extrapolating from that marginal local effect to the national level, the estimates imply ARRA spending created or saved about 2.0 million jobs, or 1.5% of pre-ARRA total nonfarm employment, in that first year. The estimated employment effect is estimated to have grown further over time, reaching 3.4 million (based on announced funds) by March 2011. The estimates are moderately larger if one measures ARRA spending by obligated funds or actual outlays.

Now this is very, very different from what the blog Gbaji linked is claiming (only temporary jobs, all lost, at $400k per). Since we all have access to the same study, can you explain the variance here in plain English and using the study as our reference?
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#184 Feb 29 2012 at 8:26 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,965 posts
rdmcandie wrote:
Quote:
Sigh... Try reading for comprehension. Seriously.


Then why make such a specific statement as "Stimulus has had a bigger economic effect then 2008 Investment crisis." Then expect not have to back it up.


Huh? What does that have to do with your inability to read?

Quote:
Cite that supports your claim please. (unlike this gem that does not)


Why? You apparently would not understand it anyway. It could say in clear text: "The stimulus bill has done more harm to the US economy than the original financial crisis which it was passed to protect us from", and you'd still get confused and insist that it said the exact opposite. WTF?


Quote:
Quote:
See where it says they created "temporary jobs"? That's your clue as to why all those jobs figures you're parroting aren't valid. What they were doing was hiring someone, then laying them off a few weeks or months later, then hiring someone else (could even be the same person), and laying them off a few weeks or months later. They count each of the hires as a job created, but don't count the people laid off.


And of course you have a cite for this I am sure.


Are you stupid? That's what it means to count temporary jobs. The 2 million which you counted as positive economic effects from the recovery act were temporary. Meaning that they hired people for a short period of time, but counted them as jobs "created". What cite do I need for this? It's in the **** quote I already provided.


Do I need to provide you a cite to help you understand what that cite means? Seriously? This is freaking insane!

Edited, Feb 29th 2012 6:34pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#185 Feb 29 2012 at 8:29 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,965 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Going back to my "I'm not seeing what they're saying" remarks, here's a passage from the conclusion:
Quote:
Based on my preferred measure of spending, announced funds, the results imply that its first year ARRA spending yielded about eight jobs per million dollars spent, or about $125,000 per job. Extrapolating from that marginal local effect to the national level, the estimates imply ARRA spending created or saved about 2.0 million jobs, or 1.5% of pre-ARRA total nonfarm employment, in that first year. The estimated employment effect is estimated to have grown further over time, reaching 3.4 million (based on announced funds) by March 2011. The estimates are moderately larger if one measures ARRA spending by obligated funds or actual outlays.

Now this is very, very different from what the blog Gbaji linked is claiming (only temporary jobs, all lost, at $400k per). Since we all have access to the same study, can you explain the variance here in plain English and using the study as our reference?



You aren't really this stupid, right? I didn't quote and reply to you when you posted this the first time, because I was going to give you time to realize your mistake and maybe retract it. Perhaps with a "I'm dumb!" apology.


You really can't noodle it out? I'll give you a hint: The blog is refuting the conclusions you're quoting. Wow... Just. Wow.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#186 Feb 29 2012 at 8:33 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
7,481 posts
kind of on topic is there a shovel smiley. If not there should be.

Edited, Feb 29th 2012 9:33pm by rdmcandie
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

#187 Feb 29 2012 at 8:33 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Was that your way of avoiding answering the question?

Can you show me, using the study as a reference, how it comes to the conclusions you claim it comes to. The blog never said the author had the data wrong or anything, he says that the study shows no job gains and $400k spent per job.
Blog wrote:
The study uses this resulting variation in state-level stimulus funding to determine what impact ARRA funding had on employment -- including both the direct impact of workers hired to complete planned projects, as well as any broader spillover effects resulting from greater government spending. Administration economists have repeatedly emphasized the importance of this indirect employment growth in driving economic recovery.

The results suggest that though the program did result in 2 million jobs "created or saved" by March 2010, net job creation was statistically indistinguishable from zero by August of this year. Taken at face value, this would suggest that the stimulus program (with an overall cost of $814 billion) worked only to generate temporary jobs at a cost of over $400,000 per worker. Even if the stimulus had in fact generated this level of employment as a durable outcome, it would still have been an extremely expensive way to generate employment.


Can you support this or are you going to pray that if you say "are you stupid?" enough the question will just go away? You just lectured everyone about how you can't just trust these studies and have to work it out yourself, etc. This is your chance: Pick up your pencil and show your work.

Edited, Feb 29th 2012 8:34pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#188 Feb 29 2012 at 8:42 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
7,481 posts
Quote:
Are you stupid? That's what it means to count temporary jobs.


Ive worked in temporary jobs before, you get laid off and either wait for a call back (meaning you retain employment) or you go on EI (and become unemployed). If you chose not to take EI that is your personal choice, and has nothing to do with government counts. If you are taking Employment Insurance you are unemployed (you have to be to get it).

Hence your numbers are incorrect. Either the government retained all these employees, or they only retained a portion of them.

This is clearly evident by the 8 million unemployed lost by DEC 2009, 2 million gained by March 2010, 0 Gained by August 2010 (according to your source), and 500,000 Gained by the end of the year.

This is a net increase of 500,000 jobs, created sometime during that year. The 2 million number was statistically cancelled out by August (your source) meaning ARRA funding either curbed the job loss by 2 million, or increase it by 500K, take your pick.

According to your source ARRA net 0 jobs meaning it didn't lose 8 million jobs like the 2008 Investment Crisis did.


I grow tired of repeating myself (now I know why Joph stopped arguing with you) go find me a source that supports your claim that ARRA cost the US economy 8 million jobs and 700B from the GDP. I still bet you can't.
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

#189 Feb 29 2012 at 8:42 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,965 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Was that your way of avoiding answering the question?

Can you show me, using the study as a reference, how it comes to the conclusions you claim it comes to. The blog never said the author had the data wrong or anything, he says that the study shows no job gains and $400k spent per job.


So which is it Joph? I'm to cite a source presenting a conclusion about some data *or* I'm supposed to dig through the study myself and generate my own numbers? It's amazing how when I do one, you insist that I do the other.

Why not ask the folks at Economics21.org that question? They're the ones who wrote that. I assume that they looked through the study and the data used by the study and derived their own conclusions. So are you insisting that I must duplicate their work?

Can you at least try to be consistent?


Quote:
Blog wrote:
The study uses this resulting variation in state-level stimulus funding to determine what impact ARRA funding had on employment -- including both the direct impact of workers hired to complete planned projects, as well as any broader spillover effects resulting from greater government spending. Administration economists have repeatedly emphasized the importance of this indirect employment growth in driving economic recovery.

The results suggest that though the program did result in 2 million jobs "created or saved" by March 2010, net job creation was statistically indistinguishable from zero by August of this year. Taken at face value, this would suggest that the stimulus program (with an overall cost of $814 billion) worked only to generate temporary jobs at a cost of over $400,000 per worker. Even if the stimulus had in fact generated this level of employment as a durable outcome, it would still have been an extremely expensive way to generate employment.


Can you support this or are you going to pray that if you say "are you stupid?" enough the question will just go away?


It's not my statement Joph. I didn't write that. I was asked for a citation regarding the failure/cost/whatever of the recovery act. I provided one. What the **** is your problem?

Quote:
You just lectured everyone about how you can't just trust these studies and have to work it out yourself, etc. This is your chance: Pick up your pencil and show your work.


Sigh... It's not my work. Idiot-boy insisted that I provide a link to someone else saying something similar to what I'm saying. I did that.


I'm shaking my head in disbelief. Just like this: Smiley: oyvey

Edited, Feb 29th 2012 6:43pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#190 Feb 29 2012 at 8:46 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
7,481 posts
Quote:
So which is it Joph? I'm to cite a source presenting a conclusion about some data *or* I'm supposed to dig through the study myself and generate my own numbers? It's amazing how when I do one, you insist that I do the other.


Not to reply for Joph, but since you went searching for a source that backed up your claim, you think you would have read its entirety before using (cough varus). Considering the blog itself (with quoted OP ED) didn't jive with your claim, I didn't go further.

Im glad Johp did because it is funnier with each post.

Edited, Feb 29th 2012 9:48pm by rdmcandie
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

#191 Feb 29 2012 at 8:50 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Why not ask the folks at Economics21.org that question? They're the ones who wrote that.

Because you keep telling us how we can't trust these things and need to come to our own conclusions. I'm doing you the favor of assuming you don't believe the conclusions of Economics21 just because you like their answer -- you obviously researched this study yourself and came to their same conclusions. At the very, very least you understand their argument to be able to make it yourself and back it up with something more than "These guys said so". Especially since you're now arguing that they're correct. Was I wrong to think this?

Edited, Feb 29th 2012 8:52pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#192 Feb 29 2012 at 8:57 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,965 posts
rdmcandie wrote:
Quote:
Are you stupid? That's what it means to count temporary jobs.


Ive worked in temporary jobs before, you get laid off and either wait for a call back (meaning you retain employment) or you go on EI (and become unemployed). If you chose not to take EI that is your personal choice, and has nothing to do with government counts. If you are taking Employment Insurance you are unemployed (you have to be to get it).

Hence your numbers are incorrect. Either the government retained all these employees, or they only retained a portion of them.


How does it make the numbers incorrect? You have the most muddled thinking I've ever seen. So because people either work or are unemployed, the source I quoted must be wrong? That's the most bizarre analysis I've ever heard.

Quote:
This is clearly evident by the 8 million unemployed lost by DEC 2009, 2 million gained by March 2010, 0 Gained by August 2010 (according to your source), and 500,000 Gained by the end of the year.


Ok. You're still not getting it. You're mixing total employment numbers on one hand, to specific employment calculated to have been caused by ARRA. What the source I quoted was saying was that all 2 million of the jobs created by ARRA between Feb 2009 and March 2010 were lost by August 2010. It's not talking about total employment figures, but looking just at the specific jobs that were created by ARRA.

Quote:
This is a net increase of 500,000 jobs, created sometime during that year. The 2 million number was statistically cancelled out by August (your source) meaning ARRA funding either curbed the job loss by 2 million, or increase it by 500K, take your pick.


Nope. Still not getting it. The part I quoted doesn't say that jobs were lost elsewhere that canceled out the jobs created by ARRA. That happened as well, but that's not the point. It's saying that for every job created by ARRA during the entire time it ran up until that point in time, a job created/saved by ARRA was lost. Thus the net effect on jobs was zero. No jobs created.

Quote:
According to your source ARRA net 0 jobs meaning it didn't lose 8 million jobs like the 2008 Investment Crisis did.


Sigh... It created zero jobs. It costs us money and ran up debt which is still causing us massive problems. Get it?


Quote:
I grow tired of repeating myself (now I know why Joph stopped arguing with you) go find me a source that supports your claim that ARRA cost the US economy 8 million jobs and 700B from the GDP. I still bet you can't.



Where the **** did you get this 8 million jobs figure? Obviously, I'm not going to provide a source repeating your made up numbers. Let me give you a hint: I don't believe that the actual financial crisis cost us anywhere near that many jobs in the US. I believe that the economic policies passed by the Dems in response to that crisis is what cost us those jobs. So you counting them as the total I have to find a source to beat is silly.


Most of those 8 million you count as the cost of the sub prime mortgage crisis I count as being the fault of the massive stimulus spending the Dems embarked on. And no. I'm not going to provide you with a cite for that. It's my own **** opinion!. I'm more than happy to explain my reasoning, but you insisting that if I can't find someone else on the interwebs making the exact same argument using the exact same numbers means I must be wrong is not a legitimate response.

You presenting a counter argument would be a better response. But you can't seem to do that, can you?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#193 Feb 29 2012 at 9:08 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
7,481 posts
Quote:
Most of those 8 million you count as the cost of the sub prime mortgage crisis I count as being the fault of the massive stimulus spending the Dems embarked on.


You have a cite to support this too right. Or calculations, since apparently we are now dividing total employment into section.

How much exactly was attributed to the Investment Crisis, and how much to ARRA?

In the same vein your source doesn't differentiate, it claims ARRA created 2 million jobs, what not to say that by august the private sector didn't lose a further 2 million jobs, netting in 0 job growth.

Again either ARRA saved 2 million jobs or it created 500,000 either it prevented unemployment of 10 million people, or it decreased unemployment to 7.5 million.

But lest I lead you off course further with logic, exactly how many jobs do you attribute to ARRA losing. Cites, and supporting documentation please.



Edited, Feb 29th 2012 10:15pm by rdmcandie
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

#194 Feb 29 2012 at 9:14 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
7,481 posts
Quote:
And no. I'm not going to provide you with a cite for that. It's my own **** opinion!.



OHHHHH so your opinion as what an economist (you have credentials yes). Long story short it is of your opinion (based on nothing but personal ideals) that ARRA was more damaging then the 2008 Private Investment Crisis. Regardless of whether or not a large number of Economists agree without ARRA the economy would have declined further.

Basically you have nothing to add other than your belief, when I have numbers, and economists who agree ARRA stemmed the recession and allowed for growth. As evidenced by your nation unemployment and GDP rates.

so I guess um....

Moral is, don't put foot in mouth.
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

#195 Feb 29 2012 at 9:22 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
rdmcandie wrote:
Basically you have nothing to add other than your belief, when I have numbers, and economists who agree ARRA stemmed the recession and allowed for growth.

That's not true. He has a blog entry making a statement he doesn't really understand or can explain but it tells him what he wants to hear.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#196 Feb 29 2012 at 9:23 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
7,481 posts
so first google search that sounds good. Id say called it, but I don't need another 2 pages telling me how I shouldn't think I did.
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

#197 Mar 01 2012 at 8:37 AM Rating: Excellent
******
44,511 posts
No, Google is part of the mass liberal media conspiracy.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#198 Mar 01 2012 at 8:53 AM Rating: Good
*****
19,984 posts
Jophiel wrote:
rdmcandie wrote:
Basically you have nothing to add other than your belief, when I have numbers, and economists who agree ARRA stemmed the recession and allowed for growth.

That's not true. He has a blog entry making a statement he doesn't really understand or can explain but it tells him what he wants to hear.


Ever wonder if he wrote half the blogs he uses for support?
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#199 Mar 01 2012 at 11:42 AM Rating: Excellent
****
6,470 posts
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
rdmcandie wrote:
Basically you have nothing to add other than your belief, when I have numbers, and economists who agree ARRA stemmed the recession and allowed for growth.

That's not true. He has a blog entry making a statement he doesn't really understand or can explain but it tells him what he wants to hear.


Ever wonder if he wrote half the blogs he uses for support?


Possible. I suspect he doesn't get enough text down in here for his tastes.
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#200 Mar 01 2012 at 4:52 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,965 posts
rdmcandie wrote:
Quote:
Most of those 8 million you count as the cost of the sub prime mortgage crisis I count as being the fault of the massive stimulus spending the Dems embarked on.


You have a cite to support this too right. Or calculations, since apparently we are now dividing total employment into section.


sure

If we look at the total rise in unemployment between when the subprime mortgage crisis hit (mid 2008) and the peak (late 2009), about 50% of that increase occurred *after* the announcement of the recovery act. If we back that up to the point where the Dems won the white house and sufficient majorities in both houses to be able to pass all the crazy spending they'd been talking about, then it's more like 60%.

Or do you not think that nearly every company in the US implementing hiring freezes right about that time had something to do with the increase in unemployment from that point on. It's not just about jobs lost. We lose jobs all the time even when there isn't some economic problem going on. Unemployment goes up the most when people don't create new jobs. And that's what we stopped doing during that time period.

Quote:
How much exactly was attributed to the Investment Crisis, and how much to ARRA?


Good question! Do you have an answer? ****. Let's not even try for "exactly", but try to just get a good estimate. At the risk of repeating myself, it's not like job losses directly attributed to the mortgage meltdown were that great. It was all the businesses not creating new jobs that made unemployment go up. And while some of that certainly was initially because of the lack of credit in the financial market, once TARP was passed and that logjam was broken, the job effect from the initial crisis should have stopped. We should not have hit even 8% unemployment.


But we hit that, and we kept on going to just over 10%. So why, if there was money to borrow, and money to lend, did businesses not resume their normal rate of job creation? Some other factor had to have occurred, and it's hard to not look at the economic policies the Dems promised to pass as a likely culprit.

Quote:
In the same vein your source doesn't differentiate, it claims ARRA created 2 million jobs, what not to say that by august the private sector didn't lose a further 2 million jobs, netting in 0 job growth.


Huh? It said that net job creation by Aug 2010 from ARRA was zero. Not that it created X jobs but other jobs were lost elsewhere, but that by August of 2010, the money for creating jobs had been spent, and the temporary jobs ARRA created had disappeared. I've explained this to you like three times now. I didn't think it was that complicated.

Quote:
But lest I lead you off course further with logic, exactly how many jobs do you attribute to ARRA losing. Cites, and supporting documentation please.


I don't know "exactly". Also, I'm not talking just about ARRA. I'm talking about all of the stimulus stuff (and the health care bill) passed by the Dems in 2009. And in the same way that it's nearly impossible to say how many jobs were "created or saved" by ARRA, it's nearly impossible to say how many jobs were lost because of the runaway spending and economic policies of the Dems during that period of time.

What we can say is that jobs were not created at the rate they usually are during that time, and there's no reason to associate that drop to the initial crisis once TARP was passed. And yes, I'm aware that unemployment is a lagging indicator, but it's also affected most by forward looking assessments by job creators. The jobs created today are based on how those businesses think things will be over the next 5-10 years. If you think that the profitability of expanding your business in the US will be lessened over the next few years, you're going to do less expanding in the US. And that will mean you'll create fewer jobs.



IMO, that factor far outweighed what little job creation effects the Dems stimulus spending had.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#201 Mar 01 2012 at 4:54 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
31,965 posts
rdmcandie wrote:
Basically you have nothing to add other than your belief, when I have numbers, and economists who agree ARRA stemmed the recession and allowed for growth. As evidenced by your nation unemployment and GDP rates.


And I have numbers and economists who disagree. See how that's sorta meaningless?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 55 All times are in CST
Debalic, gbaji, TirithRR, Anonymous Guests (52)