Who do I thank for all the free money?Follow

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)






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

Edited, Feb 29th 2012 9:15pm by rdmcandie

Curiously, you steadfastly refused to apply this standard to your precious Heritage Foundation

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

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



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?




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 damn 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

kind of on topic is there a shovel smiley. If not there should be.

Edited, Feb 29th 2012 9:33pm by rdmcandie

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.

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

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.



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.



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.



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





Where the hell 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 damn 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?

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.

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.

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

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.



Good question! Do you have an answer? Hell. 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.



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.



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.