• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

US economy creates 243,000 jobs in January

Status
Not open for further replies.
I guess this is your way of saying that you don’t want to bet eh?:(

I have no problem betting anyone here that they cannot prove with verifiable proveable data that Obama's stimulus SAVED or created 3.5 million jobs. There are no sites that count saved jobs or determine how any jobs were saved.
 
I have no problem betting anyone here that they cannot prove with verifiable proveable data that Obama's stimulus SAVED or created 3.5 million jobs. There are no sites that count saved jobs or determine how any jobs were saved.


If you're going to go that route, I agree. However, that is also trumping the conservative claim that invading Iraq was necessary to protect the U.S. as you cannot prove that invading Iraq did that.

Just saying it works both ways using that logic for proof.
 
If you're going to go that route, I agree. However, that is also trumping the conservative claim that invading Iraq was necessary to protect the U.S. as you cannot prove that invading Iraq did that.

Just saying it works both ways using that logic for proof.

It doesn't serve any purpose to continue this argument about something that happened over 10 years ago vs. the current situation and the Obama attempt to get re-elected. if you want to relive the reasons for going to war then take it up with the 76 U.S.Senators in a Democrat controlled Senate that voted for that authorization
 
It doesn't serve any purpose to continue this argument about something that happened over 10 years ago vs. the current situation and the Obama attempt to get re-elected. if you want to relive the reasons for going to war then take it up with the 76 U.S.Senators in a Democrat controlled Senate that voted for that authorization

It's ok Con, I understand you are scared.
 
It's ok Con, I understand you are scared.

You are so right, I am scared to death of you and others in this internet forum. Amazing logic from a liberal. Answer the question, where is the verifiable source that counts saved jobs?
 
You are so right, I am scared to death of you and others in this internet forum. Amazing logic from a liberal. Answer the question, where is the verifiable source that counts saved jobs?


I answered it already, as well as trumped your claims that we needed to invade Iraq to defend the U.S.
 
Adam, they would have filed bankruptcy reogranization. Unions would have been the ultimate loser in that case. He didnt step in to save the auto industry, he stepped in to save the UAW. They are much more who he views as supporters and constituents than the companies and management of same.

To say there is no way they could have been saved is not accurate, we have no way to be absolutely sure.

There is absolutely no way they could have qualified for reorganization without the government's help. Rather, they would have gone into Chapter 7 liquidation, meaning that they would have been sold off for pennies on the dollar. And there were no buyers. Little known fact: as Chrysler was approaching collapse, they offered to sell the company, lock, stock, and barrel, to the government ... for $1.
 
If Obama was a moslem, Moochele and the girls would not dress the way they do. :2razz::mrgreen:

No worries ... they're not my talking points. :cool:
 
I answered it already, as well as trumped your claims that we needed to invade Iraq to defend the U.S.

No, sorry, you didn't answer the question because no verifiable source ever calculates "saved" jobs. That was a made up term because Obama couldn't admit failure. He obviously has fooled people like you and will continue to do so.

As for Iraq, that is another topic for another thread. You are going to believe what you want to believe and ignore actual history including quotes of Democrats long before Bush took office and even afterwards. Democrats controlled the Senate and allowed the vote for authorization. They gave it to Bush 76-23 so if you want to continue to re-write history go for it
 
No, sorry, you didn't answer the question because no verifiable source ever calculates "saved" jobs. That was a made up term because Obama couldn't admit failure. He obviously has fooled people like you and will continue to do so.

Even before the legislation was passed, Bernstein and Romer (2009) reported that 3.6 million jobs
would be created or saved by the then envisioned legislation, relative to a no stimulus act baseline.
This was based on existing estimates of scal policy multipliers. Their estimates included both the
tax and spending components of the ARRA.
Congressional Budget Oce (2010) estimates that the employment increase \attributable to the
ARRA" was in the range of 500 to 900 thousand in 2009 and is in the range of 1.3 to 3.3 million for
2010. Their ranges are computed based on both government spending as well as tax cut incentives
in the Act. To construct these numbers (in their Table 1), they divide the total spending of the
ARRA into its components and then apply low and high output multipliers. These multipliers were
delivered from previous studies.
The Council of Economic Advisors (2010) measures the employment increase due to the Act in
two dierent ways. First, using a multiplier approach similar to the Congressional Budget Oce,
the CEA estimates that the Act had the eect of increasing employment by 2.5 million workers
(Table 4). Second, the CEA estimates a vector autoregression which includes employment from
1990:Q1 to 2007:Q4. Based on those parameter estimates, they forecast gross domestic product
for the period after the Act's implementation. They then interpret the vector autoregression's
forecast error for employment from 2009:Q2 to 2010:Q2 as being due to the policy. According to
these estimates (Table 5), at the end of 2010:Q2, the Act had increased employment by 3.6 million
workers.
Blinder and Zandi (2010) nd that the employment increase due to the ARRA (including both
spending and tax cuts) was 2.7 million jobs. Their estimate is based on the Moody Analytics model
of the U.S. economy, which is a statistical model that includes restrictions based upon standard
Keynesian assumptions.
Wilson (2011) estimates the job eects of the Recovery Act using state-level variation in a
manner similar to ours. He instruments for endogenity using two cost estimates for the ARRA
that existed prior to the Act's passage. He considers the eect on employment at dierent horizons
following the ARRA's implementation. For employment through October 2010, he nd that there
were 800 thousand additional jobs because of the stimulus. This is close to our \best case" scenario
for the ARRA described in the previous section.
While Wilson's above number is relatively small compared to other studies, he does nd larger
employment eects at a more short-run horizon. When evaluating the employment growth through
February rather than October of 2010, Wilson nds that the Act saved/created 2.3 million jobs.
Feyrer and Sacerdote (2011) conduct both a cross-sectional and time series analysis to estimate
the employment eects of the ARRA. Based on state-level data, their cross-section estimate implies
that the Act created/saved 1.9 million jobs, while their time series estimate implies that the Act
created/saved approximately 845 thousand jobs.37
The most crucial dierence between their analysis and ours may be aggregation. In their
regressions, the jobs eect is restricted to be identical across employment sectors. Our modest
disaggregation into four sectors demonstrates that dierent sectors responded dierently to ARRA
aid. First, we are able to reject statistically the hypothesis of identical sector responses. Sec-
ond, these dierences are also quantitatively important. Third, the dierent trend behavior, over
the last decade, across sectors suggests dierent employment processes are at work. Finally, the
practical consideration that much aid
owed through state and local governments suggests that
government employment should be treated dierently than private-sector employment. Also, dif-
ferences between our results and theirs might be explained by the dierences in instruments; Feyrer
and Sacerdote (2011) use the average seniority of members of the U.S. House of Representations to
control for endogenity.
Cogan and Taylor (2010a) look at Bureau of Economic Analysis data on government purchases
of goods and services.38 They nd that most government purchases occurred at the Federal rather
than state and local level and that these purchases account for only 2% of ARRA aid. They argue
that state and local governments did not make purchases of goods and services, but rather increased
transfer payments and reduced borrowing. As such, there was only a negligible impact of the Act
on aggregate output and employment. While our analysis conrms the fact that much funding
went through states, it is not clear whether wages and salaries of government workers are fully
or even partially captured by the National Income and Product Account measures of government
purchases.

Ask and you shall receive.

source
 
Ask and you shall receive.

source

First of all thanks for the information all of which are educated guesses and not official documented data which sources like BLS provide. Did Bernstein and Romer predict that we would have less people working today than when Obama took office? Did they project over a million discouraged workers and a 15.2% U-6 unemployment number? All i see from their projections os a rosy scenerio pointing to job gains and an unemployment rate at around 6% three years after the stimulus was passed.
 
There is absolutely no way they could have qualified for reorganization without the government's help. Rather, they would have gone into Chapter 7 liquidation, meaning that they would have been sold off for pennies on the dollar. And there were no buyers. Little known fact: as Chrysler was approaching collapse, they offered to sell the company, lock, stock, and barrel, to the government ... for $1.

Anecdotal and no one, on either side, is telling if it was an actual joke or actual offer. On the other, I disagree.

The Auto Bailout and the Rule of Law > Publications > National Affairs

The first premise of the "success story" narrative is that, if not for the bailout, General Motors and Chrysler would have been liquidated — causing the loss of many thousands of jobs at those companies and reverberating throughout the industry at the cost of many thousands more. The disappearance of GM in particular — with its roughly 100,000 American employees and its central place in the chain of suppliers, parts manufacturers, and dealers — would have marked the end of the American automobile industry. "If GM were to go into a free-fall bankruptcy and didn't pay its trade debts, then the entire domestic auto industry shuts down," one industry analyst told Time magazine in November 2008. Just before the bailouts, reporters heard much the same case made by officials in the Bush administration.

But this nightmare scenario was never likely to happen. In the absence of a bailout, GM and Chrysler would each have been forced to file for bankruptcy like any other company in their circumstances. It is possible that Chrysler would have then faced liquidation (though even this is questionable, given the value of its assets and its brands). General Motors, however, would almost certainly have been re-organized. In all likelihood, this re-organization would have produced a company more competitive than the one that emerged from the bailout process.

Ultimately bailing them out hasn't taught them anything. Their business models are still not functioning very well.

Something of note, neither company even tried to prepare chapter 11 proceedings because they assumed the government would bail them out. That alone would be a good reason to leave them alone, business decisions like that should not be rewarded. Now, their largest long term debt liabilities holders own the company. What do you figure the odds on a restructure that will put them on a good financial path are?
 
BBC:

Good news for the country, good news for the Democrats, bad news for the Republicans. What do you think? Is the rise temporary? Does it even matter politically? What is causing it?

It matters politically. It's good for the democratic party. It's good for mr obama. From a practical perspective....it doesn't really matter.



source
The president certainly had facts and figures at his disposal. He boasted that his regulatory reforms "will save business and citizens more than $10 billion over the next five years." Wow. Ten billion smackeroos! That's some savings – and in a mere half a decade! Why, it's equivalent to what the Government of the United States borrows every 53 hours. So by midnight on Thursday, Obama had already re-borrowed all those hard-fought savings from 2017. "In the last 22 months," said the president, "businesses have created more than 3 million jobs." Impressive. But 125,000 new foreign workers arrive every month (officially). So we would have to have created 2,750,000 jobs in that period just to stand still.
 
As of this report, we are 400,000 jobs shy of the number of employed people 3 years ago.
.......................

With 6,000,000 more people living in the US.



Following are some examples of how statistical magic is used to shrink the labor force and lower the unemployment rate:

►The rush to start collecting social security at age 62: When you begin collecting social security, you drop out of the labor force. A few years ago, the forecast was that social security tax would exceed payments until 2016, yet the program ran a deficit last year for the first time ever of $41 billion. While a good part of this year’s social security deficit is related to a one-year two percent social security tax reduction to individuals, a sizable part of the deficit has been caused by less people working, and early filers. Filings were up over 10 percent last year because adults over 62 years old can’t find work.

51.2 million Americans are currently collecting social security benefits and of that amount, 7.7 million are early retirees, or young survivors of retirees who have passed away. This group is not in the labor force and the vast majority will never return.

►Filing for Social Security Disability or SSI: If you are Caucasian, 55 years old, and a permanently-trashed factory worker, this is about the only place you can hope to go and survive as state and local governments gut welfare. In 2000, before employment fell off the cliff, it was reported that 1.4 million a year filed for SSI (only about 50 percent of applicants are approved). In 2010, three million filed.
Looking at the government statistics for social security and SSI, of the 51.2 million people currently collecting social security, 5.2 million are “disabled” and collecting SSI. Remember, if you’re retired or on SSI you’re not counted as unemployed or in the labor force, so SSI is a neat place to hide over five million desperate workers.

Workers dropped from the labor force: If you haven’t looked for a job for a few weeks, the government, in their ultimate wisdom, assumes you don’t want a job so they drop you from the labor force. Yet, if you were to ask all those people who didn’t look for a job – because there are no jobs – they would surely tell you they wanted one. There are 6.65 million people in this category and if they were added back in, the unemployment rate would immediately jump from 9 percent, to 12.8 percent.
http://www.sfgroup.org/The Collapse of America's Labor Force.htm
 
Last edited:
Workers dropped from the labor force: If you haven’t looked for a job for a few weeks, the government, in their ultimate wisdom, assumes you don’t want a job so they drop you from the labor force. Yet, if you were to ask all those people who didn’t look for a job – because there are no jobs – they would surely tell you they wanted one. There are 6.65 million people in this category and if they were added back in, the unemployment rate would immediately jump from 9 percent, to 12.8 percent.

http://www.sfgroup.org/The Collapse of America's Labor Force.htm

That is simply false. Not even close to reality. It's sad to see how easily duped some people are.

People who drop out of the labor force because they hadn't looked for a job for a few weeks (four, to be exact), are called "marginally attached workers" ...


Marginally attached workers - definition

Persons not in the labor force who want and are available for work, and who have looked for a job sometime in the prior 12 months (or since the end of their last job if they held one within the past 12 months), but were not counted as unemployed because they had not searched for work in the 4 weeks preceding the survey. Discouraged workers are a subset of the marginally attached. (See Discouraged workers.)

Currently, there are 2,809,000...

Marginally attached workers - thousands


Not saying that number isn't too high -- just saying it's nowhere near 6½ million.
 
Anecdotal and no one, on either side, is telling if it was an actual joke or actual offer. On the other, I disagree.

The Auto Bailout and the Rule of Law > Publications > National Affairs



Ultimately bailing them out hasn't taught them anything. Their business models are still not functioning very well.

Something of note, neither company even tried to prepare chapter 11 proceedings because they assumed the government would bail them out. That alone would be a good reason to leave them alone, business decisions like that should not be rewarded. Now, their largest long term debt liabilities holders own the company. What do you figure the odds on a restructure that will put them on a good financial path are?

I'm sorry, but that is total horse****. Everyone who was involved with GM, Chrysler, and the bailouts has said that they absolutely could not have been reorganized without a bailout. They each required tens of billions of dollars they didn't have, and that no one would lend them, PLUS huge concessions from the UAW. I suggest you read a couple books on the subject if you want to learn more about it:

Amazon.com: Overhaul: An Insider's Account of the Obama Administration's Emergency Rescue of the Auto Industry: Steven Rattner: Books

Amazon.com: Once Upon a Car: The Fall and Resurrection of America's Big Three Auto Makers--GM, Ford, and Chrysler (9780061845628): Bill Vlasic: Books

The reason GM didn't prepare Chapter 11 filings is that they were delusional. They thought they would be bailed out and the government wouldn't force them into Chapter 11. They knew perfectly well that they couldn't file on their own. Chyrsler, OTOH, did prepare for Chapter 11 on the assumption that it would be part of any bailout. But then, at the time, Chrysler was owned by a venture capital company that had a clue.

The two companies are now profitable and I see no reason why they won't remain profitable. They have radically changed their business models. Ironically, it's actually Chrysler that's bolstering Fiat at the moment, as Fiat tries to weather the Euro-zone crisis.
 
Last edited:
I'm sorry, but that is total horse****. Everyone who was involved with GM, Chrysler, and the bailouts has said that they absolutely could not have been reorganized without a bailout. They each required tens of billions of dollars they didn't have, and that no one would lend them, PLUS huge concessions from the UAW. I suggest you read a couple books on the subject if you want to learn more about it:

Amazon.com: Overhaul: An Insider's Account of the Obama Administration's Emergency Rescue of the Auto Industry: Steven Rattner: Books

Amazon.com: Once Upon a Car: The Fall and Resurrection of America's Big Three Auto Makers--GM, Ford, and Chrysler (9780061845628): Bill Vlasic: Books

The reason GM didn't prepare Chapter 11 filings is that they were delusional. They thought they would be bailed out and the government wouldn't force them into Chapter 11. They knew perfectly well that they couldn't file on their own. Chyrsler, OTOH, did prepare for Chapter 11 on the assumption that it would be part of any bailout. But then, at the time, Chrysler was owned by a venture capital company that had a clue.

The two companies are now profitable and I see no reason why they won't remain profitable. They have radically changed their business models. Ironically, it's actually Chrysler that's bolstering Fiat at the moment, as Fiat tries to weather the Euro-zone crisis.

To believe Rattner's book I would have to believe Rattner, and I do not.

Cuomo Sues Steven Rattner in Pension Fraud Case - NYTimes.com Sued for fraud while managing one of the largest businesses in America.

Chapter 11 reorganization is primarily because of debt structure, it allows it to placed on hold while you solidify holdings. It would amount to reorganization of all outstanding debt and obligations. You require money to do so, but Chrysler was still selling cars, just not as many. UAW would have lost in that environment as all their current contracts would be void and the UAW would have to bargain from an entirely different standpoint. I can go through all the details but you know what a Chapter 11 is and how it works, debt schedule and all so I dont know why you are making the sort of argument you're trying to make. 11 eases debt pressure and allows you to pay off smaller debts and reorganize larger ones. Frequently it requires less outlays than a current situation.
 
I'm sorry, but that is total horse****. Everyone who was involved with GM, Chrysler, and the bailouts has said that they absolutely could not have been reorganized without a bailout. They each required tens of billions of dollars they didn't have, and that no one would lend them, PLUS huge concessions from the UAW. I suggest you read a couple books on the subject if you want to learn more about it:

Amazon.com: Overhaul: An Insider's Account of the Obama Administration's Emergency Rescue of the Auto Industry: Steven Rattner: Books

Amazon.com: Once Upon a Car: The Fall and Resurrection of America's Big Three Auto Makers--GM, Ford, and Chrysler (9780061845628): Bill Vlasic: Books

The reason GM didn't prepare Chapter 11 filings is that they were delusional. They thought they would be bailed out and the government wouldn't force them into Chapter 11. They knew perfectly well that they couldn't file on their own. Chyrsler, OTOH, did prepare for Chapter 11 on the assumption that it would be part of any bailout. But then, at the time, Chrysler was owned by a venture capital company that had a clue.

The two companies are now profitable and I see no reason why they won't remain profitable. They have radically changed their business models. Ironically, it's actually Chrysler that's bolstering Fiat at the moment, as Fiat tries to weather the Euro-zone crisis.

How is your Italian? Fiat may be looking for employees in Italy. Amazing how little many here know about capitalism. In capitalism there is no guarantee of success and many times there is failure. In the case of GM/Chrylser there may indeed have been failure but to believe that someone wouldn't have taken over parts of GM/Chrysler is being very naive. In capitalism companies fail all the time but we come out of those failures stronger and in less debt when the taxpayers don't try and bail them out. nothing really has changed at GM as the business model is still operating and that just rewards failure. The taxpayer lost billions on the deal but that doesn't bother you since the hundred thousand union jobs saved divert from the massive spending to save union contracts in states all over the country.
 
How is your Italian? Fiat may be looking for employees in Italy. Amazing how little many here know about capitalism. In capitalism there is no guarantee of success and many times there is failure. In the case of GM/Chrylser there may indeed have been failure but to believe that someone wouldn't have taken over parts of GM/Chrysler is being very naive. In capitalism companies fail all the time but we come out of those failures stronger and in less debt when the taxpayers don't try and bail them out. nothing really has changed at GM as the business model is still operating and that just rewards failure. The taxpayer lost billions on the deal but that doesn't bother you since the hundred thousand union jobs saved divert from the massive spending to save union contracts in states all over the country.
what bothers you is that these jobs were saved....sure, some were union, and has been explained to you countless times, repeatedly, over and over, is that more than just 'union' jobs were saved, quite a few 'non union' jobs were also saved, but you would be willing to be rid of these 'non union' jobs just to get rid of those that are union....i'd explain the economic consequences of losing all those jobs, hell, i've already explained it to you several times, it is pointless to do it again. you were all for letting chrysler/gm go under , so long as it took a bunch of 'union' jobs with it, the consequences to those workers, and the many more 'non union' workers be damned. as long as it struck a blow against the unions, all would have been well in your world.
 
what bothers you is that these jobs were saved....sure, some were union, and has been explained to you countless times, repeatedly, over and over, is that more than just 'union' jobs were saved, quite a few 'non union' jobs were also saved, but you would be willing to be rid of these 'non union' jobs just to get rid of those that are union....i'd explain the economic consequences of losing all those jobs, hell, i've already explained it to you several times, it is pointless to do it again. you were all for letting chrysler/gm go under , so long as it took a bunch of 'union' jobs with it, the consequences to those workers, and the many more 'non union' workers be damned. as long as it struck a blow against the unions, all would have been well in your world.
Is there some reason to believe that had GM/Chrysler gone through bankruptcy that they would not have emerged with their unions still in tact?
 
To believe Rattner's book I would have to believe Rattner, and I do not.

Cuomo Sues Steven Rattner in Pension Fraud Case - NYTimes.com Sued for fraud while managing one of the largest businesses in America.

Chapter 11 reorganization is primarily because of debt structure, it allows it to placed on hold while you solidify holdings. It would amount to reorganization of all outstanding debt and obligations. You require money to do so, but Chrysler was still selling cars, just not as many. UAW would have lost in that environment as all their current contracts would be void and the UAW would have to bargain from an entirely different standpoint. I can go through all the details but you know what a Chapter 11 is and how it works, debt schedule and all so I dont know why you are making the sort of argument you're trying to make. 11 eases debt pressure and allows you to pay off smaller debts and reorganize larger ones. Frequently it requires less outlays than a current situation.

In order to qualify for Chapter 11 a corporation has to offer a plan showing that it can continue as a going concern if the plan is approved. Neither GM nor Chrysler could come close to doing so without the infusion of capital from the government. At the time of the bailouts, GM was burning through over $3 billion in cash per month. GM estimated that it would need $100 billion in debtor-in-possession financing to emerge from Chapter 11 bankruptcy. See, Vlasic P. 546. They were just about $100 billion short and no private lender was going to give them that kind of money. They were already leveraged to the hilt.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom