• 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!

Judging Stimulus by Job Data Reveals Success

Slartibartfast

Jesus loves you.
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
71,944
Reaction score
58,495
Location
NE Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Economic Scene - Success of Stimulus Bill Is Noteworthy as Another Is Weighed - NYTimes.com

The article is a little preachy for my taste, so here is the most important paragraph.

Just look at the outside evaluations of the stimulus. Perhaps the best-known economic research firms are IHS Global Insight, Macroeconomic Advisers and Moody’s Economy.com. They all estimate that the bill has added 1.6 million to 1.8 million jobs so far and that its ultimate impact will be roughly 2.5 million jobs. The Congressional Budget Office, an independent agency, considers these estimates to be conservative.

I am curious to see what these numbers settle out to be in the end. Usually these types of large projects are best analyzed after the fact.
 
I'm hesitant about believing any of these predictions, especially because I can't find any of the analyses that Leonhardt claims confirm the stimulus's effect. I'm wondering if he's referring to the old estimates from last Spring, in which case I'd direct him to the government's projections to see how that accuracy turned out.

What I did find was this:

http://www.economy.com/mark-zandi/documents/Economic_Stimulus_House_Plan_012109.pdf

Analyzing the House plan back in Jan of 09, Moody's claimed that it would create 4 million jobs by the end of 2010 and would result in an unemployment rate of 8.2% for 2009 and 9.0% for 2010.


Stimulus Could Pay for 40% of Itself - Real Time Economics - WSJ

Analyzing what looks like the eventual compromise bill, back in Jan 2009, Macroeconomic Advisors claimed that it would create 3.3 million jobs by the end of 2010 and that the unemployment rate would peak at 8.3%.

None of this is really making me confident in Leonhardt's honesty or the accuracy of these phantom projections.
 
What success? The unemployment rate was 6% before the Messiah took office, the warning was that if we DIDN'T impose that $0.7T "Stimulus" (only 1/3 spent) on the taxpayers, then unemployment would rise to (gasp!!!) 8%.

The bill was passed.

Unemployment is now 10%.

This is the definition of success you accept from your Messiah?

Well, if you people accept this ass-backwards definition of success, why don't we urge the Messiah to destroy the country and wish him all the success he can get?
 
First there was no $787 billion dollar stimulus. Oh yes that much money was made available but only 1/3 or approximately $262 billion has been spent and there is to date no proof it had any affect on unemployment numbers.

With 7 million people out of work there are fewer people becoming unemployed because there are fewer jobs for people to lose and people giving up and they stopped looking.

Obama has been caught lying about the numbers in Congressional Districts that don't even exist. How is it the N.Y.Times section of the Obamedia false to include any facts that show this whole idea of "success" is a phony?

The worst is yet to come not behind us.
 
Last edited:
None of this is really making me confident in Leonhardt's honesty or the accuracy of these phantom projections.

I also wouldn't be surprised of them trying to take credit based off loose associations. Other then one act coming before another there is little evidence to suggest there was direct association between the spend and a decrease in unemployment.
 
First there was no $787 billion dollar stimulus. Oh yes that much money was made available but only 1/3 or approximately $262 billion has been spent and there is to date no proof it had any affect on unemployment numbers.

See that underlined title at the top of the first post in the thread -- it's called a 'link'.

I suggest you click on it, read, and think... before speaking.
 
1. he's losing credibility

2. he doesn't know what he's doing

3. he can't say exactly how much of the stimulus has been spent

4. he can't say exactly how many jobs have been created or saved

5. he can't say "created or saved"

6. he can't say "stimulus"

7. the white house has done a HORRIBLE job accounting for all this spending and supposed hiring

8. and WORSE explaining, making public, being transparent

9. why does he HAVE TO call this second stimulus a "jobs bill?"

10. why MUST he refer to the first as his "recovery act?"

11. just last summer he referred routinely to it as "the stimulus"

12. but then the hundreds of stories broke all across the country, usually printed in local newspapers, about bogus jobs bragged about which didn't really exist

13. we learned about all the TEMPORARY jobs he was claiming

14. all the pay raises he ACCOUNTED as new hires

15. all the stories about 3 or 4 jobs created/saved at the cost of some million dollars

16. EVEN BY THE PRESIDENT'S OWN RECKONING---2 MILLION JOBS---AT 260 BILLION DOLLARS, THAT'S 130K PER

17. of course, his own economic team disagrees famously and publicly on the actual number of jobs

18. there were all those phantom districts

19. and zip codes

20. on HIS OWN recovery.gov

21. cbo has adjusted the 787B to 862

22. these are all the things WE KNOW

23. IF THE FIRST STIMULUS WORKED WHY DO WE NEED A SECOND?

24. why is the second STIMULUS dying an embarrassing, bayh-busting death at the hurtful hands of vengeful harry reid?

25. bottom line: he said it would go to 8% WITHOUT a stimulus

26. we're at 10, with a 17% underemployed

27. according to nyt/cbs poll, feb 10, only SIX PERCENT believe the stimulus created significant jobs

http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/poll_Obama_Congress_021110.pdf

28. in october george stephanopoulos reported that clueless christina romer testified in congress that the stimulus would have its greatest impact in the 2nd and 3rd quarters of 09 and wouldn't do much in 2010

Obama Economic Adviser: The Stimulus? Impact on Economic Growth Has Past - George's Bottom Line

29. you see, one thing's for sure---they don't know what they're doing

30. he's selling snake oil

31. which is why his entire agenda is dead

32. his big one (pre MA)---health care, cap and trade, reg reform

33. as well as his little teeny tiny one (post MA)---jobs bill, bank tax, debt commission, spending freeze

34. he really needs to shut up

35. if you truly want to create jobs, millions of em, cut payroll taxes (schumer-hatch)

36. hello
 
What success? The unemployment rate was 6% before the Messiah took office

It was almost 8% when he took office. Get your numbers straight.

Now for a graph that more shows the success of the Obama administration:

chart-of-the-day-jobs-lost-in-the-bush-and-obama-administrations.gif
 
that's pretty

this isn't:

US Unemployment Rate

2008-01 4.90
2008-02 4.80
2008-03 5.10
2008-04 5.00
2008-05 5.50
2008-06 5.50
2008-07 5.70
2008-08 6.10
2008-09 6.10
2008-10 6.50
2008-11 6.70
2008-12 7.20
2009-01 7.60
2009-02 8.10
2009-03 8.50
2009-04 8.90
2009-05 9.40
2009-06 9.50
2009-07 9.40
2009-08 9.70
2009-09 9.80
2009-10 10.20
2009-11 10.00
2009-12 10.00
2010-01 9.70

The United States Unemployment Rate

another, even homelier:

six percent of americans BELIEVE obama's spiel on the stimulus, a word he can never again use
 
It was almost 8% when he took office. Get your numbers straight.

Now for a graph that more shows the success of the Obama administration:

chart-of-the-day-jobs-lost-in-the-bush-and-obama-administrations.gif

Eveyone of those lines except november represents jobs being lost.
 
It was almost 8% when he took office. Get your numbers straight.

Now for a graph that more shows the success of the Obama administration:

chart-of-the-day-jobs-lost-in-the-bush-and-obama-administrations.gif

It makes me so sad when people cite this graph, because it demonstrates a terribly poor understanding of how the economy works.

Are you actually trying to argue that the moment Obama took office, the economy started getting better regardless of what he actually did? Why would it do that?
 
It was almost 8% when he took office. Get your numbers straight.

Now for a graph that more shows the success of the Obama administration:

chart-of-the-day-jobs-lost-in-the-bush-and-obama-administrations.gif


Oh! They've been busy re-writing history again. Progressives are so efficient at that, aren't they?
 
Oh! They've been busy re-writing history again. Progressives are so efficient at that, aren't they?

I'm pretty sure it is accurate. It is all in the presentation.

If you look close it looks like obama has more job losses total.
 
Last edited:
The graph is as accurate as the data it is based off of

For those that dont understand it

The graph's only real purpose is to show the reduced velocity in how bad the economy was/getting.
 
I'm pretty sure it is accurate. It is all in the presentation.

If you look close it looks like obama has more job losses total.

The arguments at the beginning of the Messiah's Administration was that if the Stimulus Porkulus was not passed in a hurry, the unemployment rate would shoot from six to eight percent.

That means the charts now showing a end-of-Bush unemployment rate of nearly 8% are not based on the same data set.

They update those figures constantly, and it's actually not unusual or even wrong, but that's not germane to the argument.
 
What success? The unemployment rate was 6% before the Messiah took office, the warning was that if we DIDN'T impose that $0.7T "Stimulus" (only 1/3 spent) on the taxpayers, then unemployment would rise to (gasp!!!) 8%.

The bill was passed.

Unemployment is now 10%.

This is the definition of success you accept from your Messiah?

Well, if you people accept this ass-backwards definition of success, why don't we urge the Messiah to destroy the country and wish him all the success he can get?

Unemployment rate was 7.7% before Obama took office.
Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

Up from the 4% it was at when Bush Jr took office
 
The arguments at the beginning of the Messiah's Administration was that if the Stimulus Porkulus was not passed in a hurry, the unemployment rate would shoot from six to eight percent.

That means the charts now showing a end-of-Bush unemployment rate of nearly 8% are not based on the same data set.

They update those figures constantly, and it's actually not unusual or even wrong, but that's not germane to the argument.

Kinda hard to argue from 6 to 8 when unemployment was at 7.7 when Obama was sworn in.
 
unbelievably, overblown obama throws a BIRTHDAY PARTY for his one year old stimulus and blathers on about all the jobs he's blown up like balloons

TWO MILLION of em, he brags

except HIS OWN WEBSITE, the now infamous recovery.gov, has LESS THAN A THIRD of that

Recovery.gov

LOL!

that's his own KEYSTONE accounting dept we're talking about here

and even those klutzes of miscalculation know the bonehead's full of bull

why, with my bouncing one year old bundle of bailouts, here, don't you know that we just STAVED OFF the second DEPRESSION

we've RESCUED the economy and SAVED the american way of life!

never in the history of human endeavor has economic action been taken that's been more smooth, more swift, more targeted, more transparent than my administration's implementation of our lovely stimu... i mean, recovery act

LOL!

no one BELIEVES this guy, anymore

he's an AFFRONT to the intelligence of those of us with tv's

really, an affront

LOL!

party on, progressives

represent!

never has the world seen anyone so SMOOTH as president barack husein obama

be proud
 
edit 2:^^ Have you ever in your life typed out the full First, Middle, and Last name of any President in history besides President Obama?

I bet not. You do it now to bring up SCARY HUSSEIN. As if somehow a middle name received decades before Saddam Hussein even took power was relevant somehow. You should really try to examine your attacks, attacking someone's name just makes you look foolish. edit3: Plus, you spelled it wrong...

How can people look at that chart and come up with the conclusion that Obama made things worse?

There is a clear and definitive reversal of trend shown on that chart. It happens right about where the stimulus funds start going out.

For ****'s sake I swear conservatives can stand next to me and look at the sky, proudly declaring THAT SKY IS IN FACT GREEN. We look at the same facts and come up wildly different conclusions.

edit: Are you aware that about a third of the stimulus "spending" is in the form of tax cuts?
 
Last edited:
are you aware that 590,000 is less than a third of two mil?

are you aware that at 590,000 each job created or saved comes to about half a mil?

260 bil divided by 600K equals more than 400,000 per job

no one who can do scientific notation (6th grade) can believe this guy, barack hussein obama
 
Last edited:
What success? The unemployment rate was 6% before the Messiah took office, the warning was that if we DIDN'T impose that $0.7T "Stimulus" (only 1/3 spent) on the taxpayers, then unemployment would rise to (gasp!!!) 8%.

The bill was passed.

Unemployment is now 10%.

This is the definition of success you accept from your Messiah?

Well, if you people accept this ass-backwards definition of success, why don't we urge the Messiah to destroy the country and wish him all the success he can get?

Say what you will, but at least say it with FACTS:

Unemployment: February '09 (since Obama took over mid-January) - 8.2%
Unemployment: January '10 - 9.7%

That's an 18% increase in unemployment. Granted, an increase and not a decrease - so it's only (potential) success is that it staved off even further losses.

And just a reminder:
Unemployment: February '01 - 4.2%
Unemployment: February '09 - 8.2%

So, under Bush unemployment rose by 95%.

Slam Obama all you'd like. But use the facts. Unemployment when he took over was 8.2% (I'd even let you use 7.7% - then January '09 rate). But 6% would be a full 50% off reality.
 
Last edited:
are you aware that 590,000 is less than a third of two mil?

are you aware that at 590,000 each job created or saved comes to about half a mil?

260 bil divided by 600K equals more than 400,000 per job

no one who can do scientific notation (6th grade) can believe this guy, barack hussein obama

Excellent job of addressing the points that I made. You really are an excellent debater.

Don't worry, I'll address yours.

Of the 260billion "spent" so far, only 74.4billion was in contracts, grants, or loans. Nice twisting of the numbers, though. Also, at 600k jobs number you're looking at?

Is for a quarter. October 1 - Dec. 31.

Basically, you didn't even try to understand what you were looking at.

Now are you going to address any of my points or are you going to spit out some more false information?
 
Back
Top Bottom