• 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

RightinNYC said:
So you're saying that the stimulus is good because it took tens of millions of dollars out of someone else's pocket and put it into the pockets of students at your school.

I'm sure that that was very nice for all of you, but I'm not really seeing how that's related to "stimulus."
Click to expand...

Well, it is a state funded college anyways, so I don't see the problem. Unless you have a problem with those too. People work there and people learn there. I expect if 1/3 of the people stopped going there, the town would dry up.
 
Deuce said:
I like how you post some news anecdotes and then call opposing views anecdotal.



"There's nothing to analyze, I believe whatever I read if it fits my world view!"

You're the one who keeps typing out our President's full name. The point I was trying to make is that you have really weak partisan reasons for doing so. But again, you didn't really understand that. I'm seeing a trend.
Click to expand...

THIS is what passes for master debate?

on substance?

LOL!

hardly protagoras

why, it's all about ME!

gosh, even barack hussein obama, as bereft as he is oblivious, can do better than that
 
Last edited:
The Prof said:
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
Click to expand...
Look we know youre an extreme partisan prof but now youre using talking points that Karl Rove used on fox yesterday. Did you bother to read the link you posted from Recovery.gov? Did you notice the part where it says October 1 to December 31st, 2009. The number given on that page was for a single quarter not for the full year since the law has been in effect.

The best known economic research firms IHS Global Insight, Macroeconomic Advisers and Moody's Economy all state the bill has added between 1.6 million to 1.8 million jobs so far and estimates it will impact 2.5 million total.

But back to your complaining you do know it took Reagan 3 and a half years to get unemployment back to where he inherited it. I was wondering if you complained as much back then.
 
Last edited:
recovery.gov itself claims 640,000 jobs created from the start of the stimulus to the end of october

Cost-benefit analysis of jobs stimulus | Analysis & Opinion | Reuters

recovery.gov itself claims 595,000 in the overlapping period, oct 1 to dec 31

recovery.gov includes temporary jobs, phantom jobs, phantom districts and zip codes, pay raises counted as new jobs and countless other cases of keystone accounting

recovery.gov is a laughing stock

why can't the president use the s-word anymore?

LOL!
 
Last edited:
PogueMoran said:
Look we know youre an extreme partisan prof but now youre using talking points that Karl Rove used on fox yesterday. Did you bother to read the link you posted from Recovery.gov? Did you notice the part where it says October 1 to December 31st, 2009. The number given on that page was for a single quarter not for the full year since the law has been in effect.

The best known economic research firms IHS Global Insight, Macroeconomic Advisers and Moody's Economy all state the bill has added between 1.6 million to 1.8 million jobs so far and estimates it will impact 2.5 million total.

But back to your complaining you do know it took Reagan 3 and a half years to get unemployment back to where he inherited it. I was wondering if you complained as much back then.
Click to expand...

So you honestly think that GOVERNMENT spending money that doesn't exist is going to create a single job?

I've got some real estate in California I'd like to talk to you about.
 
Erod said:
So you honestly think that GOVERNMENT spending money that doesn't exist is going to create a single job?

I've got some real estate in California I'd like to talk to you about.
Click to expand...

What? It most certainly does exist. Why do you think we call it "debt?" We're borrowing it from other countries.
 
and yet only SIX PERCENT (LOL!) believe president pie-in-the-face's version of stimu...

damn!

i KEEP doing that!

i mean, only SIX PERCENT (LOL!) believe president pie-in-the-face's version of the RECOVERY ACT

and THAT's according to the NEW YORK TIMES and the COLUMBIA BROADCASTING SYSTEM

that's ALL THE NEWS THAT'S FIT TO PRINT

and THE TIFFANY NETWORK OF DAN RATHER AND WALTER CRONKITE

ie, THAT'S THE WAY IT IS

SIX skinny little PERCENT points

gosh, i think FIVE PERCENT believe in the TOOTH FAIRY

LOL!

this is HOW BAD it has all become for obtuse obama

only SIX PERCENT believe him

masticate that, debaters
 
The Prof said:
recovery.gov itself claims 640,000 jobs created from the start of the stimulus to the end of october

Cost-benefit analysis of jobs stimulus | Analysis & Opinion | Reuters

recovery.gov itself claims 595,000 in the overlapping period, oct 1 to dec 31

recovery.gov includes temporary jobs, phantom jobs, phantom districts and zip codes, pay raises counted as new jobs and countless other cases of keystone accounting

recovery.gov is a laughing stock

why can't the president use the s-word anymore?

LOL!
Click to expand...
Ah I see so you lied when you said Recovery.gov had less than a third of the 2 million number. Adding your numbers together adds up to more than a third. Were you deliberately trying to mislead in that original post?

But I'll ask you again did you complain this much when it took Reagan 3 and a half years to get unemployment back in check?
 
no one (except you) cares about the pretty prof

obama LIED

he said two mil

his OWN accountants, his OWN web page

LOL!

bunch of AMATEURS
 
The Prof said:
no one (except you) cares about the pretty prof

obama LIED

he said two mil

his OWN accountants, his OWN web page

LOL!

bunch of AMATEURS
Click to expand...
and yet jobs were created according to the 3 big economic research firms. Youre still avoiding my question. Did you complain this much when Reagan took 3 and a half years to get unemployment in check?
 
and yet obama LIED

at the BIRTHDAY PARTY

which, LYING is one thing

but to be SO EXPOSED so fast and so easy...

that's another matter, altogether

why, that's LOL! material

his OWN accountants EXPOSE his ERROR

and he's up there BRAGGING

about how he SAVED america

how he RESCUED the economy

how nothing has ever been done so swiftly and smoothly and TRANSPARENTLY

LOL!

did you see what A-B-C said?

did you read the GLOBE?

how about ASSOCIATED PRESS?

none of em seem to be BUYING snake oil

buncha SIX PERCENTERS

LOL!
 
The Prof said:
and yet obama LIED

at the BIRTHDAY PARTY

which, LYING is one thing

but to be SO EXPOSED so fast and so easy...

that's another matter, altogether

why, that's LOL! material

his OWN accountants EXPOSE his ERROR

and he's up there BRAGGING

about how he SAVED america

how he RESCUED the economy

how nothing has ever been done so swiftly and smoothly and TRANSPARENTLY

LOL!

did you see what A-B-C said?

did you read the GLOBE?

how about ASSOCIATED PRESS?

none of em seem to be BUYING snake oil

buncha SIX PERCENTERS

LOL!
Click to expand...
Ah I get it you just want to prattle on and not address my question. I can take your answer as a no that you didnt complain when it took Reagan 3 and a half years to get the economy in check
 
you can take anything you want any way you want

and, by all means, have FUN with it

life is short

meanwhile america, which is FOCUSED on THIS president doesn't BELIEVE him

just like the TOOTH FAIRY

sorry
 
Can't take

this guy's

LOL

posting

LOL

style anymore

so I'm

LOL

adding him

to my

LOL

ignore

list

LOL
 
Deuce said:
Can't take

this guy's

LOL

posting

LOL

style anymore

so I'm

LOL

adding him

to my

LOL

ignore

list

LOL
Click to expand...

You forgot to capitalize random words. FAIL! :p
 
Deuce said:
Can't take

this guy's

LOL

posting

LOL

style anymore

so I'm

LOL

adding him

to my

LOL

ignore

list

LOL
Click to expand...

thus spake the master debater

LOL!
 
USA TODAY reports yesterday (the very day of obama's big birthday party) that 3.5 billion of stimu... (damn!) i mean, recovery act dollars went to programs obama has CUT in his BUDGET

LOL!

they're funding up one side while slashing down the other

billions of dollars of stimu... (damn!) i mean, recovery act dollars SQUANDERED on programs OBAMA HIMSELF deems "duplicate and inefficient"

how utterly incoherent

no wonder he's down to SIX PERCENT

Stimulus funds going to slashed programs - USATODAY.com
 
ScottD said:
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
Click to expand...

To be fair, a question must be answered. How many of those jobs exist because of money that the government has poured into the economy. Also, once the stimulus money runs out at the end of this year, what do you think will happen to the unemployment numbers. Something to think about before praising the Obama administration.

Right now, we are applying band aids, and many of them, to the economy, instead of treating the cause. It is much like applying patches to the hull of a wooden ship, while ignoring the many worms that are eating away at the wood and causing the leaks in the first place.
 
danarhea said:
Also, once the stimulus money runs out at the end of this year, what do you think will happen to the unemployment numbers.
Click to expand...

The stimulus money will continue to be spent (according to the bill) until 2012. Another $70 billion or so will be spent until 2019.


Right now, we are applying band aids, and many of them, to the economy, instead of treating the cause. It is much like applying patches to the hull of a wooden ship, while ignoring the many worms that are eating away at the wood and causing the leaks in the first place.
Click to expand...

The greatest aspect of the stimulus was tax cuts. About $288 billion to be exact.

  • $116 billion: New payroll tax credit of $400 per worker and $800 per couple in 2009 and 2010. Phaseout begins at $75,000 for individuals and $150,000 for joint filers.
  • $70 billion: Alternative minimum tax: a one year increase in AMT floor to $70,950 for joint filers for 2009.
  • $15 billion: Expansion of child tax credit: A $1,000 credit to more families (even those that do not make enough money to pay income taxes).
  • $14 billion: Expanded college credit to provide a $2,500 expanded tax credit for college tuition and related expenses for 2009 and 2010. The credit is phased out for couples making more than $160,000.
  • $6.6 billion: Homebuyer credit: $8,000 refundable credit for all homes bought between 1/1/2009 and 12/1/2009 and repayment provision repealed for homes purchased in 2009 and held more than three years. This only applies to first-time homebuyers.
  • $4.7 billion: Excluding from taxation the first $2,400 a person receives in unemployment compensation benefits in 2009.
  • $4.7 billion: Expanded earned income tax credit to increase the earned income tax credit — which provides money to low income workers — for families with at least three children.
  • $4.3 billion: Home energy credit to provide an expanded credit to homeowners who make their homes more energy-efficient in 2009 and 2010. Homeowners could recoup 30 percent of the cost up to $1,500 of numerous projects, such as installing energy-efficient windows, doors, furnaces and air conditioners.
  • $1.7 billion: for deduction of sales tax from car purchases, not interest payments phased out for incomes above $250,000.
  • $15 billion: Allowing companies to use current losses to offset profits made in the previous five years, instead of two, making them eligible for tax refunds.
  • $13 billion: to extend tax credits for renewable energy production (until 2014).
  • %Proxy-Connection: keep-alive
    Cache-Control: max-age=0

    Proxy-Connection: keep-alive
    Cache-Control: max-age=0

    Proxy-Connection: keep-alive
    Cache-Control: max-age=0

    Proxy-Connection: keep-alive
    Cache-Control: max-age=0

    $11 billion: Government contractors: Repeal a law that takes effect in 2012, requiring government agencies to withhold three percent of payments to contractors to help ensure they pay their tax bills. Repealing the law would cost $11 billion over 10 years, in part because the government could not earn interest by holding the money throughout the year.
  • $7 billion: Repeal bank credit: Repeal a Treasury provision that allowed firms that buy money-losing banks to use more of the losses as tax credits to offset the profits of the merged banks for tax purposes. The change would increase taxes on the merged banks by $7 billion over 10 years.
  • $5 billion: Bonus depreciation which extends a provision allowing businesses buying equipment such as computers to speed up its depreciation through 2009.

Damn it, this site sucks for Macs!
 
A year ago today, President Obama signed the economic stimulus bill, which the Congressional Budget Office now says will cost $862 billion. The law provides $626 billion in spending and $236 billion in tax cuts.
Click to expand...

Stimulus funds going to slashed programs - USATODAY.com

"Most analysts predict that the fiscal stimulus will have its greatest impact on growth in the second and third quarters of 2009," Christina Romer, who chairs the President's Council of Economic Advisers, said in testimony prepared for Congress. "By mid-2010, fiscal stimulus will likely be contributing little to growth."
Click to expand...

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/job-economic-growth-benefits-stimulus/story?id=8903006
 
Goldenboy219 said:
The money from the stimulus was borrowed. From foreigners or private institutions/investors who were not going to spend it. Given the composition of GDP; if we were to remove government stimulus from the (G) aspect.... would we be experiencing positive or negative growth?

I'm just saying... It was better than nothing.
Click to expand...



drz-400 said:
Well, it is a state funded college anyways, so I don't see the problem. Unless you have a problem with those too. People work there and people learn there. I expect if 1/3 of the people stopped going there, the town would dry up.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying that the stimulus was unquestionably a bad thing or that it didn't create any jobs, I'm simply pointing out that many are too quick to a) take overly rosy claims at face value and b) ignore the fact that the money and jobs don't come out of thin air.

As to the argument that there's no problem because it's a state college anyways - I don't see how that really makes sense. The fact that the government already subsidizes some portion of the school doesn't mean that any decision to increase that subsidy is automatically and indisputably a positive thing. If the government decided to pay for every single person's tuition/rent/food/health care/car/etc., it would certainly be beneficial to those receiving the benefits - until they had to pay it back.

Similarly, the claim that the town would otherwise collapse doesn't really do much either. Plenty of towns would dry up if their major source of revenue went under - does that mean that the government should bail out every single institution that's important to every small town in the country?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom