Here comes the other economic shoe dropping...

[Coito ergo sum]

(AP) WASHINGTON - Government policies to increase domestic energy production could create up to a million jobs over the next seven years, the oil industry says in a new report aimed at influencing the political debate over jobs.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/09/ ... ontentBody

[Schneibster]

I will repeat, the stimulus was 1.5% of GDP, and the amount of money removed from the economy was 6% from stopped housing starts and increased consumer savings alone, four times more.

I posted Paul Krugman's article on it multiple times and have yet to receive a response. Are you going to respond?

I have commented as I saw fit.

Nobody is claiming the Stimulus plan worked.

I just posted two articles that do. Maybe you forgot.

[Schneibster]

CBO estimates that ARRA’s
policies had the following effects in the second quarter
of calendar year 2010:
B They raised real (inflation-adjusted) gross domestic
product (GDP) by between 1.7 percent and
4.5 percent,
B Lowered the unemployment rate by between
0.7 percentage points and 1.8 percentage points,
B Increased the number of people employed by between
1.4 million and 3.3 million, and
B Increased the number of full-time-equivalent jobs by
2.0 million to 4.8 million compared with what would
have occurred otherwise (see Table 1). (Increases in
FTE jobs include shifts from part-time to full-time
work or overtime and are thus generally larger than
increases in the number of employed workers).
The effects of ARRA on output are expected to gradually
diminish during the second half of 2010 and beyond.
The effects of ARRA on employment and unemployment
are expected to lag slightly behind the effects on output;
they are expected to wane gradually in 2011 and beyond.

So much for the "failed" stimulus.

Looks like it was too small; about a quarter to half what was required.

Source: http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/117xx/doc117 ... 4-ARRA.pdf

So, then it failed.

The two articles I posted following this one say it worked, it was just too small. Maybe you forgot.

[Schneibster]

and unemployment remains at unacceptably high levels, standing today at 9.3 percent — the same level as when the program was initiated. An obvious failure.[

January, 2009 - 7.6% (announced February 1, 2009)

February 10, 2009 - on the stated purpose and projection of preventing unemployment from going above 8%, http://otrans.3cdn.net/ee40602f9a7d8172b8_ozm6bt5oi.pdf the Stimulus plan was passed on February 10.

February, 2009 - 8.1% (announced March 1, 2009)

Today - unemployment 9.1%

An obvious success?

An obvious quote-mine, something we're all familiar with from when the creationists do it. Immediately following your cherry-picked quote:

However, the only obvious thing about this argument is that it is obviously wrong.

So, it looks like you lied. Quote-mining is misrepresentation of someone's words; this is a typical Republican trick.

[laklak]

Well, my question is did it accomplish what it set out to do? Short answer, no. Unemployment is up and still rising, none of the "shovel ready" projects have turned out to be so, house prices continue to fall, food and fuel prices continue to rise. Whether they spent enough or didn't spend enough is moot - the point is, we were told this was going to pull us out of the recession and it didn't. Simply saying "it pulled us out of the Great Recession" is great, akin to declaring victory and bringing home the troops, but tell that to the terminally unemployed. Why should I trust them again? What are they going to do different this time? Personally I don't trust ANY economist, having been an economics major at one time in my varied academic career I can tell you not a one of them has a fucking clue what's going on. As Harry Truman said, what we need are some one handed economists (that won't keep saying "but, on the other hand...."). Economics is about as much a science as tarot cards or palmistry.

As for unemployment, the 9.1% figure is bullshit, plain and simple. The real figure is far higher than that. Their figures do not count the hundreds of thousands or even millions who have simply given up. I'm one - there's no way I'll ever work in my field again, no one is going to hire a 57 year old programmer when a kid fresh out of school will work for a third of what I will. Nor does the figure count the underemployed, people with years of experience and education now working menial jobs because that's all there is out there. My neighbor, for example, who owned a string of restaurants for 30 years and now works for $8.70 an hour as a bellman at a Hilton hotel. My neighbor on the other side, a machinist who is mowing lawns. Me, a software engineer who was working as a caterer until the Feds regulated me out of business. It's bullshit, bullshit, bullshit. The situation is far more dire than the talking heads let on. Why? Because if the vast majority of people knew how bad it actually is they'd vote the mendacious bastards out of office faster than Billy Jeff Clinton could feel their pain.

All I hear from government is bullshit. There's no inflation. What a crock of shit that is. Been to the grocery store recently? A fucking pound of bacon is approaching $8, beef is 10 bucks a pound and it will cost you $2.99 for a red bell pepper. Bought gas recently? After a slight drop (after the Moron-In-Chief released a shitload of the strategic reserve) prices are back up to $3.70 and will hit $4 again very soon. So why isn't there inflation? Well, because they excluded both food and fuel prices when they calculated the index because they were "too volatile". This is the most egregious example of pissing on my back and calling it rain I've ever seen.

I don't want a handout. I don't want unemployment benefits. I don't want anyone to give me anything at all. What I don't want is topay any more taxes than I already do. I get fuck all for them anyway, all they do is flush the money down a bureaucratic toilet. I don't want even more regulation in the name of "the environment" or "the greater good". I want a government that will reduce regulation, reduce spending and reduce taxes. I want a government that will get the fuck out of my life. So I'll hold my nose and vote for anyone that has a pro-business, small-government, anti-regulation attitude. I'd love to be in a position to vote for someone who's social policies are in line with mine, but in the current cluster fuck of an economy that isn't an option. If some fundy YEC Tea Party homophobe can get this economy back on track I'll vote for them, because at this point my wallet is my number one priority. All else is secondary.

[Schneibster]

Well, my question is did it accomplish what it set out to do? Short answer, no.

And wrong answer, like most soundbites.

Yes, it did, according to the Congressional Budget Office; I posted proof above. Sorry you're having trouble with reality.

[Coito ergo sum]

and unemployment remains at unacceptably high levels, standing today at 9.3 percent — the same level as when the program was initiated. An obvious failure.[

January, 2009 - 7.6% (announced February 1, 2009)

February 10, 2009 - on the stated purpose and projection of preventing unemployment from going above 8%, http://otrans.3cdn.net/ee40602f9a7d8172b8_ozm6bt5oi.pdf the Stimulus plan was passed on February 10.

February, 2009 - 8.1% (announced March 1, 2009)

Today - unemployment 9.1%

An obvious success?

An obvious quote-mine, something we're all familiar with from when the creationists do it. Immediately following your cherry-picked quote:

However, the only obvious thing about this argument is that it is obviously wrong.

So, it looks like you lied. Quote-mining is misrepresentation of someone's words; this is a typical Republican trick.

You're going to have to demonstrate what was "quote mined" here. Quoting someone is fine, which is what I did. I was only addressing the one point made here - which is that unemployment stands today at the same level it was when the Stimulus was initiated. It was initiated on February 10, 2009. At that time, the most recent unemployment numbers were from 10 days prior, on February 1, when the unemployment rate was 7.6%. On March 1, the numbers went up to 8.1%. Now it's 9.1%. Clearly, unemployment has gone up at 1 to 1.5% since then.

That's not quote-mining. I didn't misrepresent what anyone said.

I did not lie at all, and there you go again with that allegation. My quote of Rick Coe was 100% accurate, and my numbers regarding unemployment are 100% accurate. The only "lie" appears to be your accusation that I lied.

[Schneibster]

and unemployment remains at unacceptably high levels, standing today at 9.3 percent — the same level as when the program was initiated. An obvious failure.[

January, 2009 - 7.6% (announced February 1, 2009)

February 10, 2009 - on the stated purpose and projection of preventing unemployment from going above 8%, http://otrans.3cdn.net/ee40602f9a7d8172b8_ozm6bt5oi.pdf the Stimulus plan was passed on February 10.

February, 2009 - 8.1% (announced March 1, 2009)

Today - unemployment 9.1%

An obvious success?

An obvious quote-mine, something we're all familiar with from when the creationists do it. Immediately following your cherry-picked quote:

However, the only obvious thing about this argument is that it is obviously wrong.

So, it looks like you lied. Quote-mining is misrepresentation of someone's words; this is a typical Republican trick.

You're going to have to demonstrate what was "quote mined" here.

I did. Stop trying to game the system.

ETA: Let me be clear: when someone says the exact opposite of what you claim they said, in the very next sentence after your quote of them, that's quote mining. The proof is in the text you quoted. You're just denying, like conservatroids always do. And hoping I'll say something you can report.

[Coito ergo sum]

CBO estimates that ARRA’s
policies had the following effects in the second quarter
of calendar year 2010:
B They raised real (inflation-adjusted) gross domestic
product (GDP) by between 1.7 percent and
4.5 percent,
B Lowered the unemployment rate by between
0.7 percentage points and 1.8 percentage points,
B Increased the number of people employed by between
1.4 million and 3.3 million, and
B Increased the number of full-time-equivalent jobs by
2.0 million to 4.8 million compared with what would
have occurred otherwise (see Table 1). (Increases in
FTE jobs include shifts from part-time to full-time
work or overtime and are thus generally larger than
increases in the number of employed workers).
The effects of ARRA on output are expected to gradually
diminish during the second half of 2010 and beyond.
The effects of ARRA on employment and unemployment
are expected to lag slightly behind the effects on output;
they are expected to wane gradually in 2011 and beyond.

So much for the "failed" stimulus.

Looks like it was too small; about a quarter to half what was required.

Source: http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/117xx/doc117 ... 4-ARRA.pdf

So, then it failed.

The two articles I posted following this one say it worked, it was just too small. Maybe you forgot.

Well, if success means that it was able to keep unemployment at 9.3 and 9.1% after 18 months, while the labor force has shrunk such that if we calculated unemployment based on the labor force in January, 2009, unemployment would be over 11%, well, then I guess you and I have a different definition of what success is.

[Schneibster]

CBO estimates that ARRA’s
policies had the following effects in the second quarter
of calendar year 2010:
B They raised real (inflation-adjusted) gross domestic
product (GDP) by between 1.7 percent and
4.5 percent,
B Lowered the unemployment rate by between
0.7 percentage points and 1.8 percentage points,
B Increased the number of people employed by between
1.4 million and 3.3 million, and
B Increased the number of full-time-equivalent jobs by
2.0 million to 4.8 million compared with what would
have occurred otherwise (see Table 1). (Increases in
FTE jobs include shifts from part-time to full-time
work or overtime and are thus generally larger than
increases in the number of employed workers).
The effects of ARRA on output are expected to gradually
diminish during the second half of 2010 and beyond.
The effects of ARRA on employment and unemployment
are expected to lag slightly behind the effects on output;
they are expected to wane gradually in 2011 and beyond.

So much for the "failed" stimulus.

Looks like it was too small; about a quarter to half what was required.

Source: http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/117xx/doc117 ... 4-ARRA.pdf

So, then it failed.

The two articles I posted following this one say it worked, it was just too small. Maybe you forgot.

Well, if success means that it was able to keep unemployment at 9.3 and 9.1% after 18 months, while the labor force has shrunk such that if we calculated unemployment based on the labor force in January, 2009, unemployment would be over 11%, well, then I guess you and I have a different definition of what success is.

It's not me. The two articles I posted following the one quoted here say it worked, it was just too small. Maybe you forgot.

ETA: and making it about me is changing the subject, which is another method of misleading people. Gee, you're stacking up an awful lot of those.

[Coito ergo sum]

January, 2009 - 7.6% (announced February 1, 2009)

February 10, 2009 - on the stated purpose and projection of preventing unemployment from going above 8%, http://otrans.3cdn.net/ee40602f9a7d8172b8_ozm6bt5oi.pdf the Stimulus plan was passed on February 10.

February, 2009 - 8.1% (announced March 1, 2009)

Today - unemployment 9.1%

An obvious success?

An obvious quote-mine, something we're all familiar with from when the creationists do it. Immediately following your cherry-picked quote:

However, the only obvious thing about this argument is that it is obviously wrong.

So, it looks like you lied. Quote-mining is misrepresentation of someone's words; this is a typical Republican trick.

You're going to have to demonstrate what was "quote mined" here.

I did. Stop trying to game the system.

You didn't, because nothing I said was false, or falsely represented what anyone said.

and unemployment remains at unacceptably high levels, standing today at 9.3 percent — the same level as when the program was initiated. An obvious failure.

That's accurately quoted. My understanding is that "An obvious failure" was sarcastic, in that as I understand it, he was arguing that the Stimulus actually wasn't a failure.

I took issue with his statement that unemployment was the same then as it is now -- it wasn't.

So, I said:

January, 2009 - 7.6% (announced February 1, 2009) --- that of course, is true.

February 10, 2009 - on the stated purpose and projection of preventing unemployment from going above 8%, http://otrans.3cdn.net/ee40602f9a7d8172b8_ozm6bt5oi.pdf the Stimulus plan was passed on February 10. --- That, of course, is true.

February, 2009 - 8.1% (announced March 1, 2009) - that, of course, is true.

Today - unemployment 9.1% - that, of course, is true.

An obvious success? - that, of course, is a question, and therefore can't, by definition, be a lie.


So, hopefully, that clears it up for you. There was no quotemining since I did not misrepresent anyone's views. And, every statement I made was accurate.

Now, please, stop harassing me with your nonsense regarding "lies" and "gaming the system." If you have anything to contribute that shows that my unemployment numbers are wrong, please, by all means present them. I'd love to see them. Otherwise, you're playing your stupid games again, trying to bait and harass your way through a topic.

[Schneibster]

January, 2009 - 7.6% (announced February 1, 2009)

February 10, 2009 - on the stated purpose and projection of preventing unemployment from going above 8%, http://otrans.3cdn.net/ee40602f9a7d8172b8_ozm6bt5oi.pdf the Stimulus plan was passed on February 10.

February, 2009 - 8.1% (announced March 1, 2009)

Today - unemployment 9.1%

An obvious success?

An obvious quote-mine, something we're all familiar with from when the creationists do it. Immediately following your cherry-picked quote:

However, the only obvious thing about this argument is that it is obviously wrong.

So, it looks like you lied. Quote-mining is misrepresentation of someone's words; this is a typical Republican trick.

You're going to have to demonstrate what was "quote mined" here.

I did. Stop trying to game the system.

You didn't, because nothing I said was false, or falsely represented what anyone said.

Other than the fact that you left out the very next sentence which directly contradicted what you quoted. That's deceptive, and deliberately misleading. You're busted. Get over it.

[Coito ergo sum]

So, then it failed.

The two articles I posted following this one say it worked, it was just too small. Maybe you forgot.

Well, if success means that it was able to keep unemployment at 9.3 and 9.1% after 18 months, while the labor force has shrunk such that if we calculated unemployment based on the labor force in January, 2009, unemployment would be over 11%, well, then I guess you and I have a different definition of what success is.

It's not me. The two articles I posted following the one quoted here say it worked, it was just too small. Maybe you forgot.

Well, they're entitled to their opinion. But, if this is what they mean by "it worked" then they have a different definition of what "works."

ETA: and making it about me is changing the subject, which is another method of misleading people. Gee, you're stacking up an awful lot of those.

I'm not making it about you. If you will just stay the fuck off your stupid allegations of "lying" (when I didn't) and "gaming the system," then maybe you won't make every thread you post on about me. I know you're in love with me, which is why you can't stop doing these things, but I would really appreciate it if you would stick to the topics.

[Coito ergo sum]

You didn't, because nothing I said was false, or falsely represented what anyone said.

Other than the fact that you left out the very next sentence which directly contradicted what you quoted. That's deceptive, and deliberately misleading. You're busted. Get over it.

Are you saying the very next sentence directly contradicted his assertion that the unemployment rates were the same in February 2009 as they were in the present day? That unemployment was over 9% in February 2009?

That's the only thing that I took issue with. I realize Mr. Coe thinks the stimulus was a success. However, where he is wrong is asserting that ANYONE suggests that unemployment was the same in February, 2009, than it is now. Unemployment went up from the 7.6%-8.1% range to 9.3% and is now at 9.1%. That's what I took issue with and that's what I proved was totally incorrect.

If the measure of success of the Stimulus was, as set by the Obama Administration in that report I linked to, which you probably forgot (to use your silly snarky style), then it plainly did not succeed. If someone wants to claim that without the Stimulus things would have been way worse than 9.3%, well, they are free to do so.

Grow up and stop taking every political issue so personally. It's as if you're on a personal crusade or something.

[Schneibster]

So, then it failed.

The two articles I posted following this one say it worked, it was just too small. Maybe you forgot.

Well, if success means that it was able to keep unemployment at 9.3 and 9.1% after 18 months, while the labor force has shrunk such that if we calculated unemployment based on the labor force in January, 2009, unemployment would be over 11%, well, then I guess you and I have a different definition of what success is.

It's not me. The two articles I posted following the one quoted here say it worked, it was just too small. Maybe you forgot.

Well, they're entitled to their opinion. But, if this is what they mean by "it worked" then they have a different definition of what "works."

Not having 12% unemployment, instead having 9%, works for me. Unemployment going down every month works for me. Apparently you want 12% unemployment and unemployment going up every month. That's fine, but I doubt many people are going to agree with you.

ETA: and making it about me is changing the subject, which is another method of misleading people. Gee, you're stacking up an awful lot of those.

I'm not making it about you.

then I guess you and I have a different definition

Please stop. It's embarrassing to watch.

If you will just stay the fuck off your stupid allegations of "lying" (when I didn't)

You'll want to have a look at this thread. According to the article linked there,

The numbers in these two charts come from Budget of the United States Government: Historical Tables Fiscal Year 2012. They are just the amounts that the government spent and borrowed, period, Anyone can go look then up. People who claim that Obama "tripled the deficit" are either misled or are trying to mislead.

Emphasis mine.

Are you claiming you're stupid (misled)?

and "gaming the system,"

I'm not going to comment on board moderation in this forum. It's off-topic.

then maybe you won't make every thread you post on about me.

As long as you keep lying, quote mining, and working the referees, I'm gonna make it about you lying, quote mining, and working the refs. Stop and we can talk about the issues.

I know you're in love with me, which is why you can't stop doing these things, but I would really appreciate it if you would stick to the topics.

Stop lying, quote mining, and working the refs, and I'll stop saying you're lying, quote mining and working the refs. I know that's pretty hard to figure out. It's called "tit for tat." Get over it.