The truth keeps getting in the way of the left's agenda......

What, that they took the cost of the stimulus and took a stab at the number of jobs that were created (probably favorably) and divided them and came up with some number? I think the stimulus should have been much larger and so did most Democrats and economists but the Republicans weren't interested in spending money on America just in America's name in pointless overseas wars. That's what I think.

Now maybe you and your two stooge buddies can go back and answer several of the questions I asked. Where are all those jobs Republicans created? Why has 10 years of Bush tax cuts failed to produce any number of jobs? Why was it OK to spend over $3 trillion on foreign wars, not raise taxes, not create jobs, refuse to stop subsidizing the wealthiest industries on the planet, and then start complaining about the deficit?

Could it be because the answer to those questions runs contrary to the Right wing agenda? Again, don't ignore and move on like usual. Answer some questions stooges.

 

Nice attempt to change the subject but before hijacking this thread how about just creating your own seperate thread?

So I'll ask again, how does one go about quantifying "jobs saved"?

 

To quote somebody else....

 

This is the extreme you have to go to in order to avoid answering any of the questions I've asked. You've never asked, "how does one go about quantifying "jobs saved"?" in this thread and yet you say, So I'll ask again". You are more pathetic and even your normal pathicness.

You answer a question for a change.

 

Huh?

mmmm.. anyway........... I'll say it again, "It's fun to watch when the truth hits them in the face".

 

Isn't it amazing that it only takes one Lefty to trounce three Righies in an argument? The reason is that it just takes longer for you guys to spin and manipulate reality while all I have to do is cite examples that make you all look foolish. Not one of my questions answered in three pages. Not one of the points I posted refuted. And no question I haven't been able to answer. THAT! Is an ass kicking compliments of me. Not that you can admit it but it was fun just the same.

 

Jobs created during U.S. presidential terms - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

Check post #8 there chief. Now what?

 

What I Have noticed is that the right has now backed up at least 2 of their assertions and phd has now wavered between insults, changing the topic and pure blither.

 

You are right, you did ask. I did not see the question. But what difference does it make how jobs saved is determined? I said, that they probably took the most favorable numbers they could. Which administration wouldn't/hasn't done that? Look at Bush's early war cost estimates. Slightly off weren't they. But they picked the most favorable numbers they could. I guess I fail to see what if any point is being made here except for making another obvious point.

 

Just who is the lefty who has made so much as one point in this thread? I have not seen nor heard from him yet and your insult aren't doing the trick.

 

Wikipedia!!! Seriously? Try this and remember your number includes all the jobs being lost the day Obama took over from Bush. There is a nice graph here (oooh! pictures) you should see. Obama Created More Jobs In One Year Than Bush Created In Eight | ThinkProgress

 

Jobs produced by Republicans??? Still waiting for that one.

 

I suppose I could look it up for you. But guess what? You are still waiting.

BTW, your data from the blog says the employment has not even kept up with the population growth.

 

I know no one probably really cares because it is all about the back and forth but I am pretty sure a 'job saved' is probably the number of FTE's that were used in the work that was bought by the stimulus money.

In other words, if a company provided 2000 hours of work in a quarter (the government is big on quarters ) on a road construction project that was funded by the stimulus but didn't hire additional workers, that would be 3.8 'jobs saved'. An FTE (Full Time Equivalent) is 2080 hours a year - 40 hours a week x 52 weeks. An FTE is 520 hours per quarter (2080 / 4).

The thinking is that without the government buying that work, the worker would have been laid off since there wouldn't have been any work to do. That is debatable in some circumstances but I can see the reasoning. But whether it is a job created or a job saved, it really doesn't matter a lot in the grand scheme of things unless the job is still there after the stimulus project is done.

 

Another interesting article:

The Obama Economy: Worst Since the Depression | The Weekly Standard

From the article:
"... the rate of growth under Obama has been only slightly higher than during the 1930s — which, of course, was the decade of the Great Depression. In the 1930s, real annual GDP growth was 1.3 percent — just 0.2 percent less than under Obama. Such strikingly low growth has been in spite of (or perhaps partly because of) Obama’s $787 billion economic “stimulus,” a major portion of his historic deficit spending binge. Obama is already responsible for $4.4 trillion in actual or projected deficit spending, which amounts to deficit spending at a rate of 9.7 percent of GDP. To put that into perspective, the only deficits in more than 200 years of American history that have exceeded even 6.0 percent of GDP have all involved either the Civil War, World War I, World War II, or Obama."

It's Obama's economy now, folks......

 

I'm still shocked that people are in denial of this fact.
BO was elected, in large part, on his assertion that he knew what was wrong with the economy & knew how to fix it- A lot of people fell for his lies. Fast forward 3 years & look at the mess this incompetent novice has gotten us in to.

 

Fault is a funny thing. I am reminded that:

"A woman in a hot air balloon realized she was lost. She lowered her altitude and spotted a man in a boat below. She shouted to him, "Excuse me, can you help me? I promised a friend I would meet him an hour ago, but I don't know where I am."
The man consulted his portable GPS and replied, "You're in a hot air balloon, approximately 30 feet above ground elevation of 2,346 feet above sea level. You are at 31 degrees, 14.97 minutes north latitude and 100 degrees, 49.09 minutes west longitude.
"She rolled her eyes and said, "You must be an Obama Democrat."
"I am," replied the man. "How did you know?"
"Well," answered the balloonist, "everything you told me is technically correct. But I have no idea what to do with your information, and I'm still lost. Frankly, you've not been much help to me."
The man smiled and responded, "You must be a Republican."
"I am," replied the balloonist. "How did you know?"
"Well," said the man, "you don't know where you are or where you are going. You've risen to where you are due to a large quantity of hot air. You made a promise you have no idea how to keep, and you expect me to solve your problem. You're in exactly the same position you were in before we met, but somehow, now it's my fault.""

 

I'm wondering if anyone here believes the economy could have been "fixed" by now by McCain (or any other person). I personally doubt anyone could have. I do remember Obama stating that the economy isn't something that can be "fixed" in a year or two, and that it almost certainly would take several years before the effects of the recession could be reversed. That was something I also agreed with, and appreciated the straight talk from him.

I do believe this is Obama's economy now, he's been making the decisions... but this isn't something that can be "fixed" overnight, or in a year. I'm guessing closer to 10 years before we (or at least I) consider the economy stable. In the mean time, the stimulus puts money in workers hands, and they are gas the economy runs on. That said, I hate how far in debt we are getting and would rather not be borrowing so much money from China and other countries. Bush did that too, to fund the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. I thought that should have been in Americas budgets, instead of passed on to the next guy (or girl) in office. And IMO, the Iraq war was completely unnecessary. It didn't cause the recession, but it increased our debt considerably.

I'm a believer in fiscal responsibility, and understand most of what these guys do. I hate the idea of us borrowing so much money, and would like to see America begin paying off our debts. It'll be tough on all of us when that happens, but I just don't think now is the time to be doing it. IMO

The stimulus is allowing a lot of work to be done in my area though, and it's helping our local economy.

I blame Bush Jr. for Iraq and the final nail in the recession, but I also blame Clinton for starting the process. I remember when he talked about helping people on the poorer end of the scale own homes and knew it was a huge mistake. It was inevitable that they would default on their payments in droves. I don't blame Obama for any of that though, the recession hit before he took office. IMO, he's doing pretty good considering how bad it got.

Sorry for the rambling nature of this post. I'm beat and don't feel like editing it right now lol ...something you're gonna have to live with, just like we (and Obama) gotta live with a recession not of our making.

 

There is a lot more truth to that than most would give you credit for, but you missed a couple. You missed two of the bigger causes of the recession. Just try to remember what 9/11 did to our financial markets, how it has disrupted travel to this day, how it has even messed with our sporting events, etc. The second one you missed was the price of oil. Put the blame wherever you will, the high price of energy and/or raw material significantly affects manufacturing and the resulting prices. Just think what would have happened if BO had manged to pass his cap and trade energy bill. "Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket." Obama: I’ll make energy prices “skyrocket” « Hot Air Can anyone name a manufacturing industry that did not have a significant energy bill even before BO's efforts.

As an aside, I have no idea how you could blame the recession on a war. Every one in the past has boomed the economy. For that matter, the war's end in most every cases has caused a pull back of the economy and often a recession.