Obama’s disastrous administration gives film makers a lot of useful material, but it still takes talent to pull together an indictment as stunning as this one:
Hat tip: Lulu
Comments
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Obama’s disastrous administration gives film makers a lot of useful material, but it still takes talent to pull together an indictment as stunning as this one:
Hat tip: Lulu
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Charles Martel: not an ad hominem, the truth.
Ad hominem is a fallacy of distraction.
Danny Lemieux: Jeffrey H. Anderson: “The council reports that, using “mainstream estimates of economic multipliers for the effects of fiscal stimulus” (which it describes as a “natural way to estimate the effects of” the legislation), the “stimulus” has added or saved just under 2.4 million jobs — whether private or public — at a cost (to date) of $666 billion. That’s a cost to taxpayers of $278,000 per job.”
The proper measure is job-years, so it’s not much of an analysis. In addition, actual outlays during the period was only $373.4 billion, the rest was in tax cuts, much of which had negligible stimulatory effects, included largely at the insistence of Republicans.
Zach: The proper measure is job-years, so it’s not much of an analysis.
Not really, considering that many of the jobs that the Obama stimulus claimed to have created were temporary jobs and that no “job created” comes with a guarantee that it will exist a year later.
Nice try, though.
Charles Hammer, I know, I know. However, I don’t think Zach normally bothers to read our links provided so I thought I would spell it out. I happened to have a little extra time on my hands.
Danny, it kind of tells you the mindset we’re working with, no? He expects us to read each one of his links in detail but apparently cannot extend us the same courtesy.
Notably, in ~1500 words, not one person responded substantively.
Certainly 1,497 more than what was needed when a ‘notable’ response could have been summed up with just three words:
Get a grip
or
Get a life
or
Take a hike.
SADIE, you’re on to something:
“Take a hike, Zach, and don’t you come back no more, no more, no more, no more
Take a Zach, and don’t you come back no more.”
Gee, maybe we could get a Ray Charles impersonator to sing it!
Charles, Combine your idea with 50 Ways to Leave your Lover and I think we’ll have a hit we all can sing.
Zachriel: The proper measure is job-years, so it’s not much of an analysis.
Danny Lemieux: Not really, considering that many of the jobs that the Obama stimulus claimed to have created were temporary jobs and that no “job created” comes with a guarantee that it will exist a year later.
Which is exactly why you measure job-years.
Charles Martel: Danny, I gave Zach the Weekly Standard link way back in #21. He, of course, rejected it.
Comment #21 is by SADIE and doesn’t have any mention of the Weekly Standard.
Danny Lemieux: I don’t think Zach{riel} normally bothers to read our links provided so I thought I would spell it out.
We normally read your links. We often quote them directly, as you well know.
Zachy, read and weep yet again:
on 08 Jul 2011 at 10:15 am 21Charles MartelYour comment is awaiting moderation.
Read and weep, Zach:
Though the White House is loath to admit it, a recent analysis of the administration’s stimulus program found that for each job created, taxpayers coughed up a stunning $278,000.
In its report on the job-creation impact of the $787 billion program, the White House’s Council of Economic Advisors – handpicked by the president himself – said they used “mainstream estimates of economic multipliers for the effects of fiscal stimulus” to reach their conclusions, noting that the stimulus added or saved just under 2.4 million jobs at a cost of $666 billion.
A quick calculator tabulation figures out to $278,000 per job.
Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/032930_stimulus_plan_new_jobs.html#ixzz1RXEQHl5v
Charles Martel: Read and weep
That’s the same Anderson of the Weekly Standard Danny Lemieux cited above. Citing it again doesn’t strengthen its authority. You have completely ignored our comments above. The proper analysis is by job-year. The actual stimulus directed to creating jobs was only a portion of the total package.
Zach, your authorities (and your comments) are as worthless to me as mine are to you. Since our dueling authorities are speaking past one another, I suggest that you quit beating your dead horse. There is no way I would accept the arguments of a man as numb inside as you.
Thanks to your Keynesian mumbo jumbo, the U.S. economy is in incredibly dire straits. That you prefer to endlessly recite Keynesian incantations when it is obvious to a majority of people that your mojo is destructive is your problem. And boy, is it a big one! If you can’t persuade people here that your voodoo economics won’t work, how the hell are you going to persuade people who would not indulge, as we have, your obvious intense dislike for people?
Charles Martel
At this juncture…Read, delete, giggle, drink, have a cigar blow smoke, open the door and let the dogs out to bark
Charles Martel: your authorities (and your comments) are as worthless to me as mine are to you.
We provided *data* and analysis, not an appeal authority. We explained why the naïve division was incorrect. Job-years is clearly the correct measure. A job that lasts two years is worth more than a job that lasts two months. In this case, CBO data indicates that the stimulus resulted in an additional 7¼ million job-years. In addition, only part of the stimulus bill was actual stimulus.
No one has replied substantively.
Z is not willing to recognize and accept that there’s anything to reply to. Because if he did, he would be committing mental suicide. Thus there’s a very strong self-preservation instinct motivating what Z is writing and doing here.
But then again, even animals and insects are motivated by very strong self-preservation instincts. That’s nothing special for which you can claim pride in.
Zach, this is from the Associated Press, which as a reflexive leftist you know always speaks truth:
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Flat-jobs-data-signal-weakest-apf-2182606890.html?x=0&sec=topStories&pos=7&asset=&ccode=
Charles Martel: Flat jobs data signal weakest recovery in decades
With demand still weak, and the stimulus mostly in the past, the economy is experiencing anemic growth. The component of the ARRA devoted to stimulus was too small to bridge the gap due to lost demand.
http://s3.mediamattersaction.org.s3.amazonaws.com/static/images/jobschartjune.JPG
Nor does that address the point. The question was cost versus job creation, and the proper measure is job-years. A job that lasts two years is worth more than a job that lasts two months.
Zach, there yu go again. You insist that spending non-existent money to ramp up demand will somehow spark a vibrant economy that will repay the debt. Here’s your problem, and everybody here sees it: You studiously avoid citing what amount of money would be enough to create that magic level of demand.
Knowing your penchant for avoiding making arguments that you know you cannot control, I feel safe in predicting that although you will continue urging the expenditure of vast amounts of pretend dollars, you will never tell us what amount of them will work.
The AP is a resource source and C3 link for the NYTimes, EU propaganda arms, the British BBC propaganda arm, Mart. The Ap doesn’t have its own brand name, so that Leftist cannon fodder don’t get confused by too much. Instead, a Leftist cannon fodder agent is told to trust in NPR and the NYTimes. Then they see it in the AP and think “here’s corroboration”, when in fact the AP”s sources came from the same as NPR and NYT.
See how that works?
It’s a cost effective way of fooling brain dead cultists and the Left has to manage a lot more of those than any religion ever had to.
Charles Martel: You insist that spending non-existent money to ramp up demand will somehow spark a vibrant economy that will repay the debt.
Very good! A spark! That’s the first reasonably close restatement of how a stimulus works by anyone on this forum.
Charles Martel: Here’s your problem, and everybody here sees it: You studiously avoid citing what amount of money would be enough to create that magic level of demand.
Most Keynsians thought about $1.0-$1.5 trillion. Actual stimulus was less than half that. However, the economy is a dynamical system, so there is no reason, given a working political system, that the amount of stimulus couldn’t have been adjusted as needed, like giving the engine gas or letting off the throttle, depending on how the engine responded.
Zach, again, your problem with close reading (and editing for that matter):
I said somehow spark. Kind of like magic, no? (Why must I always school you?)
“Most Keynesians”—cites, please!
“Like giving the engine gas. . .” Terrible simile! There is a structural problem with the engine, silly! Your simile assumes its problem is that it’s simply not getting enough gas.
“Dynamical?” What language does that word come from?
Charles M, don’t bother. The Zach group actually believes that governments ‘create’ jobs and that $278,000 a pop is a good deal. We inhabit different reality universes. The Zach gang is very European statist in their world view.
BTW – the word is that the government next month will once again announce that the just-released employment figures were “unexpectedly” lower than just reported. But, how can that be? The CBO said that….
Here a link to an article on how the government of Argentina (which I still maintain Obama uses as his economic model) is now going after economists who report the truth of what is happening to Argentina’s economy, in contradiction to the government’s infallible figures.
http://blog.mises.org/17665/argentina-charging-economists/
Soon, coming to a country near you!
Danny, I know, but it is fun pretending to be Pavlov. . .
Danny Lemieux: Charles M, don’t bother. The Zach{riel} group actually believes that governments ‘create’ jobs and that $278,000 a pop is a good deal.
Charles even restated the idea of how a stimulus works above. It’s meant as a spark to the economy when the engine has shut down. It’s not meant to be permanent expense or employment, but is to be repaid when the economy grows again. Nor is the $278000 figure valid, for reasons already explained.
Danny Lemieux: Here a link to an article on how the government of Argentina (which I still maintain Obama uses as his economic model) is now going after economists who report the truth of what is happening to Argentina’s economy, in contradiction to the government’s infallible figures.
Yes. But the CBO is not Indec, and the U.S. is not Argentina. Independent investors believe U.S. inflation is low, which is why rates are low. In Argentina, investors have been avoiding investment, not only due to inflation, but due to manipulation of statistics. However, the U.S. could end up like Argentina — if the Americans default.
Dr. Frankenstein: “Igor, could you spark the corpse?”
Igor: “Right away, Dr. Frankenstein.” (Zaps the corpse.)
Dr. Frankenstein: “Dang, it’s not working. More, Igor, more!”
Igor pours it on. Central Europe’s entire electrical power grid shunts over to Dr. Frankenstein’s lab. The corpse begins to shimmy and twitch from the vast amount of power being shunted through it.
Dr. Frankenstein: “Look at it move! It’s alive, ALIVE!”