By 38reln payday loan
Bookworm on Jul 07 2011 at 3:49 pm | Filed under: Barack Obama, Democrats
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
Email This Post To A Friend
You must be logged in to post a comment.
pst314 on Shopping in Texas?
JKB on Shopping in Texas?pst314 on Shopping in Texas?
Indigo Red on Is it racist to remind people that the American government first disarmed Native Americans and then decimated them?Indigo Red on Is it racist to remind people that the American government first disarmed Native Americans and then decimated them?
Mike Devx on Is it racist to remind people that the American government first disarmed Native Americans and then decimated them?
Danny Lemieux on Is it racist to remind people that the American government first disarmed Native Americans and then decimated them?Indigo Red on Is it racist to remind people that the American government first disarmed Native Americans and then decimated them?
Gringo on I can actually see the gray in my hair spreading
Ron19 on I can actually see the gray in my hair spreading
Well, with Zach having returned to all-out Asperger mode and abc off sulking, I see it is up to me to repeat the Lettermen memes that will refute, destroy and obliterate the lies in this video:
—Obama inherited Bush’s mess. Bush has compelled every action that Obama has taken since Inauguration Day 2009.
We may well be dealing with a John Galtian device that controls minds from a distance—say, from Crawford, Texas, all the way to Washington, DC.
—The stimulus was too small. Everybody knows, as Zach has so assiduously proven with his citations of the Old Testament story of the seven fat and seven lean years, that we should spend much more—trillions more, if necessary—to jump-start the economy. (Paul Krugman recently whispered the same in abc’s ear at a Bahamian AGW rally both had jetted to.)
—The basis of opposition to Obama is racism. Their election of Oreos and Latinos who act white to high office bespeaks a remarkably deep and cynical manipulativeness on the part of Tea Partyers.
—The Jews run this country.
BUSH DID IT. BuSh Fault!
If only I could resurrect Bandstand to 2011 and play ‘Rate-a-Record’ … Let’s turn on the time machine.
Dick Clark: What did you think of REPEAL?
Sadie: Dick.
Dick Clark: What!
Sadie: Not you, what Mark Halperin said.
Dick Clark: Let’s try this again, Sadie. What did you think of the video?
Sadie: I really like the words and give them a 95.
Dick Clark: What about the beat?
Sadie: Great. I hope he beats it back to Chicago next year.
Dick Clark: Gotcha, but can you dance to it?
Sadie: Dance to it?! You bet, Mr. Clark…I could dance, sing and really feel proud of my country.
Charles Martel: —Obama inherited Bush’s mess.
U.S. GDP
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/gdp-growth
Job Growth
http://newsjunkiepost.com/2010/10/08/its-official-more-private-sector-jobs-created-in-2010-than-during-entire-bush-years/
Stock Market (click 5 years)
http://www.google.com/finance?q=INDEXDJX:.DJI
Shhh! Martel, they respond to their names, or rather , letters, when they appear. I’m a happier man when they do not.
Sadie, dating yourself, and, because I get it, dating me, too.
Don’t worry, be happy!
BUSH DID IT. IT WAS BUSH=The Left
Bush is the puppetmaster. O and Z and A, are ajust puppets for him to manipulate. Watch out for it, he’ll bring in Dick Cheney and his shotgun. Then YOU’LL BE REALLY sorry.
Here, Zachy, here’s some homework. Now run along and see what boilerplate refutations you can cut and paste. Ta!
http://pointsandfigures.com/2011/07/08/economic-calamity/
http://blogs.reuters.com/james-pethokoukis/2011/07/07/u-s-debt-crisis-might-be-on-fast-track/
Z can’t read those links, Mart. Don’t be cruel.
Bandstand didn’t have a version of Rate-a-”broken”-Record, but if they did we’d all know what it would sound like spinning.
I am giving the Z’s and the z-wops a 9.2 today, just like unemployment.
Michael Adams, we could do a line dance to it
“Come let’s stroll, strollin’ down the line”
I always found it hilarious how the Left pissed their pants everytime Dick Cheney came on the scene. Cheney was seen as far more evil than Bush, but you know what? I liked it. Because they FEARED him. They really did. They really were scared to their bones of Cheney.
When that shotgun incident happened, the Left got even more scared. It was the greatest fun in a long time slapping the Left in the face with that bit of cowardice. And I did it as often as I could, making it into hilarious off and on jokes.
The Reuters link is particularly important, Charles M. My sources tell me the real challenge will come in August-Sept, when the Treasury Dept. will have to sell more notes on the market. When countries like China balk, that’s when interest rates will explode and the scope of the disaster will become evident to even the more obtuse among us. The interpretation that I also hear about consumer and commercial credit is that institutions are not lending precisely because they expect interest rates to explode this fall.
Charles Martel (citing): “Government spending, and activist government policy at all levels are putting a chokehold on private expansion. The competition for an investment dollar between government and the private sector is being won by government. That’s why T-bill rates are so low.”
That makes no sense at all. This is standard supply and demand. Rates tend to go up during an expansion, when there is competition for the money supply. Rates tend to go down during a recession, when people are seeking safety. Inflation is another consideration, but inflation is still very low, and there are still significant sectors deflating.
http://www.frbsf.org/education/activities/drecon/2000/0012.html
Your second citation contradicts the first citation.
Charles Martel (citing): Assuming current fiscal policies remain in force, our economic model suggests that interest rates will rise considerably over the next decade, with the yield on the 10-year Treasury note reaching nearly 9% by 2021.
This is more reasonable. Rates will rise as the economy expands, and will rise a lot if the deficit continues on its present course, a result of stiff competition for the money supply. So these are the macroeconomic conditions facing the U.S.
Short-term, unemployment
Mid-term, deficits
Long-term, entitlements
Danny, Zach posted 1 minute after you did, so I assume he did not see your comment. Doesn’t it amaze you that a person/group with absolutely no real-life experience in anything, let alone the economy, knows better than you, a business owner, what is really going on?
(Notice that even he concedes the looming disaster posed by Obama’s out-of-control deficits. Could it be we are penetrating that thick basement hide?)
Charles Martel: Notice that even he concedes the looming disaster posed by Obama’s out-of-control deficits.
The current deficits are primarily due to ongoing U.S. policy and the recession. Nor has our position changed on deficits.
“The current deficits are primarily due to ongoing U.S. policy and the recession. Nor has our position changed on deficits.”
Thank you, Zach. I’m so happy to see that neither current policy nor the recession has anything to do with Obama. Glad you cleared that up.
I love the part about inflation being low. If all you do is brush over government statistics and you don’t need to shop and pay for your own needs, that can look very rosy. Real life is another matter, however.
Yes…housing prices are still falling, but that bad, not good (many people in my neighborhood are now losing their homes, their net worth, and the retirement savings they have built into their home equity). For new home buyers, meanwhile, credit is very hard to come by. Food and energy prices are on a big upswing, though, and for most normal people, those are the day-to-day costs that matter.
In Zach’s fantasy supply-and-demand scenario, plummeting home prices means the creation of a vastly expanded pool of first-time housing buyers. Only they can’t get credit because of the conditions Danny pinpointed above.
Business is sitting on piles of cash because the incompetent crypto-Marxist in the White House hasn’t decided yet what else he’s going to do to wreck the economy. You don’t build a new kitchen when the town is dithering about whether to up your property taxes 200 percent, or require you to build a new garage to house your government-mandated electric car, or go for all-out condemnation under eminent domain.
According to Zach’s analysis, government is now competing for ”the investment dollar” to, I assume, stoke the “stimulus,” which simply isn’t working. So businesses look around and see:
—An incredibly incompetent, pork-laden, hostile goverment that, according to its own figures, spent $268,000 to “create” each new job that its so-called stimulus generated.
—The unsustainable rate of deficit spendfing means the money has to come from somewhere. Those billions that business has set aside in the hopes of waiting out an increasingly irrational government are now targets of opportunity. For the current crop of anti-capitalist Feds, it will pretty much be “Pretty soon we’re going to have to heavily tax the private sector to a.) pay for our spendthrift ways and b.) further weaken it so that we can usher in total crony capitalism.”
Danny Lemieux: Yes…housing prices are still falling, but that bad, not good (many people in my neighborhood are now losing their homes, their net worth, and the retirement savings they have built into their home equity).
Not to minimize the damage done to your neighbor’s finances, though it may be bad for owners, in terms of inflation, good for buyers and renters.
Danny Lemieux: For new home buyers, meanwhile, credit is very hard to come by.
Guidelines have tighted considerably. More people are being required to make substantial down payments.
Danny Lemieux: Food and energy prices are on a big upswing, though, and for most normal people, those are the day-to-day costs that matter.
Over the last year, the overall inflation rate was about 3.6%, core inflation 1.5%, energy 19%, and food 3.5%.
Charles Martel: Business is sitting on piles of cash because the incompetent crypto-Marxist in the White House hasn’t decided yet what else he’s going to do to wreck the economy.
No. It’s due to lack of demand. This is basic economics.
Charles Martel: —An incredibly incompetent, pork-laden, hostile goverment …
The government has reduced its workforce by hundreds of thousands over the last two years.
Charles Martel: that, according to its own figures, spent $268,000 to “create” each new job that its so-called stimulus generated.
Your cost figure is incorrect.
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
You got one thing right, z-group. The cost figure was $278,000.
But why quibble about $10,000 when you’re so wrong on everything else.
SADIE, good catch. I’m such a conservative soul that I shaved $10,000 off the figure.
I just know that Zach will find a progressive website like News Junkie Post that can rationalize those $278,000.
The disaster was engineered by the Left in order to take emergency power in America. That was part of the design. And if they are starting to admit it, it’s because they are almost done with it. Not because they were ‘convinced’ by the Right.
Charles Martel: that, according to its own figures, spent $268,000 to “create” each new job that its so-called stimulus generated.
SADIE: But why quibble about $10,000 when you’re so wrong on everything else.
Citation please.
Zach, see #21, then please report back.
When Z can read and understand citations, call me back.
Charles Martel: see #21, then please report back.
No citation there.
Ymarsakar: When Z can read and understand citations, call me back.
You could post it for others who may be reading the thread.
Much of the stimulus is in ongoing tax cuts or hasn’t yet been spent. The effect on jobs is not just in a single year, but spread over a number of years. Full-time equivalent jobs (in millions) is estimated as follows:
http://www.cbo.gov/publications/collections/collections.cfm?collect=12
2009, 0.7-1.3
2010, 1.9-4.8
2011, 1.2-3.7
2012, 0.2-0.7
Taking the cost of $787 billion, and dividing it by the midpoint of each range, that’s 7¼ million job-years, or about $109000 per job-year. For the families directly affected, this was crucial support, and prevented them having to depend on unemployment, and the problems of reentering the job market after a long absence. Many gained valuable work experience, which will help them in the future. Unfortunately, much of stimulus was used for tax cuts, so it wasn’t very effective. Only about half was used in ways that had a direct stimulatory effect. Even China had nearly as big of a stimulus, $586 billion, with a much smaller economy.
I don’t believe there’s much interest in reading citations of some abstract number with no relationship to people’s actual life experiences.
Such things are best left to number crunchers and politicians, after all.
I give up. You can lead a Zach to water, but you cannot make him think.
Citation please.
Reality. Cite all the links you want z-group. Reality trumps all of them. Estimated figures [#27] read that as guesstimated. We’re half way through 2011 and 2012 is anybody’s guess.
No guessing today’s numbers – unemployment rose ‘unexpectedly’ to 9.2%.
SADIE, what’s funny is how the Whore Media would play it if unemployment were to (unexpectedly) dip:
U.S. unemployment dipped 0.2% in October, twice the decrease the Obama Administration had predicted in July. “This is proof that the president’s anti-recessionary measures have taken hold and are working,” said White House Press Secretary Jay Carney.
.2% out of 20% unemployment, not such a big deal when the overall trend is locked on “catastrophe” mode.
Ymarsakar: I don’t believe there’s much interest in reading citations of some abstract number with no relationship to people’s actual life experiences.
The data is based on empirical studies. (That means it relates to people’s actual life experiences. It’s also called “data”.)
Charles Martel: —An incredibly incompetent, pork-laden, hostile goverment that, according to its own figures, spent $268,000 to “create” each new job that its so-called stimulus generated.
SADIE: Cite all the links you want z-group. Reality trumps all of them.
Charles Martel made a claim. He said it was based on the government’s own numbers. We examined those numbers, and it didn’t support his claim. The reality is that we supported our claim, while Charles Martel did not.
Zach, your credibility here is almost zero. I once challenged you to a real-time debate and you wisely pretended I never did. May I suggest that you continue your pretense and we will continue our laughter?
People don’t go around in life making decisions, especially decisions, based upon some empirical study done by people they have never met.
If you go around life making life decisions, Z, based upon “data”… yea. No wonder.
Say, given the abysmal news about “unexpectedly” low job creation, wouldn’t this be a spiffy time to have Zach tell us how much stimulus the government should apply to get us out of our economic malaise?
How about it, Zach? Is there a website where a gutsy Krugman-like economist has come right out and said how many trillions of our grandkids’ dollars we should spend to revive the U.S. economy? Can you link us to it so we can finally see the clear-cut case you have yet to make for more deficit spending?
We await your reply with bated breath.
Humans make decisions based upon a couple of criteria. 1. What they themselves believe is the truth, 2. what they believe others believe is the truth, and 3. what they consider more important, number Uno or Number Nii.
Our problem is here with you, Z, and your judgment. If somebody else, say Richard Johnston, had come in and tried to claim the same things and used the same sources, we wouldn’t react the same way. That’s because Johnston’s judgment is different from Z’s judgment, and thus even if they reach the same conclusion and use the same sources, they won’t do it the same way. Methods thus dictate the state of the end goal.
We will probably disagree with Johnston the same, but we would see him as a much more serious debater and person.
A human that places the most time and effort on Number 2, is a person that can’t be trusted. People that live life making decisions based upon solely what they believe others think, is going to end up like these folks.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1O2qHzQYVtw
Even if Z’s sources were full of pomp and authority, it still doesn’t confer upon Z anything positive. A person that can’t make decisions using their own judgment, outsourcing their decisions solely to other people, can be manipulated to do anything. They can’t be trusted. They can’t be trusted when they say their source is “good” or “true” or “valid”. They can’t be trusted to wield policy or authority. They can’t be trusted to wield power or influence. It matters not in the least whether what they say sounds good to our ears or not. They cannot be trusted. Z can call himself a defender of the Constitution and a “true member” of the Conservative movement all he wants, but his words cannot be trusted because his decisions aren’t his own to make.
That should be and is the primary issue people at Bookworm Room take with Z through A here.
In order for humans to believe in other people, trust is required. Credibility is nice, but even without credibility, so long as trust is there, humans can believe. Humans don’t trust people they have never met face to face, never communicated with, or have never seen or interacted with before. This “stranger” vibe is an instinctual self-defense mechanism which is still going on even today. (It’s why cute little girls above the legal limit but below fully mature, react to the creepy vibe from strangers hitting on them)
In order for individuals that have duties and responsibilities to discharge to trust another human, certain things must be laid out in the open. First, we must know that their agenda is not harmful to our own interests. Secondly, we must know that their objective, whatever it is, is their own and not somebody else’s. We don’t want any puppets here because trusting in a puppet has no use when who controls the puppet is unknown and untrustworthy.
The moment a person or movement is exposed as being composed solely of hanger ons and band wagon cultists, not to mention puppets, is the moment that person or movement is discredited and there will be no way to regain any semblance of trust. But here’s the trick. That moment will only cause distrust amongst those who believe in the primacy of individuals making their own decisions and judgments in life. That moment will not cause fanatics or true believers or cultists to change their ways.
A and Z have spent a lot of time here arguing about stuff that never really mattered. In the end, they failed to present themselves in a trustworthy manner, with predictable consequences from the Bookworm Room regulars. They were given as much a chance as normal person could expect. In fact, they were given more time to present themselves than any job interview would have allowed. Yet they still failed. And what’s more important, they keep coming back like they think they will still win or something.
The data is based on empirical studies. (That means it relates to people’s actual life experiences. It’s also called “data”.)
When data and empirical studies are in direct contrast to the realities of day to day life of Mr. & Mrs. John Q. Public – IT’S CALL DOO-DOO not DATA.
Charles Martel
You can lead a Zach to water, but you cannot make him think.
So true when one is full from the trough of kool-aid.
Two guesses whether people with families to feed will still believe in Obama.
Some will. Some won’t…
Why is that do you think?
Hey Sadie. How come you posted at the same time I did, but I quantum warp beat you to the punch?
Ymar, a masterful analysis. You’ve pretty much nailed the case for why Zach will never make any headway in this room—and from what I’ve seen of his postings at other blog sites, any other—as long as he continues conducting himself like a pedantic automaton.
One of the benefits to people watching, Martel, is that it’s a good way to study and gain insights into human behavior. While this is useful for assassination or homicide, it’s also useful for other, more socially acceptable, goals.
Every single person part of any community, lives in an “echo chamber” based upon the fact that everyone in there knows each other and won’t be suspicious of associates or friends. That’s why I choose to use “echo chamber” only in situations that actually deserve it. Commonality of mind and behavior, if that is deemed an echo chamber and a negative, would demand that 18 year old girls become friendly with any creepy stranger that hits on them.
Barriers and assumptions of trust (I know him and thus he’s not a threat to me) are simply things that people should not discard just because they think it’s an “echo chamber”.
It’s a self defense mechanism. If people want to suicide and re-engineer humanity, just please get off my planet first. Don’t make us clean up your mess.
Part of why Z reacted so unwisely to my comments is because he felt fear of the unknown. The reason why others here at Bookworm Room did not take it as dangerous, is because socially, I’m a known factor here. Danny described it was family, which is a good enough analogy. Thus if somebody, a stranger, they didn’t know had come up to them and said the same things I had said, their “stranger alert” vibes would have started going off.
It is also why, in the end, close friends and family can make jokes which would seem insulting and socially dangerous to outsiders. After all, what happens if somebody misunderstands and a fight breaks out? But amongst those with close relationships, that chance of misunderstanding becomes very low. People become… comfortable with each other. Enough to test the limits of human social tolerances.
Far from being a bad thing, this “echo chamber” that people seem to think is a human flaw, is actually part of what makes us supreme on this planet. It allows us to take in strangers and make them community members, increasing our strength, BUT only if we trust them. Only if they demonstrate the ability to be trusted. That’s why traitors are seen in such a bad light. Even by the side they defected to.
Charles Martel: your credibility here is almost zero.
Ad hominem. We provided an argument and relevant data. Notably, in ~1500 words, not one person responded substantively.
Z’s refusal to do some introspection, instead of attacking people with the “ad hominem” label is really unsightly. It’s also not something this community, at least, respects.
Z just plain doesn’t get it. He won’t accept it, because he doesn’t understand it. The ability for Bookworm Room readers to trust in what Z is saying, is 100% of the entire substance in most human minds. Regardless of what they claim, humans trust people, not ideologies. It’s a thin and abstract line, but it exists.
Z lacks some critical social and people watching skills, Mart. What can you do? In an older age, such would have fallen into pit traps and nobody would remember them later.
Remember Marie Antoinette? Remember what happened to her after she said “let them eat cake”?
Fact is, Zach, you challenge commenters here on citations that most people have seen or have taken for granted.
Now, I agree that it can be problematic when people take information at face value – you’ve provided us with quite an education on that score (Middle East, AGW, Keynesian economics, etc.). But, many of us don’t bother to respond for your request for citations because we accept certain information as being rather obvious or generally well known (which, to be fair, is not quite fair, methinks…but, we are all time compressed these days).
But, OK…you insisted on a citation for the claim that each “job gained” (however defined) was generated by the Obama Administration’s stimulus plans at a cost per job of $278,000 (your own back-of-napkin calculations notwithstanding).
So, I will give you a citation from a source in which I place great trust: The Weekly Standard. They use as their citation the following report:
THE ECONOMIC IMPACT OF THE AMERICAN RECOVERY AND REINVESTMENT ACT OF 2009: SEVENTH QUARTERLY REPORT - JULY 1, 2011
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/cea_7th_arra_report.pdf
The Weekly Standard’s very succinct review of this report that explains how the $278,000 per job figure was derived, using the administration’s own analysis and words, is found here:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/obama-s-economists-stimulus-has-cost-278000-job_576014.html
Zach, not an ad hominem, the truth. You have zero credibility here. Mindlessly pushing URLs and pretending that your second-hand opinions are real information or actual discussion are the reasons why.
You are scared out of your wits to engage in a real exchange, and the motivations for your fear are painfully obvious: You would not only have to finally acknowledge your lack of any coherent moral conviction but also your inability to think on your feet.
Danny, I gave Zach the Weekly Standard link way back in #21. He, of course, rejected it.
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!”