Repeat Until True: "The Stimulus Plan Has Created or Saved 150,000 Jobs."

[BPSCG]

Note all the dates:

We began by passing a recovery act that has already saved or created over 150,000 jobs and provided a tax cut to 95 percent of all working families. Link (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/29/obama-100-days-press-conf_n_193283.html).

The U.S. economic stimulus plan has created or saved 150,000 jobs since it was enacted 100 days ago, top White House economic officials said on Wednesday, relying on projections instead of an actual tally of workers...

"In every state across this country, people are at work who would not have been so but for the measures in this act," Jared Bernstein, chief economic advisor to Vice President Joe Biden, told a conference call with reporters. "That's a tremendous dose of medicine into an economy that's finally showing some signs of breaking its fever."Link (http://www.reuters.com/article/ousiv/idUSTRE54Q5S120090527).

The economic stimulus plan has created or saved 150,000 jobs since its inception in February, a senior White House Budget Office official said Wednesday.

Rob Nabors, the deputy director of the Office of Management and Budget, told a congressional panel that the jobs figure is based on an economic model used by the Obama administration.
Link (http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20090708-709281.html).

Let us accept as true President Obama's unfalsifiable April 29 claim that the stimulus bill has saved or created over 150,000 jobs, even though it is as unfalsifiable as the claim that he has an invisible pink unicorn setting Shakespeare's Hamlet to music under his Oval Office desk (go ahead, prove that he doesn't!).

So, according to the administration's own mouthpieces, the number of jobs the stimulus bill has saved or created since April 29, is...

Zero.

[Upchurch]

So, according to the administration's own mouthpieces, the number of jobs the stimulus bill has saved or created since April 29, is...

Zero.
That doesn't necessarily follow. They may just not have any data on the following months.

[DC]

a few years ago when a leftists said something bad about the Governmnet you often could read this : If you dont like it, you are free to leave. :P

[lionking]

On the issue of stimulus packages, those implemented in Australia are almost universally considered to have saved jobs.

Evidence? The current unemployment rate has just inched up from 5.7% to 5.8%, which is the sort of variability which can be expected any time. The gloomy forecasts have not yet come to pass. The stimulus packages are also credited with Australia not yet slipping into recession and with increasing confidence levels.

I should add that I am not at all a fan of the current government.

[Upchurch]

I'm torn. What kind of logical fallacy is the OP? Is it a non-sequitur or a hasty generalization?

[Marc39]

How does one prove jobs have been saved? Obama is inventing new economic metrics. Change we can believe in?

[BPSCG]

I'm torn. What kind of logical fallacy is the OP? Is it a non-sequitur or a hasty generalization?I see you're reverting to your tried-and-untrue formula when you don't have an actual argument: "OMG! I don't understand the thread title!"

Keep on truckin' failin'.

[JoeTheJuggler]

I could believe the 150,000 figure. Trouble is, there are some 565,000 people filing for first time unemployment benefits the last week measured (it's "breaking news" on the CNN home page right now--no article to link to yet). And that compares favorably to the 617,000 for the previous week. 150,000 jobs over a period of months is hardly noticeable.

ETA: My understanding is that only a small percentage of the stimulus package has been spent yet. There are signs on bus stops all over St. Louis saying something like "Due to budget cuts, this station is no longer in service." Seems to me some stimulus there would not only save the jobs of bus drivers and mechanics but also the people who rely on public transportation to keep their jobs, or to try to get a new one.

[Upchurch]

I see you're reverting to your tried-and-untrue formula when you don't have an actual argument: "OMG! I don't understand the thread title!"
My argument is that your OP is based on a logical fallacy. Maybe two. Possibly three, if you consider straw man.

Keep on truckin' failin'.
Really? After some of the threads you've started?

Okay, then perhaps you could provide some evidence that Obama administration people have said that no jobs were created or saved by the stimulus since April 29.

[BPSCG]

That doesn't necessarily follow. They may just not have any data on the following months.Sorry... I should have said keep on flailin', not "failin'."

Can you please show me the data where they plucked the 150,000 figure out of? Instead of speculating whether they may or may not have gotten any new data?

I just read something in the March/April 2009 issue of Skeptical Inquirer this am:
Robert Sheaffer has (along with James Alcock and Ray Hyman) given skeptics a piece of really good advice: "Before we try to explain something, we should be sure it actually happened."I commend that thought to you. Before you try to explain why the 150,000 jobs saved or created figure hasn't changed in almost three months, you should try to ascertain that those 150,000 saved-or-created jobs even happened in the first place.

Once you've done that, we can move on. Otherwise, you're contributing nothing here.

[Upchurch]

Can you please show me the data where they plucked the 150,000 figure out of?
Have you completely flipped out? The 150,000 jobs figure isn't my claim. It isn't up to me, of all people, to support it.

In the OP, you accepted the claim as a given. What does it matter where the original numbers game from, if you accept them for the sake of the argument?


Once you've done that, we can move on. Otherwise, you're contributing nothing here.
And what have you contributed? Your OP is an exercise in logical fallacy.

That's a kind of contribution, I suppose.

[corplinx]

You are stretching way too hard to tow the company line on this one Upchurch.

[maddog]

Waaah! You're criticizing my man-crush president and the "job" he's doing! Waaaah! Stop it!

No, seriously -- ignoring the obvious pull-it-out-of-their-buttness of the number -- if they claimed 150k back on April 29th and they still claim 150k since February on July 7, which implies reasonably current "data", that clearly implies no change during those two months.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Maybe BPSCG is missing this bit:
Rob Nabors, the deputy director of the Office of Management and Budget, told a congressional panel that the jobs figure is based on an economic model used by the Obama administration.

So when people say the stimulus has created or saved 150,000 jobs to date, I think that means to the date that the model was run. I don't think it's meant as an up-to-the-minute precise number. (The fact that it's rounded to the nearest 50K points to this reading too.)

So are you upset that these guys are guilty of gross imprecision?

At any rate, the claim of saving or creating 150,000 jobs over a 3 month (or so) period is not exactly a bold claim. Not with the kind of unemployment we're dealing with.

[Upchurch]

You are stretching way too hard to tow the company line on this one Upchurch.
That would be the JREF company line of reason and logic based arguments? It's not that hard.

Seriously, I'm not even defending Obama's claim. I'm saying that BPSCG's argument is full of holes.

[Drysdale]

Cmon Beeps, that's bigfoot jobs. You know bigfoots clearing the forest,raking leaves and stuff.

Geez...

[BPSCG]

Maybe BPSCG is missing this bit:
Rob Nabors, the deputy director of the Office of Management and Budget, told a congressional panel that the jobs figure is based on an economic model used by the Obama administration. Didn't miss it. I just learned once that you don't show all your pitches the first time through the lineup, especially if the other guys can't hit your fastball.

Which, I notice, they haven't yet.

At any rate, the claim of saving or creating 150,000 jobs over a 3 month (or so) period is not exactly a bold claim. It's not even a provable or dis-provable claim. It's right there with, "I saw God talking to me out of the clouds last night."

Repeat until true. Or at least until people believe its true. Which is the whole point, I bet.

[Upchurch]

Didn't miss it. I just learned once that you don't show all your pitches the first time through the lineup, especially if the other guys can't hit your fastball.

Which, I notice, they haven't yet.
So ...we're ignoring the OP and going straight into the Obama bashing, then?

[JoeTheJuggler]

It's not even a provable or dis-provable claim. It's right there with, "I saw God talking to me out of the clouds last night."
Sure it is. The claim is that, based on Obama's economic model, the stimulus spending will create or save (or already has created or saved) a certain number of jobs.

You plug a given spending package into the model and see if it comes out that way. If it doesn't, the claim is false.

Or are you claiming that there is no economic model, and they're just pulling numbers out of thin air?

[BPSCG]

So ...we're ignoring the OP and going straight into the Obama bashing, then?Looking for something coherent in that post. Will let you know if anything turns up.

Meanwhile, I notice the guy who says...

Seriously, I'm not even defending Obama's claim.

...is the same guy who on the same page, says:

That doesn't necessarily follow. They may just not have any data on the following months.

[Upchurch]

Looking for something coherent in that post. Will let you know if anything turns up.

Meanwhile, I notice the guy who says...

...is the same guy who on the same page, says:
I wasn't defending Obama's claim. Defending his claim would mean saying it was true. I wasn't saying it is true, because I don't know. My comment was one of the many possible scenarios that equally fit your premise. Your conclusion is not conclusive.

Your reading comprehension has gotten steadily worse since the election, as has your ability to put together a logical argument.

[BPSCG]

Sure it is. The claim is that, based on Obama's economic model, the stimulus spending will create or save (or already has created or saved) a certain number of jobs.

You plug a given spending package into the model and see if it comes out that way. If it doesn't, the claim is false.They're claiming they saved or created 150,000 jobs. As proof, they say, "Look at this computer program!"

Sorry, just because you plug data into your program and your program runs to completion without crashing, it doesn't mean your program actually works properly. Ask any programmer who's looked at his output and scratched his head and asked, "Now how the hell did I get those numbers???" Happened to me just last week, and my program didn't pretend to predict job creation for the entire U.S. economy.

Get serious. The government can't even tell you how many people actually lost their jobs or got new jobs last month; that's why the Bureau of Labor Statistics always comes up with "revised" unemployment and employment figures a month or so after they first announce them. But this administration would have you believe they know how many jobs would have been lost in future months without the stimulus package.

Or are you claiming that there is no economic model, and they're just pulling numbers out of thin air?Oh, I suppose they have some model that was designed to prove just what they wanted it to prove. And when it didn't prove what they wanted it to prove, they tweaked it a little until it did. Maybe some enterprising newspaper investigator can take a little time off from 24/7 Michael Jackson coverage to have a look at that model.


A CPA who did audits for a large corporation once told me the accounting firm she worked for would ask the directors of the corporation each year how much of a profit they wanted to show this year. Story may be true, I dunno. Not that politicians' economic experts would do the same thing, nosiree.


Anyway, I'm just a little surprised that this alleged model is evidently showing no jobs created or saved in the last 2-1/2 months. You'd think they'd want to add ten or twenty thousand every time they opened their mouths.

[BPSCG]

I wasn't defending Obama's claim. Defending his claim would mean saying it was true. I wasn't saying it is true, because I don't know. My comment was one of the many possible scenarios that equally fit your premise. Your conclusion is not conclusive.

Your reading comprehension has gotten steadily worse since the election, as has your ability to put together a logical argument.Furious back-pedaling with a side dish of ad hom. Come back when you have something substantive to add to the discussion, like JtJ.

[Upchurch]

Your reading comprehension has gotten steadily worse since the election, as has your ability to put together a logical argument.
Furious back-pedaling with a side dish of ad hom.
Excellent example.

[BPSCG]

Whatever. I'm done with you here. My keyboard has a limited number of available strokes, and I don't see any point in wasting them.

[JoeTheJuggler]

They're claiming they saved or created 150,000 jobs. As proof, they say, "Look at this computer program!"

Sorry, just because you plug data into your program and your program runs to completion without crashing, it doesn't mean your program actually works properly. Ask any programmer who's looked at his output and scratched his head and asked, "Now how the hell did I get those numbers???" Happened to me just last week, and my program didn't pretend to predict job creation for the entire U.S. economy.

Yes, it's an estimate based on a model.

Now, given that it's an estimate based on the model, isn't it silly to read some significance into the fact that people are quoting the same figure a month or two later?

Your conclusion that they're saying the stimulus has created zero jobs since April isn't reasonable.

[Distracted1]

BPSCG,
Is it your fundamental assertion here that how many jobs (if any) were created (or lost) is too complex a question to have an answer to?, and therefore any claims to have created "x" number of jobs is spurious.
If that is your assertion, I am forced to agree. However, I must point out that claims that hinge upon knowing the unknowable are not unique to the party-or the administration- currently in charge.

[BPSCG]

Yes, it's an estimate based on a model.

Now, given that it's an estimate based on the model, isn't it silly to read some significance into the fact that people are quoting the same figure a month or two later? Not at all. Isn't it a strange model that says, "Pouring $787 billion into the economy" (actually, I think it's only about $110 billion to date) "will create or save 150,000 jobs between now" (February) "and April, and nothing beyond that...?"

That's about three-quarters of a million bucks per job saved. Assuming those "saved" jobs actually even exist, which hasn't been proved. Show me the jobs, not some computer model.

Your conclusion that they're saying the stimulus has created zero jobs since April isn't reasonable.When you say at the beginning of April that the stimulus has saved 150,000 jobs, and you repeat that exact same figure on July 8, what other conclusion should one draw?

Do you believe that number?

[BPSCG]

BPSCG,
Is it your fundamental assertion here that how many jobs (if any) were created (or lost) is too complex a question to have an answer to?, and therefore any claims to have created "x" number of jobs is spurious. Not quite. My objection is that it is a claim that can not be disproved, what is called an unfalsifiable claim.

How do you disprove the claim that Joe, who waits tables at a local restaurant, would have lost his job were it not for the stimulus spending? Or, had there been no stimulus spending, how do you disprove the claim that he would have kept his job if the Treasury had only printed/borrowed $787 billion and dumped it into the banks to spread around?

It's a claim with no evidence except for some alleged economic model, and it's not even theoretically subject to disproof. Most of the people on this board say they don't believe in God because they've seen no evidence for his existence, and the claims that God does exist are unfalsifiable. This claim is exactly the same thing.

If that is your assertion, I am forced to agree. However, I must point out that claims that hinge upon knowing the unknowable are not unique to the party-or the administration- currently in charge.True enough. But that doesn't mean they should be allowed to get away with it.

[johnny karate]

Newsweek did a fairly balanced analysis of this claim last month (http://www.newsweek.com/id/202237).

The bottomline is this: Democrats have to eat some crow, which is being gleefully fed to them by Republicans with short-term memory loss.

[BPSCG]

Newsweek did a fairly balanced analysis of this claim last month (http://www.newsweek.com/id/202237).

The bottomline is this: Democrats have to eat some crow, which is being gleefully fed to them by Republicans with short-term memory loss.From the link:
Bernstein is wisely refraining from saying where the jobs figures would be without the stimulus package. Wherever the jobless rate peaks, he's saying it would be 1.5 percent to 2 percent higher if the stimulus package had not been enacted.

Is that so? We know of no way to prove or disprove such a claim. Which is exactly what I've been saying. It's an unfalsifiable claim.

There is a God.
Bigfoot is out there.
There's an invisible pink unicorn in my back yard.
The stimulus package saved or created 150,000 jobs sometime before July 8, 2009.

All unfalsifiable claims, all claims that only true believers want you to buy into.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Isn't it a strange model that says, "Pouring $787 billion into the economy" (actually, I think it's only about $110 billion to date) "will create or save 150,000 jobs between now" (February) "and April, and nothing beyond that...?"

That's about three-quarters of a million bucks per job saved.
Well now it sounds like you think the 150,000 figure is way too low.

Show me the jobs, not some computer model.

You just said that that's not possible. Remember? You said:

Get serious. The government can't even tell you how many people actually lost their jobs or got new jobs last month; that's why the Bureau of Labor Statistics always comes up with "revised" unemployment and employment figures a month or so after they first announce them.


It sounds like you're trying to make a big deal out of this, and you're not even quite sure what the big deal is. Is it that they said the same figure on two different dates? Is it that you think the figure is exaggerated (too high)? Or do you think it's too low?

I'm not sure, myself. You say we've poured $787 billion into the economy to create or save 150,000 jobs, but my understanding is that states have only spent about 10% of the stimulus money so far. Also, I'm not sure the money was solely intended to provide jobs and not to provide necessary infrastructure improvements (that will probably save jobs in the long run) or to provide other services.

[johnny karate]

I don't think anyone is holding up this claim as gospel. For me, it falls squarely in the arena of "Random Political BS". However, if you examine all the claims and statements made by any politician, you're bound to find a tsunami of BS, so I'm not sure why this one particular, and relatively inconsequential, claim deserves such vitriol.

[maddog]

From the link:
Which is exactly what I've been saying. It's an unfalsifiable claim.

There is a God.
Bigfoot is out there.
There's an invisible pink unicorn in my back yard.
The stimulus package saved or created 150,000 jobs sometime before July 8, 2009.

All unfalsifiable claims, all claims that only true believers want you to buy into.
And their method for trying to get you to buy it is to keep on repeating it.


But "saved 150k jobs" in July -- even if we assume that this is correct, which is already a HUGE assumption -- so what? They said they did that by April; what have they done for us LATELY? (to paraphrase Janet Jackson)

[JoeTheJuggler]

From the link:
Which is exactly what I've been saying. It's an unfalsifiable claim.

You just quoted what the claim is not. What the claim is is according to Obama's economic model, the spending has saved or created 150,000 jobs.

To falsify the claim, you'd have to show that Obama's model does not show that the stimulus saved or created 150,000 jobs.

To make the case that Obama's model is bad, you'd compare that figure to the real economic measures, which aren't available. The claim that Obama's model is good is, for the moment, unfalsifiable.

That's why we have elections.

McCain lost and Obama won.

[maddog]

it falls squarely in the arena of "Random Political BS". However, if you examine all the claims and statements made by any politician, you're bound to find a tsunami of BS,

By and large, I agree with you on this. And sometimes, it's just because they don't really understand what they are talking about -- a politician is not likely to be an expert on healthcare or energy or anything else -- they are just repeating what their aides or the lobbyists or subject experts tell them. Sometimes, I believe that the politicians are innocent of the BS, they are just the mouthpiece for an organization of people who work for them or with them, with similar goals.

so I'm not sure why this one particular, and relatively inconsequential, claim deserves such vitriol.

The claim itself may be inconsequential, but the policy has been The Messiah's centerpiece -- and for those of us who believe that the policy is a HUGE MISTAKE, it's important to point out evidence that shows how wrong The Messiah has been in nearly everything he (and by extension, his administration) has said regarding that policy, as well as evidence that the policy is making the situation worse instead of better.

[steverino]

You just quoted what the claim is not. What the claim is is according to Obama's economic model, the spending has saved or created 150,000 jobs.

To falsify the claim, you'd have to show that Obama's model does not show that the stimulus saved or created 150,000 jobs.

To make the case that Obama's model is bad, you'd compare that figure to the real economic measures, which aren't available. The claim that Obama's model is good is, for the moment, unfalsifiable.

That's why we have elections.

McCain lost and Obama won.

So because Obama won the election he has earned the right to be given the benefit of the doubt, unchallenged?

[BPSCG]

You just quoted what the claim is not. What the claim is is according to Obama's economic model, the spending has saved or created 150,000 jobs.No. The claim was that the stimulus would create or save 150,000 jobs. Period, full stop.

The model is what they say proves the claim.

Claim: There is a God.
Proof: The Bible says so.

The claim is not "The Bible says there is a God." That's not a subject for serious dispute. The claim is simply that God exists. That claim is unfalsifiable.

Analogously...
Claim: The stimulus created or saved 150,000 jobs.
Proof: Our computer model says so.

The claim is not "The computer model says the stimulus saved or created 150,000 jobs." That's not a subject for serious dispute. The claim is simply that the stimulus saved or created 150,000 jobs. That claim is unfalsifiable.

To falsify the claim, you'd have to show that Obama's model does not show that the stimulus saved or created 150,000 jobs. That is incorrect; the falsifiability of the claim has nothing to do with what the model used as its supposed proof, any more than the falsifiability of the existence of God has anything to do with what the Bible says.

To make the case that Obama's model is bad, you'd compare that figure to the real economic measures, which aren't available. The claim that Obama's model is good is, for the moment, unfalsifiable. Now there you have a point. We really have no way of knowing whether the model is any good or not. Which means we have no way of knowing whether the output of the model is any good.

That's why we have elections.

McCain lost and Obama won.Yup. And the consequences really have me worried, to the point that I'm putting some serious money where my big fat mouth is. See the Economics forum ("Why I'm Buying China and India").

[Distracted1]

"Not quite. My objection is that it is a claim that can not be disproved, what is called an unfalsifiable claim.

How do you disprove the claim that Joe, who waits tables at a local restaurant, would have lost his job were it not for the stimulus spending? Or, had there been no stimulus spending, how do you disprove the claim that he would have kept his job if the Treasury had only printed/borrowed $787 billion and dumped it into the banks to spread around?

It's a claim with no evidence except for some alleged economic model, and it's not even theoretically subject to disproof. Most of the people on this board say they don't believe in God because they've seen no evidence for his existence, and the claims that God does exist are unfalsifiable. This claim is exactly the same thing."

I am always intrigued at how often political discussions revolve around the "Elephant Whistle" effect (my own phrase, remember the joke about the whistle that keeps away elephants?) i.,e.. "information gathered from 'enhanced interrogation' saved lives"...."If Al Gore were president, Al Queda would not have attacked".... etc.. etc..

I cannot agree that it the claim in question is EXACTLY like the claim that there is a god. It has been observed in the past that the government spending money (buying helicopters, say) has caused manufacturers to hire new persons to fill the orders- therefore it is possible that the Gov. spending in this instance can reasonably be expected to lead to job growth. (at least in the short-term). Whereas, it has never been shown that a god has created anything, in fact, I can observe a Government , and have a job- but I can not experience a god in any sense.

[johnny karate]

The claim itself may be inconsequential, but the policy has been The Messiah's centerpiece -- and for those of us who believe that the policy is a HUGE MISTAKE, it's important to point out evidence that shows how wrong The Messiah has been in nearly everything he (and by extension, his administration) has said regarding that policy, as well as evidence that the policy is making the situation worse instead of better.

But there seems to be a conflation of the veracity of this claim and the efficacy of Obama's overall economic policy, when in fact I see no one holding up this particular claim as having meant to serve that purpose. 150,000 jobs is a drop in the bucket no matter how you apply the number, and I personally am not all that moved by any short-term partisan nitpicking. I don't think it's unreasonable to allow these policies a little breathing room to take effect before we tear them down as abject failures.

[Upchurch]

....and I personally am not all that moved by any short-term partisan nitpicking. I don't think it's unreasonable to allow these policies a little breathing room to take effect before we tear them down as abject failures.
But Beeps wants to tear Obama down now!

[/whine]


Incidentally, exactly when did this statement expire?
Let us accept as true President Obama's unfalsifiable April 29 claim that the stimulus bill has saved or created over 150,000 jobs...
(my emphasis)

Because later:
Not quite. My objection is that it is a claim that can not be disproved, what is called an unfalsifiable claim.

[kellyb]

Hmm.
While I personally suspect the model is valid (it's probably not even very complicated), since Obama claims to be such a fan of transparency, it would be nice if the recovery.gov site made the model available for public scrutiny and presented whatever original evidence is available to support the claims about the outcomes of the Recovery Act.
As skeptics, I think we should be fans of backing claims with evidence.

I'm not so concerned with the 150,000 jobs since it really is a drop in the bucket, and funding for more Head Start centers alone could account for those jobs, probably. But as we get deeper into billions of dollars spent, it would be nice to be able to watch and discuss how everything unfolds, for better or for worse.

That said, the recovery.gov site is pretty transparent already.
http://www.recovery.gov/

If they're tracking how much states are spending on the various projects, it's probably not too hard to estimate how many workers are being hired to build things and staff things and whatnot. It's not really anything like unicorn belief. But whatever. The OP has an (also undebunkable, unfalsifiable) conspiracy theory about the model and how Obama's people are using it, so....

[corplinx]

I got the data on how they came up with the 150k number. They decided not to nuke what's left of Detroit. See, they saved all those jobs (and the people attacked to them).

[rwguinn]

But Beeps wants to tear Obama down now!

[/whine]


Incidentally, exactly when did this statement expire?

(my emphasis)

Because later:
What you are (intentionally) missing, as is everyone else, is Beeps contention:

"Our policies saved 150000 jobs"
"How"
"The model we used to predict the impact says we did"
Now, I have done a LOT of modeling. A lot of programming. My career is simulations.
If there is anything I am sure of, it is that I can model any outcome I want. Either by making assumptions about boundary conditions, or outright cheating.
It is not real, but I can write a program that gives the result of
193, 657 for the operation 2+2=?
A model is just numbers manipulated. Using your model to verify your model is a stupid trick, and convinces only the gullible, like somemost of the liberal Obama worshipers here on the boards

[johnny karate]

A model is just numbers manipulated. Using your model to verify your model is a stupid trick, and convinces only the gullible, like somemost of the liberal Obama worshipers here on the boards

Of what exactly were these manipulated numbers meant to convince Obama worshippers? That 787 billion dollars was spent to save 150,000 jobs? I don't imagine even the most blindly faithful could possibly consider that some kind of success worthy to be heralded.

[rwguinn]

Of what exactly were these manipulated numbers meant to convince Obama worshippers? That 787 billion dollars was spent to save 150,000 jobs? I don't imagine even the most blindly faithful could possibly consider that some kind of success worthy to be heralded.
See "Upchurch"...

[kallsop]

At some level you can expect some new jobs created by more than $700B in spending. What's equally true is that the 100% higher long term interest rates caused by the government competition for dollars is cutting private sector jobs.

If they claim they have "created or saved" 150,000 jobs, I'd say they also have "destroyed and prevented" 1,000,000 jobs too. My claim has better evidence than theirs, check the actual unemployment figures.

Opposing viewpoints are not welcome. (Taking cues from the global warmers at the EPA).

[ladyattis]

The late Ludwig von Mises noted how often people can become confused about economic calculations in terms of how they can be assessed. In terms of any stimulus packages for any given government, whether indirectly via low interest or directly via redistribution of capital, the result is pretty much the same: economic dislocation. That is to mean that when capital is moved from one industry that may or may not have been influenced by prior governmental practices of lower interest rates on credit (or tax subsidies or tax schedules [lower taxes to encourage investment in a given industry]), thus encouraging further investment in longterm capital goods and services (think IT, infrastructure, pharmatech and the like), rather than short term goods and services (think consumer goods). Which leads to inevitible defaults of businesses as expected gains will not be as presented or simply negated by inflation (via lower interest rates on credit).

Obama's stimulus plan wasn't as unlike Bush's as both were built from the same assumed position that the government ought to be the last 'lender' of resort, which in itself is predicated on faulty notions of economics that borders on Cartesian thinking, that economic actions are always aggregated, homogeneous and objectively detectible in some positivistic manner. So, one cannot blame either party of some devious plan to topple the world economy. On the contrary, one could conclude quite the opposite, that their reasonings were based on invalid theories, thus their intents were those of honest concern over the state of affairs (with perhaps some selfish concern on their part as well). Thus, I won't go off beating either one, rather I think it's best to consider the faulty theories themselves instead, and to why they continue to persist in economics. Or atleast that's my take on it. *shrugs*

[Dog Town]

Just for kicks, and I don't mean shoe apparel!

Deputy budget director Rob Nabors said the program had by early July "obligated" some 57 billion dollars and that it has helped save or create 160,000 jobs -- based on what would have occurred without the package.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20090712/pl_afp/useconomypoliticsstimulus_20090712235746

[BeAChooser]

Don't worry folks. It's all working "as intended". We have Obama's word for that. :rolleyes:

[Bob Blaylock]

Of what exactly were these manipulated numbers meant to convince Obama worshippers? That 787 billion dollars was spent to save 150,000 jobs? I don't imagine even the most blindly faithful could possibly consider that some kind of success worthy to be heralded.


I never thought of it that way, but that assuming that the underlying claims are true, that amounts to $5¼ million per job saved. Any jobs worth that much? For a job that pays $50,000 per year, it would take more than a hundred years for that pay to add up what it cost — according to these claims — to save it.

[JoeTheJuggler]

I never thought of it that way, but that assuming that the underlying claims are true, that amounts to $5¼ million per job saved. Any jobs worth that much? For a job that pays $50,000 per year, it would take more than a hundred years for that pay to add up what it cost — according to these claims — to save it.
I've addressed this point already. First, most of the stimulus money has yet to be spent. Second, I don't know that job creation was the ONLY intention of many of these projects. (If it were, I agree it's an inefficient way of doing it, and it would be cheaper to just give the money to the poor.)

But yes, the claim of saving or creating 150,000 jobs is a very modest claim given that we've been losing like 500,000 each week.

So, I'm not sure if the problem people are having with the claim is that it's way too low or way too high.

[Marc39]

Th Stimulis Plan is a bomb. Unemployment is as high as 20% in some states, the American people are growing increasingly pessimistic, Treasury Secretary Geithner, a tax cheat, is in the Federal Witness Protection Program and cannot be located, Biden is admitting they haven't really had a handle on the economy since taking office and Obama's job approval numbers are falling accordingly. Obama is the black Jimmy Carter.

[Dan O.]

In a macroeconomic model, one of the most important driving factor is the expectation value. Quite simply, if people expect that the economy is on an upswing they invest more and that causes the economy to rise. When people expect the economy is on a down swing they cut back on spending and the economy slows down. This is a natural effect of people doing what's best for themselves at the time. But the composite effect is the boom-bust cycles that were so prevalent in the past.

Since the last great depression, the government has learned to moderate the economic cycles by moderating the money supply. This has lead to a relatively stable long term growth in the economy.

Now however, we've gotten ourselves into a real bind. We let the financial industries get out of control with speculation and leveraging which brought about a serious downturn in the economy. If left unchecked, it will recover eventually but at what cost. In the worst scenarios it goes beyond job loss counts and we start measuring in lives lost.

So, what can be done to lessen the depth of this downturn? The models all show that government spending in the short term can stimulate the economy and the long term debt can be paid off from the recovery. But in order for this to work, the people have to expect that it will work so that private spending and investing will add a multiplier effect to the government stimulus.


So, why are there people actively trying to kill Americans by opposing the expectation of a recovery?

[johnny karate]

Unemployment is as high as 20% in some states

Which states would those be? Please provide a source for this claim.

the American people are growing increasingly pessimistic

But still not even close to being as pessimistic as when the Bush Administration was in power. Public opinion would have to rapidily nosedive to reach the record lows enjoyed by the last president.

Treasury Secretary Geithner, a tax cheat, is in the Federal Witness Protection Program and cannot be located

I'm guessing this is supposed to be a joke? It's hard to tell since it lacks that the key requisite of a joke: Being funny.

Biden is admitting they haven't really had a handle on the economy since taking office

You mean the same economy the former administration torpedoed? Yeah, when someone gives you a runaway train, it's your fault if you can't immediately get it under control.

and Obama's job approval numbers are falling accordingly

And again, those numbers have a long way to go before they reach the embarassing lows of George W. Bush. To listen to a Republican talk trash about Obama's approval rating is like listening to a basketball team talk trash about the other team missing a lay-up, even though they're losing the game 121 to 37.

Obama is the black Jimmy Carter.

And Jimmy Carter is the white Carl Weathers, so where does that leave us?

[Marc39]

Which states would those be? Please provide a source for this claim.

http://www.newsroomamerica.com/politics/story.php?id=459831

I'm guessing this is supposed to be a joke? It's hard to tell since it lacks that the key requisite of a joke: Being funny.

The man overseeing the IRS having been found to have cheated on his taxes is more ironic than comical.

You mean the same economy the former administration torpedoed? Yeah, when someone gives you a runaway train, it's your fault if you can't immediately get it under control.

The economy Democratic-dominated Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac caused to nosedive in aggressively promoting sub-prime mortgages, aided and abetted by social-engineering Democratic politicians pressuring banks to write those junk mortgages.

And again, those numbers have a long way to go before they reach the embarassing lows of George W. Bush. To listen to a Republican talk trash about Obama's approval rating is like listening to a basketball team talk trash about the other team missing a lay-up, even though they're losing the game 121 to 37.



And Jimmy Carter is the white Carl Weathers, so where does that leave us?

This is not about partisan politics. This is about a president whose solution to the country's economic woes was passed legislatively and is proving to be a failure. If by this time next year the economy is not turned around and every GM dealership remaining is not out of inventory due to huge demand for their product, Obama wil be a lame duck.

[johnny karate]

http://www.newsroomamerica.com/politics/story.php?id=459831

There seems to be a problem with your link in that it doesnt support this statement:
Unemployment is as high as 20% in some states

You claimed unemployment is currently as high as 20% in some states (plural). Your link leads to an article about a Republican predicting unemployment in one state could possibly reach 20%.

Please try again.

The man overseeing the IRS having been found to have cheated on his taxes is more ironic than comical.

You have a good point. Perhaps after the investigations in to the multiple crimes committed by the Bush Administration have been completed, this vile man can finally be apprehended and duly punished for his terrible transgressions.

The economy Democratic-dominated Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac caused to nosedive in aggressively promoting sub-prime mortgages, aided and abetted by social-engineering Democratic politicians pressuring banks to write those junk mortgages.

So when the Democrast are in power, the failing economy is the fault of the Democrats and when the Republicans are in power, the failing economy is the fault of the Democrats.

Just out of curiousity, what were the Republicans doing when they were supposed to be running the country for the last eight years? I would think stopping the evil Democrats from ruining the economy would be high on the list of responsibilities of the people in charge.

This is not about partisan politics. This is about a president whose solution to the country's economic woes was passed legislatively and is proving to be a failure.

According to what data? Everything I've ever seen regarding the stimulus plan has indicated real change wouldn't take effect until the end of this year at the earliest. So how can something be called a failure when it hasn't even been given time to work?

If by this time next year the economy is not turned around and every GM dealership remaining is not out of inventory due to huge demand for their product, Obama wil be a lame duck.

I agree with the first part. I'm surprised by your sudden graciousness at allowing an economic plan you've already proclaimed a failure to actually be given some time to work. The second part, however, is just silly. If the economy has indeed turned around by next year, no one is going to care how well GM is doing.