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

BPSCG · 9th July 2009, 05:05 AM

Note all the dates:

Originally Posted by President Obama, April 29, 2009

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.

Originally Posted by Jared Bernstein, May 27, 2009

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.

Originally Posted by Rob Nabors, July 7, 2009

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.

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 · 9th July 2009, 05:28 AM

Originally Posted by BPSCG

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 · 9th July 2009, 05:30 AM

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 · 9th July 2009, 05:32 AM

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 · 9th July 2009, 05:42 AM

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

Marc39 · 9th July 2009, 05:49 AM

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

BPSCG · 9th July 2009, 05:51 AM

Originally Posted by Upchurch

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 · 9th July 2009, 06:15 AM

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 · 9th July 2009, 06:27 AM

Originally Posted by BPSCG

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.

Originally Posted by BPSCG

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 · 9th July 2009, 06:59 AM

Originally Posted by Upchurch

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:

Quote:

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 · 9th July 2009, 07:20 AM

Originally Posted by BPSCG

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?

Originally Posted by BPSCG

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 · 9th July 2009, 07:29 AM

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

maddog · 9th July 2009, 07:32 AM

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 · 9th July 2009, 07:47 AM

Maybe BPSCG is missing this bit:

Quote:

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 · 9th July 2009, 07:49 AM

Originally Posted by corplinx

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 · 9th July 2009, 08:26 AM

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

Geez...

BPSCG · 9th July 2009, 08:35 AM

Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler

Maybe BPSCG is missing this bit:

Quote:

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.

Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler

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 · 9th July 2009, 09:06 AM

Originally Posted by BPSCG

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 · 9th July 2009, 09:14 AM

Originally Posted by BPSCG

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 · 9th July 2009, 09:33 AM

Originally Posted by Upchurch

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...

Originally Posted by Upchurch

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

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

Originally Posted by Upchurch

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

Upchurch · 9th July 2009, 09:49 AM

Originally Posted by BPSCG

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 · 9th July 2009, 09:59 AM

Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler

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.

Quote:

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.

[derail]
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.
[/derail]

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 · 9th July 2009, 10:02 AM

Originally Posted by Upchurch

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 · 9th July 2009, 10:04 AM

Originally Posted by Upchurch

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

Originally Posted by BPSCG

Furious back-pedaling with a side dish of ad hom.

Excellent example.

BPSCG · 9th July 2009, 10:12 AM

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 · 9th July 2009, 10:32 AM

Originally Posted by BPSCG

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 · 9th July 2009, 10:45 AM

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 · 9th July 2009, 10:53 AM

Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler

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.

Quote:

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 · 9th July 2009, 11:05 AM

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

Quote:

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 · 9th July 2009, 11:16 AM

Newsweek did a fairly balanced analysis of this claim last month.

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 · 9th July 2009, 11:37 AM

Originally Posted by johnny karate

Newsweek did a fairly balanced analysis of this claim last month.

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:

Quote:

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 · 9th July 2009, 11:44 AM

Originally Posted by BPSCG

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.

Quote:

Show me the jobs, not some computer model.

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

Originally Posted by BPSCG

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 · 9th July 2009, 11:50 AM

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 · 9th July 2009, 11:52 AM

Originally Posted by BPSCG

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 · 9th July 2009, 11:53 AM

Originally Posted by BPSCG

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 · 9th July 2009, 12:02 PM

Originally Posted by johnny karate

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.

Quote:

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 · 9th July 2009, 12:08 PM

Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler

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 · 9th July 2009, 12:13 PM

Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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 · 9th July 2009, 12:13 PM

Quote:

"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 · 9th July 2009, 12:47 PM

Originally Posted by maddog

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.

9th July 2009, 05:05 AM	#1
BPSCG Cannibal Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Looting Fafner's Cave Posts: 17,556	Repeat Until True: "The Stimulus Plan Has Created or Saved 150,000 Jobs." Note all the dates: Originally Posted by President Obama, April 29, 2009 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. Originally Posted by Jared Bernstein, May 27, 2009 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. Originally Posted by Rob Nabors, July 7, 2009 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. 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.
	__________________ Philanthropist (n.) - Someone who spends his own money to advance his version of Utopia. Socialist (n.) - Someone who spends your money to advance his version of Utopia.

9th July 2009, 05:30 AM	#3
DC dedicated aphilatelist Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Switzerland Posts: 21,708	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
	__________________ AGW is a fact, including the A, face it

9th July 2009, 05:32 AM	#4
lionking In the Peanut Gallery Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Melbourne Posts: 29,974	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.
	__________________ A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject. Sir Winston Churchill

9th July 2009, 05:49 AM	#6
Marc39 Banned Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 3,720	How does one prove jobs have been saved? Obama is inventing new economic metrics. Change we can believe in?
Marc39 Banned Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 3,720

9th July 2009, 05:51 AM	#7
BPSCG Cannibal Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Looting Fafner's Cave Posts: 17,556	Originally Posted by Upchurch 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'.
	__________________ Philanthropist (n.) - Someone who spends his own money to advance his version of Utopia. Socialist (n.) - Someone who spends your money to advance his version of Utopia.

9th July 2009, 05:28 AM	#2
Upchurch Papa Funkosophy Join Date: May 2002 Location: Funky Town (STL, MO) Posts: 23,472	Originally Posted by BPSCG 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.

9th July 2009, 05:42 AM	#5
Upchurch Papa Funkosophy Join Date: May 2002 Location: Funky Town (STL, MO) Posts: 23,472	I'm torn. What kind of logical fallacy is the OP? Is it a non-sequitur or a hasty generalization?

9th July 2009, 06:15 AM	#8
JoeTheJuggler Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: St. Louis Posts: 27,158	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.
	__________________ "That is a very graphic analogy which aids understanding wonderfully while being, strictly speaking, wrong in every possible way." —Ponder Stibbons Last edited by JoeTheJuggler; 9th July 2009 at 06:18 AM.

9th July 2009, 06:27 AM	#9
Upchurch Papa Funkosophy Join Date: May 2002 Location: Funky Town (STL, MO) Posts: 23,472	Originally Posted by BPSCG 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. Originally Posted by BPSCG 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.

9th July 2009, 06:59 AM	#10
BPSCG Cannibal Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Looting Fafner's Cave Posts: 17,556	Originally Posted by Upchurch 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: Quote: 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.
	__________________ Philanthropist (n.) - Someone who spends his own money to advance his version of Utopia. Socialist (n.) - Someone who spends your money to advance his version of Utopia.

9th July 2009, 07:20 AM	#11
Upchurch Papa Funkosophy Join Date: May 2002 Location: Funky Town (STL, MO) Posts: 23,472	Originally Posted by BPSCG 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? Originally Posted by BPSCG 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.

9th July 2009, 07:29 AM	#12
corplinx JREF Kid Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 8,944	You are stretching way too hard to tow the company line on this one Upchurch.
corplinx JREF Kid Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 8,944	__________________ In the tradition of "Stop Silvia!" Stop Hal Bidlack: http://skepticalcommunity.com/forums...hp?f=1&t=28671

9th July 2009, 07:32 AM	#13
maddog Intimidating Terrapin Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: The People's Republic of Maryland Posts: 11,825	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.
	__________________ 90% of what I say is meant to be funny, and the other half doesn't mean anything at all. When I grow up, I want to be just like me.

9th July 2009, 07:47 AM	#14
JoeTheJuggler Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: St. Louis Posts: 27,158	Maybe BPSCG is missing this bit: Quote: 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.
	__________________ "That is a very graphic analogy which aids understanding wonderfully while being, strictly speaking, wrong in every possible way." —Ponder Stibbons

9th July 2009, 07:49 AM	#15
Upchurch Papa Funkosophy Join Date: May 2002 Location: Funky Town (STL, MO) Posts: 23,472	Originally Posted by corplinx 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.

9th July 2009, 08:26 AM	#16
Drysdale Graduate Poster Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 1,017	Cmon Beeps, that's bigfoot jobs. You know bigfoots clearing the forest,raking leaves and stuff. Geez...

9th July 2009, 08:35 AM	#17
BPSCG Cannibal Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Looting Fafner's Cave Posts: 17,556	Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler Maybe BPSCG is missing this bit: Quote: 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. Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler 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.
	__________________ Philanthropist (n.) - Someone who spends his own money to advance his version of Utopia. Socialist (n.) - Someone who spends your money to advance his version of Utopia.

9th July 2009, 09:06 AM	#18
Upchurch Papa Funkosophy Join Date: May 2002 Location: Funky Town (STL, MO) Posts: 23,472	Originally Posted by BPSCG 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?

9th July 2009, 09:14 AM	#19
JoeTheJuggler Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: St. Louis Posts: 27,158	Originally Posted by BPSCG 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?
	__________________ "That is a very graphic analogy which aids understanding wonderfully while being, strictly speaking, wrong in every possible way." —Ponder Stibbons

9th July 2009, 09:33 AM	#20
BPSCG Cannibal Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Looting Fafner's Cave Posts: 17,556	Originally Posted by Upchurch 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... Originally Posted by Upchurch Seriously, I'm not even defending Obama's claim. ...is the same guy who on the same page, says: Originally Posted by Upchurch That doesn't necessarily follow. They may just not have any data on the following months.
	__________________ Philanthropist (n.) - Someone who spends his own money to advance his version of Utopia. Socialist (n.) - Someone who spends your money to advance his version of Utopia.

9th July 2009, 09:49 AM	#21
Upchurch Papa Funkosophy Join Date: May 2002 Location: Funky Town (STL, MO) Posts: 23,472	Originally Posted by BPSCG 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.

9th July 2009, 09:59 AM	#22
BPSCG Cannibal Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Looting Fafner's Cave Posts: 17,556	Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler 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. Quote: 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. [derail] 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. [/derail] 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.
	__________________ Philanthropist (n.) - Someone who spends his own money to advance his version of Utopia. Socialist (n.) - Someone who spends your money to advance his version of Utopia.

9th July 2009, 10:02 AM	#23
BPSCG Cannibal Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Looting Fafner's Cave Posts: 17,556	Originally Posted by Upchurch 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.
	__________________ Philanthropist (n.) - Someone who spends his own money to advance his version of Utopia. Socialist (n.) - Someone who spends your money to advance his version of Utopia.

9th July 2009, 10:04 AM	#24
Upchurch Papa Funkosophy Join Date: May 2002 Location: Funky Town (STL, MO) Posts: 23,472	Originally Posted by Upchurch Your reading comprehension has gotten steadily worse since the election, as has your ability to put together a logical argument. Originally Posted by BPSCG Furious back-pedaling with a side dish of ad hom. Excellent example.

9th July 2009, 10:12 AM	#25
BPSCG Cannibal Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Looting Fafner's Cave Posts: 17,556	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.
	__________________ Philanthropist (n.) - Someone who spends his own money to advance his version of Utopia. Socialist (n.) - Someone who spends your money to advance his version of Utopia.

9th July 2009, 10:32 AM	#26
JoeTheJuggler Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: St. Louis Posts: 27,158	Originally Posted by BPSCG 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.
	__________________ "That is a very graphic analogy which aids understanding wonderfully while being, strictly speaking, wrong in every possible way." —Ponder Stibbons

9th July 2009, 10:45 AM	#27
Distracted1 Critical Thinker Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Philadelphia Posts: 475	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.

9th July 2009, 10:53 AM	#28
BPSCG Cannibal Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Looting Fafner's Cave Posts: 17,556	Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler 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. Quote: 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?
	__________________ Philanthropist (n.) - Someone who spends his own money to advance his version of Utopia. Socialist (n.) - Someone who spends your money to advance his version of Utopia.

9th July 2009, 11:05 AM	#29
BPSCG Cannibal Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Looting Fafner's Cave Posts: 17,556	Originally Posted by 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. 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. Quote: 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.
	__________________ Philanthropist (n.) - Someone who spends his own money to advance his version of Utopia. Socialist (n.) - Someone who spends your money to advance his version of Utopia.

9th July 2009, 11:16 AM	#30
johnny karate ... and your little dog too. Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 7,888	Newsweek did a fairly balanced analysis of this claim last month. The bottomline is this: Democrats have to eat some crow, which is being gleefully fed to them by Republicans with short-term memory loss.
	__________________ Lost your faith in humanity? Click here to have it restored. Or here.

9th July 2009, 11:37 AM	#31
BPSCG Cannibal Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Looting Fafner's Cave Posts: 17,556	Originally Posted by johnny karate Newsweek did a fairly balanced analysis of this claim last month. 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: Quote: 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.
	__________________ Philanthropist (n.) - Someone who spends his own money to advance his version of Utopia. Socialist (n.) - Someone who spends your money to advance his version of Utopia.

9th July 2009, 11:44 AM	#32
JoeTheJuggler Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: St. Louis Posts: 27,158	Originally Posted by BPSCG 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. Quote: Show me the jobs, not some computer model. You just said that that's not possible. Remember? You said: Originally Posted by BPSCG 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.
	__________________ "That is a very graphic analogy which aids understanding wonderfully while being, strictly speaking, wrong in every possible way." —Ponder Stibbons

9th July 2009, 11:50 AM	#33
johnny karate ... and your little dog too. Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 7,888	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.
	__________________ Lost your faith in humanity? Click here to have it restored. Or here.

9th July 2009, 11:52 AM	#34
maddog Intimidating Terrapin Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: The People's Republic of Maryland Posts: 11,825	Originally Posted by BPSCG 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)
	__________________ 90% of what I say is meant to be funny, and the other half doesn't mean anything at all. When I grow up, I want to be just like me.

9th July 2009, 11:53 AM	#35
JoeTheJuggler Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: St. Louis Posts: 27,158	Originally Posted by BPSCG 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.
	__________________ "That is a very graphic analogy which aids understanding wonderfully while being, strictly speaking, wrong in every possible way." —Ponder Stibbons