Obama 48%, Bush 47%

[King]

The correct format of this poll should have been:

Are you an idiot or party hack?

Yes 95%
No 5%

[tpfkaw]

Bush in 8 years did staggering damage, but Obama in 2 has done almost as much.

In terms of lifetime un-achievement I think Bush is still ahead, but Obama's single season numbers far exceed Bush's and has been able to do almost as much damage in far less time..

At the time of the "stimulus" package's passage, unemployment was at 8.1%.  It is now at 9.5%.  Unless there has been an outbreak of some incredibly virulent and deadly disease that only affects employed people, that graph is mistaken.

[Brittain33]

At the time of the "stimulus" package's passage, unemployment was at 8.1%.  It is now at 9.5%.  Unless there has been an outbreak of some incredibly virulent and deadly disease that only affects employed people, that graph is mistaken.

How much stimulus spending hit the economy the day the package was signed? How about a week later?

In addition, some jobs were created later (albeit not nearly enough) to offset the smaller number of jobs lost montly in late spring and summer. Certainly nothing like the massive monthly losses seen under the final months of George Bush's term and the time preceding the stimulus bill taking effect.

How many jobs have been lost since March 2009? How does it compare to 8 million?

[Brittain33]

The correct format of this poll should have been:

Are you an idiot or party hack?

Yes 95%
No 5%

This chart is succeeding in unnerving people. I need to do more charts, and larger.

[tpfkaw]

At the time of the "stimulus" package's passage, unemployment was at 8.1%.  It is now at 9.5%.  Unless there has been an outbreak of some incredibly virulent and deadly disease that only affects employed people, that graph is mistaken.

How much stimulus spending hit the economy the day the package was signed? How about a week later?

Doesn't matter.  The chart says "pre-stimulus" and "post-stimulus."  It doesn't matter if the stimulus worked beyond Paul Krugman's wildest imagination.  It is still factually inaccurate.

[Brittain33]

Doesn't matter.  The chart says "pre-stimulus" and "post-stimulus."  It doesn't matter if the stimulus worked beyond Paul Krugman's wildest imagination.  It is still factually inaccurate.

It says "stimulus" which means the stimulus taking effect. What point could possibly be made by dating it to its passage when it had no impact on the economy until money was being spent? What would that prove, except to lump some of Bush's residual economic performance into Obama's numbers to make his record look better?

How many jobs have been lost total since the stimulus took effect? What should that second number be? Remember to include the offsetting small gains through July 2010.

[tpfkaw]

Doesn't matter.  The chart says "pre-stimulus" and "post-stimulus."  It doesn't matter if the stimulus worked beyond Paul Krugman's wildest imagination.  It is still factually inaccurate.

It says "stimulus" which means the stimulus taking effect. What point could possibly be made by dating it to its passage when it had no impact on the economy until money was being spent? What would that prove, except to lump some of Bush's residual economic performance into Obama's numbers to make his record look better?

How many jobs have been lost total since the stimulus took effect? What should that second number be? Remember to include the offsetting small gains through July 2010.

There's been a total loss of 2.8 million jobs, and a net loss of 2.2 million jobs since the stimulus took effect.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Doesn't matter.  The chart says "pre-stimulus" and "post-stimulus."  It doesn't matter if the stimulus worked beyond Paul Krugman's wildest imagination.  It is still factually inaccurate.

It says "stimulus" which means the stimulus taking effect. What point could possibly be made by dating it to its passage when it had no impact on the economy until money was being spent? What would that prove, except to lump some of Bush's residual economic performance into Obama's numbers to make his record look better?

How many jobs have been lost total since the stimulus took effect? What should that second number be? Remember to include the offsetting small gains through July 2010.

There's been a total loss of 2.8 million jobs, and a net loss of 2.2 million jobs since the stimulus took effect.

What on earth is your definition of "took effect"?

[tpfkaw]

Doesn't matter.  The chart says "pre-stimulus" and "post-stimulus."  It doesn't matter if the stimulus worked beyond Paul Krugman's wildest imagination.  It is still factually inaccurate.

It says "stimulus" which means the stimulus taking effect. What point could possibly be made by dating it to its passage when it had no impact on the economy until money was being spent? What would that prove, except to lump some of Bush's residual economic performance into Obama's numbers to make his record look better?

How many jobs have been lost total since the stimulus took effect? What should that second number be? Remember to include the offsetting small gains through July 2010.

There's been a total loss of 2.8 million jobs, and a net loss of 2.2 million jobs since the stimulus took effect.

What on earth is your definition of "took effect"?

Since it was passed and signed into law in February 2009.  What on Earth is your definition of "took effect?"

[Marokai Backbeat]

Doesn't matter.  The chart says "pre-stimulus" and "post-stimulus."  It doesn't matter if the stimulus worked beyond Paul Krugman's wildest imagination.  It is still factually inaccurate.

It says "stimulus" which means the stimulus taking effect. What point could possibly be made by dating it to its passage when it had no impact on the economy until money was being spent? What would that prove, except to lump some of Bush's residual economic performance into Obama's numbers to make his record look better?

How many jobs have been lost total since the stimulus took effect? What should that second number be? Remember to include the offsetting small gains through July 2010.

There's been a total loss of 2.8 million jobs, and a net loss of 2.2 million jobs since the stimulus took effect.

What on earth is your definition of "took effect"?

Since it was passed and signed into law in February 2009.  What on Earth is your definition of "took effect?"

I wish I was able to spew such absurd statements with such a straight face. It'd make discussions on this forum alot easier for me.

The stimulus was not to take effect immediately with the snap of a finger. The stimulus was to be a combination of a few immediate relief efforts, some medium-length efforts, and some long-term efforts. It's a cumulative process who's effect was expected to peak this year, not immediately as it took effect.

In December 2008, we lost about 650,000 jobs. In January 2009, we lost nearly 800,000 jobs. In February 2009, we lost over 700,000 jobs. In March 2009, we lost close to 750,000 jobs. It is dishonest and downright stupid to blame Obama for any of these job losses. Job losses are like a high speed train trying to stop, there's a reason that jobs are called a "lagging indicator." It takes time to tell the effect of economic policies on jobs numbers. No immediate effect would've been possible on the new Administration to stop jobs numbers right away. It would take several months even in the most optimistic sense to see a noticeable effect of Obama policies on the economy outside of psychological effects.

By July, we lost around 300,000 jobs. In August 2009, we lost a hair over 200,000 jobs. By the end of last year we saw the first glimmer of job gains. These are months where you can clearly say that Obama's economic policies were having some sort of effect on the economy.

The effect of stimulus has been added up over time. It has had a major effect on the economy over time for sure. There could've been more to it, we could've done alot of more immediate things if we decided to do so, but, with that said, the stimulus as designed was not going to have immediate and dramatic effects on jobs numbers directly. It simply wasn't going to happen and everyone trying to be realistic and honest about it never expected it to be.

Checks had to be sent in the mail, welfare benefits needed to take a couple months to kick in, infrastructure projects took time to get moving, permits needed to be studied and issued, rebates needed time to be fully taken advantage of, state aid needed time to circulate and be implemented, etc.

The graph itself that Brittain posted I will admit may be slightly unfair by a month or two. But in general, it's right on the money. Job losses slowed after the stimulus was passed and job numbers overall have stabilized. We've had 7 straight months of private sector job growth, and some great months for manufacturing jobs growth in comparison to 2008 and 2009.

But taking numbers that were careening out of control before the stimulus passed and immediately (to the day!) applying the fault to Obama is ridiculous, dishonest, simply flat wrong, and displays a lack of understanding in how economic policy can affect jobs numbers and the time it takes to do so. Get real.

[tpfkaw]

blah blah blah

I fail to see why answering a simple question triggers a massive negative rant, but I'll take the bait anyway.

One of the previous posters in this thread posted a graph which claims that zero jobs have been lost "post-stimulus."  One can argue over what "post-stimulus" implies, but the average Joe would interpret that graph to mean that zero jobs have been lost since February of 2009, which is clearly what the person who made it wants you to believe when looking at it.  Now, one might argue that "post-stimulus" means only when all ARRA funds have been exhausted, which will be in 2012.  Obviously, that hasn't happened yet, so I suppose that zero jobs have been lost "post-stimulus."  If that is the rationale for that graph, it is at best extremely deceptive and misleading.

Now, let's look at your other claims, such as that it should not have had an immediate effect on the economy, that it is an efficient method of boosting job growth, and that most job growth now is due to ARRA.

First, that it shouldn't have had an immediate effect on the economy.  That's a bit of a strange argument to make, since the whole cornerstone of Keynesian doctrine is that fiscal stimulus immediately increases the money supply and creates demand growth approaching normal economic levels, but let's ignore that.  Let's say that John McCain were elected President.  Let's also say that he were to veto ARRA in February of '09.  Furthermore, let's say that (for whatever reason), every jobs number were exactly the same as they were in our universe.  Exactly the same.  You would, beyond any shadow of a doubt, be claiming right now that the job losses in early to mid '09 were caused by McCain's veto of ARRA.

Second, that it is an efficient method of boosting job growth.  Let's look at the numbers, shall we?  The Congressional Budget Office estimates that right now, in Q3 2010, ARRA has reached its peak.  Let's look at the number of "jobs created or saved" at its peak, right now.  Let's take the highest - I repeat, highest - estimate of "jobs created or saved."  That's 5.3 million, according to the CBO.  ARRA costs $900 billion.  If we divide the cost of the program by the highest estimate of "jobs created or saved" at its peak, it has cost about $170,000 per job.  If we take the low estimate, it's cost about $450,000 per job.  It has presumably not created very many six-figure jobs.  We can therefore conclude that it has been, at best, an extremely wasteful program.

The claim that most job growth is due to ARRA is the most trivial to refute.  Nearly all job growth has come from:

1. the private sector.

2. temporary census jobs that were already funded before ARRA was even introduced.

3. oil cleanup jobs that have nothing to do with ARRA.





I'm sorry to say this, but I'll have to ask you to please - get real.

[Marokai Backbeat]

I fail to see why answering a simple question triggers a massive negative rant, but I'll take the bait anyway.

One of the previous posters in this thread posted a graph which claims that zero jobs have been lost "post-stimulus."  One can argue over what "post-stimulus" implies, but the average Joe would interpret that graph to mean that zero jobs have been lost since February of 2009, which is clearly what the person who made it wants you to believe when looking at it.  Now, one might argue that "post-stimulus" means only when all ARRA funds have been exhausted, which will be in 2012.  Obviously, that hasn't happened yet, so I suppose that zero jobs have been lost "post-stimulus."  If that is the rationale for that graph, it is at best extremely deceptive and misleading.

As I said, the graph isn't entire accurate, but the sentiment behind it certainly is. In a post-stimulus environment, our jobs situation remains mostly stabilized and irrefutably better off than the pre-stimulus economy.

What you're missing is something you would naturally miss if you did zero research on where that graph came from. It was compiled and put together by Ezra Klein on the data of someone else. The employment numbers in that graph start the "post-stimulus" time as occurring on and after July 2009. It wasn't meant to claim that the "post-stimulus" numbers come after February 2009 because it never said it did.

The point of the graph in the first place was to wait some off number of months for the stimulus to take on a noticeable effect in the economy before judging it's progress. Which is sensible, because jobs take a long time to turn around when compared to other economic indicators. Do I think waiting until July 2009 is a proper way to judge that progress? No. But that is where the data comes from regardless of what I think is a proper way to judge it.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I wonder if you actually read what I say. I never said it SHOULDN'T have a dramatic and immediate effect on the economy, I simply said that the way it was designed, it wasn't going to have enough of an impact to have that effect. It certainly should've had a bigger effect, and alot more of the spending in the stimulus should've been actual spending, but that's not the point. The way the stimulus was built, no one expected it to have an immediate effect on the economy (say within the first few months of his passing) aside from the psychological benefits. Some effects, certainly, but the bulk of the stimulus took awhile to kick in.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Do you know what was in the stimulus? I ask this question sincerely, because this is such a perfectly absurd statement to make, as if the entire thing was direct money spend toward jobs. You even got the amount of money in the recovery act wrong.

The correct total amount of cash spent on the stimulus was $787 billion. So you were only off by the tune of, oh, $113 billion.

According to Wikipedia, 37% of the Act, or $288 billion was dedicated solely to tax cuts.

Another $144 billion (18%) is dedicated to state financial aid, the vast majority of which went directly to Medicaid payments.

So right off, there's 55% of the Act right there. Only 45% of the bill was dedicated solely to direct spending, and alot of that went to federal welfare programs, like expanding food stamps ($20 billion), boosting the size of unemployment compensation ($40 billion), expanding Pell grants ($15 billion), assisting law enforcement ($4 billion), etc. The Recovery Act was never designed purely as a spending bill directly on jobs, it was meant to improve all aspects of the economy, improve the safety net for the duration of the downturn, ease tax burdens, and nudge along the private sector. So taking the entire cost of the bill and dividing up the cost of individual jobs created is incredibly stupid and, like many of your posts, downright dishonest.

Ironically, you prove a more left-wing point by bringing up the incredible cost of nudging along the private sector as opposed to directly funding jobs. It's actually really cost effective to just come up with makework and direct infrastructure programs with salaries paid for entirely by the government as opposed to funding the private sector and easing the tax burden and sprinkling fairy dust hoping that it gets started soon. It's much cheaper to directly fund jobs from the government itself as opposed to trying to do it the hard but market-based way.

Regardless, however, the calculation of how much these jobs are costing (based on an incorrect number of the total package no less) is asinine, as it wasn't direct spending entirely nor direct spending straight to individuals' salaries.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Where else is it supposed to come from, exactly? You do realize that was the point of a stimulus package, no? To stimulate the private sector? You're just proving the point against you each time by admitting there has been consistent private sector growth, considering that was the target of the stimulus to begin with.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That was unavoidable. Besides, there are loads of private sector temp jobs, most notably seasonal jobs around Christmas and so on. This happens in either the public or private sector, it's not a surprise. Another besides, a job is a job. It's still money and work for individuals regardless.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Have their actually been alot of those? I haven't seen any of that. If there have been, there's certainly not enough to have an impact. I don't see how this is relevant.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Mmhm.