What happened to all of the doom and gloom economic threads?

[unregistered]

 

[mercury14]

Only 395 billion of the 792 billion has been spent, or 49.8%. 240 billion hasn't even been touched yet; not even in the process of being spent as of right now.

Source: http://projects.propublica.org/tables/stimulus-spending-progress

Remember when you right wing nuts were dismissing the stimulus as a failure when it was a mere 12% spent? Irrational as hell, but most of you still stick to it.

 

[firespin]

Possibly that, yes, and it stopped (or contributed strongly to stopping) the heavy bleeding. We're no longer losing a ton of jobs every quarter. Might not be much robust job growth going on but there aren't major losses anymore. According to Moody's and the CBO, the stimulus had a lot to do with this fact.

How much is it worth in your mind to no longer be losing over half a million jobs every time these reports come out?

That part you made up. The economy turned around long after the stimulus was passed due to natural business cycles. Nobody can prove otherwise.

You can take credit for unemployment being one percent less, but the cost was hardly worth it. Let's see, $400B spend to save, what, call it 2 million jobs, in round numbers? That's $200,000 per job. Nice work, feds.

 

[mercury14]

That part you made up. The economy turned around long after the stimulus was passed due to natural business cycles. Nobody can prove otherwise.

You can take credit for unemployment being one percent less, but the cost was hardly worth it. Let's see, $400B spend to save, what, call it 2 million jobs, in round numbers? That's $200,000 per job. Nice work, feds.

If you don't account for the ripple effect of 792 billion being injected into the economy and insist on wearing partisan blinders, yes it was 200k per job.

 

[firespin]

If you don't account for the ripple effect of 792 billion being injected into the economy and insist on wearing partisan blinders, yes it was 200k per job.

Call this Exhibit A for why you are a moron, or act moronically at least.

You criticize anybody here who quotes a "partisan blog", then you proceed to just make up stuff that couldn't even get published on a partisan blog because it is completely wrong. Don't you see the fallacy of this approach?

In this case, if the "ripple effect" had created more jobs, then the CBO report you cited as the independent analysis would have picked that up...by law they're required to try to honestly assess the impact. You can't both cite the CBO as your impartial source, then imply that wait, there is really a lot more tht they just didn't count.

Stick to what you know. It may take a while to find what that is, but it will be worth it.

 

[mercury14]

Call this Exhibit A for why you are a moron, or act moronically at least.

You criticize anybody here who quotes a "partisan blog", then you proceed to just make up stuff that couldn't even get published on a partisan blog because it is completely wrong. Don't you see the fallacy of this approach?

In this case, if the "ripple effect" had created more jobs, then the CBO report you cited as the independent analysis would have picked that up...by law they're required to try to honestly assess the impact. You can't both cite the CBO as your impartial source, then imply that wait, there is really a lot more tht they just didn't count.

Stick to what you know. It may take a while to find what that is, but it will be worth it.

Are you taking the full value of the stimulus - even though it's only been less than halfway spent?

 

[firespin]

Are you taking the full value of the stimulus - even though it's only been less than halfway spent?

Umm...no. Can't you even follow the conversation?

 

[mercury14]

The CBO estimates that in the first quarter of calendar year 2010, ARRA’s policies:

•Raised the level of real (inflation-adjusted) gross domestic product (GDP) by between 1.7 percent and 4.2 percent,
•Lowered the unemployment rate by between 0.7 percentage points and 1.5 percentage points,
•Increased the number of people employed by between 1.2 million and 2.8 million, and
•Increased the number of full-time-equivalent (FTE) jobs by 1.8 million to 4.1 million compared with what those amounts would have been otherwise. (Increases in FTE jobs include shifts from part-time to full-time work or overtime and are thus generally larger than increases in the number of employed workers.)


Why did you neglect to mention that your 1.5% (high end) figure was from just one quarter and not the stimulus as a whole?

 

[firespin]

The CBO estimates that in the first quarter of calendar year 2010, ARRA’s policies:

•Raised the level of real (inflation-adjusted) gross domestic product (GDP) by between 1.7 percent and 4.2 percent,
•Lowered the unemployment rate by between 0.7 percentage points and 1.5 percentage points,
•Increased the number of people employed by between 1.2 million and 2.8 million, and
•Increased the number of full-time-equivalent (FTE) jobs by 1.8 million to 4.1 million compared with what those amounts would have been otherwise. (Increases in FTE jobs include shifts from part-time to full-time work or overtime and are thus generally larger than increases in the number of employed workers.)


Why did you neglect to mention that your 1.5% (high end) figure was from just one quarter and not the stimulus as a whole?

Mr. Rocket Scientist...the percentages are not additive. It's not like an improvement of 1.5% each quarter for year equals 6%. It's still 1.5%. If there is a higher high-water mark, go ahead and share it, that's the biggest I've seen.

 

[TurdFergeson]

Interesting how right wingers love Nation-building.

As long as it's any other Nation than the USA.

 

[mercury14]

Mr. Rocket Scientist...the percentages are not additive. It's not like an improvement of 1.5% each quarter for year equals 6%. It's still 1.5%. If there is a higher high-water mark, go ahead and share it, that's the biggest I've seen.

Of course it's not additive or we'd be at full employment...

Why not wait until the stimulus has been fully enacted to measure its total impact?

 

[mercury14]

From the CBO:

The effects of ARRA on output and employment are expected to increase further during calendar year 2010

 

[firespin]

Of course it's not additive or we'd be at full employment...

Why not wait until the stimulus has been fully enacted to measure its total impact?

Then we wouldn't be talking about it now, would we? Try to make sense once in a while.

 

[mercury14]

Call this Exhibit A for why you are a moron, or act moronically at least.

You criticize anybody here who quotes a "partisan blog", then you proceed to just make up stuff that couldn't even get published on a partisan blog because it is completely wrong. Don't you see the fallacy of this approach?

In this case, if the "ripple effect" had created more jobs, then the CBO report you cited as the independent analysis would have picked that up...by law they're required to try to honestly assess the impact. You can't both cite the CBO as your impartial source, then imply that wait, there is really a lot more tht they just didn't count.

Stick to what you know. It may take a while to find what that is, but it will be worth it.

Estimated Impact of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act on Employment and Economic Output
Under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA), also known as the economic stimulus package, certain recipients of funds appropriated in ARRA (most grant and loan recipients, contractors, and subcontractors) are required to report the number of jobs they created or retained with ARRA funding after the end of each calendar quarter. The law also requires CBO to comment on those reported numbers.


The bottom line: The CBO isn't counting any ripple effect beyond one ripple ring (at best).

You say there's some law saying they are.




Let's see your law.....

 

[firespin]

From the CBO:

The effects of ARRA on output and employment are expected to increase further during calendar year 2010

That's an opinion. It's all modeling anyway, there's not real way to assess the impact precisely, so if it goes for 1.5% to 1.7%, big deal. It's not goin to go to 4%.

 

[mercury14]

That's an opinion. It's all modeling anyway, there's not real way to assess the impact precisely, so if it goes for 1.5% to 1.7%, big deal. It's not goin to go to 4%.

It's analysis, not some mere opinion.

 

[firespin]

Estimated Impact of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act on Employment and Economic Output
Under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA), also known as the economic stimulus package, certain recipients of funds appropriated in ARRA (most grant and loan recipients, contractors, and subcontractors) are required to report the number of jobs they created or retained with ARRA funding after the end of each calendar quarter. The law also requires CBO to comment on those reported numbers.


The bottom line: The CBO isn't counting any ripple effect beyond one ripple ring (at best).

You say there's some law saying they are.




Let's see your law.....

"The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) contains a variety of provisions intended to boost economic activity and employment in the United States. Section 1512(e) of the law requires the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) to comment on the reports filed by certain recipients of funding under ARRA that detail how many jobs were created or retained through funded activities. This CBO report fulfills that requirement. It also provides CBO’s estimates of ARRA’s overall impact on employment and economic output in the first quarter of calendar year 2010. Those estimates—which CBO considers more comprehensive than the recipients’ reports—are based on evidence from similar policies enacted in the past and on the results of various economic models."

As I said, they are counting all activity as require by law.

 

[mercury14]

"The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) contains a variety of provisions intended to boost economic activity and employment in the United States. Section 1512(e) of the law requires the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) to comment on the reports filed by certain recipients of funding under ARRA that detail how many jobs were created or retained through funded activities. This CBO report fulfills that requirement. It also provides CBO’s estimates of ARRA’s overall impact on employment and economic output in the first quarter of calendar year 2010. Those estimates—which CBO considers more comprehensive than the recipients’ reports—are based on evidence from similar policies enacted in the past and on the results of various economic models."

As I said, they are counting all activity as require by law.

And nowhere in there does it say they're counting overall jobs. Just jobs created by activities that are directly stimulus funded.

It's even spelled out in the report's limitations section:

Limitations of Recipients’ Estimates:

•The reports do not attempt to measure the number of jobs that may have been created or retained directly or indirectly as greater income for recipients and their employees boosted demand for products and services.

•The reports filed by recipients measure only the jobs created by employers who received ARRA funding directly or by their immediate subcontractors (so-called primary and secondary recipients), not by lower-level subcontractors.

Also, while we're here:

the reports do not measure the effects of other provisions of the stimulus package, such as tax cuts and transfer payments (including unemployment insurance payments) to individuals.


Hence no ripple effect is counted. And jobs saved/created by tax cuts? Not counted either.

 

[Beco]

What would jobs look like without the stimulus?

Lets see, kind of like, what we're dealing with right now.....

 

[firespin]

And nowhere in there does it say they're counting overall jobs. Just jobs created by activities that are directly stimulus funded.

It's even spelled out in the report's limitations section:

Limitations of Recipients’ Estimates:

•The reports do not attempt to measure the number of jobs that may have been created or retained directly or indirectly as greater income for recipients and their employees boosted demand for products and services.

•The reports filed by recipients measure only the jobs created by employers who received ARRA funding directly or by their immediate subcontractors (so-called primary and secondary recipients), not by lower-level subcontractors.

Also, while we're here:

the reports do not measure the effects of other provisions of the stimulus package, such as tax cuts and transfer payments (including unemployment insurance payments) to individuals.


Hence no ripple effect is counted. And jobs saved/created by tax cuts? Not counted either.

Again, Mr. Rocket Scientist, you're quoting the estimates directly related to the reports filed by recipients. The CBO models go beyond those, since the reports are pretty much worthless in most cases. "Estimating the law’s overall effects on employment requires a more comprehensive analysis than the recipients’ reports provide. Therefore, looking at recorded spending to date as well as estimates of the other effects of ARRA on spending and revenues, CBO has estimated the law’s impact on employment and economic output using evidence about the effects of previous similar policies on the economy and using various mathematical models that represent the workings of the economy."

Are you deliberately trying to get this wrong to "prove" your point, or is this just your best effort falling short?

 

[TurdFergeson]

I sense this:

"The stimulus is failing! AHAHA , we win, anyway!

Might as well just give up, USA!"

 

[mercury14]

Again, Mr. Rocket Scientist, you're quoting the estimates directly related to the reports filed by recipients. The CBO models go beyond those, since the reports are pretty much worthless in most cases. "Estimating the law’s overall effects on employment
requires a more comprehensive analysis than the recipients’ reports provide. Therefore, looking at recorded
spending to date as well as estimates of the other effects of ARRA on spending and revenues, CBO has estimated the
law’s impact on employment and economic output using evidence about the effects of previous similar policies on
the economy and using various mathematical models that represent the workings of the economy."

Are you deliberately trying to get this wrong to "prove" your point, or is this just your best effort falling short?

I just pointed you to a section in the report where they specifically say they do not measure the ripple effect.

You counter by saying they do. I have a reference.

Where's yours?

 

[firespin]

I just pointed you to a section in the report where they specifically say they do not measure the ripple effect.

You counter by saying they do. I have a reference.

Where's yours?

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/115xx/doc11525/05-25-ARRA.pdf

Fucking moron. Read the damn report and try to UNDERSTAND it. The recipient reports do not include ripple effect (how could they?) so the CBO does it.

 

[mercury14]

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/115xx/doc11525/05-25-ARRA.pdf

Fucking moron. Read the damn report and try to UNDERSTAND it. The recipient reports do not include ripple effect (how could they?) so the CBO does it.

Ah right I was misreading which section I was in.

"You fucking moron".

Classic Firespin.

 

[firespin]

Ah right I was misreading which section I was in.

"You fucking moron".

Classic Firespin.

If you're not really fucking, then please accept my apologies.

But you do really, really suck at this. You've posted wrong claptrap so often you think you'd learn, but you don't. The "moron" label is, in this instance, well deserved.